Commons Sitting of 17 July 1874

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Stroud. r. John Edward Dorington, esquire, void Election.
SUPPLY considered in Committee—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—En-dowed Schools Acts Amendment [Salaries] *; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment [Consolidated Fund]*; Royal (late Indian) Ordnance Corps [Compensation] *.
Resolution, [July] reported—Land Titles and Transfer [Salaries, &c] *.
Ordered—First Reading—Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) * [215].
First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation* [214]
Second Heading—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation * [207]; Foyle College* [208]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5)* [209].
Report of Select Committee—Merchant Ships (Measurement of Tonnage) *[No. 309].
Committee—Public Worship Regulation [176]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Boundaries of Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries* [143–212].
Report—Merchant Ships (Measurement of Tonnage) * [148–213].
Considered as amended—Shannon Navigation * [189]; Legal Practitioners* [24].
Third Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) * [194]; International Copyright* [197]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * [192]; Infanticide* [200], and passed.
Withdrawn—Agricultural Labourers Dwellings (Ireland)* [73].

POST OFFICE—DOLGELLY POSTAL DISTRICT.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLLANDasked the Post-master General, Whether any steps have been taken towards facilitating the transmission and delivery of letters in the Dolgelly Postal District?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, he was now in communication with the authorities of the Great Western Railway on the subject, and could not yet give a definite answer to the Question.

EGYPT—OUTRAGE ON BRITISH SUBJECTS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the attempt to murder an English gentleman named Clarke, one of the officials of the Telegraph Company in Egypt, and a Mr. Charles Edward Hamilton, another English gentleman who happened to be passing the place where the attack was made upon Mr. Clarke, and who, attracted by his cries and the sound of blows, went to his assistance; whether, if his attention has been called to the circumstance, he can state whether it is true that these two gentlemen were beaten with a Narbote and with sticks for two or three hours, and then were dragged by ropes the distance of a mile to the nearest tree, with the view of being hanged, but that the rope breaking they were dragged on to the village of Sherwida; whether it is true that the band of Arabs committing this outrage was headed by Osman Abassa, the first cousin of the Viceroy of Egypt, son of a Minister of Finance, and Governor of the Land of Goshen, one of the richest provinces in Egypt; whether he has heard that upon reaching the village, Osman Abassa set the whole population upon these two gentlemen, who, bound and almost insensible from blows, were exposed to every conceivable outrage until the arrival of Greek and French armed assistance;

205
whether it is true that upon these gentlemen being conveyed by these armed rescuers to the town of Zagazig, the telegraph messages sent on 25th November, 1873, to General Stanton, Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt at Cairo, a distance of only two hours by rail, remained unreplied to for three days, and that no messenger or visitor ever came from the Consulate at Cairo during the whole time (over three months) that Mr. Hamilton lay in an almost hopeless condition at Zagazig; and, whether any money compensation has been raised in the locality in which the outrage took place; and, if so, how much, and to whom has it been paid?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been called to this case, the facts of which are not, however, correctly represented in the Question. As the transaction in question is of some importance, I have had a statement relating to it drawn up, which I will read to the House. Mr. Clarke and Mr. Hamilton, who were staying with him, were out shooting together near Sher--wida, when the former fired at a squirrel in some maize. The shot wounded a girl, and some Arabs came up and maltreated them. They were taken to the village and there released. The attack was made by the peasantry, not by any relative of the Khedive. General Stanton, Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General, received a telegram the same evening at midnight stating what had occurred, and at 7.30 next morning telegraphed to the Acting Consul at Cairo to attend to the matter. He reported that the local authorities were inquiring into the case and three of the offenders had been arrested. M. Felice, the Acting British Vice Consul at Zagazig, being engaged in watching the proceedings. No time was, therefore lost by the British Consular authorities in seeing that justice was done. Subsequently, the offenders were tried. One was condemned to eight months' hard labour, two others to six months' hard labour, another to three months' imprisonment, another to two months' imprisonment, and the guards of the village to one month's imprisonment. No fine was imposed on the locality. Mr. Hamilton had expressed himself satisfied with the sentences, except with that of the chief offender, and, under the
206
circumstances, Lord Derby informed him, on the 23rd of May last, that Her Majesty's Government cannot give their support to a claim which he has advanced against the Egyptian Government for compensation.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PELLasked the Vice President of the Council, with reference to the eleventh Clause of the Agricultural Children Act, enabling children to go to work, Whether such timely instructions will be given to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools as will ensure the obtaining from them or from persons deputed by them, before the close of this year, the requisite certificates, without which children who have previously reached the fourth standard of education may, on and after January 1st 1875, be prevented taking employment in agriculture; further, in the case of outdoor pauper children, whether the Vice President of the Council will state if any and what arrangements have been made for the examination of such children, so that where a child shall have reached the requisite standard of education, he and those concerned may be enabled to take advantage of the provisions of the third Clause of the Elementary Education Act, 1873; and whether, in cases where Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools decline to give to managers of voluntary schools on application the names of those children who have reached the different standards, although such information is given by the Inspectors in the case of Board schools, the Vice President of the Council would direct such information to be given when needed for the purposes of the Agricultural Children Act and the Elementary Education Act, 1873?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the Education Department will furnish to the managers of any school who forward a list of children on whose account certificates are required under the 11th section of the Agricultural Children Act, a statement of the results of the examination of such children in the Fourth and higher Standards. The Department examines only those children who attend public elementary schools in receipt of annual grants. In districts under school boards

  207
  arrangements have been made for granting certificates on behalf of all children who pass the examination prescribed, for either total or partial exemption from school attendance. These Standards are fixed by the bye-laws of each school board, and being generally either the Third or some higher Standard, the certificates in question, which are granted to children either in Board schools or voluntary schools, will be available under the 3rd section of the Act of 1873. In other districts the Department have suggested to the Local Government Board, with whom the administration of this section rests, that the guardians should accept a certificate of a child's having reached the Third Standard of the Code from—(1), any teacher of a school under the management of the Guardians who holds a certificate of efficiency or competency from the Local Government Board; or (2), from any certificated teacher of a public elementary school in the Union under the inspection of the Education Department. The managers of any school may, on payment of a fee of 2s. 6d., obtain a copy of the examination schedule, showing the results of the examination of every child in their school. It is left to the discretion of the Inspectors whether they will furnish to the school managers a list of the children who reached the different Standards prescribed by the Code; but the Department would view with great displeasure the proceedings of any Inspector who gave information to one class of schools which he withheld from another class.

ARMY—ROYAL (LATE INDIAN) ORDNANCE CORPS [COMPENSATION].

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL JERVISasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, Whether the noble Lord will lay a Copy of the General Order of the India Office of August 15th, 1872, referred to by him on the 15th instant, upon the Table of the House, as well as a Return of Majors of the Artillery of the late East India Company's Service who have retired since July 5th, 1872, stating the amount of full pay, if any, granted on such retirement?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, he had no objection to lay on the Table of the House a Copy of the Papers referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

ARMY—RETIREMENT OF INDIAN OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL JERVISasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Majors of the Royal Artillery, now on service in India in command of batteries, do not receive the pay of their rank; and, if so, whether the subject has ever been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for India by the War Department?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it was the fact that Homo Officers of the rank mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member did not receive the pay of their rank. The Secretary of State for India was, he might add, aware of the circumstances at the time of the passing of the Act, and had been so since. In consequence, however, of the short Notice he had of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question, he had not been able to communicate with his noble Friend at the head of the Indian Department, to ascertain from him what was the state of things at the present moment.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 176.]—COMMITTEE.
(Mr. Russell Gurney.)
Order for Committee read.
MR. LOWE, in rising to move—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for extending the said Bill to all offences by clerks in Holy Orders against the Law Ecclesiastical, and to repeal the Act 3 and 4 Victoria, cap. 8, for better enforcing Church Discipline,"
said, that he wished to state briefly the reasons why he thought it would be wise that the House should adopt his Motion. The object was to provide for bringing under the procedure contemplated by the Bill, the whole, instead of a part only, of the law ecclesiastical. There would, no doubt, be considerable difference of opinion manifested in the course of the debates on the Bill, but he thought they were all agreed in thinking that the procedure under the Church Discipline Act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86) was the very worst possible, and that the procedure contemplated by the present Bill was a most immense improvement upon it. The right hon. and learned Recorder had argued in favour of the measure, on the ground of the great superiority of

209
the procedure it proposed; and those who objected to the Bill had done so on the same ground, maintaining that the procedure would give undue facilities for the enforcement of the present law, and would, consequently, have the effect of interfering improperly with individual liberty. All, however, were agreed that the procedure in the Act was about as bad as it could be, and that the procedure under the Bill was about as good as it could be. An examination of the Church Discipline Act justified that conclusion. Under the Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86, the Bishop, in the first place, was made a sort of grand juror, empowered to decide whether a prosecution should be held or not. That was a reasonable and just provision, because it was necessary that some one should be entrusted with the power of stopping proceedings on matters of detail which need not be discussed in Court at all. So far the procedure was right; but from that point there was not a single step which was not a gross and obvious error. The Bishop having, as a sort of grand juror, committed himself, as against the accused, to an opinion of the case, was, as prosecutor, immediately made a party to the suit. He got security for costs, while the same advantage was denied to the person accused. A grosser violation of the rules of ordinary procedure could hardly be imagined. But the next stop was even worse. The Bishop, although a party to the suit, had to name five Commissioners, whose duty it was to find out whether the accused was guilty or not. Worse still, when the case had been heard and decided by the Court whom he had himself appointed, the Bishop was called upon to give judgment, with the assistance of assessors, whose opinion, however, he might entirely overrule if he thought fit to do so. The crowning step, however, of all this was, that not only was he the grand jury, a party to the cause, and—inasmuch as he appointed the tribunal—the Sheriff, and quasi Judge, but he was also made executioner; and executioner, too, before the judgment had been ascertained; for, if he thought it necessary, he might at once, without waiting for the decision, turn the accused man out of his living, and appropriate funds for the payment of the person put in his place. That, however, was not all; for as the man who came under the operation of the Act might have a double
210
trial, so he might also have a double appeal—the first to the provincial Court, and the second to the Queen in Council; and, as it was no part of the duty of a Bishop to be acquainted with the law, it might happen that one set of principles would rule in the earlier stages of the cause, and quite a different set of principles in the later. Such was the present state of the law; and it was hard on the Bishop, on the person accused, on the public at large, and on the members of the Church, whose interest it was that good discipline should be preserved by there being an easy, fair, and gentle means of dealing with offences against, the ecclesiastical law. Now, the present Bill did away with all these evils and complications, and it proposed a procedure which was as good as human ingenuity could devise in place of a procedure which was the worst that could be imagined. The next question was, what would be its effect if passed into law? For the purpose of argument, he would divide the ecclesiastical law roughly into form and substance—form embracing all matters of detail, such as vestments, ornaments, and Ritual; and substance, questions of morality, and the teaching of the doctrines of the Church of England. The effect of the Bill would be to give a good procedure for the trial of questions of form, and a bad one for questions of substance. The Preamble of the Act of Uniformity gave a perfect definition as to the essence of an Established Church. It was, in effect, that there should be uniformity, decency, and propriety in the conduct of the services. Another matter connected with the importance of form was—and he hoped he would not be taken as attaching too small importance to it—that as long as we retained an Establishment—which he trusted we long should—it would be necessary to secure, on the part of the clergy, that they should be required to agree with the rubric, and to profess assent and consent to everything in the Book of Common Prayer, and the directions contained in it; and that had the effect of operating most powerfully in preventing many persons from becoming ministers of the Established Church. Unless we provided a good and efficient means of enforcing uniformity in matters of form, we should continue to exclude those persons who wished to become ministers, but who would not undertake

211
to conform strictly to the rubric. At the same time we should continue to allow ministers inside the Church to do certain things which if permitted to those other persons outside would not have prevented them entering the Church. So that a great injustice and inequality existed. Thus we had two weights and two measures, one for those inside the Church, the other for those without the Church; and unless we could reduce the two to one, we were guilty of great unfairness and injustice. It came, therefore, to this—that when the Bill passed, the weighty matters would be dealt with by a bad and unworkable procedure, while minor questions would be dealt with by an easy and good procedure. He would rather invert the order, and say that the weighty questions should have the good, and the lighter ones the bad procedure, unless they could contrive to obviate the difficulty in some other way. The good procedure was to be applied in the case of a clergyman who used a garment too much or a garment too little, or who turned towards one point of the compass instead of towards another, matters in which the offender might yield without a loss of self-respect; while the bad procedure was to be employed in the case of a man charged with drunkenness or incontinency, in regard to which he was obliged to defend himself to the uttermost, and the trial for which would probably lead to his temporal ruin in a pecuniary sense, although he might come out ecclesiastically pure. These considerations led him to ask whether it was necessary to divide ecclesiastical offences in this manner, and whether the improved procedure could not as readily be applied to the one class as to the other? He wanted to know why the House could not set aside all the difficulties they were involved in and deal with the whole of the ecclesiastical law under the same procedure and under the same Judge. "What mischief, he asked, could possibly arise from such an arrangement? If adopted it would do away with all the anomalies he had mentioned, and it would be a very serious and a large improvement in the law. It would have this further advantage—It had been broadly stated in the course of the debate on the Bill that the object of the measure was to put down Ritualism. He was as little a friend to Ritualism as any
212
hon. Gentleman in that House, and he admitted the necessity of carrying out the will of the House, so emphatically expressed with regard to the matter, indeed he would go to any extent in having that will enforced; but at the same time he thought they ought to avoid perpetuating the memory of their present heats and passions on the subject in a Bill which, while it might effect an improvement in procedure, was really a measure levelled directly against a particular class of offences. Therefore, he suggested that the House would do wisely by forbearing, in the whirlwind of their passion, from pointing more distinctly to the special class of offences that were most in their minds than they did to other classes, and by placing all offences against the ecclesiastical law under one procedure. He apprehended that no hon. Gentleman in the House wished that if any offence were committed against the ecclesiastical law, besides the offence mentioned in this Bill, it should remain unpunished; and if it was to be punished, it should be tried with the least possible expense and delay to any of the parties. As to the objection which had been made to the salary proposed to be given to the Judge, he could not join in the cavil about paying £8,000 a-year for his services; while as to his being only partially employed, surely that objection would be extremely modified if the system which he (Mr. Lowe) proposed were adopted, and the Judge dealt with the whole of the ecclesiastical law at once, instead of with mere shreds and patches of that law. On those grounds, and not with the least wish of impeding the progress of the Bill, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. J. G. TALBOT, in seconding the Motion, said, he was afraid that the most able and exhaustive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had left him little to say. But one thing he would mention before he sat down. In the Bill, it was proposed to provide a Judge for the purpose to which the Bill related, and that Judge was to have a salary of £3,000 a-year. He did not grudge the salary of £3,000, but, as he had already said, and as he would say again if necessary, he did grudge the source from which that salary would come. As had been said by no less an

213
authority than the Prime Minister, and by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), in his able speech on the subject, the House was now asked to legislate concerning a mere handful of men. The three great parties into which the Church was divided were the High Church, the Low Church, and the Broad Church. He did not imagine that it was the members of any these parties who were aimed at by this legislation; but the House was determined to enforce the law upon those few individuals who were accustomed wilfully to break it. In that determination he concurred; but he thought that the House should ascertain the law before, they attempted to put down these lawbreakers. Out of that handful, he believed the House might subtract a certain number. A certain number would break the law as long as the law was uncertain; but he had such confidence in the loyalty of the English clergy, that he believed as soon as the Bill was passed—nay, even as soon as the House had spoken, as it spoke on Wednesday last, a great proportion of that small handful would obey the law. He believed the residuum was very small. For that very small residuum the House was asked to appoint a Judge at a salary of £3,000 a-year. That was very bad economy. It was a waste of the public money. If the House, however, would agree to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, the Judge might have something to do; because as long as human nature remained what it was, it could not be doubted that the ecclesiastical law would be broken just as the civil law was broken; and if the Judge to be appointed was to have the whole administration of the ecclesiastical law, he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) thought the salary was not extravagant. But he trusted the House would pause for a moment before they passed a Bill which dealt only with one branch of the ecclesiastical law, and left the other untouched.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision for extending the said Bill to all offences by Clerks in Holy Orders against the Law Ecclesiastical, and to repeal the Act 3 and 4 Victoria, cap. 8, for better enforcing Church Discipline."—(Mr. Lowe.)
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, although he agreed with almost the
214
whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, yet it must be remembered that this was the 17th of July. That must be his answer to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. If it was February, instead of July, he would most heartily support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; but it was too late to deal that Session with that proposal, and it was important that the measure should be carried this Session. The Bill which was introduced two years ago by the Home Secretary, and other Bills of the same description, were not carried, because too much was attempted. No doubt, this was a comparatively small measure, and dealt only with a small portion of the law; but he thought the great body of the House had significantly shown their feeling as to the importance of it, and that the passing of it should not be endangered by attempting to enlarge its scope. With regard to the salary of the Judge, the Bill provided that, upon the offices of Dean of the Arches and Official Principal becoming vacant, that Judge should discharge the duties belonging to them, so that he would have more to do than some hon. Members supposed.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that during the first discussion on the Bill, he insisted on the point which had been taken to-day by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lowe), in the form of an Instruction, and he could not help thinking that if his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Russell Gurney) or those who had originated the Bill in the other House had introduced it as an Amendment of the ecclesiastical procedure throughout, a great deal of the heat of these discussions would have been avoided. His right hon. and learned Friend had placed on the Paper a very conciliatory Amendment, to the effect that the Bill should not come into operation until the 1st of July next year. The Judge to be appointed under this Bill would in November become Dean of Arches, and probably Provincial Judge of the Province of York. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would state whether he would undertake to introduce at the beginning of next Session, a Bill providing that the procedure adopted in regard to these special offences should be

215
extended to all other ecclesiastical offences. If such an undertaking was given, the passing of this Bill would be greatly facilitated.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he was prepared to state, that if no one else of more importance than himself should propose such a Bill next year, he would be perfectly ready to do so.
MR. DODSONsaid, the question whether the Bill could be extended from form to substance depended not on the fact of that being the 17th of July, but on the will and pleasure of Her Majesty's Government. If the Government gave their support to his right hon. Friend's Instruction, such an extension could be made, and the Bill passed in the present Session.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought the Bill should be extended to the wider area proposed, and that it should be applicable to all offenders against ecclesiastical doctrine. However, the House of Lords had limited the Bill to its present scope, and even if Her Majesty's Government afforded the House an opportunity of extending the Bill in the way proposed by the Instruction, it was hardly probable that the other House would agree to such an extension. The measure was aimed exclusively at one particular class of offenders. It happened that in the course of his life he was never concerned personally in more than one trial in the Ecclesiastical Courts. That was a suit which he instituted against a clergyman who held ultra-Calvinistic and Supralapsarian doctrines. The clergyman had refused to prepare the children of his parish for confirmation, but the curate did so, and the Bishop confirmed them. Then, the clergyman said, that because they had been confirmed they were doubly children of hell. He was informed that he could not hope to relieve the parish of this clergyman at a less cost than £2,500. That expense he was prepared to incur, but he was informed by the Bishop that if he agreed to pay the clergyman's debts, amounting to £700, he might induce him to resign the living. Accordingly, he paid off the clergyman's debts; but he would ask whether that was a decent condition of the law. That case would have been comprehended in this Bill.
MR. BEISTOWEthought the Instruction proposed by his right hon.
216
Friend the Member for the University of London would, if carried, have the effect of expediting rather than of retarding the progress of the Bill, because its adoption would cause a large number of Amendments already proposed to fall to the ground. He had looked very carefully into the Bill, and he protested he could find in it nothing that touched the law relating to ecclesiastical offences. He should be sorry to see the Bill endangered; but he still thought it might be so improved as to command the confidence of clergy and laity throughout the country.
MR. BERESFORD HOPE: After the direct appeal which has been made to me by my hon. and learned Friend, I hope the House will allow me to assure him that he has fully and correctly represented mo. The House knows very well that I have never concealed my opinion that this Bill was a hastily-conceived one; but after the debate of Wednesday last, I came to the conclusion that, rightly or wrongly, the House had determined to pass it this Session. I have accordingly gone very carefully through the Amendments upon the Paper, and I was surprised to find how short and few these were, which would alter the Bill into the shape proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London; but, more than that, as the hon. and learned Member who spoke last pointed out, not only are those Amendments few, but they sweep away an enormous number of others which belong to the Bill as it stands. The adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Instruction might cost us, at the outside, an additional day's sitting; and, then, what should we gain for it? A great deal of the heat which has been generated and no little of the sense of grievance which has rankled throughout the country, as I can personally testify, and as it was so well put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, has arisen from the fact that many clergymen did feel that, whether the new procedure was right or wrong, wise or unwise, it was hard linos to come down upon them with a penal Bill relating to differences of Ritual, and to leave grave moral offences untouched. If you alter the Bill in the way proposed, you would be just as well able under the altered Bill to come down upon Ritual-ism, whatever that may mean. For I

217
own that I am one of those who never knew what Ritualism was. I say this very seriously. I never did understand it, nor do I understand it now. I fully acknowledge that there are excesses of worship, to which I am as much opposed as the hon. Member for North-east Lancashire (Mr. Holt); but there are, on the other hand, certain ornate forms of worship which some men like and others do not, but which it is very unfair indeed to class with those particular excesses. Whatever else they may be, they are not contraventions of the rubric, but an earnest effort to use it to the fullest extent. The world terms proceedings which stand in the first category ritualistic, and the same word is also applied by those who have little love for the settled order of the Church to those in the second class; but, while this ambiguity continues, and until we are furnished with an intelligible definition of Ritualism, I really do not know what the word means. That, however, is by the way. The irritation would be removed if you made this a Bill for the Amendment of Ecclesiastical Procedure generally. You would want but little time for the work, and your gain will be that you pass a measure which will produce a contented instead of a discontented feeling among a large class of persons whom it is well at least to keep in good humour if you wish to make your legislation felt and obeyed.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had made a suggestion, and from the manner in which it had been responded to by the right hon. and learned Recorder, he thought the matter might be disposed of in a way that would be agreeable to his right hon. Friend who had moved the Instruction. The right hon. and learned Recorder had consented that the operation of the Act should be put off until July next, a pledge being given that another Bill should be passed before the 1st of July, dealing with the questions raised by the Instruction of his right hon. Friend, so that the two Acts might come into operation together. The question now was, whether the House should pass the Bill in the form in which it had come down from the other House, and wait until next year, with the assurance of the Recorder that he would then introduce a supplementary Bill more carefully con
218
sidered, or should try to incorporate with this Bill Amendments which must be hastily and crudely made. If his right hon. Friend the Member for the London University would get up and say that he would accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the (Secretary of State for War, and agreed to by the Recorder, it appeared to him it would be generally accepted by the House, and would undoubtedly be the most convenient course which could be adopted.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, an appeal has been made to the Government and to myself to express an opinion upon the question. I think the offer made by the right hon. and learned Recorder was made in a very liberal spirit, and the House ought to appreciate it. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) seems to think that it is the duty of the Government, and it is in their power, to carry the Instruction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London into effect, if they determined to do so. I do not wish at present to give an opinion upon the policy recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London. I have considered the matter while this discussion has been going on, and it is my opinion that if that Instruction be carried, there will immediately crop up upon our Paper a new class of Amendments. For instance, there will be the question as to the mode of trial of criminous clerks—whether they should be tried by a jury or not, a question which has already been debated in Convocation; but that is only one example of the class of questions which would immediately arise. Therefore, without giving any opinion myself upon the policy involved in the Instruction, I can only say, being anxious that the Bill should pass, I beg to disclaim the responsibility which the right hon. Member for Chester wishes to place upon me. I recommend the House not to adopt the Instruction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, although it may be founded on sound principles, and may lead hereafter to beneficial legislation, but to go as soon as possible into Committee on the Bill.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that two most important questions were brought before the House by the Instruction of

219
his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, an Instruction, the propriety of moving which he perfectly concurred in. His right hon. Friend had proposed that the new procedure should apply to all offences against the Church Discipline Act, and several hon. Members had followed up the suggestion, by saying how unreasonable it appeared that proceedings against Ritual should be easy, and proceedings against morals should be difficult, He entirely approved his right hon. Friend's object, though he was glad to find that the Prime Minister had suggested that it would be better to deal with the subject in another Bill on account of difficulties of detail. But there was another most important class of offences against the Church Discipline Act, offences with regard to doctrine; and it appeared to him, if the question raised by his right hon. Friend were brought before the House, they must also set about making procedure easier, in order to put a stop to offences with regard to doctrine. It was said that it was perfectly easy to define what was a breach of Ritual, but that the pulpit was a place in which great liberty and licence was allowed. He was not going to give an opinion whether there should or should not be liberty in the pulpit; but if the House were at once to determine that they should put down all offences in the pulpit that would be a very serious matter. He could not conceive anything more serious, and he was perfectly surprised that hon. Gentlemen who knew so much more of the state of the Church than he did, should think that an attempt to pass a law to that effect would be received with less fear or excitement than the present Bill. On the contrary, it appeared to him that, in almost every parish, members of the Church would be set considering whether the doctrines preached from the pulpit were or were not in accordance with those of the Church of England. This, for instance, might happen. One party in the Church which was attacked upon Ritual might avenge itself by attacking another upon doctrine. That certainly was new matter brought before the House, and every hon. Member, whether belonging to the Church or not, ought to have full opportunity of considering carefully whether the doctrines laid down in the Articles of the Church of England were such as he would wish to see en
220
forced by more stringent regulations. That was a most important matter, and if his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder would follow out his undertaking, he would insure for the House next year a most exciting Session, in which they would have to define what were the doctrines of the Church. ["No, no!"] It appeared to him, at all events, that they would be landed in that result, which might be a very dangerous one, and he therefore thought they should not take the course which had been indicated.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not share in the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and he believed the feeling of the House was well ascertained that the same form of procedure must be applied to all classes of offenders against ecclesiastical law. But after the conciliatory and statesmanlike answer given by the right hon. and learned Recorder, he would ask whether they were not now discussing what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Loudon would call form rather than substance. The right hon. and learned Recorder had said, that he assented to the views placed so well before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and that next year, he would undertake to introduce a Bill in conformity with those views. He, for one, recognizing the impartial spirit which had characterized the language and proceedings of the right hon. and learned Recorder throughout the discussion, was perfectly satisfied with the pledge he had given, and it would be a most unfortunate circumstance, after the pledge was given, if the House were now to discuss and divide upon the Motion of the right hon. Member for the University of London. His sole motive for rising was to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would not consent to withdraw the Instruction.
MR. LOWEsaid, after the opinions which had been expressed, and the declaration of the Prime Minister he would not press his Resolution.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
"Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Russell Gurney.)
MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Although I shall not proceed with the Resolution of which I have given Notice, I am not sorry that I put it on the Paper because it expresses views which I believe ought to be brought before the House at this stage of the discussion. It has been criticized for its length but a long Notice often saves the necessity of a long speech. I could have shown that there was a more excellent way of dealing with the subject than that proposed by the Bill; but the postponement of the date at which the Act is to come into operation from January to July next year, will give that time to the Church in its constituted assembly to review the rubrics for which I plead. It will also give time to Parliament, if it pleases, to enact such changes consequent on that review as may appear desirable With this arrangement I am quite satisfied; indeed, I may claim that I have been virtually successful in the object of my Motion. I trust that neither Convocation nor Parliament will lose time in dealing with the question. I will not keep the House another minute from going into Committee; for my Resolution as it stands on the Paper sufficiently shows that the credit of having undertaken to grapple with the Ritual difficulty not by way of simple repression and sharper penalties, but through the politic course of considering the rubrics and of amending them according to the changed conditions of the times, is due in the first instance to a Conservative Government, namely to that of the late Earl of Derby, when the present Prime Minister was, as he now is, leader of this House. The Ritual Commission so appointed dates back to the year 1867, and Parliament, as I have proved, co-operated in the policy during more than one Session; Convocation also played its part, and thus both Church and State have already granted some rubrical relaxations in Acts which were unanimously passed. Parliament will now have the opportunity of completing the work so well undertaken and so unluckily interrupted.
MR. MONKin rising, according to Notice, to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that so soon as a vacancy shall from time to time occur in the office of Vicar General and Official Principal of each of the Provincial and of the Diocesan Courts in England and Wales, the Judge to be appointed under this Act
222
shall become ex officio such Vicar General and Official Principal, and that the salary of such Judge shall be paid out of the fees now payable to the said Vicar General and Official principle. "
said, he wished to enter his strong and decided protest against the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being diverted from the purpose to which it was now devoted—namely, the augmentation of small livings—in order to pay the salary of the Judge to be created under the Bill. A somewhat lengthened experience of Ecclesiastical Courts, and of the procedure therein, had satisfied him that the present state of the Diocesan Courts, though considerably improved by recent legislation—as, for instance, by taking evidence vivâ voce instead of by depositions before examiners—was unsatisfactory and dilatory, and urgently required amendment. In some instances, the want of a speedy and inexpensive appeal to a Judge resulted in an absolute denial of justice. In others the cost was so enormous as to be ruinous to the promoter, as well as to the person against whom the office of the Judge was promoted. The real question, however, was—whence could funds be raised for the Judge's salary? In his (Mr. Monk's) opinion, the Judge would have very little work to do, and would have ample time to perform the duties of the Diocesan Chancellors, as well as of the two Provincial Vicars General. Nine-tenths of the duties of the Chancellors were of common form and ministerial only. There were 25 of these officers, whoso salaries in the aggregate amounted to a very considerable sum, and whose duties were not very considerable, consisting mainly in granting faculties, attending visitations and consecrations, and in advising their respective Bishops on points of law: and yet one-third of the number were clergymen. He ventured to think it was not out of place in a Bill of this gravity to propose to replace the present holders of those offices, as vacancies occurred, by a single Judge, whose whole time would be devoted to the ecclesiastical business of the country. If Parliament, in its wisdom, thought fit to abolish their offices as vacancies occurred, he should, as one of them, be ready most cheerfully to surrender the jurisdiction he had hitherto exercised in ecclesiastical causes, in the same way as he had previously surren

223
dered his jurisdiction in testamentary matters without compensation. He begged to move his Resolution.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. I should not attempt to detain the House for a few moments, were I not convinced that my hon. Friend who made the Motion is really considering economy of time in making it; and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder for the City of London has it in his power to produce a very considerable economy of time if he is disposed—and I hope he may be—to accede to the principle of the Motion. What I conceive that principle to be is this—that we do not intend to charge the salary of the Judge who is to be appointed under this Bill upon that fund which is the solo public fund we are enabled to look to for the augmentation of many scandalously small clerical incomes in the Church of England, and for the foundation of new cures in that Church. This is not a small question; it is a question broad in principle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney), in his speech on the second reading, made a statement in de fence of the principle of the Bill which he afterwards found to be incorrect. I am told that it is entirely untrue that the salaries of diocesan chancellors are charged upon the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but whether they are or not, I am, for my own part, equally prepared to resist any invasion of that fund for the purpose of providing the salary of this Judge. In my opinion, the matter of the salaries of diocesan chancellors has never been considered by this House so as to make the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners liable for them; and until I am better informed, I shall continue to believe that there is no such charge upon that fund. But be that as it may, is it now really to be supposed that we are going to provide this salary from such a source, or is the salary necessary at all? I contend there is no such necessity; there is no cause for appointing a permanent Judge with a high salary, for if there is to be litigation under the Bill, it must be litigation for the settlement of certain questions which when once settled cannot seriously recur; and it is quite impossible to compare them with a case where you are going to provide a means of dealing
224
judicially with questions year by year, in the anticipation of a constant and permanent supply of such questions. There is not, I believe, the smallest likelihood of anything of that kind. But even if there were, I should contend that we ought not to charge the Common Fund for such a purpose. I will not enter into details. I think it is not for us, but for the right hon. Gentleman to point out whence the salary should be drawn, in case the House should determine that it is not to be drawn from the Common Fund; but I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is perfectly correct in saying, that the salaries for these ecclesiastical officers which now exist, amount in the aggregate to a very considerable amount of emolument, and that there is a very small amount of duty. With regard to the salaries paid to some of these officers, there is the Official Principal of the Archbishop of Canterbury, more commonly known as the Judge of the Court of Arches. It so happens that his salary amounts to about 10 s. a-year upon an average of recent years, while he has discharged ten times as much duty as all the rest of the other chancellors put together. But there is an office now held by the Judge of the Court of Arches which is called that of the Master of the Faculties, and for which the emoluments are £600 a-year. Then there is the office of Dean of Faculties, who with a very small amount of duty has a salary of over £1,000 a-year. There is then the Commissary General of the city and diocese of Canterbury, who is an officer answering, in the case of the Archbishop, to the chancellor of other Bishops. He is the diocesan Judge, and his salary is small, not exceeding £200 a-year. If it were necessary to make some small addition to that, it could easily be done. Then there is the Official Principal of the Chancery Court in the Province of York, who is the provincial Judge. These offices are at present held by the same gentlemen, and at rare intervals, and the salary is £600 a-year. In fact there is for disposal in this way a sum of something like £2,400 a-year, out of which some provision ought to be made for diocesan Judges, corresponding to the chancellors in the ordinary dioceses. But what is the proper manner in which to secure an efficient Judge? It seems very properly

225
to have been held that this Judge ought to be a first-rate man. What is the price of a first-rate man? It appears that the market is very much baissé as they call it in French. When the Bill was first introduced, the price was put down at £4,000. It now stands at £3,000.
MR. ROEBUCKrose to Order. He was sorry to interfere, but he wanted to know whether the observations of the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be made in Committee on the Bill rather than at the present stage?
MR. SPEAKERruled that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were quite relevant to the question before the House.
MR. GLADSTONE: I say the market has lowered, if we are to get a first-rate man for £3,000 a year. It being admitted that he ought to be a first-rate man, why should we pay £5,000 a-year to all our Chancellors, who cannot be bettor than first-rate men? The real truth is that this is a low figure, this £3,000, and it is chosen apparently, because there is a suspicion that there will not be a sufficiency of duty. Now, that is an arrangement which cannot in any way be deemed satisfactory, and I think wisdom dictates a pretty clear course. We cannot be certain what will happen. We must look to probabilities. If we look to those there may be more or less litigation; but as to the idea of a Judge continually sitting and deciding ecclesiastical controversies, I say no man contemplates such a state of things. I say that if any man contemplated such a state of things, and believed that from life to life and from generation to generation, that was to be the future condition of the Church of England, neither that Church nor any other Established Church could stand such a state of things, and such a scheme would be more likely than anything else to promote the views of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard). It appears to me also we ought not to look simply to the remuneration of the Judgeship. We have, from the composition of our laws, arrangements by which a great many of the most eminent jurists are disposable. Independently of the Judges of the land, we have usually two or three retired Lord Chancellors, and five or six persons retired from other offices, who, although they may not be in such bodily vigour
226
as to be able to carry on their functions as they originally received them, yet might be perfectly able to undertake such duties as those contemplated in this Bill. I should say the rational course would be to look at all the available emoluments from the ecclesiastical offices, and combine those emoluments in the best manner, and, if necessary, to make these emoluments the inducement to Judges who are partially free, and from whom there will be a selection. Be that as it may, I will resort to any expedient, and will ask the judgment of the House upon the propriety of resorting to any expedient whatever, rather than to charge this large salary, which will probably be supplemented by claims for pensions, upon the fund for small livings and new cures. I do not wish to raise the question of ecclesiastical salaries; but even that question ought to be raised, rather than that we should invade the fund for small livings. I make this intimation, because I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will save us further trouble; and it will expedite the passing of his Bill, if he will indicate to us that he is disposed to take this burden off the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is in that spirit that I have spoken, and I think it would be good economy to accept the proposal.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that so soon as a vacancy shall from time to time occur in the office of Vicar General and Official Principal of each of the Provincial and of the Diocesan Courts in England and Wales, the judge to be appointed under this Act shall become ox officio such Vicar General and Official Principal, and that the salary of such judge shall be paid out of the fees now payable to the said Vicars General and Officials Principal,"—(Mr. Monk,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not think it would be necessary to secure the services of a special Judge for the purposes of the Bill, inasmuch as it would not be necessary for him to hold continuous sittings, and his duties would only be occasional. Ho, therefore, had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that it might be left to the Archbishop

227
with the consent of the Crown, to select any of the Judges of the land to exercise jurisdiction under it until, at all events, it was known how the new law would operate.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTurged the expediency of going at once into Committee. The proper time for discussing the question raised as to the new Judge was when the clause relating to it was brought forward, and that would he on the 7th clause. The question was, no doubt, a very important one, for it was most desirable that the decisions of the tribunal about to be created should carry the utmost weight with them in the country, and he hoped the matter would be dealt with from that point of view.
MR. MOWBRAYconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, that there would be a real economy of the time of the House in obtaining the opinions of hon. Members on the question at once. With regard to the appointment of a retired Judge, it had been the common practice to swear in a retiring Judge as a member of the Judicial Committee, and in that capacity he gave a great deal of time to the performance of judicial duties. There were at present three retired Lord Chancellors—Lord Chelmsford, Lord Hatherley, and Lord Selborne, each of whom might be ready to give up his time; and he was sure, in that event, that no one could perform the duties in a more satisfactory manner. Why, then, should a sum of £3,000 a-year be paid when able services of a retired Judge might be obtained for a sum of £1,000 or £1,500 a year.
MR. GOLDNEYsubmitted that the matter now before them ought to be discussed, not at this stage, but in Committee.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he was asked to give a pledge at once to agree to something in the nature of the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester. He was not prepared to give any such pledge, as he did not at present know that the office of Vicar General was one that ought to be continued. In regard to the salary of the Judge, he was the last person in the House who would desire to charge any fund applicable to the improvement of poor livings, and he would not have made the proposal in the form he did, unless he had
228
been perfectly satisfied, from information which he had in possession, that every farthing that would be advanced by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the payment of that salary would be recouped afterwards by a plan which would be introduced in the course of next Session for the alteration of certain offices. He should be prepared to discuss the matter when they came to that part of the Bill in Committee. The feeling which he had, in the first instance was, that it was of importance to have a Judge whose character and reputation would give confidence in the tribunal, and he felt, of course, the difficulty of securing the services of such a person without a certain salary being named. He had obtained further information as to the amount of business, and he agreed that it would be desirable as opportunities occurred to add to the duties of the Judge, and, by giving him certain existing offices as they became vacant, to remove the present difficulty as to his salary. With this view the Bill at present provided that on a vacancy occurring in the office of Dean of the Arches or that of the Master of the Faculties, the Judge should be appointed to it, and if there were other offices which could be added to the number he (Mr. Russell Gurney) would have no objection to add them.
LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, that after what had been stated by the right hon. and learned Recorder, he should not feel it necessary to embarrass him or the House by moving the Amendments of which he had given Notice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Short title).
MR. HUBBARD (), in moving, with the view of preventing any misapprehension and of describing more accurately the present nature of the Bill, that the title be altered from "The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," to "The Ecclesiastical Causes Procedure Act, 1874," said, the measure had in its progress acquired a degree of fairness which justified the House in passing the second reading. As the Bill had come down to them, he did not see any objec

229
tion to its provisions generally, but he did see the importance of changing its designation. The disfavour with which it was received arose from the faultiness of its title, and it was desirable therefore that that title should express more truly the meaning of the measure. The Archbishop of Canterbury took great pains a few days ago in Convocation to insist upon the fact that the question involved in this Bill was purely one of procedure in ecclesiastical causes, and if the title proposed were adopted, it would do away with an immense amount of that painful apprehension excited by the Bill, as it was first introduced into the other House of Parliament.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYreally thought that the title suggested would be more fitting, supposing that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of London had been adopted. He would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, and raise the question on the Report.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Amendment, as it stood, was liable to objection, because it seemed to imply that all ecclesiastical causes came under the Act. On the other hand, the present title was not accurate.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the short title—namely, "The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," described the real objects of the Bill, and, if that was rather lengthened, it would answer every purpose.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsuggested that the difficulty might be got rid of by having no short title. A short title was not wanted
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause postponed.
Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
On the Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GUR-NEY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 11, by leaving out "January," and inserting" July."
LORD HENRY SCOTTthanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the concession he had granted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Extent of Act).
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsuggested that the words "and the Channel Islands" should be omitted, because the Channel Islands might not be willing to accept the legislation of the House.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had not yet made an inquiry on the subject, but he thought the best course would be to postpone the Amendment till the Report.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that was a matter which touched the dignity of only a very small body, and he thought it would be far bettor to omit the words.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, if those words were retained he should move the insertion of "Wales."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 15, the omission of the words "and to the Channel Islands."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Proceedings under this Act not to be deemed proceedings under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86. s. 23.); and Clause 5 (Saving of jurisdiction) agreed to.
Clause 6 (Interpretation of terms).
MR. WAITmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "other than a cathedral or collegiate church."
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he had no particular opinion about the matter. He must, however, oppose the Amendment, on the ground that the services in cathedrals and collegiate churches did not come within the general category of Church services.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsupported the Amendment, maintaining that the difference of service was no sufficient ground for exemption. He could not see why services under the deans and chapters should be privileged; cleans and chapters were bound to obey the law as well as the clergy who ministered in parish churches.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSalso supported the Amendment. He did not see why cathedral or collegiate churches should be allowed to transgress the law any more than other churches. He looked upon them as mother churches who should set an example to the others.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsuggested that the Amendment be postponed till the 16th clause was reached, which dealt with cathedral churches.
MR. GOLDNEYcontended that though the clause under discussion dealt with the subject of the interpretation of terms, it was different from an ordinary

231
Interpretation Clause, and ought to be retained in its present form. He could see no object in maintaining the proposed distinction.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the question was who was to make representations to the Bishop in the case of collegiate churches.
MR. WAITsaid, his objection to Clause 6 was, that it gave laymen no power whatever. They could initiate proceedings against parochial clergymen, but not against the clergy of a cathedral or a collegiate church.
MR. HORSMANcould see no ground for the exemption, and thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had given the best of all reasons why there should be no distinction.
LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, if collegiate churches were to be included, it would be necessary to provide some other machinery to put the law in motion.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Committee appeared to be unanimously of opinion that cathedral and collegiate churches should be included. The Committee was not, however, now discussing what places should be included in the scope of the Bill, but what should be the meaning of the word "church." Perhaps the right hon. and learned Recorder, who drafted the Bill, was the best judge on this point.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought that no harm could come from the omission of the words, as the 16th clause provided machinery for dealing with cathedral and collegiate churches. He submitted that the word "incumbent" would not be applicable to a collegiate church at all.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to point out that "incumbent" was so explained that it would be applicable to a parish as well as to a collegiate church.
Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
MR. DILLWYN, in moving as an Amendment in page 2, line 36, to leave out from "age," to" who," in line 39, protested against that attempt to widen the line of demarcation between Churchmen and Dissenters. According to the Bill, a parishioner meant only a person who had subscribed a solemn declara
232
tion that he was a member of the Church of England as by law established. That interpretation, he thought, was too strict, and he contended that a man ought to be able to lay claim to being a parishioner without having subscribed such a declaration.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 36, to leave out from the word "age," to the word "who," in line 39, inclusive."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
Question put, "That the words 'who before making any representation' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 86: Majority 183.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "one year," and insert "three years," said, such an Amendment was necessary in order to give greater security against a man newly settled in the parish harassing an incumbent by vexatious proceedings. The complaining parishioner, he thought, should be a person of some standing in the parish. If that were required, it might prevent persons going about from parish to parish for the mere purpose of taking proceedings against the incumbent.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. If a man came into a parish and found the incumbent violating the law, he had as good a right to complain as if he had been in the parish three years. He also thought it was going rather too far to say that when a man found objectionable practices going on he should not be allowed to complain of them for three years.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsupported the Amendment, on the ground that a man should not be allowed to disturb the peace of the parish, unless he had lived for some time in it, any more than a man who had not been a Member of that House for a year would be allowed by the public opinion of the House to do anything which would tend to disturb the harmony of the House.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, it would be most unreasonable to limit the operation of the Act in the manner proposed by the Amendment, which he hoped would not receive the support of the Committee. There was no fear more groundless than that entertained

233
by some that three parishioners would be so eager to make these complaints. People were not so willing to come forward in such eases; they did not like to incur the odium of the clergy and the disapproval of their neighbours.
Amendment negatived.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 3, to leave out all after "relates" to "parish," in line 5, inclusive.
MR. FORSYTHthoroughly agreed that the words in question ought not to remain in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
MR. MONKmoved, in page 3, line 5, after "parish," to insert "or cathedral precincts."
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEopposed the Amendment, which would turn cathedrals into a sort of proprietary chapels to those who lived in their precincts.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the Mover of the Amendment would allow it to stand over.
MR. MONKexplained that his object was to enable somebody who saw anything wrong in a cathedral church to become a complainant.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that object would be effected by an Amendment which he intended to move in a subsequent clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Amendment made in page 3, line 5, after "parish." by inserting as a separate sub-section—
(Barrister-at-law.)
"Barrister-at-law shall in the Isle of Man include advocate."
On Question? That the clause, as amended, be agreed to,
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to know whether the right hon. and learned Recorder would consent to insert after the word "male" "or female." Women were often better church-goers than men, and it was hardly right, therefore, to exclude them from the power of joining in a complaint.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEwished to protest in the strongest language against the new test created by
234
the Bill. It would have the effect of driving away those Wesleyans who were attached to the Church, and who attended church in the morning and their own chapels at night. He had no doubt that the numerous Wesleyans in the county where he lived would resent the restriction as a bitter insult. He trusted that the House of Commons, in trying to reform the Church, would not deliberately exclude persons sincerely attached to it, and that some means would be found on the Report of giving the Wesleyans a legal status in this matter. He was sure that many of them would have conscientious scruples against signing this test—"I do solemnly declare I am a member of the Church of England as by law established"—before they could lodge a complaint.
LORD JOHN MANNERSthought the objection ought to be raised when they came to the Schedule, and not on that clause.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that any legal rights then possessed by Wesleyans and other Dissenters were not proposed to be taken away by the Bill. It was simply to give facility of procedure.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEreplied, that before a parishioner could make a complaint, he would have to make a solemn declaration that he was a "Member of the Church of England as by law established."
MR. DODSONsaid, of course the idea of those who opposed extension was, that if a man were not a member of the Church, he could not find fault with the manner in which the services were conducted. Many persons attended both church and chapel, and such persons would not like to declare themselves members of the Church of England.
MR. BERESFORD HOPErose to Order. The hon. Member was returning to a question which had been decided.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the question now being that the clause be agreed to, the hon. Member was in Order.
MR. DODSONbelieved that this test would not have the effect of preventing persons who were not members of the Church from offensively making complaints as to the manner in which the service was conducted, because it would

235
be easy to find three persons who would for the consideration of a pint of beer profess themselves members of the Church of England. It was absurd to insist on this test when the Bill provided that a single churchwarden who might be a Dissenter or a Jew could lay a complaint. If persons brought forward complaints for the purpose of causing annoyance the Bishop would not entertain them. He had voted with the minority in the previous Amendment, because he thought it undesirable even in appearance to create a new test, which, moreover, was unnecessary.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, it was very rarely that Wesleyans attended a Ritualistic church, and therefore such persons were not likely to be aggrieved parishioners.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYthought that the Dissenting Bodies could not expect the House to go out of its way to give them privileges for litigation. He considered that it was only fair to the clergymen that the test should be imposed, because it would not be right that persons not being actually members of the Church should be entitled to make a representation.
MR. WAITobserved, that after such an overwhelming expression of opinion, the question ought not to have been revived.
MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he represented a constituency including a large proportion of Nonconformists, and objected to the test, adding that he noticed indications of a desire to denationalize the Established Church, and make it a Church of a sect. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would re-consider this matter.
COLONEL LEIGHwas quite sure the Wesleyans were not desirous to be put into the position which was now placed before them. If a clergyman could not find three members of his own congregation to proceed against him, he would be in little danger of the pains and penalties of the Bill.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, the Church did not interfere with Dissenters, and he did not think it would be right that Dissenters should be allowed to interfere with a service from which they had spontaneously alienated themselves.
MR. HORSMANobserved, that it was loss of time to re-argue the question involved in the Amendment of the
236
hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) which had been already decided, especially as it was not proposed to divide the House against the clause.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (Appointment, duties, and salary of judge.)
MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved as an Amendment in page 3, line 11, after "sign manual," to insert "jointly or severally as the case may be." The hon. Member said the object of the Amendment was to enable two Judges to be appointed, one for the Province of Canterbury, the other for the Province of York. Under the Bill there was to be one provincial Judge for all England. He fully agreed that there ought to be a small number of Judges; but thought the Bill went too far in laying down absolutely that the Provinces of Canterbury and York, differing in their history, traditions, and local circumstances, and in many respects in the character of their inhabitants, should necessarily have the same Judge. He proposed that, if it should be necessary, there should be two Judges. Possibly a retired Judge might be appointed—who need not be an ecclesiastical jurisconsult—the sole business of whose life would be directed to the various ecclesiastical offences raised under this Bill. If there were two Judges, there would be the advantage that one of them might correct the mistake of the other, and not risk the idiosyncrasies of a man—who had, perhaps, gone to Church law late in life—being stamped upon the whole Church.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYthought it most important the House should adhere to the arrangement in the Bill for appointing only one Judge, for whoso salary he was afraid there would be some difficulty in making provision. He need not say that if two were to be appointed, that difficulty would be increased. He would also observe that there would be a High Court of Appeal, where the errors of a single Judge might be set right.
Amendment negatived.
MR. GREGORYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 11, to leave out from "a barrister" to "has been" in line 13. By the clause as it stood, a barrister of ten years' standing or an ox-Judge would be appointed. He believed that the duties to be performed

237
would be light and might be undertaken by one of the ordinary Judges, without interference with his other work. If such interference should occur, the Judge might, for example, be relieved from going Circuit. By adopting the present proposal, a Judge could easily be obtained who would have the necessary independence and would possess the confidence of the country, and who, moreover, would have sufficient work to do to keep his faculties from stagnating.
MR. FORSYTHpointed out that the Judges were already fully occupied, and that their number would be reduced under the operation of the Judicature Act. Under these circumstances, the effect of the Amendment would be to cause a deadlock. If a Judge were appointed at £3,000 a-year, and the business of the Court did not occupy his whole time, he could assist the other Judges, and thus give work enough for the salary, besides strengthening the existing judicial staff.
MR. MONKsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to, it being, in his opinion, most important that there should be a special Judge for this kind of business. If his Amendment had been adopted, there would have been ample funds from which to pay the Judge.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, if the new Judicature Act had contemplated the appointment of three additional Judges he could understand their proposing to appoint one of them the Judge to execute this Act, but not otherwise.
MR. SPENCER WALPOLEexpressed the opinion that, within three years or so nearly all, if not all, the questions that would come up for decision under the Act would be disposed of, and that altogether there would not be more than 10 or a dozen. That being the probability, he held that it would inspire great confidence in the public mind, if they could have a person taken from the existing judicial staff to execute the provisions of the Bill. They must have a person who was independent, who had considerable judicial experience, and who was capable of deciding such important questions as those which might arise under the Bill. Unless they had a thoroughly competent Judge nothing but dissatisfaction would arise.
238
The great difficulty would be to get such a man, and he thought they might fairly follow the precedent which they had in regard to Judges to try Election Petitions.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the same Judge was not likely to give conflicting decisions, and after two or three years, practically, the law would be so well understood that no one would venture to appeal. In that case, there would be no difficulty in finding a barrister to perform the duties of the office.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he thought it very undesirable to make a life appointment to the office in question, for the Judge might have next to nothing to do. He thought the Government ought to state what their opinion was on the question before the Committee.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he quite agreed that the question about the Judge was one of the most important parts of the Bill. The country would judge of the earnestness of the work the Committee was about, by the manner in which they decided the question of the appointment of the Judge. If the Committee adopted the idea that that was a small affair, and that there would be nothing for the Judge to do, the public would imagine that it was not intended that the Bill should be efficiently put in action. If, however, they intended it to be a Bill which was to declare the law of the land as applicable to the Parliamentary State Church, that matter ought to be dealt with in a serious manner and under the authority of a Judge competent to deal with such matters. When they talked of the enormous salary of £3,000, did they suppose that the Church of England, with its enormous endowments, was not able to provide the means of paying the salary of a Judge to enforce the law for the benefit of its own clergy and its own people? He could not entertain the idea for a moment that the Church of England could not provide the means. It was said that the Judge would have little to do; but he was not so sure of that, and, at all events, he hoped the Committee would not think that a used-up Judge—a Judge who had retired from the Bench on account of his inability to carry on judicial work—should be appointed to carry out the measure. They ought to appoint a first-rate man and give him an adequate salary; and if they found, on

239
experience, that he had not enough to do in deciding ecclesiastical questions, he might be employed on other business. In that view, what would he wiser than to say that the Judge appointed for the limited purposes of the Bill should take the appointment subject to the performance of any other duties which Parliament might impose upon him?
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he hoped that, by the appointment, the hard-working incumbents of poor livings in populous places, who obeyed the law, would not be called upon to defray the expenses of their richer neighbours who broke the law.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he did not wish to see an occasional Judge appointed; but he contended that after two or three years, it would be found he had little to do.
COLONEL LEIGHsaid, the judicial system had broken down in consequence of so much work being put upon the Judges. What he would suggest was that two new Judges should be appointed, and the junior should perform the work of this Bill. Juniores ad labores. The way in which Mr. Justice Keogh, a junior Judge, had performed duties that were extra-judicial, showed what reliance might be placed on the manner in which a junior Judge in this country would carry out this Bill.
MR. YOUNGsaid, he believed that the Bill, when carried, would be almost self-acting. He would suggest, however, that one of the Colonial Lord Chief Justices who generally returned to this country in the prime of life might be appointed to try these cases. They were not used up, were in receipt of pensions, and were perfectly qualified for the office.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, his opinion was, that they ought to appoint an efficient man—the most efficient they could—to transact the business, without any reference to any other circumstances. He would remind the Committee that the Judge who would be appointed would have, perhaps, more to perform than they contemplated, because all these duties of the Ecclesiastical Judge were performed by the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and he was paid a large salary—£4,000 a-year—by the nation. That Judge, under the new Judicature Act, would relinquish all those ecclesiastical duties. He would be raised to
240
£5,000"a-year, and the rank of the other Judges. That would, probably, lead to consequences which would assist them in considering the remuneration of the Judge under this Bill. The point, however, now to be decided was, whether they would have the most efficient Judge possible for this work, and he did not think any claims of appealing to those Judges already appointed, or calling upon retired and exhausted Judges, ought to be considered.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, great inconvenience had arisen from the Judge having duties to perform in the Admiralty Courts, besides those which belonged to the Ecclesiastical Court. The consequence was, that a large portion of the business in the latter Court was delayed. He agreed that there were difficulties to contend with; but they would arise more properly on the latter part of the clause. At the same time he did not think it desirable, when they wanted the best possible Judge, that they should exclude the largest class from which the selection could be made.
Amendment negatived.
MR. MONK, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "a," said, that the object of his Amendment was that, as vacancies occurred in the office of Vicar General of any of the diocesan Courts in England and Wales, the Judge to be appointed under the Bill should fill those offices ex officio, in the same way that he would become ex officio Judge of the Court of Arches on a vacancy occurring, and also ex officio Official Principal of the Chancery Court of York. His proposal was based upon a desire to find a mode of paying this Judge other than through the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commission.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if what was meant was that that Judge should absorb the Diocesan Courts of England and Wales as vacancies arose, that was, he thought, a very reasonable proposition.
LORD JOHN MANNERSinferred, from what was stated by the hon. Member for Gloucester earlier in the debate, that the real object was to abolish the Chancellors throughout the Church of England. If that were so, it was a great step which the Committee was called

241
upon to take by the elision of the little letter "a."
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he could not comprehend the proposal, which, so far as he could understand it, would have the effect of rolling 27 gentlemen into one. The Committee were in this difficulty—these Courts were the Courts of the Bishops, who had sent down the Bill without any intimation that they desired to give them up, and it might very well be that they were of use for other purposes, and could not be dispensed with. It would be a dangerous course to abolish them in a Bill of this kind by the omission of the indefinite article.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to avoid any misconception that might arise from the fact that he, too, had proposed to omit the letter "a;" but his reason was just the opposite of that of the hon. Member for Gloucester, with whom he did not agree. His own Amendment was a consequential one, following upon an Amendment which the House had declined to accept, so that it must be abandoned.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to build up a new system of ecclesiastical law, which they did not wish to do by a side-wind. If the Judge was to be occupied by all sorts of diocesan, he would not be available for his own special business.
Amendment negatived.
MR. SPENCER WALPOLEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, the omission, in line 23, of the Proviso—" Such Judge shall be ex officio an Ecclesiastical Commissioner for England." He did so because he thought the duties of the office should be entirely of a judicial character, and that the Judge to be appointed should not be connected with any other office.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsupported the Amendment, as it was undesirable to increase the number of those who might be termed honorary Members of the Commission. He hoped that the Committee, in accepting the proposal, would not pledge themselves to the selection of a "specialist," which in an Ecclesiastical Court was to be avoided.
MR. HORSMANhoped his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder would accept the Amendment.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he was willing to defer to the general
242
opinion of the Committee. The Proviso had been inserted, because it was thought desirable to strengthen the lay element on the Commission.
MR. MOWBRAYremarked that the lay Members were sufficiently numerous, but they hardly ever took part in the deliberations of the Commission. There were already persons nominated specially who were likely to strengthen the lay element in ecclesiastical procedure, as they were persons of large experience. Amongst them were the Lord Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONE, in moving, as an Amendment, in pages 3 and 4, the omission of the words—
"Any salary or emoluments which such Judge shall he entitled to receive from the said offices, other than the office of Judge under this Act, shall be paid over by him to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for ling-land, and all fees payable in respect of proceeding's before the said Judge under this Act shall also be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall pay to the said Judge by equal quarterly payments such salary as shall be assigned by the Queen, by Order in Council, not exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds per annum."
—said, he rose to make an objection to the paying the salary of the Judge out of the Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He did not think that, after a short time, the Judge would have much to do, at any rate, after a certain period had elapsed from the passing of the Bill—even if he took cases of immorality, which were extremely rare, and cases of doctrine, which it was hoped, for the peace of the Church, would be also extremely rare in the future; but that was a secondary question, upon which he did not wish then to give an opinion. He did not ask the House to give any opinion as to what ought to be the salary of this Judge, but would rather that that matter were separately considered. He admitted that the most efficient man possible should be obtained, but he did not agree with the objection that had been made to retired Judges. Many retired Judges returned to the Bench, and especially the Lord Chancellor, who commonly retired with the view of returning to office. In his opinion, it would be wise to appoint one who already had had some experience of a Judge's functions, and to select a man whose decisions would carry with them the weight of the

243
highest authority. What, however, he took his stand on was, the principle that from whatever other source the salary of the Judge was to be derived, it should not come from the Fund of the Commission. Let them consider the objects with which that Fund had been established. The whole plan of ecclesiastical reform connected with the re-modelling of the Episcopal incomes, and the great changes introduced into the cathedral bodies, depended on it, and it had been mainly established to remove two prime evils from the Church. One of them was the extreme poverty of certain benefices—so great that it was difficult to get efficient men to fill them; but, beyond that, there was the still greater mischief of a vast population not detached from the Established Church, but failing in active connection with it from the want of churches and pastors. For years statesmen and Ministers of all parties had co-operated in the establishment of a sufficient fund for the purpose of supplying those great deficiencies. There was also the providing of new Bishops, on the necessity of which Bishop Blomfield had insisted; and at one time it was thought by some that, as the Episcopal estates contributed largely to the Common Fund, a portion of it might be fitly devoted to the endowment of new bishoprics; but the proposal was opposed, and rejected, on the ground that if the Fund were once invaded other charges would be imposed upon it. The Common Fund had always been watched by Parliament with the greatest jealousy, and the watchfulness had been maintained down to the present day. It was with astonishment, therefore, that he had heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a proposal which was radically at variance with the ecclesiastical policy of the last 40 years. He believed that, with the exception of £300 a-year granted to maintain the Lambeth Library, there had been, during the period he had mentioned, no interference with the Common Fund. Let them look at the object of that Fund. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had made use of the Fund in such a way as to unlock private benevolence for the purpose of increasing the income of small benefices. For every pound, therefore, that would be taken from the Fund for the remuneration of this important officer, two pounds would be withdrawn from some of the most
244
important functions of the Church-namely, parochial duties among the poor. Even a moderate—perhaps a too moderate—salary for this Judge, drawn from the Fund, meant the salaries of 20, 30, or perhaps 40 of these incumbents and curates, going among the mass of the population, spending their time in preaching and teaching the young, in ministering and performing the services of the Church, and in consoling the sick. In short, such an amount of good would be withdrawn from these purposes that he hoped the House of Commons would be induced not to entertain the proposal. It was no part of his duty to suggest the other sources from whence the salary was to come; but he put it broadly, that it ought not to come from the Common Fund. He had already mentioned three sources from which it might be obtained, every one of which was preferable to that proposed. The proposal of the Bill was mischievous and evil in itself, and if it were once entertained, other claims would infallibly come up; and they would have no option with regard to them, if they now made a false step. He still hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to his Amendment; but, if he did not, he (Mr. Gladstone) would feel obliged to take the sense of the House upon it. He therefore begged to move the omission of the words directing that the salary should be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman had waited a few minutes he would have himself proposed this alteration. At an early stage of their proceedings that day he had mentioned that he had considerable doubts on the point, and that nothing would induce him to trespass upon the Common Fund, unless he was satisfied that every penny of it would be recouped. He thought the simplest plan would be to leave the new Judge as filling the office of the Judge of the Arches Court, the principal officer of the Chancery Court of York, and the Master of the Faculties; and, until some further legislation took place, he thought that had bettor remain so.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, what was wanted was a first-rate Judge, and they were going to offer him a situation in which the salary would depend in a great degree upon the income

245
of offices not yet vacant. In other words they were offering him a reversion. If they went into what had been called "the Judge market," and told a man that he would get certain offices when they were vacant, they would not be likely to get a good Judge. It would be necessary to offer a good salary for that purpose.
MR. NEWDEGATEmaintained that there was ample justification for the proposal in the Bill. For how had that Common Fund been formed? Out of incomes taken from the Bishops, who were, therefore, no longer able to meet the expense of prosecutions under the cumbrous machinery hitherto in use. Parliament had alienated the fund from purposes of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and therefore, in justice to those who had made the proposal, this salary ought to be given to the Judge out of the Common Fund.
MR. DILLWYNasked whore the money was to come from, if not out of the funds of the Church of England? He protested against its coming from the Common Fund of the country. It should not be forgotten that the Committee had limited the whole operation of the Bill to members of the so-called Church of England.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the question was, when they should meet again to resume the consideration of that Bill in Committee. It would be convenient if they could do so that evening. There were some Motions on the Paper which were interesting, but not of that absorbing character which the present Bill possessed. One of them, of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur), related to the Fiji Islands—a subject which now very much occupied the attention of the Government; and he did not think its discussion would be very convenient at the present moment. There were several other Motions by hon. Gentlemen which, although he appreciated their importance, he did not think could compete for a moment in interest with the continuance of their labours on that Bill: and. therefore, if those hon. Mem
246
bers would kindly give way and assist the House, he trusted that they might proceed at 9 o'clock with the Committee, and probably terminate it that night.
MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHURsaid, that after the very satisfactory statement made by the noble Lord in "another place" as to the intentions of the Government to yield to the expressed wish of the inhabitants of Fiji, and to annex those Islands, he did not think he would be acting rightly if he did not accede to the appeal just made to him by the Prime Minister.
MR. DISRAELI, while thanking the hon. Member for yielding to his suggestion, would be sorry to obtain that concession under anything like false pretences. The hon. Member had certainly made a communication to the House which his noble Colleague in "another place" had not made to him (Mr. Disraeli).
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
And it being now five minutes to seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.

THE FIJI ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. GOSCHENwished to ask, "Whether a day would be given for the discussion of the Fiji question? The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman W. M 'Arthur) had given way to the wish of the House; but he trusted an assurance would be given that before Parliament separated, an opportunity would be afforded for discussing a question of so much importance.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The Government will take care that the House shall have an opportunity of discussing the question before Parliament separates.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee. House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 176.]
(Mr. Russell Gurney.)
PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 176.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. DILLWYNin moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the words in page 4, from "every" in line 6, to "vacant" in line 10, said, he should like to know upon what grounds it was proposed to revise tests for appointments to offices. Such a proviso only cast a slur upon the Judge. He had no doubt that any Judge who might be appointed, whether Churchman, Dissenter, or Roman Catholic, would be impartial. A Churchman, might, indeed, sympathize with one of the parties in the Church, and it could with some reason be argued that greater impartiality might be looked for in a Dissenter or Roman Catholic. He thought they were all agreed as to the importance of appointing the best possible man as the Judge, but for his part he would rather have seen a full-blown Judge than one selected by the Archbishop. He wished to know from the right hon. and learned Recorder, if he had any reason for requiring that declaration to be made? However, whether they appointed a Churchman, Dissenter, or Roman Catholic Judge, he hoped they would be able to secure as good Judges in future as those now on the Bench.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out from the word "Every," in line 6, to the word" vacant," in line 10, both inclusive."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words' Every person appointed to be a judge under this Act shall be a member of the Church of England' stand part of the Clause."
  MR BEESFORD HOPEbegged the hon. Member for Swansea to recollect that the individual to be appointed Judge must be the Dean of Arches and Master of Faculties—the alter ego of the Archbishop. He was to represent the Church of England in all her judicial functions as the substitute, deputy, and assessor of the two Primates. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with having spoken to his Amendment, and would not divide the
  248
  Committee on a proposal so preposterous. They might far more reasonably propose that the Lord Chancellor should be a Roman Catholic.
  MR. GOSCHENtrusted the right hon. and learned Recorder would consider whether it was not absolutely certain that the two Archbishops would appoint a member of the Church of England to hold the office. To suppose that the two Archbishops would appoint anybody not a member of the Church of England was really to imagine something too preposterous. Was it therefore worth while to introduce into the Bill a clause of that description, when hon. Members opposite had fully acknowledged that Judges of all denominations were perfectly impartial? He thought his hon. Friend was quite justified in raising the question, because it was undesirable to introduce an invidious clause into the Bill. He thought no one in that House would wish that the appointment should be held by anybody who was not a member of the Church of England. They ought not to depart from the broad ground of the National Church, which was the strong ground upon which the Bill rested. He was opposed to introducing new tests injudicial appointments at that time of day.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member for Swansea would not press his Amendment. The question was already practically decided, as the Judge must be Master of the Faculties and hold certain other offices which undoubtedly would be held only by a member of the Church of England. Besides, he felt they ought to conciliate the clergy in a matter of this kind. It was only right that the individual who was to be considered the judge of their conduct should be a member of the Church of England; and if that was the opinion of the Committee, they should have the courage to say so.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTalso expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Swansea would not press his Amendment. If the Bill went forth to the public with the assumption that the Judge might or might not be a Nonconformist, it would not work.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that the Dean of Arches and Master of the Faculties would be obliged to sign a declaration that he was a Member of the Church of England.
  MR. GOSCHENthought there were ample securities in the Bill that the Judge to be appointed should belong to the Church of England, without the use of those words. What he objected to was the introduction of a new test into the Bill.
  MR. MOWBRAYhoped they would get through the Committee on the Bill to-night; but with that view, it was very desirable that their time should not be taken up with unnecessary discussion.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsupported the Amendment. If those words were retained, the obvious inference would be that the Church was resolved to carry things her own way, in conformity with the views of the small sect to which, in his opinion, she would be reduced in a few years' time. He thought that as the Imperial Court of Appeal did not necessarily consist of Churchmen, it was absurd to require that the Judge of the Court of First Instance should be a Churchman.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) seemed to forget that there was a great distinction between the Judge who was to be appointed and the Privy Council or the Court of Appeal. This Judge would take the place of some Ecclesiastical Judge. He was to be paid out of the revenues of the Church, and would possess a distinctly ecclesiastical character as a Judge. But the Court of Appeal was in no sense an ecclesiastical tribunal. It was the highest Court in the land; the Judges were paid out of the national Revenue, and their position was not at all similar to that of the Judge, whose quality and condition they were now discussing. He, for one, regretted that it was necessary to insert words of such a questionable nature in the clause; he lamented it as a disagreeable necessity; but when it was proposed to strike them out, he felt how necessary it was to retain them. It would be obviously impossible for any one not a member of the Church of England to be appointed by the Archbishop as an Ecclesiastical Judge, to be paid out of the revenues of the Church, and for that reason he could see no reasonable objection to the words being retained.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, as this Judge would be the only Ecclesiastical Judge left, and he was to deal only with the
  250
  affairs of the Church of England, it was asking for more than liberty for Dissenters to strike out the words; it was simply doing violence to the feelings of the clergy.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, the question was not settled what a member of the Church of England was. It was a very important question, and one that would have to be settled before long, for there was more difference between Churchmen than between them and Dissenters. He believed the Bill to be a bad Bill, and wished to make it as little objectionable as possible.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 32: Majority 82.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was so anxious that the Bill should pass that he had put no Amendments on the Paper; but he had always entertained a strong opinion on the nomination of this Judge by any other authority than the supreme authority in this country, the Head of the Church—that was the Crown. He would now ask the right hon. and learned Recorder to consider the question before the Report; and he would put an Amendment on the Paper providing that the nomination of this Judge should be in the Crown. Most of them had in various capacities solemnly declared their adherence to the principle, that the Sovereign of these Realms was in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, in these Her Dominions supreme. He thought that it would be most mischievous and dangerous to encourage the idea that there was any difference between causes ecclesiastical and civil as regarded their mode of treatment. The responsibility of such an appointment as the one in question ought to rest on the Sovereign under the advice of her responsible Ministers, and the proposal was in no way inconsistent with the vote at which they had arrived, while it would avoid the scandal which would ensue if the appointment were left in abeyance, owing to the two Archbishops not being able to agree upon an appointment. He therefore gave Notice that on the bringing up of the Report he should move an Amendment to that effect.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he did not propose to discuss the Notice then, but he altogether protested against his hon. and learned Friend using a term in respect to Her Majesty which had been refused by Queen Elizabeth and had never been employed since her time, except by Queen Anne. Her Majesty was not the head of the Church of England.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, Her Majesty was in terms of the statute of the 1st of Elizabeth "Supreme Governor of the Church," a distnction which he confessed was of a somewhat feminine character. He would, however, correct his phrase, and say that the Supreme Governor of the Church was the proper person to appoint this ecclesiastical Judge.
  MR. HORSMANdiffered entirely from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken. If this appointment devolved upon the Crown, everybody knew that it would be made by the Prime Minister, and would therefore be a political appointment. Suppose they took a case—not at all a probable one for some years to come—that they had a Ritualistic Prime Minister, who denounced the Act of Uniformity, who threw discredit on the Reformation, who endeavoured by placing Resolutions on the Table—["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen called "Oh" because they immediately recognized the probability of what he was suggesting. Supposing they had a Prime Minister who endeavoured to obtain absolute impunity for the most ingenious, audacious, and unscrupulous persons—for those who went further than any one at the present moment had ventured to go in undermining the religion of the country. What would be the result? It was not till the time of Lord Aberdeen that Letters of Business were again issued to Convocation, and it was owing to that action on the part of a Prime Minister that Convocation once more became a difficulty in the way of Parliament. They had already felt very strongly the mischievous effects of this revival, and they had just escaped the danger arising from the fact that a member of the liberal Party had proposed Resolutions which amounted in effect to a complete revolution. A Ritualistic Prime Minister might make the appointment of this Judge in accordance with his own par
  252
  ticular views, and might override the wishes of his Colleagues, of the House of Commons, and of the country, whereas they would obtain a better security by leaving the power in the hands of the Archbishop.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwould venture to remind the Committee, that there was plenty to be done without now discussing a proposal which must be fully debated on the Report.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Representation by archdeacon, rural clean, churchwarden, or parishioners.)
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, lino 13, to leave out "or the rural," to" deanery," in the next line. He thought it advisable that the rural dean should be exempted from the clause, as he was not a distant and elevated official like the Archdeacon, but only a primus inter pares to his brother clergymen.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be adopted. The effect of the retention of rural deans in the Bill would be to create distinctions between rural deans and neighbouring clergymen, which, in fact, did not exist.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTmoved, as an Amendment, that the words "the churchwardens," should be substituted for the words "a churchwarden," in line 14. It ought not, he thought, to be in the power of one person to disturb a parish or district by the adoption of legal proceedings under the Bill.
  MR. GOSCHENpointed out that to adopt the Amendment would be in effect to defeat the object of the Bill. Could it be expected that the vicar's churchwarden would take proceedings against the vicar?
  LORD JOHN MANNERShoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTobserved that in some parishes there was but one churchwarden. In such districts, if the Amendment were adopted, the Bill would be inoperative.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that as the Bill stood a churchwarden of what he might call the mother parish, in which parish there were several districts and several churches, might take proceedings which would affect all the churches in the district. That was not a provision

  253
  which he thought the Committee ought to approve.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreferred his hon. Friend who last addressed the Committee to the Interpretation Clause, by which it was made clear that a churchwarden—whether of the mother church of a parish or of a district in the parish—could only by any action he took affect the particular district in respect of which he had been selected or elected.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYopposed the Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that although he was no friend to the Bill, he could not be a party to anything which would make it unworkable, as he believed that Amendment would do.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought a definition of churchwarden should be inserted in the Interpretation Clause.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, that what they wished was not to give too much power to one churchwarden. If more than one were necessary to make a complaint, unless the two agreed nothing could be done. He thought the Amendment, if carried, would tend to prevent litigation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TORRENSmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 14, to leave out "three," and insert "twelve." He thought three was too small a number of parishioners entitled to take steps to put the machinery of the Bill into operation.
  SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFFalso thought three far too small for large parishes. He appealed to the right hon. and learned Recorder as to whether he could not introduce some Amendment on the Report, on the principle of a sliding scale, so that an incumbent might be secure against vexatious interference.
  SIR WILLIAM TIARCOURThoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not alter the number of parishioners named in the Bill. The general principle of law was that any of Her Majesty's subjects were entitled to complain of a broach of the law; but, seeing that three was the number fixed by the other House, and that there was no particular reason why they should take one number more than another, he was content to abide by it, inasmuch as it gave some security against individual malignity.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to substitute "six" for "three;" but as three had come down from the other House, he should not try to disturb it. He should, however, like to have some guarantee that the three parishioners should be substantial men, and not men of straw. He would therefore give Notice of his intention to move an Amendment to the effect that the parishioners should have resided in the parish for at least 12 months.
  MR. GOSCHENsuggested that the number should be "three or more." As security for the payment of costs had to be given when required, he thought it should be left open for the number of persons instituting proceedings to be more than three, if thought necessary, in order to distribute the liability to pay costs. He should therefore move, in the proper place, to insert the words "or more" after the word" three."
  MR. GOLDNEYdid not see any necessity for those words. He thought they would tend to cast a reflection upon the three people who were willing to make the representation, and for that reason, he thought the Committee ought to adhere to the number "three."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he should adhere to the words he had proposed. Their insertion could not do any possible harm, and he should like to hear the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder upon them.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he certainly intended to adhere to the word "three." First of all, when the Bill was introduced, "one" was inserted; but the question was submitted to Convocation, and they altered the number to "three," and they did not insist upon resident householders.
  MR. GLADSTONEsupported the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen). He thought the insertion of the proposed words very important.
  MR. A. EGERTONhoped that the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) would be agreed to.
  MR. HORSMANcontended that by the Bill the number of parishioners was not limited to three. It simply proposed that three should be the minimum.
  MR. DODSONthought the Committee would do well to adopt the clause

  255
  as it stood. Under the Church Discipline Act of 1840 the words used were "any party," which might mean anybody.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOSCHENmoved, as an Amendment, in line 14, to insert after "three," the words" or more."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he thought the words were quite unnecessary.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYthought that the words would do no harm, but certainly they would do no good.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, any hon. Member who acted as a magistrate at quarter sessions must have noticed how memorials were got up in every parish, and the same course might be adopted in this case. He hoped the number "three" would be adhered to.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, as an Amendment, in line 15, after "parish" to insert—
  "and who have been resident householders me the parish during at least the last preceding twelve months."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked, why they were to be householders. Very often the curate was not a householder. Why was a parishioner to be disqualified because he was a lodger?
  MR. PELLsaid, he could have understood the Amendment, if it had provided that the man should be a resident worshipper.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, the Committee had already decided that the man should be a parishioner, and that was enough.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he should heartily prefer the word "worshipper" to "householder." No doubt, a lodger might be as good a man as a householder, and a man might be a good man although he slept in Hyde Park. He only followed the analogy of our Constitution, which made a householder an elector.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwould remind his hon. Friend that there was a lodger as well as a household franchise. All they wanted was the guarantee that the persons complaining were bonâ fide parishioners, and he thought they had that in the "12 months' residence."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that was true of boroughs, but there was no
  256
  lodger franchise for counties. As the clause stood, the three parishioners might be one strong man and two "dummies." They might be a man and his two sons or servants. He wanted three independent opinions.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, as an Amendment, in line 15, to leave out the words" rural deanery."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WAIT, in moving an Amendment, said, he did so for the purpose of giving effect to the Resolution to which the Committee had come during the morning sitting, bringing cathedrals within the scope of the Bill. He proposed that the requisition of three inhabitants of the diocese, addressed to the Bishop, should have the same effect as the requisition of three parishioners in the case of a parish church.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 17, after the word "provided," to insert the words" or in case of cathedrals, any three inhabitants of the diocese who have signed and transmitted to the bishop under their hands the declaration contained in Schedule A under this Act, and who either have, and for one year next before taking any proceeding under this Act have had their usual place of abode in the diocese within which the cathedral is situated."—(Mr. Wait.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Wait) would not press the Amendment, as the question of the cathedrals would be gone into on the 16th clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the Committee having determined that "cathedral" meant "church" in the Interpretation Clause, it would be entirely inconsistent with their recent decision to insert cathedrals in the clause. If the proposed Amendment were made, there would be no necessity for retaining the 16th clause.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was no doubt the 16th clause had been put into the Bill on the understanding that cathedrals were to be dealt with separately, but the alteration now affected in Clause 8 rendered it necessary that they should be regarded merely as larger churches, He always looked upon

  257
  the cathedral as the mother church of the diocese—the church which set the example to all the parish churches—and therefore every parishioner within the diocese was interested in seeing that the services there were properly conducted. Moreover, "three resident parishioners," who would be liable to costs, gave ample security that they would not interfere without solid grounds.
  MR. CHILDERSmoved, as an Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, the omission in line 3 of the word "either."
  Amendment agreed to; proposed Amendment amended accordingly.
  SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLEFsaid, he objected to the omission of Clause 16 as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEalso objected against juggling away their determination as suggested by his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the clause, having been constructed upon the basis of non-application to cathedrals, would be imperfect if it remained as it was. It should be amended, either to include or exclude them. He would appeal to the right hon. and learned Recorder to state how he regarded the question—whether as the clause was now altered it placed cathedrals and other churches upon the same footing?
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the question had come upon him by surprise, and any other Member of the Committee was competent as he to interpret the provision. He thought, however, the difficulty might be removed, when they reached the 16th clause.
  MR. WALPOLEconsidered that the clause did not apply to cathedrals.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)supposed that there were cathedrals in England as in Ireland which were parish churches. He wished to point out that the clause as it stood could not affect cathedrals, inasmuch as neither the archdeacon, the rural dean, or the churchwardens—the persons through whom the complaint was to be made—had ever had any jurisdiction over cathedrals, which were in their nature "peculiar." He suggested that they should, after the word
  258
  " church," insert the words "other than a cathedral."
  MR. MONKsaid, he had been in a cathedral when 150 banns of marriage were published; there could be no doubt therefore that that was a parish church. As the Bill was drawn, it was intended to exempt cathedrals; but the Committee had now decided that cathedral churches should not be exempted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that the clause should be restored to its original shape.
  Question put,
  "That the words' or in case of cathedrals, any three inhabitants of the diocese who have signed and transmitted to the bishop under their hands the declaration contained in Schedule A under this Act, and who have, and for one year next before taking any proceeding under this Act have had their usual place of abode in the diocese within which the cathedral is situated' be inserted after the word 'provided,' in line 17."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 57: Majority 181.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEY, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 19, after the word "made," to insert" during the incumbency of the incumbent," said, the effect of it would be to exempt from the operation of the Bill alterations or additions made without a faculty during that period.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the right hon. and learned Recorder ought to take the initiative in proposing that the Bill should be made applicable to illegal conduct on the part of the Bishops, as well as to offences committed by incumbents. The Bill had not the slightest reference to the conduct of the Bishops in the performance of Divine Service. He wished to draw attention to the fact that in every parish the Bishop of the diocese had the right to be minister whenever, and as often as he pleased, to the extent even of setting the incumbent aside. That being the case, it seemed to him highly inexpedient, especially in the case of a Bill framed under episcopal sanction, and which had for its object to establish legality in too bare and naked a form, that an immunity so unnecessary and so useless should be established on behalf of the Bishops themselves. That immunity would be at once invidious and unnecessary. He would not himself bring forward a proposal on the subject, as if he did so, he would pro

  259
  bably be met with the objection that there was no machinery to carry it out, and that it would impede the progress of the Bill; but he thought the right hon. and learned Recorder ought to take the matter up and endeavour to remedy, if possible, the imperfection to which he had referred.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was essential that the Bishops should act in conformity with the law; but as the Bill stood, they might stop the very proceedings they had initiated. He hoped words would be inserted requiring that notice should be given to the parishioners of an intention to apply for an order to alter the fabric of the church.
  MR. A. MILLSpointed out that the discussion was wandering from the subject of the Motion. The time might arrive when words relating to the conduct of the Bishop might be inserted; but the Amendment which had been made had no reference to that question.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that by the common law of the Church, the fabric of the church was in the hands not of the incumbent, but of the churchwardens, with an exception as to the chancel in the case of a rectory; and the clause, in a very quiet way, introduced quite a new principle, by making the incumbent responsible where he had not been so before. He would suggest that the words" and by his direction" should be added to those proposed to be inserted. The incumbent would then be liable and punishable for any illegality of which he might be guilty, but not for the acts of others.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDexpressed agreement with the last speaker.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not see why additions to the fabric of the church, ornaments, or alterations of any kind should be continued if they were illegal. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Recorder would leave the clause as it stood.
  MR. CORDESthought the churchwardens, and not the incumbent, should be made responsible for any illegality with regard to the fabric or the furniture.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, that according to the proposed Amendment, parishes would have now power to take proceedings with respect to anything done before a specified time, and he did not think
  260
  that such a provision was in accordance with the spirit or object of the measure.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, the real offender ought to be dealt with, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a mistake in making his proposition, he (Mr. Cawley) should vote against it.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was foreign to the intention of the Bill to amend the clause in the manner proposed. The second and third sub-sections limited proceeding to offences which had been committed within a limited time, and if the third sub-section were amended in the way proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there would practically be no remedy in certain cases, because the irregularity might have existed for 10 or 20 years, and it would include a number of things perfectly legal and proper. It would enable any three persons to complain of matters which had occurred during the previous incumbency, and with which the present incumbent had nothing to do. That must be vexatious in the extreme.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was quite clear that the incumbent was "the person" intended to be punished, for he was "the person" who would be made responsible by the proposal of the right hon. and learned Recorder. That proposal would allow any person to raise a complaint of a thing as an illegality although it was of the greatest possible benefit to a church. He did not object to some limit of time as to alterations of a church; but he asked anyone who had been connected with alterations in churches, whether the Bishop had not been only too glad if people would attempt to alter a church without asking for faculties? When things were not illegal, it was monstrous that anybody should be allowed to raise what might prove to be a vexatious litigation on the subject.
  MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the Amendment went beyond the matter of illegalities aimed at by the Bill, to a branch of the existing Ecclesiastical Law which had nothing to do with these illegalities, and recommended that the operation of the clause should be confined throughout to the latter. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Recorder would give effect to that view, so as to keep the clause in conformity with the purpose of the Bill. A faculty, however,

  261
  could not be had without a fee, but if there was no fund out of which to pay the fee, there would be a great difficulty in getting a faculty.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTagreed in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. He objected to the scope of the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the object of the clause was to prevent an incumbent from putting up a high altar in place of a Communion table, and therefore he did not think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman necessary.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsuggested that the desired object would be obtained by making the clause read "fabrics, ornaments, or furniture forbidden by law."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that instead of the proposed Amendment, he would move that the clause be so amended as to read, "any alteration in, or addition to the fabric, ornaments, or furniture thereof, forbidden by law."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYthought it very undesirable to exclude fabrics from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. DODSONsuggested that the difficulty might be met by an alteration of the wording of the section in question, so as to lay open to proceedings any alteration or addition to the fabric or furniture that might have been unlawfully made, or any decoration forbidden by law.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)maintained that the clause ought to be without limitation as to the incumbency of any particular incumbent, and should be guarded by the introduction of the words "forbidden by law" or "unlawfully made."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he would be glad to adopt the words "unlawfully made."
  Amendment (Mr. Russell Gurney), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Childers) agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. CHILDERS, Amendment made in page 4, line 20, by striking out the words "without a faculty from the ordinary authorizing or confirming such alteration or addition."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved as Amendment, in page 4, line 23, to leave out "twelve," and insert "six." He did so, because he thought it would
  262
  be advantageous to substitute six months for 12, as the time within which the re-presentation should be made. If the archdeacon, churchwarden, or three parishioners, had not found out the unlawful ornament within six months, they ought to have no right to prosecute the incumbent.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, six months would not be sufficient, because the archdeacon ought to have time to receive information.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HUBBARDmoved, as an Amendment, in line 26, to insert after "Church or" the following words—"neglected to use any prescribed ornament or vesture."
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, after the word "church," to insert the words" or neglected to use any prescribed ornament or vesture."—(Mr. Hubbard.)
  Question proposed, "That those words by there inserted."
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he must decidedly oppose the Amendment as unnecessary.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 125: Majority 25.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLE, who had to move the next Amendment upon the Paper, said, it was hopeless to expect that its discussion could be concluded at that sitting, and, as it would be inconvenient to adjourn in the middle of the discussion, he should move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he should be happy to give every possible facility for the discussion of the Bill, but he thought it was a rather early hour—twenty minutes to one—to report Progress. He hoped the Committee would go on for another hour before reporting Progress.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Amendment was of some importance, and it was quite plain that nothing would be gained by commencing a discussion upon it, unless there was a prospect of completing it. He was very desirous to

  263
  see the Bill go forward without delay, and did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) unduly; but considering that the Amendment was only placed upon the books of the House on the preceding evening, and as the right hon. and learned Recorder could not possibly have had an opportunity of communicating upon it with those he would probably think it his duty to consult, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought they would make much better progress by deferring the discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow them to resume the discussion on Monday, at an hour when they would be able to finish the discussion in the course of the sitting, it would expedite Public Business. [Cries of "Go on!"]
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, that he had no desire to hinder proceedings; but as it was impossible the discussion could be concluded at that sitting, he believed it would assist the progress of the Bill not to commence it now.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 198: Majority 142.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, that he would accept the decision of the Committee, and at once proceed with his Amendment, which was to add, in page 4, line 41, after "representation," the words—
  "And it shall be the duty of the bishop on the receipt of the representation to ascertain, so far as he is able, whether the practice specified in such representation is or is not in accordance with the established custom, and whether it is or is not in consonance with the wishes of the members of the Church of England resident in the parish, and with the wishes of the persons attending or desiring to attend the services in such church."
  His Amendment arose from the apprehension that the Bill might not only put down Ritualism, which he approved, but also put down the exercise of common sense and reason. The stern enforcement of every iota of the laws which had originated under circumstances different from the present, might revoke several of those improvements in the rubrics which were generally considered necessary or convenient, and which were in accordance with the spirit, though not with the letter, of the law. Many of the rules and directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer were framed to suit the habits and practices of past
  264
  times, and not to decide disputed questions of doctrine. Full discretion ought to be entrusted to the Bishop, so that he might be clearly authorized to withhold from the Judge such departures from the rubric as had been sanctioned by general consent and approval. To compel every incumbent to read morning and evening service in the parish church, with an attendance of only three persons, would be instituting an irksome formality, and withdrawing him from other more urgent duties. The interruption of the evening service for the public catechizing of children, was a practice rendered obsolete by the improvement of schools, and its revival would diminish attendance. The recital of the Athana-sian Creed had often been omitted by the consent of all the congregation, and there were distinguished clergymen who would prefer secession from the Church to the observance of the rubric, because though they assented doctrinally to the Creed, they objected to impose it upon congregations who would misunderstand it. To prosecute a clergyman, would, under the circumstances, be a public misfortune. By this, and by a subsequent Amendment, he wished to give to the parishioners a voice in the decision of discretionary questions. Many of the difficulties of the Church resulted from its still retaining the old feudal forms and principles. As the State was the nation organized for civil purposes, so the National Church was the nation organized for public worship and religious teaching. It was unfortunate that no popular changes had occurred in the administration of the Church analogous to those Constitutional reforms which had taken place in the government of the State. As Louis XIV. once said—"The State—it is me," clergymen thought—" The Church—it is me." The position of the Bishop was still feudal; he was lord over the clergy, and the clergy over the people, and neither thought it necessary to consult the laity. He should like to see introduced into the Bill some representation of the laity to act with the Bishop, for if the laity had been placed in a position of authority to co-operate with the clergy, many of the disasters which this Bill was designed to remedy would not have arisen. If the State Church had undergone some constitutional changes, such as had been made in the State itself, it

  265
  would have been more in harmony than it now was with the national feeling, and the development of sacerdotalism would not have been so alarming. By a further Amendment he would propose that the Bishop should transmit the representation to the churchwardens, who should convene a meeting of the parishioners. By that means the Bishop would get a knowledge of their wishes which could not be obtained by any private inquiry. Among the facts that would be elements in his consideration, and which would thus be ascertained, would be the established custom of the place and the wishes of the members of the congregation and the resident parishioners. The Bishop would then be able to consider whether the practices complained of were obsolete or not adapted to the circumstances of the parish, and by that procedure his hands would be strengthened in the functions imposed upon him by the Bill. If a complaint were puerile or frivolous, he could exercise a discretion as to allowing it to proceed further; and he was anxious that a Bishop should not be deprived of the fuller powers he possessed, under the Church Discipline Act, of exercising a discretion as to whether a complaint should he sent further for adjudication. The Bishop would continue to be the only responsible person, and must give a reason for his conduct. The proposal could not involve the continuance of any serious breach of the law, and it would help the Bishop in the exercise of a discretion demanded by public opinion. That which constituted the real grievance in respect of many Ritualistic innovations was that they were changes introduced by the incumbent against the wishes of the congregation, and the indignation often arose, not from the change itself, but from its having been made without the assent of the people attending the church. For these reasons, he begged to move the first of the Amendments of which he had given Notice.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would move to report Progress, and in doing so, would refer to the amount of work which the House had got through during the week. They had sat since 2 o'clock on the previous day, and it was not unreasonable 12 hours afterwards and at the end of the week, to ask the House to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would not oppose the Motion to report Progress, were it not that he thought there was a very general feeling in the Committee in favour of coming to a conclusion on the question under discussion. Surely in the course of another hour they could have sufficiently discussed the Amendment, for he believed the majority of the Committee were not in a mood to discuss it, as they were quite opposed to its purport.
  MR. HUBBARDregarded the Amendment as a very simple one. It merely gave the Bishop instructions how to act in certain circumstances. The House was, he thought, now in a position to come to a decision respecting it.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he could not look upon the question raised as simple. It was one which deserved, and, he hoped, would receive further consideration.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that unless Progress were reported, it would be bettor for all the Amendments on the Paper to be dropped; for the Bill to be allowed to pass through Committee, and for the Amendments to be revived upon the Report. As it was, it would be impossible for that most important Amendment to be discussed at such an hour (twenty minutes past one o'clock.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not concur in the view just expressed by his right hon. Friend, and for this reason—that the question before the Committee was not a new one. It was, in point of fact, that which was in the fourth of the six Resolutions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. Was it to be said that if the parish wished the minister to perform the Mass the performance of the mass was therefore to be regarded as legal? If that were so, the parishioners, and not the Legislature, would be the makers of the law.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that it was not because his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich had withdrawn his Resolutions, that the House should be taken to have discussed the principle they involved. He could not think that the country would be satisfied if at half-past one o'clock in the

  267
  morning they—at that period of the Session—adjourned the debate.
  MR. SANDFORDprotested against the question of the Mass being introduced into the discussion as it had been by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that the question before the Committee was the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, that being so, the argument to which he was about to reply when called to Order was extremely irregular.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTbelieved that if the Committee came to a decision upon the subject at that time, it would save a great deal of time hereafter.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had withdrawn the Resolutions, in order that the questions they raised might be altogether severed from the progress of the present Bill. That was a question in respect to which the House had not merely to consider the discussion among themselves, but it was also desirable that the public should be informed of what hon. Members were doing. If they debated the matter from that time until 3 o'clock in the morning, full justice could not be done to it, and of what avail or profit would it be as far as the country was concerned? The continuation of the state of illegality which had been referred to by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford was one which could only be properly interpreted by reference to the entire history of our Church since the Reformation. In his judgment, it would be necessary, or at least desirable, to renew the discussion on the Report, and to take that opportunity of explaining a matter of great importance, under such circumstances that the country would be likely to obtain information of what hon. Members were about, which it could not do, if the course proposed were persisted in. Perhaps it might be necessary to move the re-committal of the Bill.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would consent to Progress being reported. With regard to the further progress of the Bill, he might state that the Government intended to proceed on Monday with the Endowed Schools Bill in Committee. If it passed through Committee on that day he would propose that this Bill should be proceeded with on Tuesday, and he
  268
  should also ask the House to continue the discussion of it in Committee on Wednesday, if necessary.
  MR. GLADSTONEsuggested that it would be more convenient to proceed with the present Bill on Monday, and to postpone until Tuesday the consideration in Committee of the Endowed Schools Bill.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he could not adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, as he had to look at the relative positions of the two Bills with regard to the other House of Parliament. The Public Worship Regulation Bill had already passed the House of Lords, whereas the Endowed Schools Bill had not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to amend the Law respecting certain receipts and expenses connected with Private Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 215.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.