Commons Sitting of 23 April 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Legislation* [137].
Second Reading—Canonries [18]; Municipal Franchise (Ireland) [73]; Intestates Widows and Children* [114].
Committee—Report—Salmon Fisheries (re-comm.) [93].
Third Reading—Grotton Chapel Marriages Legalization* [111], and passed.
Withdrawn—Locomotives on Roads [88].

CANONRIES BILL. [BILL 18.]
(Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Sir, this is a Bill on which I do not think there will be any necessity for me to detain the House with a very long statement, for it is simply a Permissive Bill, and its sole object is to let loose private benevolence. If there is no one to come forward in accordance with its provisions to endow canonries, then the Bill will be a dead letter; but if people do come forward, then a vent will be found for that benevolence which, under the provisions and limitations of the Bill, no one can say would be extreme or calculated to do injury to any interest either of the Church or of Nonconformity. The question of the cathedrals, as the House knows, has often been before the public. All the cathedrals of England were reconstituted on a diminished establishment by the Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, by which, and by some amended statutes afterwards passed, they are at present regulated. But, in the meantime, the practical value of cathedrals, not merely as Corinthian capitals, not

879
merely as ornamental institutions, or as an easy means of giving a stipend to a clergyman after a life of hard work, but rather as working institutions, had become more generally known, and in the year 1852 a Commission was appointed to report upon a scheme of cathedral reform. That Commission issued three Reports, with bulky appendices, in the years 1854 and 1855; but the recommendations of the Commissioners have ever since, generally speaking, remained a dead letter. I do not propose to revive them, but I may explain that in my Bill there is nothing contrary to them. The Bill, of which I now move the second reading; takes the form of one to amend a certain clause in the Act 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113. By that measure, whilst there was a large suspension of canonries in all the cathedrals of the land, the canonries being, as a general rule, reduced to only four per cathedral with two or three exceptions, such as Canterbury, Ely, and Christ Church, Oxford, a power was reserved to revive canonries in three ways—namely, a disposition by the cathedral of a portion of any surplus revenue which they might still hold, provided the amount which they handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was not diminished; or by a private endowment which, in the case of lands and real property, was expressly limited to £200 a-year; or, lastly, by the annexation of a benefice to one of the suspended canonries. In dividing the clause in the manner I have done, and in assuming that those three processes are alternative, I am supported by a strong opinion, no less than that of the present Attorney General, who, I believe, as a matter of notoriety, did give an opinion to that effect to a Bishop who desired recently to revive two canonries in his Cathedral. However, the clause in the Act of Victoria is simply ambiguous in its wording, and it is therefore read by some persons as providing that a slight endowment on the part of a Chapter must be a necessary antecedent. Now, I do not think that the right interpretation of the clause. Still, there is the ambiguity; and by way of getting over it I deal with that interpretation as if it were the right one, and I start in my Bill by positive enactment to establish the contrary, and, as I believe, the true interpretation of the
880
Act. So much, then, for the general framework of my Bill. But what is my object in proposing the measure? Is it to provide an additional number of feather beds for aged clergymen? By no means. I look upon our cathedrals as eminently working institutions. They are working institutions; but they may be and ought to be made more working institutions. They come in as a supplement to our admirable parochial system; that system which is doing a great deal but cannot do everything. In our large towns, with their vast masses of ever-growing heathenism, we want a body of missionary clergymen to go and preach, and the adaptation within our Church of something akin to the "Revival system," under proper regulations. That system can be best provided by a body of missionary clergymen, not attached to any particular parish, but under orders to go and work wherever they are required. There are other duties, and amongst them there is, in particular, the inspection of Church Schools in religious teaching, since general inspection has by the Elementary Education Act, become a purely lay procedure, while the Church still wants its religious inspection. Again, there is the training of parish choirs, as well as many other things which good and generous people may wish to endow, and cannot except by setting up private institutions at a great cost and under cumbrous trust deeds, and with the perpetual risk of their becoming extravagant in their views and practices, and thus defeating the objects of those who set them up. I desire, therefore, to untie private beneficence and to provide a way for endowing these offices under due regulations. Just as the creation of processes for the endowment of new parishes proved to be the regeneration of our parochial system, and has sown broadcast thousands of churches, each with its minister and means of grace, so I believe it would be equally safe and equally salutary to untie beneficence in regard to our cathedrals, and to let good Christians supplement the parochial organization by the endowment of canonries, with specific duties attached, in the manner I propose by this Bill. In form, I propose to permit canonries being revived or created without specific duties. But I do not contemplate any such use of the measure being made. There is no fear of its producing any ex-

881
travagant results; for no canonry can be endowed under the Bill without running the gauntlet; first, of a man being found who is ready to endow a canonry; secondly, of its having the approbation of the visitor, who is the Bishop of the diocese; next, the approbation of the Chapter, a body who will be very jealous of any alterations in its constitution; subsequently the approbation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who always look sharp enough after matters in which they are concerned; and lastly, the approbation of the Queen in Council, that is of the Government of the day. All these checks are, I think, sufficient to make the Bill perfectly safe. In the original Act, endowments in land were limited to £200 a year; but owing to the jealousy with which the tying up of land in mortmain is now regarded, I do not propose to allow any further facilities for endowments in land but only in money. Any fears on that head, therefore, are unnecessary. The original Act is only operative for the revival of suspended canonries in cathedrals where there are canonries which have been suspended. In many cathedrals there are not only suspended canonries, but there are non-residentiary prebends or honorary canonries. In such cases I proceed with the same machinery to convert such non-residentiary prebend or canonry into a substantial canonry. In other cases, where none of these are available, I propose that a new canonry should be instituted. With regard to the new Canon's position in the Chapter, it may be sometimes desirable that he should stand upon the same level as the old Canons. In other cases that may be undesirable, and there he may be simply declared an accessory and stipendiary member. But in reference to all these cases my Bill is perfectly elastic, and the scheme provides for every possible position of a Canon, from that of equality with the existing Chapter to that of stipendiary; and each scheme will have to be drawn up pro re nata to suit the circumstances of each particular case. There is only one other point, and that is to explain the 5th clause, the terms of which have been commented upon in some quarters. It provides that—
"No Canonry re-established, additionally established, or converted from a non-residentiary Prebend under this Act, shall without special provision to that effect in the plan be capable of
882
annexation by way of endowment to an Arch-deaconry."
Now the requirements of the Act 3 & 4 Vict. proceeded too much on the basis that a canonry is a sinecure office, whereas my Bill proceeds on the basis that canonries ought all to be working offices. This clause, therefore, simply provides that a canonry which has been set up for some specific object such as the support of missionary preaching, should not be diverted from that object and converted to the endowment of an Archdeacon. I do not prevent one being specifically set up for the purpose, I rather invite it. I think, then, that this 5th clause, though not of the essence of the Bill, is at any rate a desirable addition to it. This then, Sir, is the Bill I propose to the House. It may have an extensive operation, and I shall be glad if it has, for that extensive operation would be one for the spread of the Gospel in the dark places of the land, and would tend to make our venerable cathedrals real centres of Christian life and light to the benighted millions. That being so, I commend it to the House as a measure of sound reform; of reform that does not tax the public a single farthing, but rests upon the broad basis of private munificence. On the other hand it may have only a slight operative value, but even in that case it is a measure that will be wholesomely available here and there. In no case can it do any harm, or introduce any difficulty into the working of the existing system. I beg leave then, to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Mr Beresford Hope.)
MR. BRUCEsaid, on the part of the Government he had no objection to the Bill. There was no doubt that some of the sections of the Bill referred to were ambiguous and open to exception, yet it seemed reasonable that persons should be allowed to make endowments for canons; and he had no doubt the creation of canonries would be in many cases very useful to the Church, and might, to some extent, supplement the activity she had lately shown. Seeing no objection to the scheme of the hon. Member, he would not oppose the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS. [BILL 88.]
(Mr. Cawley, Mr. Wykeham Martin, Mr. Frederick Stanley, Mr. Hick, Mr. Pender.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CAWLEY, in moving "That the Bill be now read a second time," observed that the present law applicable to locomotives used on turnpike and public roads was only a temporary measure, carried on from year to year by the Continuance Act. The time had, in his opinion, gone by when locomotives travelling on roads could be practically prohibited, for they were now so much used for agricultural and other purposes, that he thought the time had arrived when the law relating to them should be made clear and permanent, and that was what the Bill purposed to do. The present regulations were of a vague and perplexing character; for instance, the enactments that a locomotive on a common road, must be preceded 60 yards by a man waving a red flag, or that the engineer when meeting other vehicles must leave as much space as possible between his engine and the pavement were clearly out of place; and he maintained that the best principle to adopt would be that of simply making every man who drove a locomotive along a road responsible for his own acts, without defining beforehand what they were to be. He could not understand why the Bill should be opposed on the second reading, for although some of the details of the measure might be objectionable, yet they could be dealt with in Committee. He did not think that locomotives were so likely to frighten horses as some of the heavily laden waggons which passed through the streets, and in fact greater protection was provided by the Bill against accidents than could be found in the law as it stood. Not only that, but it was quite possible to construct locomotives which should be perfectly harmless in passing along public roads. The Bill accordingly provided that any locomotive which did not emit smoke, and which when working did not produce any noise by steam, or discharge steam into the open air, might, if conformable with other conditions named in the Bill, be used on any turnpike or public road without a licence from a local authority,
884
but that no locomotive which failed to comply with these conditions should be used without a licence. To prevent abuse of the power to licence conferred by the Bill in local authorities he provided for appeal to the Board of Trade. The question of special injury to roads he made one of the conditions of licence, for it was impossible for anybody to value special damage done by a particular vehicle passing along the road, and it was only fair that the licensing authority should have the power to refuse permission to the passing of a locomotive constructed as some were, with flanges for instance, to commit special injury to roads. To the same licensing authority in towns and boroughs he gave power to limit the hours during which the locomotives should be used, and to limit their use to particular roads. The tolls were the same as in the existing Act, but they were simplified so as to bring them within the comprehension of average toll-keepers. In conclusion, he thought that the time had come when those interested in the use of these locomotives ought to know what the law was, and he was therefore surprised at the opposition which was to be offered on the part of the farmers, because an engine working in a field within 25 yards of the roadside was more dangerous than one passing along the road. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cawley.)
MR. GREGORY, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he complained that his hon. Friend had not sufficiently referred to the provisions of the Act of 1865, which contained much greater protection to the public than the Bill before the House. He maintained that the present restrictions were necessary for the protection of the public. For instance, at present the speed of road locomotives was restricted to two miles an hour, but the Bill of his hon. Friend allowed five miles in town and eight in the country, and he would ask how it would be possible to tell whether the speed was five, six, eight, or ten miles an hour. He contended that they had not had sufficient

885
experience of the working of these locomotives under the present law to enable them to say that larger powers should be granted to the owners of them, as he believed that if this Bill were passed public interests would be endangered, he opposed it. The introduction of these locomotives was a modern innovation; they were intruders upon the public roads; and, therefore, Parliament was bound to see that they were under proper safeguards.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE, in seconding the Amendment, said, the Bill ought to be rejected on the second reading because the objections to it were such as could not be dealt with in Committee, and would not be met by amending details. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) had not made out a case of sufficient inconvenience to justify the proposed change of the law. At the invitation of the senior Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), he had, in an evil hour, consented to make an experimental trip of a quarter of an hour on one of these locomotives, and he admitted that it seemed to be possible to construct an engine with improvements which would obviate the objections to the use of it on common roads. The whole question was one of speed, and a machine going along the road at the rate of five miles an hour would, in itself be a cause of alarm; and in the streets of towns would be fraught with positive danger. The provisions with regard to penalties would be perfectly inoperative, and the owners of these engines would be able to do just as they pleased. The time had not arrived for the proposed changes, which, if made, would produce fresh demands from the Tramway Companies for permission to use engines on their railways. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw this Bill, and content himself with the introduction of a measure which should be limited to the removal of the inconveniences which were complained of as arising under the existing law—or would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Gregory.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. F. STANLEYhoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill, for the simple reason that the law as it stood was difficult of application. The objections formerly urged against road locomotives had been wholly or partially removed in consequence of the improvements which had taken place in their construction and use, and it would not be the interest of any owner of these engines to use them in such a manner as to expose him to loss either by want of care or accident. The object of the Bill, therefore, was to encourage the use of locomotives, provided they could be used with safety and without injury to the public roads. As to horses shying, what would they not shy at? Horses were becoming used to railways, whereas formerly it was deemed a great risk to drive over a level crossing. A country horse would be frightened by a military band, but not by the noise of a thrashing machine; and a town horse would be frightened by the thrashing machine and not by the band. The proposed restrictions, moreover, were not much less stringent than those now in force, and they might be modified in Committee; and he thought that the giving of power to the local authorities to grant licences would be sufficient protection to the public against danger. With respect to injury to roads, he could cite evidence given before the Lords' Committee to show that the locomotives, with their broad wheels, improved rather than injured roads, and the injury, if done at all, was committed by the narrower wheels of heavily-laden waggons drawn by locomotives. The experience of the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) seemed to tell in favour of the Bill rather than against it, because it was hoped that the use of locomotives would suggest further improvements. In conclusion, he must say he had no private interest in the matter, but on public grounds he hoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. BRUCEsaid, several reasons might be adduced to show that some change was required in the present laws relating to this subject. The two Acts which now dealt with it were tentative measures; and, besides, considerable improvements had recently been made in the character of the locomotives which

887
could be used on ordinary roads, in a great degree obviating the objections which those measures were enacted to guard against. At the same time, the uncontrolled use of locomotive engines on roads which were frequently very narrow and which passed through populous villages must be a source of great danger, and it should not be forgotten that the House was called upon to legislate on this difficult subject without being in possession of sufficient information with regard to it. Unfortunately, no Department of the Government was capable of supplying the requisite information. With respect to the question of safety, there were at present strict conditions as to the speed and manner of using locomotives, and those conditions the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) proposed to relax to a very great degree. It was proposed to increase the speed of these engines in town up to five miles an hour, and in the country to eight miles an hour, so that if this Bill passed there would be nothing to prevent an engine going through a populous country village, the streets of which formed the ordinary playground of the children, at the rate of eight miles an hour. It was obvious that some limitation in that respect would have to be made. Further than that, he thought it was obvious that beyond the question of safety to the public, there were other reasons against the proposed legislation, involving questions affecting the interests of the ratepayers. On turnpike roads these engines might be compelled by means of tolls to contribute adequately to the repair of the roads, but on highways no toll could be levied, and yet considerable damage must be done to them by the passage of engines of enormous weight, especially when they drew a number of waggons after them exactly in the same track. Again, the Bill was defective, inasmuch as it did not provide for the security of the bridges, or the roads to be traversed by these engines, or for the cost of putting them into a proper state of security. In addition to that, the House was not in possession of information as to whether the improvements in these engines were really of such a nature as to justify an extension of the powers granted by previous Acts, and a relaxation of the restrictions imposed by them. The objections he had made were all mat-
888
ters of detail, but details formed the very essence of the whole subject, and therefore it seemed to him the action of the hon. Member in this matter had been premature, and that the House could not safely sanction the extensive powers asked for. He would advise the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill, and move at some future time for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONfelt convinced the House would not be prepared to sanction the second reading of a Bill of this kind, or to allow such a measure in itself to be submitted to the consideration of a Committee upstairs. From personal experience, derived in Essex, he knew that it was very difficult to get spirited horses to pass gigantic and noisy engines in narrow, twisting country lanes, and yet the Bill proposed to do away with the precautions against danger provided by existing legislation. If the present restrictions were relaxed in the manner proposed by the Bill, a history of accidents might be created which would necessitate his coming down to that House and asking it to legislate for them in a similar way to that in which he was now asking it to legislate for another class of accidents. No one could deny that the present law was in an unsatisfactory state; but this circumstance only indicated that the Government ought either to bring in a Bill themselves, or else by instituting an inquiry enable hon. Members to obtain full information on the subject.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid, he too had had considerable experience of these engines on country roads. In the vicinity of his own country residence, one of them took a journey along the turnpike road, and for a distance of eight miles it broke through the road about every 50 yards, doing damage which it would take £100 to repair. Finally, the monster itself came to smash, and never recovered from the injuries it received. He trusted the House would reject the Bill at once rather than refer it to a Select Committee, as he desired to prevent even the possibility of so objectionable a measure again coming under the consideration of the House.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he must express a hope that his hon. Friend who had introduced the Bill would accept the proposition of the Government, and allow

889
the subject to be referred to a Select Committee. The constituency which he represented felt a great interest in the Bill, but they were quite willing that consideration should be given to the objections which had been stated. It would be a great pity if this new mode of locomotion should not have every advantage if it was likely to prove beneficial to the public. At the same time, if his hon. Friend would withdraw the Bill, it might be better than to ask the House at once to decide upon it.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, that understanding the Government were willing that a full inquiry should take place, he had no objection to withdraw the Bill, and give Notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole matter.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 73.]
(Mr. Butt, Mr. Patrick Smyth.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BUTT, in moving "That the Bill be now read a second time," explained that its object was to assimilate the Municipal Franchise in Ireland to that of England. Last year the measure passed the second reading without opposition, but he was unable to pass it through the subsequent stages.
DR. BALLsaid, the Bill, among other things, abolished the £10 franchise, which had been deliberately proposed by a Liberal Government in order to raise the character of the persons entitled to vote at municipal elections, and he must decidedly object to such a proposal. In the smaller Irish boroughs, many of the dwellings were no better than cabins, and their inhabitants no better than labourers, who were certainly not fit, in his opinion, to possess the municipal franchise. Further than that, he maintained that a Bill of that importance, if necessary, ought to be brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, and not by a private Member. Besides, the House had not the slightest information as to the additional number of voters who would be enfranchised under the provisions of the
890
Bill. His own opinion was, that the measure would be attended with evil consequences, and that it would vest the control of local taxation in persons who ought not to exercise such a power. Considering the thin attendance in the the House he would not divide upon the second reading, but he gave Notice that on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill, he should move, that the Committee be taken on that day three months.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the merits of the Bill were fully discussed last year, when the then Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Dowse) assented on the part of the Government to the second reading. He had pleasure in acknowledging the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman not in taking a division, but he begged to remind him that it was not an hour of the day favourable to a large attendance. He believed that the houses in the municipal boroughs of Ireland had been very much improved, and that the time had arrived when there might be an assimilation of the municipal franchise in both countries.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

SALMON FISHERIES (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. William Lowther, Mr. Assheton Mr. Alexander Brown.)

[BILL 93.] COMMITTEE.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 19 (Amendments of "Salmon Fishery Acts 1861 and 1865.")
MR. BOWRINGmoved to omit the words "twentieth and," with a view, as it was understood, to exclude trout from the operation of the clause.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 18, to leave out the words "twentieth and."—(Mr. Bowring.)
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 45: Majority 5.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
On the Motion of Colonel WALKER, Clause 68 struck out of the Bill.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Tuesday next.

LOCAL LEGISLATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HERON, Bill to establish a Court for the Local Legislation of the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERON and Mr. Serjeant SIMON.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 137.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.