Commons Sitting of 28 July 1874

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Henry Robert Brand, esquire, for Stroud.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—East India Finance [No. 329].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 27] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [July 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *.
Second Reading—Prince Leopold's Annuity [232].
Referred to Select Committee—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* [207].
Committee—Report—Public Worship Regulation* [176–236]; Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police * [196]; Vaccination Act, 1871, Amendment* [226].
Considered as amended—Foyle College * [208]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [229].
Third Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) * [209]; Registration of Births and Deaths * [224]; Lough Corrib Navigation* [218]; Turnpike Acts Continuance * [186]; Valuation (Ireland) Act Amendment* [134], and passed.

POST OFFICE—RATES OF POSTAGE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND ITALY.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the Postmaster General, Whether any means are in contemplation to reduce the rates of Postage between this Country and Italy, the present rate on letters being nearly twice the rate between this Country and France—namely, sixpence per half-ounce, and the rate between Italy and the United States being fivepence halfpenny per half-ounce?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that the Italian mails were about to be sent through France instead of Germany, and Her Majesty's Government were most desirous that a reduction should take place in the postage of the letters. He was in communication with the Italian Post Office authorities on the subject. He was anxious that the reduction should be greater than the Italian Post Office authorities proposed. Hitherto they had not seen their way to the reduction he proposed; but he hoped that before long an agreement would be arrived at for the reduction of the Postage.

ARMY—MILITIA—INSTRUCTORS OF MUSKETRY.—QUESTION.
MR. FORTESCUE HARRISONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain to the House why the pay and allowances of Instructors of musketry of regiments of Militia sent to Aldershot for the Summer drills have been disallowed for all the days they attended there, except those days on which they were actually engaged in musketry instruction; whether this is not at variance with the engagement under which Officers of Militia went to Hythe
852
and qualified for their appointments; and, whether it is intended to follow a similar course with regard to musketry Instructors attached to the regi-of the Line?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that with respect to the last Question, the hon. Member would be aware that Musketry Instructors attached to a regiment of the Line had continuous payment, and that they were not in the same position as Instructors of the Militia, who were trained for a special purpose. As to the Instructors at Hythe, they would have the usual allowance—namely, an allowance for each day that they gave instructions.

PARLIAMENT—SALE OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTER, asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that there is no Office at which Acts of Parliament can be purchased within the precincts of the House of Commons, and if he would request Messrs. Spottis-woode to supply Acts passed by the last and present Parliament to Messrs. Hansard for the use of Members?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that although he was aware that there was no special Office within the precincts of the House for the sale of Acts of Parliament, he had reason to believe that they might be purchased by Members within those precincts. He would inquire whether further facilities should be given to Members of Parliament for the purchase of Acts.

CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS—RULES OF MILITARY WARFARE.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a final determination as to sending a Representative to the Congress at Brussels; and, if that determination be in the affirmative, whether there is any objection to stating the name of the Representative?
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, we have received satisfactory communications from the Powers in answer to our Circular, and therefore we have not thought it in our power any longer to refuse to send a delegate to the Conference at Brussels; and subject to those conditions and stipulations with which

853
the House is familiar from the Despatches which have been laid upon the Table, we have instructed Major General Horsford to attend that Conference as military delegate.

ACCESS TO THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Sir EDWARD WATKIN), asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is now prepared to give an answer to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford) in reference to the Order of the Lord Chamberlain, whereby the public were to be excluded from free access to the Houses of Parliament?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he had been in communication with the Lord Great Chamberlain upon the subject of the recent Police Order, and he was sure that the object of the noble Lord had been entirely misunderstood. The Lord Great Chamberlain's sole object was to take care that there should be a sufficient safeguard with reference to visitors, and to give ample facilities for every person to see the House who was entitled to do so he hoped that that night arrangements would be concluded which would be satisfactory both to the officers of the House and to the public at large

SPAIN—THE GERMAN SQUADRON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'CLEBYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any intimation from the Imperial German Authorities relative to the statement of the "Nord-Deutsche Zeitung," "that the German Squadron now stationed off the Isle of Wight will be ordered to cruise on the northern coast of Spain;" and, should such be the fact, to ask, are the Government prepared to make any statement to the House on the subject?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received no intelligence that a positive decision has been arrived at by the German Government to send a Naval Squadron to cruise off the coast of Spain; but we have reason to believe that the German Government are considering the expediency of ordering
  854
  a Squadron into those waters. The only statement Her Majesty's Government have to make upon the subject is that they presume the only object the German Government have in taking this step is to protect the lives and property of German subjects in Spain, which may be endangered in consequence of the Civil War which is now raging in that country.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—TOTTENHAM LOCAL BOARD—THE RIVER LEA.—QUESTION.
MR. JOHN HOLMSasked the Secretary of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the pollution of the River Lea at Tottenham by sewage, and to the fact that a large number of dead fish are found lining the edge of the towing-path, producing a state of the atmosphere which is most detrimental to the health of the neighbourhood; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken by the Government to remedy the evil?
MR. CLARE READ, in reply, said, that the attention of the Board had for a considerable time been drawn to the state of the River Lea; and on the 23rd instant they received a Memorial on the subject, in which the circumstance with regard to the dead fish was referred to. The Board had for many months past been urging upon the sanitary authorities of Tottenham the necessity of completing without delay the works undertaken by them for the deodorization of their sewage, and on the 23rd instant—the same day on which the Memorial was received—the Board were informed by the Tottenham Local Board that the new tanks would be put into work at once, and would be steadily at work from that date. The Local Board also stated that they had settled the preliminary arrangements with a Company for treating the sewage, and they trusted that before many weeks elapsed the process would be in operation.

ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAK COTTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that firms are still being prosecuted and fined for selling wholesome but common teas, alleged to be adulterated, but which are

  855
  of such quality as the Parliamentary Committee recommend to be admitted for consumption; and, whether he can issue a Circular to the magistrates expressing the wish that they will be especially careful in carrying out the law until an opportunity has been afforded for fresh Legislation?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had not been called to the prosecution of offences under the Adulteration of Food Act. That matter came under the cognizance of the Local Government Board rather than that of the Home Office he did not think it was competent to the Home Secretary to issue a Circular to magistrates instructing them that they should be specially careful as to the way in which they carried out the Law on this subject as long as that Law existed. He entirely agreed with an Answer which was given by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board the other night—that it was impossible for the Government to take any steps which would have the effect of restricting the operation of the Law or to introduce a suspensory Bill. But, he trusted that having regard to the Report of the Select Committee who had inquired into this subject this Session the local authorities would be extremely careful in instituting prosecutions on the subject of adulteration of food until an opportunity had been afforded for Legislation.

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS—ARREST FOR DEBT.—QUESTION.
MR. LOCKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is able to give the fuller information he promised on the subject of arrest for debt on mesne process in the Channel Islands?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, read the following telegram which he had received from the Jersey authorities:—
"Arrest under mesne process exists in Jersey. It is regulated by a Law passed by the States of Jersey on the 3rd January, 1862, and confirmed by an Order of Her Majesty in Council, dated the 21st of March of that year. The creditor before causing' his debtor to be arrested must make before a magistrate an affidavit that the claim is to the best of his belief justly due. The debtor may avoid going to prison by giving bail for his appearance to answer the demand before a proper Court. This process applies to Englishmen in Jersey who may be arrested at
856
the suit of English creditors for a debt contracted in England. At the time of making the arrest the sheriff or arresting officer is bound to deliver to the person arrested a detailed statement of the account against him."

ARMY—REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Regimental Exchanges Bill this Session?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that he would endeavour this Session to proceed with the Bill giving effect to the Report of the Commission which had investigated the grievances of Army Officers. He was anxious to make a statement on the subject.

ENDOWED SCHOOL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL—NEW CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can give the House the names of the three new Charity Commissioners which it is the intention of the Government to appoint?
MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, this is, I believe, the third time the right hon. Gentleman has asked the same Question. I think it is hardly consistent with the custom of the House of Commons, or even with the courtesies of life, to ask the Government repeatedly for information which they have expressed their willingness to give the moment it is in their power to make a communication to the House on the subject.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had merely asked the Question. The late Government had always given the names of Commissioners before Bills were passed through the House, and he should feel it his duty to continue to ask this Question.

IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSION—AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to correct a statement which he had made in reply to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) on the subject of the Irish Temporalities Commission. He spoke of their latest Report as being the first

  857
  they had made, whereas he found that several Reports had already been presented by them, and that they had it in contemplation to present another. The Controller had been in communication with the Commissioners on certain points mentioned in their reports, and he would suggest that the most convenient course would be to refer the Reports to a Committee at the commencement of next Session.

THE BUDGET.—QUESTION.
MR. FAWCETTasked, Whether he had correctly understood Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean in his statement last night that the remissions of taxation made in the Budget were to come into operation this year?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative.

THE LICENSING ACT—VALUATION OF BEER-HOUSES, SALFORD.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that the Magistrates of Salford have directed a revaluation of all the Beer-houses in that town to be made by a surveyor, and directed that the owners of those houses should pay the costs of such survey; and, whether, if so, such a proceeding is in the view of the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Licensing Acts?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the case in question, and he had no objection to state what were the views of the Government in relation to the Licensing Act upon the construction of that statute; the 46th section, in order to provide for the change which took place when the Act was passed as to taking the annual value of the beerhouses instead of rating. At the first annual general licensing meeting after the passing of the Act the justices were required to obtain what the value of the premises were, and at that time they might do one of two things—they might either say they were of a certain annual value, or, if not of that annual value, then they might give the person in the occupation of the premises another 12 months, in order to make them of the full annual value. Therefore, by the
  858
  year 1873 everybody would have had an opportunity of making their houses up to the annual value. The magistrates might then make a revaluation, and charge the occupiers with the cost. But having come to the determination that the beer-houses were of a certain annual value in 1872 and 1873, he was bound to state that it seemed a somewhat extraordinary construction of the Act to take a general sweep over the entire beer-houses in 1874 to see whether they were of the same annual value. When a beer-house was once declared of a certain annual value, it did not follow that it would always continue of the same value, as the property might deteriorate, and, therefore, the justices were perfectly entitled at any time to have a revaluation.

PRINCE LEOPOLD'S ANNUITY BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
PRINCE LEOPOLD'S ANNUITY BILL.

  [BILL 232.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to say a few words as to the weakness of the grounds on which grants of this description were supported. It was not his intention to divide the House against the Bill unless hon. Members wished to take the sense of the House on the subject; but if any hon. Members wished to do so they should have his vote. Until the Act of last year, the Crown, in addressing Parliament, had generally stated that it was debarred by the law in force from making provision for the younger children; but owing to the measure which allowed the Crown to possess private estates, which were not included in the estates surrendered at the commencement of the reign "without reserve," and another Act, providing for the secrecy of the wills of the Crown, it could not now be asserted that the Crown did not possess property out of which provisions of this kind could be made. He only wished to put that on record.
  MR. SCOURFIELDtook advantage of the question being raised to read the following opinion from an independent source as to the relative advantages of the Republican and the Monarchical forms of government:—
  "For the quiet and honest government which Queen Victoria has bestowed upon the English

  859
  people for 30 and odd years, they might well afford to pay ten times the amount. It has not only been honest, quiet, and prosperous, it has been the freest government on earth. "We flatter ourselves that we have the cheapest government on earth; but, in reality, our President is the most costly ruler in the world. The sums stolen every week by Federal officials would, on a moderate calculation, greatly exceed the total annual expenses of the Royal Family of England. Our English cousins had better pause. Either on the score of cheap and honest or good government, they may not improve their condition by substituting Republicanism for Royalty."—[Richmond Whig, 1872.]
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

SUPPLY.
Resolutions [July 27] reported.

CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR THOMAS CHAMBEESsaid, a Motion on the subject of Co-operative Associations had stood in Ms name on the Paper for some time; but considering the advanced period of the Session, he had now deemed it expedient to alter the form of Notice, and instead of proposing a Resolution on the subject he would merely call attention to the inexpediency of associations for trading purposes being established and conducted by employés of the Government under the name of Co-operative Supply Associations. The House was no doubt familiar with this question, which of late had excited a good deal of public interest. At the outset he might observe that all arguments adduced against himself on the ground that he was opposing co-operation were simply beside the mark. He had not a word to say against co-operation. Of course any two or more persons acting together for a common purpose were co-operators; but in reference to the question now under consideration, the word "co-operation" was used to signify the acting together of a number of individuals not only to facilitate the supply of their own wants, but also to supply the wants of others who did not form a portion of the body so co-operating. Under the names of Co-operative Stores and Co-operative Supply Associations there had grown up a regular system of trading which was not distinguishable from ordinary commerce as carried on by limited liability companies or by large partnerships. The
860
retail tradesmen were desirous of having the fact brought under the notice of the House that members of the Civil Service of the Crown engaged in these undertakings. Up to a certain point no doubt they did so with perfect propriety. They might co-operate for the purpose of supplying themselves with a largo number of commodities in ordinary use, and as long as they continued to do that, whatever effect might have been produced on the body of retail traders in the metropolis and the great towns, no person either in or out of the House could have complained that there was anything either illegal or improper in such a course of conduct. The complaint now made was that, under the name, guise, and pretext of Co-operative Associations, persons combined together for the purpose of acquiring necessaries for themselves and their families and of saving the profit of the distributor. Under the guise of such associations there had, in point of fact, grown up a very large system of trading which could not be distinguished upon any principle from ordinary trading by companies of limited liability. These associations were not in any way mutual, and ought not to be called Co-operative Supply Associations. In order to give the House some information as to the facts, he would quote from a document recently issued by the Civil Service Supply Association (Limited). He held in his hand a paper containing the agenda for the half-yearly meeting. It was dated the 18th April, 1874, and contained some matters which he should like to bring under the notice of the House. The paper contained a very elaborate statement of the accounts of the society and the balance of their affairs for the half-year ending the 28th of February last. It was stated that the total purchases, at that establishment alone, during the half-year were £773,364 1s. 8½d. The total sales amounted to £819,428 1s 1d.; the gross profits being £14,088. These figures, showing, as they did, the magnitude of the operations of such societies, were sufficient to make it worth consideration whether the complaints of the tradesmen were at all justifiable. He was told, indeed, that the returns of all these societies during last year showed an expenditure of upwards of £2,000,000, and that the profit formed a very large proportion to the expenditure. Reverting

861
to the society just alluded to, he found that the net profits were £9,000, which, added to the previously accumulated profits, made the profits in that institution alone no less than £90,000. The fact that such large profits were made was in itself a circumstance of suspicion. The only legitimate addition to the cost price of articles supplied by a Co-operative Society to its own members was the cost of procuring them, the cost of housing them until they were sold, and the cost of a small staff to distribute them, though the cost of distribution must be very small indeed, inasmuch as one of the rules required that customers should come and fetch the goods themselves. When, therefore, it was found that large profits were made, the system pursued by these societies looked more like trading than co-operation for the purpose of supplying the wants of their own members. Another circumstance worth consideration was the manner in which the profits were made. These so-called Co-operative Societies made their profits in the same way as an ordinary tradesman or partnerships with limited liability would make theirs. They did not merely sell articles at a price which would cover the cost and leave a small margin of profit, but they proceeded on the principle of selling some articles at a loss and others at a largo profit, so that the profit made on one class of articles might more than counterbalance the loss sustained on the other. This was inconsistent with the principle of mere co-operation for the supply of the wants of the members of the Association, but thoroughly consistent with the principles of trading. Everybody knew that these societies were constituted primarily by members of the Civil Service. The paper he had already referred to contained a list of persons who were to be added to the Board of Direction, and he found they were from all the departments of the Civil Service. That society consisted of 4,500 members of the Civil Service, and if they merely combined together to supply themselves and their families no complaint whatever could be made; but besides these 4,500 members there were 15,000 persons who were called ticket-holders, and who paid so much for the privilege of buying goods at the stores; and at the last meeting a Motion was to
862
be made—he did not know whether it was made—that the 15,000 ticket-holders should be increased to 30,000. Perhaps it might be asked—"Why do you complain of that?" Well, all he would say at present was, that it was a contradiction of the principle upon which the society was founded, and that the moment it invited outside customers to pay for the privilege of dealing at the stores it ceased to be a co-operative and became a trading society. Moreover, the society was set up by Civil servants of the Government. The excuse they alleged was this—"We want to supply ourselves with goods on the principle of co-operation, but we cannot do so conveniently unless we get a larger trade than we can secure by the proper application of the principle of co-operation, and therefore we will invite the outside public to trade with us in order that we may supply our own wants at a cheaper rate." There had recently been issued the prospectus of a new Civil Service Co-operative Society, and the list of the provisional committee consisted of the names of 20 gentlemen, all of whom were members of the Civil Service. The prospectus, after referring to the large amount of profit that had been realized by the old society, amounting to £90,000, went on to say that the accumulation of profits so large was a direct infringement of the main principle of co-operation, which was that after paying all expenses and allowing a fair dividend for the capital employed, all the profits belonged to the purchasers. It stated that four-fifths of the original members—namely, 17,000—were ticket-holders, and proposed that they as well as shareholders should be entitled to the benefits of the new organization; so that the large profits realized should be devoted to the customers and not exclusively to the shareholders. The regulations, after all, were not co-operation but trade; and he could not see why Her Majesty's Civil servants should be allowed to set up this gigantic trading association against the efforts of individual shopkeepers. There was another prospectus from which he would quote—for these societies were the rage of the day—a characteristic of the age. The prospectus of the Government Offices Store, which professed to be conducted on "strictly co-operative principles," spoke of some of the other associations as having "exceeded the

863
limits of fair play and justice, and deservedly raised enmity amongst wholesale and retail traders," and said it behoved the promoters to consider the propriety of establishing a society on sounder principles. It stated a just complaint against the old, and a just principle in the case of the new society. The writer of a private letter, a gentleman connected with the Civil Service, referred to the case of the co-operative store at Dublin, established at the end of the year 1872, and the only store of the kind in Ireland, as illustrating the tendencies to which all such associations were liable. The prospectus dwelt with emphasis on these two points—that the society was for the sole benefit of Civil servants, and that the commodities were to be sold to them at such a narrow margin of profit over the cost price as merely to cover the expenses of management. If these rules had been observed, there would have been but little cause for complaint; but in less than a year from the time when the society was established, both rules were broken through, and the writer of the letter referred to remarked that the tendency to break through such rules in all cases must be irresistibly strong. Upon the confession of those who had belonged to these co-operative societies they had exceeded the limits of fair and legitimate co-operation for the supply of the necessaries of life, and had become trading concerns, dealing also in the luxuries of life. The excuse and justification originally made were that co-operation was the only means by which persons of small fixed incomes could save themselves from paying the high prices charged by town tradesmen for long credit. If, however, the poorer classes of the Civil servants were excluded from the benefits of co-operation and the higher classes were admitted, and if the trading extended from necessaries to luxuries, the fundamental reasons for setting up a co-operative store no longer existed. The conductors of the Association Stores in the Haymarket, which did an enormous business, had recently issued a series of answers to objections. Prom this it appeared that Civil servants included Peers, Members of Parliament, justices of the peace, naval and military officers—he did not know if Volunteer officers were included—and clergymen, and it was contended
864
that Civil servants were as much entitled to set up this trading establishment as they were entitled to invest their spare money in banks, insurance companies, or any speculation. The argument of this paper was that these societies were trading societies, and therefore the Civil servants of the Crown should be prevented from joining them. Another paper stated that the first society was established in 1858 to import or purchase produce wholesale, to contract with manufacturers, retail at the lowest possible price, and promote in every way economy. But in the official price list for 1874 of the Association in the Hay-market would be found these words—
"The Civil Service Co-operative Society was founded by Mr. Ansell, of the Admiralty, and the benefits it confers on the aristocracy and other classes are most important."
It thus appeared that the character and objects of the Association were entirely different as held out in the prospectus and in the official circular. He had another paper which was signed by members of the Civil Service themselves. They stated that for a time these associations did very well, but in an evil day the directors grew ambitious; and what was originally a perfectly legitimate and defensive union of Civil servants had now become a vast, uncalled-for onslaught on the shopkeepers. Indeed, to use the words of one of their own writers, the whole affair was now "a gigantic sham." Let the directors only say that they had become shopkeepers on a large scale, and be content with the profits of their trade. There really was no distinction between these associations and trading societies; they should be called by the name most suitable to them, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to say whether they were consistent with the rules of the Civil Service. They were certainly contrary to the rules laid down in March, 1849—namely, that the public was entitled to the whole time of the Civil Service, and that Civil servants should not be allowed to enter as directors of public companies requiring their attendance during business hours. Civil servants were absolutely prevented from engaging in mercantile pursuits if these encroached on the time of the public. Now, he had two cases where persons in the Civil Service had been conducting the business of these associations during

865
business hours. It did seem to him, too, that it might well happen that these gentlemen might go into the market to buy colonial and other produce at great advantage, because they might command information which was not ordinarily available. The Crown prohibited postmasters from selling newspapers, and would doubtless prohibit revenue officers from selling malt. Then, why should Civil servants be permitted to engage in trade? Incidentally connected with this subject, he must call attention to the Marine Canteen at Woolwich, which, instead of being confined to the supply of the military in the barracks, sent out its servants in uniform and canvassed and supplied private families, directly and indirectly, with goods of every description—milk, poultry, beer, shoes, &c.—which, he believed, was entirely in contravention of the Queen's Regulations. Besides the ordinary necessities of life, thousands of articles of elegance and luxury, and even the game of croquet, were sold at the stores. They also supplied drugs and prescriptions of medicine whereby the public were in danger of being poisoned—drugs with enormous profits, because for every 1s. invested in that trade 11½d. was profit. Besides, it must be remembered that those who sold drugs to the public ought to have some knowledge of chemistry. There was another question with regard to the article of drugs and the sale thereof, which called for the attention of the House. Now, there were surgeries, and chemists' shops, and hospitals open, where, in cases of necessity or accident in the metropolis, immediate assistance was at hand, and it would be a great calamity if it were not. Well, a chemist, perhaps at best, turned £20 a-week in his business, and for those Civil servants, engaged in co-operative stores, to clash in competition with him was not, in his (Sir Thomas Chambers') opinion, ordinary co-operation—it rather came within the meaning of the tricks of trade. He should be very glad that any anxiety felt on this subject might be allayed, and that the effects of the system to which he had alluded might be mitigated, and he hoped that some statement would be made by the Government. It was a most serious thing that a body of gentlemen connected with the Government and in the service of the country should become an organized body,
866
and be at liberty to go into the market and carry on dealing in competition with tradesmen in a manner which was not above-board.
MR. FORSYTHexpressed his entire concurrence in the remarks made on this subject by his hon. and learned Colleague. He wished the House to clearly understand that those who objected to these Co-operative Stores did so not because they denied the right of the Civil servants to combine to buy things wholesale and sell them retail among themselves, but because the Civil servants had become shopkeepers on a gigantic scale, and were selling not only among themselves, but also to the outside public. It was perfectly well known that these stores were not confined to the Civil servants, but that they were conducted as commercial speculations. He himself knew of a case where £80,000 had been divided among the outside public. Tradesmen very naturally said—"These Civil servants are the servants of the State; their salaries are paid out of the taxes, to which we contribute; and it is unfair that we, who have a hard straggle to live, should be forced into a disadvantageous competition in our own business with those who are paid to do the work of the State." Another objection raised by the tradesmen was that the Civil servants were supposed to devote their whole time and attention to the service of the State, and that it was an injustice to the public to allow them to become clerks, managers, and directors of these associations, where they employed time which properly speaking belonged to the State. Doubtless the practice complained of was not, strictly speaking, illegal; but what the tradesmen contended was, that it was unfair, and they hoped that the Government would not look with favour upon such a wholesale system of shop keeping carried on by those who were in their employment.
MR. MACDONALDsaid, that this was, he believed, the first effort which had been made to put a stop to the thrift and providence of a large body of the people of London, and he did hope that the House would not countenance the attempt. The hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the question, stated that the Civil Service Stores were not conducted on the same principle as that of the Co-operative

867
Societies throughout the country. Now, he happened to know how Co-operative Stores were conducted, and he ventured to say that all which had been said against the Civil Service Stores applied with equal force to all such stores throughout the country. At Rochdale, which was the home of the co-operative system, at Leeds, and other great manufacturing towns, the principle had been acted upon from the commencement, of allowing the general public to purchase in the stores. Nay, the promoters had even gone the length of giving a bonus to the public to induce them to purchase. That system had, in fact, been adopted throughout the entire country. When the Civil Service Stores were complained of, it ought to be borne in mind that, besides saving money, they were established to supply good, pure, and wholesome articles. There had been a system of adulteration and public poisoning going on for a long time, which the founders of the stores determined to put down, and it was being done effectually. They were selling real butter instead of a tiling called butter, which was not butter at all, and so in like manner other articles. If shopkeepers would only copy the principles on which the stores were conducted, they would succeed in winning back their customers, and would have no occasion to come begging to this House. It had been said that those Co-operative Stores were started to serve the rich; but it was the poor that they served—they served the poor in Durham, in Lancashire, in Yorkshire, and other great manufacturing places, and those Co-operative Societies had turned millions of money in their dealings. He looked upon these institutions as one of the strongest marks of the sobriety, providence, and onward progress of the people of this country, and he trusted the Legislature would do nothing to stop their action.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Member had called his attention to this subject in a tone and manner which certainly demanded attention, and of which no one, whatever might be his private opinions, had any right to complain. He had made a very temperate statement, and had so commended the question to the attention of the House. But it ought to be borne in mind that
868
the question was naturally one of very great difficulty, and one that was by no means free of embarrassment. For instance, in regard to one of the last points which the hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned—that relating to the sale of drugs—he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might be permitted to make a suggestion which applied to the rest of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Undoubtedly, if the effect of selling drugs at stores was such as in any way to endanger the public interests, it must be observed that even were the Government to take strong measures, and to put down these particular stores, there could be little doubt that the system which had been initiated, and which had proved financially, and in other respects, successful, would be at once taken up and worked by others. In that case the difficulties of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given them an illustration in the case of drugs would present themselves under another and a similar system of association. Therefore such difficulties, if at all, must be dealt with by some general system of legislation designed to prevent such abuses. They could not be dealt with simply by the interference of Government in the way of putting down these particular associations. Attention would be given to the subject; but if any legislation was felt to be necessary it would have to be proceeded with cautiously. He would say at once that the attention of the Government would be given to any matters of that sort in order to decide whether or not any remedies were required. But with regard to the general question of the carrying on of this system by the Civil servants of the Crown, and as to whether the Government ought to interfere to prevent, limit, or regulate in any way that system, the House would perceive that two questions here arose of very considerable importance. The first was, whether the tradesmen of the metropolis had a right to complain of the competition to which they were subjected by this system? He would not for the moment discuss whether these stores or associations were properly called "co-operative," or whether they were properly called "trading." It must be very obvious to everybody that such a system, when once set on foot, could not very easily be restricted within narrow limits. The history of the Civil

869
Service Stores, as narrated to him, seemed to prove that. He understood the origin of the movement to have been something of this kind. A number of public servants, employed in the Post Office and elsewhere, endeavoured to provide for themselves in a manner which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said was perfectly legitimate. They found whenever they went to deal with the tradesmen in their neighbourhood that they were exposed to many disadvantages. They were charged the highest price for articles, and the latter were found not to be of the best quality. Those high prices were charged in order that the bad debts might be covered which were contracted by the tradesmen under the credit system. These gentlemen, who, though they lived upon narrow salaries, had a right to maintain themselves in respectability, thought they could protect themselves from many evils connected with the purchase of articles by introducing a system of co-operation which was founded on the principle of ready-money payment. No doubt that was of very great advantage to the Civil Service, and it was to the interest of the country that the servants of the Crown—especially those who lived upon low and moderate salaries—should be able to supply themselves upon moderate terms, and upon a system which prevented them from getting into debt. As he was informed, when they began to deal with wholesale dealers, the retail dealers complained of their proceedings and commenced a movement to induce manufacturers and wholesale dealers not to trade with these gentlemen. But that movement was limited; it was not sufficient to induce manufacturers and wholesale dealers to refuse to trade with these gentlemen. As a consequence of that movement, and for the purpose of self-Protection, the Civil Service Supply system was extended to customers not in the employ of the Civil Service. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, these stores had become trading societies. That was a matter with which they had very little to do he thought it would be difficult to draw a line between a system of co-operation which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, would be lawful and reasonable and commendable, and a system of co-operation which would be questionable and objectionable.
870
Looking at it as a question of competition, he could not see how a line could be drawn up to which these gentlemen might go in this matter, and beyond which they might not go. But then there was another side of the question, and one which raised considerations of extreme difficulty. That was not so much the political or the economical question as the question of the administration of the public service. Here, also, arose a very difficult point for consideration, and that was how far public servants ought to be allowed by Government to embark in business of a remunerative character outside and beyond their own duties. He confessed that was a matter which had often caused him considerable anxiety, and it was one upon which he had not even yet come to a clear and definite conclusion. No doubt, it could be contended that you engaged the services of those gentlemen, that you paid them for their time, that their time ought to be given up to you, and that it was an abuse to allow them to employ their time carrying on business on their own account. Well, if they laid down that doctrine and applied it to all the departments in which the Civil servants were engaged, they would extend the sphere of the question very considerably. Lately, Civil servants had used various other modes of increasing their incomes. It might be said they ought not to do so, and that they should confine themselves to their own departments; but so long as the Civil servant discharged the duty of his department they had no right to say to him—"You must not turn your attention to any other way of improving your circumstances." If the Civil servant gave his six or seven hours a-day close attention to the discharge of the duties of his office, and gave satisfaction, they had no right to say to him—"You must not enter into any other business." He was anxious not to come to any definite conclusion at present, the more especially as the whole question of the re-organization of the Civil Service was under review. A Commission was sitting which might soon be able to Report, and their Report might very likely contain some very valuable suggestions. All he could say was that the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the question, and who said that the Civil servants ought not to

871
give that time which they were not expected to give to the public service to the objects of the co-operative system, carried the question very far. But, on the other hand, it might be said the taxpayers might benefit by the system, and seeing that the co-operative system had obtained such progress in different parts of the country, he thought it would be extremely difficult to put an end to it. He, however, undertook to say that matters like this deserved the attention of the Government, and more he could not undertake to say on the question.

IRELAND—TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN—THE QUEEN'S LETTER.
MR. BUTTsaid, he desired to avail himself of the opportunity of calling attention to the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in answer to the Question put to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue), and of considering a misunderstanding to which it appeared to have given rise. The question of his hon. Friend referred to the Queen's Letter to the University of Dublin, which was laid on the Table of the House on the 1Oth of July, and which unquestionably was of very great importance, inasmuch as it changed the constitution of Trinity College in very essential points, and, if he was correctly informed, it was not at all confined to the carrying out of the Tests Acts. He certainly was under the impression that that Letter would not be issued without a previous discussion by the House upon the subject. On the 23rd of April he asked the Home Secretary—
"Whether any application has been made by the Board or Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, for a Queen's Letter, altering essentially the Statutes of the College; and, whether before the issue of any Queen's Letter, an opportunity will be given to the Senate of the University, or to this House, of expressing an opinion upon the proposed alterations?"—[3 Hansard, ccxviii. 985.]
Next day he read what appeared to be an accurate report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he was represented as having said that if any such application were made the Government would think it right that the Senate of the University "and" the House of Commons should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. The Senate were convened, and had a full opportunity of expressing their opinion. He
872
was himself a member of that body, and if he had thought he would not have had an opportunity of discussing the matter in that House he should have made it a point to be present at the discussion in the Senate. The Senate consisted of 200 members, but could scarcely be said to represent the University itself. Assuming that he was right in supposing that a promise had been given that the matter should be discussed in that House he would ask whether it would not be better to postpone the issue of the Queen's Letter until next Session. He had reason to believe that if some slight alterations were made in it all classes and creeds might be brought to assent to the changes proposed in the University.
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper praying that Her Majesty would withhold Her assent from the proposed changes in the constitution of the University of Dublin. He had also moved for some Returns as to the changes, if any, made in the Tenure, Duties, and Emoluments, of the Professor of the University of Dublin during the present year, and in the absence of those Returns it would be very difficult for him to proceed. He would therefore fix the Motion which he had on the Paper for Monday next.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas sure that had the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary known that this question was to be raised he would have been in his place; but in his right hon. Friend's unavoidable absence it was desirable not to enter into the matter at length. With regard to the promise which he (Mr. Cross) was supposed to have given he had been careful to reply in the very terms of the Question. He knew that the hon. and learned Gentleman was too great a master of grammar to use the word "or" when he meant "and," and in answering the Question he stated in the hon. and learned Gentleman's own language that an opportunity would be given to the Senate "or "to that House to express an opinion on the Queen's Letter. Like other hon. Members he had an opportunity of consulting the usual sources of information, and he there saw that the Answer he was reported to have given was not in the same form as that in which it appeared on the Notice Paper. He asked some of his Colleagues whether it was necessary to correct the report, and they were of

873
opinion that, under the circumstances, it was not. He said this without wishing to cast any reflection on those reports, which were usually—he might say almost invariably—so correct.

WAYS AND MEANS—PAUPER LUNATICS (SCOTLAND.)
MR. RAMSAYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on the previous day intimated that it was the intention of the Government that the money to be voted in aid of pauper lunatics in asylums in Scotland should be divided according to the same rule as in England. There was very great diversity between the practice of the medical authorities in Scotland and in England with respect to the treatment of lunatics. As it was estimated that £46,000 should be voted in aid of the maintenance of insane paupers, it was very desirable that the money should be distributed in a satisfactory manner. He hoped that when the Vote was brought "forward the Chancellor of the Exchequer would mate a more explicit and definite statement than was made by him on the previous day.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwished to remark that he believed the people of Scotland were anxious that the system now in operation with regard to pauper lunatics in that country should be maintained.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that on the previous day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would consider the matter very carefully, and intimated that he would make some concession in the direction which had been pointed to. He regretted that his right hon. Friend was not then in his place; but he had no doubt that the matter would receive the fullest consideration from him.
MR. RAMSAYexpressed a hope that the system of treating pauper lunatics which was being carried out in Scotland would not be interfered with.
Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.
(Mr. Russell Gurney.)
PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.

  [BILL 176.] [Lords.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 17 th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 8 (Representation by archdeacon, rural dean, churchwarden, or parishioners.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 41, after the word "representation," to insert 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."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, that since he had moved the Amendment he had found that apprehensions existed in many quarters that it might be construed as extending further than was intended; and therefore, to prevent a waste of time in fruitless discussion, he was prepared to substitute other words. The purpose which he sought to effect was that when the time came for the Bishop to consider whether he should or should not give his veto to the proceedings, and when he had to deal with complaints which did not relate to any serious question of doctrine stirring up the consciences and feelings of the people concerned—when the question was one only, for example, of a direction set down in the rubric as a matter of convenience, he should be clearly entitled by the words of the Act to take into account all the circumstances of the case, as whether the rubric had become obsolete by the general consent of the people, or had failed to carry out the object with which it had been framed. He therefore proposed, if it met with the wishes of the right hon. and learned Recorder, to withdraw his Amendment as it stood, and substitute for it the words of which he had given Notice as coming in the next clause, and where it was stated that the Bishop would be bound, before he delivered an opinion as to proceeding or not proceeding with a particular case, to consider all the circumstances connected with it.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWERsaid, that in giving Notice of the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, he had been actuated by no wish to impede the Progress of the Bill. He did not dispute the discretion of his right hon. Friend in withdrawing his Amendment under the circumstances; but he wished to urge on the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill

  875
  (Mr. Russell Gurney), the propriety of considering what some of the consequences of that measure might be, and whether he could not, even at the eleventh hour, prevent such results flowing from it as its friends would deeply regret, and which might produce a reaction against a Bill that he hoped would find favour with the community at large.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he had not the slightest objection to the introduction of such words as those which the right hon. Gentleman wished to substitute for the Amendment before the Committee. His feeling all along had been that the Bishop should exercise a certain discretion, and that could not well be done without he considered all the circumstances of the case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FORSYTHwished to move an Amendment in the Proviso at the end of Clause 8. That Proviso was to this effect—
  "Provided, that no proceedings shall he taken under this Act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of the church completed five years before the commencement of such proceedings."
  He now proposed in page 5, line 1, to substitute "two years" for "five years." If, for example, a stone Communion Table had been put up in a church and had been patent to the whole parish for two years, that, he thought, was a long enough time to sanction it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the Recorder would not accede to that Amendment. If the alteration in the fabric was illegal, it was not easy to justify the fixing of any limit of time; but if there was to be any, it ought not to be less than five or 10 years.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he must strongly object to the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that this Bill would not come into operation till next February. Five years was, he thought, a very moderate limit in those matters.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTremarked that, not far from that House—in Westminster Abbey—there was a very beautiful reredos, and although it had passed unchallenged for five years, it might, as the clause stood, still be interfered with. He was therefore in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. FORSYTH, in deference to the feeling of the Committee, said, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MONKproposed to leave out the words in page 4—
  "Provided, that no proceedings shall be taken under this Act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of the Church completed live years before the commencement of such proceedings."
  He considered that the lapse of five years ought not to legalize what was illegal ab initio.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. He thought two years would have been a sufficient time; but like the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth), he bowed to the feeling of the Committee, and regarded five years as a fair compromise. He asked the House to leave the present Proviso.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9 (Proceedings on representation).
  MR. DILLWYNmoved, in page 5, line 3, to leave out from "Bishop" to "shall," in line 6. The hon. Gentleman said, if they legislated on such a subject, they ought to provide that the law should take the effect designed. One diocese might be under a Ritualistic Bishop, and an adjoining diocese under a Bishop of different views; and supposing that Ritualistic practices were complained of, a Ritualistic Bishop might pass over the complaint.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to know whether the purport of this clause was that, if there were a repetition of an illegal action, the proceedings might not be renewed? The words in the clause were—
  "Provided, that no judgment so pronounced by the Bishop shall be considered as finally deciding any question of law so that it may not be again raised by other parties."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYadmitted that the giving of a veto to the Bishops was a limitation of the original right of persons to complain of practices which they considered illegal; but he thought the power of veto was justified by the fact that it might at times prevent the commencement of frivolous and vexatious

  877
  proceedings. Therefore, he could not agree with the Amendment which had been proposed. In reply to the question just put, he had to say that a settlement and an agreement between an incumbent and certain complainants would not be binding against other parishioners
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the question of the discretion to be exercised by the Bishops was one upon which the Bill might break down in practice. It was absolutely necessary that there should be uniformity of practice in dioceses as well as in parishes; and if one Bishop acted broadly upon one view, and another Bishop acted broadly upon another view, all the evils which Parliament desired to remedy would return. A discretion of this kind was given to the Attorney General by the Act of Victoria 1834–5, whereby it was provided that no proceeding could take place without the sanction of the Attorney General. If it should turn out that the discretion of the Bishop could not be relied upon, the Act might be amended. He agreed, however, in thinking that the experiment embodied in the clause under discussion ought first to be tried.
  MR. ROEBUCKsuggested that the difficulty might be obviated before it arose by giving an appeal from the decision of the Bishop.
  MR. WALTERreminded the Committee that there was an Amendment on the Paper, to be proposed by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Holt), which would, if carried, limit the discretion of the Bishop in a manner more becoming than would be obtained by the absolute and unqualified proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). While he thought the discretion of the Bishop ought not to be absolute, he regarded the principle of the discretionary power as an important part of the Bill. He could not, therefore, vote for the Amendment under discussion, but should support the latter one to which he had referred, and which would give an appeal to the Archbishop.
  MR. A. MILLSopposed the Amendment on the grounds that he preferred to regard the Bill as one for the amendment of procedure, and that he wished to see an end put, as far as possible, to the commencement of vexatious and irritating proceedings.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped the Committee would retain the words in the clause. He was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and anxious as to its working well; but if these words relating to the discretion of the Bishop were taken out, the Bill would become a source of endless litigation and danger to the Church. The object of the Bill, speaking generally, was to enforce the Rubrics usually observed; but at the same time it must be borne in mind that others had fallen into desuetude. For instance, the Rubric provided, as regarded the marriage service, that the first part of it should be performed in the middle of the church, and then the people were to go to the east end. This was not observed in one church in a hundred. It was part of the Rubric that the minister should catechise the children on the Sunday afternoon, but in three out of four parishes that was not done. Again, the clergyman was to receive the names of those who wished to communicate, the day before the administration of the Holy Sacrament; but he should not think that was done in a hundred churches in England. If these Rubrics were to be put into operation, and the Bishop were not allowed to interfere, the result would be anything but that which the promoters of the Bill wished. He thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of allowing an appeal from the Bishop to the Archbishop of the province. Among 27 prelates there must be considerable diversities of opinion.
  MR. DILLWYNwas still of opinion, notwithstanding what had been said, that the Bishops ought not to be armed with the veto set forth in the clause. He considered that members of the Church of England had a right to something like uniformity of practice, and did not see how it was to be secured unless the Amendment were adopted.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide upon this question. The distinction ought to be borne in mind between trivial and grave cases of non-observance or breach of law. There were cases of defiance of the law on the part of those who set up the law of tradition of the Church against the law of the land, which called for interference to compel obedience; but there were many other cases in which the letter of

  879
  the law was wisely disregarded for the convenience and benefit of the congregation with general consent. If there were no discretion vested in the Bishop, the power of the Court might be set in motion by the indiscretion of three parishioners, against customs cherished and valued by the congregation.
  MR. STEPHEN GAVEobserved that the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), was in favour of absolute uniformity in each parish, but if there was one thing more than another which would cause the Bill to break down, it would be any attempt under it to establish such uniformity. What he feared was that attempts would be made to render the Bill unpopular by the institution of frivolous proceedings, and he could not but regard the discretion of the Bishop as a security for the satisfactory working of the Bill.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he would be sorry to see the discretion of the Bishop absolutely taken away. They should remember, however, that the coming into operation of the Bill had been postponed to enable Convocation to propose a revision of the Rubrics, and, further, that the Bill was not meant to define the law, but to afford facilities for the carrying of it out. He hoped the discretion of the Bishop would be retained in the Bill, but that it would be modified by a provision for an appeal to the Archbishop.
  MR. NEWDEGATEpointed out that the giving of a discretion to Bishops was a novelty introduced into the ecclesiastical law in 1840, and though he was not in favour of such law, he could not vote for this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEmoved, in page 5, line 3, after "opinion," to insert "after considering the whole circumstances of the case."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HENEY SCOTTmoved the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" in the following provision:—"In which case the Bishop shall state in writing the reason for his opinion." It might not be desirable that in all cases the Bishop should put in writing his reasons for acting. In this case, too, he ought to be allowed to exercise his discretion.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney) would not consent to the
  880
  Amendment. The duty of having to give reasons in writing would be a great safe-guard against any capricious act on the part of Bishops.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he could not assent to the alteration proposed. He was strongly in favour of the discretion of the Bishop; but he would have some doubt as to the propriety of granting it if the Bishop were not bound to state his reasons in writing as required by the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HOLTmoved in page 5, line 6, after "diocese," to insert "and a copy thereof shall forthwith be transmitted to the person who shall have made the representation." If the Bishop was bound to give his reasons in writing, there was no reason why they should not be made public.
  MR.DODSONsaid, that the representation would probably be made by several persons; and it would surely be enough that one of these persons should receive a copy of the reasons.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved that the words should be to "some one person" who had made the representation.
  Motion (Sir William Harcourt) agreed to.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, that a copy should be sent "to the person complained of."
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEmoved to amend the clause by adding to it the following words:—
  "The bishop shall, on the receipt of the representation, transmit a copy of the same to the churchwardens of the parish, and the churchwardens shall forthwith cause a copy of such representation to be affixed to the doors of the church or churches of the parish, and shall duly summon the parishioners to a meeting to be held at some time within eight days from the date of the summons, for the purpose of considering-such representation; and the churchwardens shall report to the bishop the proceedings taken at such meeting, mentioning any resolution that may have been proposed, and also, so far as may be practicable, the names of those who voted for or against such resolutions."
  In cases of this kind the feelings and wishes of the lay members of the Church ought not to be ignored, and it would be a great advantage to the Bishop if he could ascertain what the views of the parishioners were on the subject of the

  881
  representation. He admitted that such meetings might often be very noisy and troublesome; but all manifestations of popular opinion were equally open to that objection, while the mere raising a discussion in relation to the question would tend to develop clearer, sounder, and better views on the subject in the mind of the public.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney) would not assent to this Amendment, than which he could conceive nothing more mischievous. Nothing could be more objectionable than that the Bishop, who was on his own responsibility, and sitting as a quasi judicial functionary, to determine whether the proceedings were to go on or not, should be influenced in his decision by what had occurred at a meeting of the parishioners called to discuss the nicest questions on subjects which stirred people to the bottom of their hearts. Lot the hon. Member fancy what would be the result if an Election Judge were to call a meeting of the inhabitants of the borough whose reputation was in question in order to ascertain what the popular opinion on the subject was. The adoption of this Amendment would be most mischievous to the object in view, that of promoting peace.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, the principle of which appeared to have been borrowed from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), inasmuch as, if it were carried, the Bill ought to be entitled the Permissive Prohibitory Conformity Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHILDERSmoved, in page 5, line 8, before "person," to insert—
  "Archbishop of the province, who shall decide whether proceedings should or should not be taken thereon. If he shall decide that proceedings should not be taken, he shall, within twenty-one days after receiving the representation, state in writing the reason for his decision, and copies of such statement shall be deposited in the registry of the diocese, and also in the registry of the province. If he shall decide that proceedings should be taken, he shall within twenty-one days after receiving the representation return it to the bishop, who shall transmit the same to the."
  He observed that the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt) had an Amendment on the Paper providing
  882
  that where the Bishop decided that proceedings should not be taken, there should be an appeal to the Archbishop. These two provisions would be consistent and would help the working of the Bill. What was wanted was to insure uniformity as far as possible; but uniformity could not be secured if each of the 27 Bishops was allowed to exercise his own discretion without appeal. If his proposal were accepted we should get uniformity to this extent—that in the Province of Canterbury the representations of the parishioners, churchwardens, or archdeacon would be dealt with in an uniform way, and they would be dealt with in an uniform way also in the Province of York. More uniformity than that we could not get; but it would be a decided improvement on what we should obtain under the Bill as it stood.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped neither the Committee nor his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Russell Gurney) would accept the Amendment. It would be fatal to interfere with the discretion of the Bishop. There was a certain variety allowed in the services of the Church, and he thought that it should be left to the discretion of the Bishop to decide whether a case should proceed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTopposed the Amendment, but intimated that he would support that of the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt). Where a Bishop was of opinion that there had been a violation of the law, the question ought to go before the Judge; but where he decided that proceedings should not be taken, he (Sir William Harcourt) certainly thought there should be an appeal to the Archbishop. A short time ago a Bishop presented a Petition to Convocation, declaring that those who signed it did not consider the decision of Her Majesty in Council to be final. He (Sir William Harcourt) should be dissatisfied to have to bow to the decision of a Bishop who would present such a Petition as that to Convocation.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he thought that, in accordance with the order in the preface to the Prayer Book, it should be left to the discretion of the Bishop whether he should take the opinion of the Archbishop.
  MR. HOLTsaid, he could not support this Amendment. If the Bishop thought

  883
  it right that a case should be tried, the case ought to go before the Judge.
  MR. WALTERsaid, the limitation of powers proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was not all analogous to that which the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt) intended to propose. He might illustrate the matter by what occurred before a bench of magistrates. Many cases were brought forward at Petty Sessions which the magistrates, instead of sending for trial to a higher Court or Quarter Sessions, dismissed. That was an exercise by them of a veto. If they abused the power they would hear of it from the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor. Put whoever heard of a person appealing to the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor against a case being sent for trial to the Quarter Sessions? That was the sort of appeal which his right hon. Friend proposed to give in ecclesiastical cases.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he could not see that where the Bishop decided that proceedings should be taken there should be any appeal to the Archbishop.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had moved the Amendment thinking it would go well with the appeal which the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire intended to propose. To give an appeal whore the Bishop refused to proceed, and to refuse it where he consented, would be a very one-sided appeal. However, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, in page 5, line 11, to leave out "without appeal," and insert "as hereinafter provided."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYconsidered that the case put by his hon. Friend would be provided for by a paragraph which he proposed to insert at line 20.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved, in line 20, to insert as a new paragraph,—
  "The parties may at any time after the making of a representation to the bishop state any questions arising in such proceedings in a special case signed by a barrister at law for the opinion of the "fudge, and the parties after signing and transmitting the same to the bishop may require it to be transmitted to the Judge for hearing, and the Judge shall hear and determine
  884
  the question or questions arising thereon, and any judgment pronounced by the bishop shall be in conformity with such determination."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped before the Bill was reported that sufficient machinery would be provided for making the decision by arbitration have the same and vital effect as the decision by the Judge.
  MR. DODSONproposed that "join in stating" should be substituted for "state."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. HOLTmoved an Amendment to the effect that where the Bishop decided that proceedings should not be taken there should be an appeal to the Archbishop. He concurred in thinking that a discretion should be given to the Bishop; but he did not think that he should have an absolute veto on all proceedings. There might be different views taken in different dioceses; but if there was an appeal to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop acted on the same principle, there would probably be a greater uniformity in the administration of the law.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to insert the words—
  "Provided also, That if such bishop shall be of opinion that proceedings should not be taken on any representation, it shall be lawful for the person making such representation to cause notice to be served on such bishop (which notice may be served by depositing the same in the registry of the diocese), and also on the person complained of, that it is his intention to appeal against the decision of such bishop to the archbishop of the province within which such diocese is situate; and thereupon such bishop shall cause the representation, the declaration, and the statement aforesaid deposited in such registry to be sent to such archbishop; and such archbishop shall within one month return such documents to such bishop with his decision thereon in writing confirming or annulling the decision of such bishop, which several documents shall be deposited in the registry of such diocese; and if the decision of such archbishop so require, such bishop shall within twenty-one days after receiving such decision proceed as hereinbefore directed, in the case of his deciding that proceedings shall be taken on the representation."—(Mr. Holt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder would not accept this Amendment. The whole object of leaving cases to the discretion of the Bishop was to prevent

  885
  frivolous objections, and he could conceive nothing more demoralizing than that a person who made a frivolous complaint should be allowed to take the matter before the Archbishop. If an appeal to the discretion of the Archbishop were allowed the Bill would become a machine for promoting uniformity not of public worship, but of public dissension.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. WALTER, on the other hand, trusted the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire would stick to the Amendment, and that his right hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill would adopt it. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) had attempted to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire by simply begging the question. The hon. Gentleman said an appeal would be made in all kinds of frivolous cases. Now, that was just the class of cases in which an appeal would not be made. The object of the Amendment was to guard against the possible danger which might arise if a Bishop of very strong opinions chose to ignore a case which he ought to take up.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTdiffered from the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and thought the persons who made the most vexatious and frivolous complaints were the persons most likely to carry on an appeal to any quarter they could find. He trusted the Committee would not, after having consented to allow a discretion to the Bishop, nullify that consent by giving an appeal to the Archbishop, who could not know the circumstances of the parish.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had not much confidence in the statement of the hon. Member for Berkshire that frivolous cases would not be taken up to the Archbishop. On the contrary, he thought parochial personages who wished to give themselves importance, would not be unwilling to add to their first importance by making an appeal. Still, the Committee had to choose between two difficulties. The objection to allowing appeals to lie to the Archbishops was that they would be placed much in the position of twin Popes; but, on the other hand, Bishops would differ in opinion unless a controlling authority were established, and there would be different uses
  886
  in different sees. The present Amendment would not impose any great amount of labour on the Archbishop, who would not be bound by it to go into the question at all. If he had confidence in the Bishop from whom the appeal was made, and he judged that the case was a frivolous one, and that the appeal was sent up in order that the complainant might acquire additional importance, he would at once endorse the decision of the Bishop. The power of appeal to the Archbishop would make the Bishop proceed carefully, and afford increased security against the action of an eccentric or partizan Bishop.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, this was not an appeal to the Court, but a reference of the reasons given by the Bishop to the Archbishop, and this was desirable in the interests of uniformity. The notice, however, should be given "to the person complained of," and he moved the insertion of those words.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Recorder, in forming his view of the Amendment, would consider by whom it was supported and by whom it was op-posed. It was opposed by Gentlemen who had conscientiously opposed this Bill from the commencement. He wished to prevent a High Church Bishop deciding one way, and a Low Church Bishop another. The hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) said, the Archbishop would not know the circumstances of each parish; but it was not to be supposed he would go and overrule the Bishop except for a very grave reason. A frivolous objection which had been rejected by the Bishop would be rejected by the Archbishop. It was the well-founded objection which the Archbishop would be required to support against the indiscreet Bishop, if there were one, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) only speculated on there being one. It was only in the case of an indiscreet determination not to enforce the law that the power of appeal was wanted. He therefore hoped the right hon. and learned Recorder would tell them he was able to accept the Amendment.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, it was not for him but for the Committee to determine whether the Amendment should be accepted. He should be content to leave the discretion of the Bishop

  887
  unfettered; at the same time, he did not see any objection to the appeal to the Archbishop in this case. He did not think the evils which had been suggested would arise, and it was impossible for him to resist the very strong opinion which had been expressed by the Committee.
  MR.HUBBARD (London)said, he was very much in favour of attaining uniformity; but even if only a qualified trust were placed in the Bishops it would be exceedingly hard to deprive them of all power of resisting injudicious complaints. The great object they ought to have in passing such a Bill as this was to preserve as much deference as they could for the court and authority of the Bishop; otherwise they should be setting up a Pope in England, and of the two dangers he thought the less would be an indiscreet Bishop. For these reasons, and because he supported uniformity, he must oppose the Amendment.
  Amendment amended by inserting the words "and the person complained of."
  MR. GREGORYproposed to omit the words requiring the Archbishop to give the reasons for his decision in writing, confirming or annulling the decision of the Bishop.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEconsidered it desirable that the words should be retained.
  MR. HOLTsaid, he thought it would be sufficient to strike out the words requiring the Archbishop to give the reasons for his decision.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Archbishop should only be required to give his reasons when he rejected the appeal.
  MR. DODSONconsidered it desirable to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought it would be sufficient to strike out the words requiring the Archbishop to give the reason for his decision.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Words struck out.
  On Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, after "shall proceed as hereinbefore directed," words inserted "in the case of his deciding that proceeding shall be taken on the representation."
  Question, "That the said Amendment, as amended, be agreed to," put.
  The Committee divided: safest course would be to insert the words—Ayes 103; Noes 37: Majority 66.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, in line 26, to leave out from "at any," to "province or," in line 27. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept this Amendment, because as the Bill stood the provincial Judge might try the case at the little village where it happened, or in the metropolis. There was such a thing as having law too cheap; but in this case it would probably cost as much to take the lawyers down as to bring the witnesses up. But it might not only create much scandal to have the trial in the village school or perhaps the village ale-house, but permanently weaken the influence of the clergyman although he escaped unscathed. In all ways it would be a more dignified proceeding to have the trial in London.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped this would not be assented to. The Judge might possibly have to inspect the church.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he did not wish to drag parties up to London or Westminster against their will; but he had proposed a Proviso which he thought would answer the object of the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope)—namely, in page 5, line 27, to leave out the second "or," and insert "Provided that if the parties consent, the matter of the representation shall be heard in."
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought the trials in all cases should take place in London, as that would be much the cheaper arrangement. When there were special pleas, and barristers were taken into the country, their fees were heavier than in London.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, that in the case of a disputed ornament or decoration it might be desirable for the Bishop to visit the church. If, on the other hand, some abstract question of law were at issue, it would be cheaper for the parties to have it argued in Westminster Hall instead of bringing counsel down with large retaining fees into the country. It would be better therefore to leave the matter to the discretion of the Archbishop or Bishop.
  MR. FOESYTHagreed that the matter had better be left to the discretion of the Bishop.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would be undesirable that the party with the longest purse should have the advantage.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he thought the parties ought to have a voice in the matter.
  Amendment and Proviso, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BERESFOED HOPEmoved in line 28 (the Judge shall give not less than 21 days notice to the parties of the time and place at which he will proceed to hear the matter of the said representation), to leave out "21," and insert "28."
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, to leave out the words "twenty-one," in order to insert the words "twenty-eight."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  Question put, "That the words 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 83: Majority 36.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, all the words after "Her Majesty in Council," in page 6, line 25, down to the end of the clause, were omitted.
  MR. FRESHFIELD(for Mr. GREGORY), moved in page 6, line 28, at end of clause to add—
  "The Judge may, on application in any case, suspend the execution of such judgment or monition pending an appeal, if he shall think lit,"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the addition of the words hardly necessary. It was in the power of any Judge to direct that the execution of any order which he might make should be suspended.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought that where there was an appeal the judgment or monition ought not be enforced until the appeal was determined, unless the Judge should otherwise order.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)thought the safest course would be to insert the words.
  Amendment agreed to;
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 10 (Registrar of the diocese to perform duties under the Act).
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved the omission from the end of the clause of the Proviso that the fees to be paid to the Registrar of the diocese or his deputy for the performance of his duties under the Act should not in any one suit amount to a larger sum than three guineas.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (No fresh evidence to be admitted on appeal) agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Inhibition of Incumbent).
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved the omission of words which would render it unlawful for the patron to appoint to any benefice the incumbent by whom it was avoided under the Act.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYopposed the Amendment, remarking that the people in the parishes were to be considered as well as the incumbents.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 13 (Faculty not necessary in certain cases).
  MR. RYDERmoved in page 8, line 9, to leave out "gratuitous," and insert—
  "(if unopposed) for a total of fees not exceeding two guineas (exclusive of stamp duty), and in accordance with a scale recently adopted in the diocese of Canterbury, and approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the twenty-eighth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three."
  MR. MONKsupported the Amendment, as he thought the Proviso in question was unadvisable and would work unjustly. Some one would have to pay the stamp duty on the Faculty, and it ought to be made clear whom it was intended to make liable to do so.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEfeared great inconvenience would be occasioned to the clergy if upon every alteration of the fabric of the church, such for instance, as the introduction of an "eagle" for a reading desk, or the substitution of open seats for a pew, a Faculty should be applied for.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYpointed out that under the clause as it stood no inconvenience could arise save in cases in which the Bishop directed proceedings to be taken—that was to

  891
  say, in cases where a breach of the law was supposed to have been committed. He moved that the word "gratuitously" should be retained in the Proviso and the words inserted after it "with the exception of the stamp duty."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSconcurred in the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Recorder.
  MR. WAITobjected to the retention of the word "gratuitously."
  Amendment (Mr. Russell Gurney) agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Service of notices) agreed to
  Clause 15 (Substitute for bishop in case of illness).
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved, in page 8, line 16, after "if," to insert "any Bishop be patron of the living proceeded against, or if," the effect of which would be to transfer to the Archbishop in such ease, as well as in the case of a Bishop incapacitated by illness, the discharge of the duties imposed by the Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MONKmoved, in page 8, line 16, after "bishop," to insert—
  "Shall be patron of the benefice or of any ecclesiastical preferment held by the incumbent against whom a representation shall have been made, or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16 (Application of Act to cathedral churches).
  Clause 17 (Limitation of proceedings against incumbent) agreed to.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved the omission of the clause. He had provided for the cathedral churches in another part of the Bill.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 18 (Rules for settling procedure and fees under this Act).
  MR. MONKmoved, in page 9, line 30, after "persons," to insert "one of them being the Lord High Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice of England."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYconsidered the Amendment a desirable one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 19 (Chapels, &c. to which Act not to extend.)
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved, in page 10, line 7, after "Durham," to insert as a separate paragraph "the university church of any of the said universities when used by such university."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that Amendment showed that that clause really ought not to be in the Bill at all. He was glad that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had given Notice of an Amendment to strike out all those exemptions. Why should there be those exemptions? If there were any churches in the land in which the law should be more scrupulously observed than in any others, they were the University churches. Then, again, as to the chapels of colleges and halls, why were young men to be brought up in practices of that kind? Why, too, were the Temple Church, and the chapels of Gray's Inn, Lincoln's Inn, and the Rolls to be exempted from the observance of the law? If they wanted to put these practices down in parish churches, surely they ought also to put them down in chapels coming under the Public Schools and the Endowed Schools Acts. He hoped the Vice President of the Council would move his Amendment for expunging that clause altogether.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Committee would consent to strike out that clause. He could not really see on what principle they could say that the services of the Church were to be performed according to the Rubric, in places which were attended by the old, but not in places which were attended by the young. The chapels might be private to a certain extent; but they were only sanctioned to carry out the worship of the Church of England as established by law.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have altogether forgotten the University Tests Act passed by the last Parliament, which took college chapels out of the operation of the Act of Uniformity, under which it was now desired to place them. In that Act it was set forth that it should be lawful for any visitor of one of those colleges, on the request of the Governing Body, to authorize from time to time on week days any abridgment or adaptation of the service, instead of that set down in the book of Common Prayer,

  893
  and in the succeeding year the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act provided that nothing which it contained should effect the exemption which had been made with respect to the chapels at Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, &c. He would make the assumption that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) sometimes attended the University church on Sundays, and, if so, he must be aware that the service at 2 o'clock at St. Mary's, Cambridge, or at the analogous church at Oxford, was not conformable to the Act of Uniformity, nor was it desirable, he thought, that three parishioners should be allowed to meddle with it. If his hon. and learned Friend wished, he might move that the chapels of the Inns of Court should be struck out of the list of exemptions; but to strike out the chapels in the Universities would be to cause great embarrassment and inconvenience, and to cast a very unmerited slur on grave and ancient institutions. [A laugh.] It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen behind him to laugh; this was Conservative reaction, to destroy those ancient forms of public worship in the Universities which had been of old created out of regard to their peculiar wants and duties. He had it from the highest authority at Cambridge, that if those exemptions were omitted from the Bill very great vexation and exasperation would be the probable result. So strongly did he feel on the subject that he should certainly take the sense of the Committee with respect to it.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he did not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University was a very important one. The University Tests Act provided that there might be abridgments in the services; but it did not provide that the law of the Church should be broken generally. The effect of this clause would be very wide and very serious, and he hoped the Committee would carefully consider before passing it. He must not only protest against any additions to the exemptions already contained in the Bill as it came down to them from "another place": but he must beg the House to examine well these exemptions themselves; and later, in accordance with the Notice he had placed on the Paper, he should ask the House to get rid of
  894
  all these exemptions, and thereby to enact that the same provisions for the observance of the laws of the Protestant Church of England should be made for the chapels in which the large portion of the youth of the country was educated, as for the Parish churches. In the Act of Uniformity special provision was made by Parliament for extending its provisions for securing uniformity in our Reformed Public Worship, to the chapels of the colleges at the Universities, and to those of our then leading Public Schools. Our ancestors being well aware of the importance of preventing the leading youth of the country from being brought up in a form of worship contrary to that authorized by law in the Church of England. But what did this clause of the Bill do? This clause would exempt from the operation of the Act, in opposition to the whole spirit of the former Acts of Uniformity, not only the chapels of all schools, hospitals, asylums, public and charitable institutions, but would also sweep into this exemption the chapels of all the endowed grammar schools of the country, and the chapels of Eton, Winchester, Westminster, Charter House, Harrow, Rugby, and Shrewsbury; as well as the chapels of the Colleges of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and then, to go further, the chapels of Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, the Temple, and the Polls. By this clause, the Committee would be, in fact, authorizing the use of unlawful ceremonies in the whole of the schools, colleges, and Universities in the land. A complete scheme was here laid down by which the whole of the leading youth of the country might be brought up accustomed to services alien to the spirit of our Reformed Church, and which, be it remembered, had been declared unlawful by the Courts, and against which Parliament was now, tinder the guidance of the two Archbishops, with remarkable unanimity, taking special precautions. This exemption began with the picked children at our Charitable Institutions; it then extended to the flower of the lower middle class who would be educated at our reformed grammar and endowed schools; it took in the children of the upper classes at all the great public schools; it followed them all to our ancient Universities; and provided for the existence of

  895
  such services even when they entered the Inns of Court. He again asked the Committee to pause before passing such a clause, for he felt confident that the country when the case was fully laid before it, would never permit such exemptions to prevail, or allow such a danger to exist of all her more cultivated youth being subjected to the influence of practices and ceremonies in their chapels, against the prevalence of which in our churches generally the nation had demanded, in an unmistakeable manner, the interference of the Legislature. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon this subject, and, in accordance with his Notice, should move at the proper time the omission of the whole clause.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYcontended that, though the clause was left out, there would be no means under the Bill of dealing with the chapels in Universities as with parish churches, which had connected with them archdeacons, churchwardens, and parishioners. The machinery for putting its provisions into operation would, therefore, in the ease of the former be wanting, and if the clause were not retained, some new machinery would have to be established. The University church did not come under the Act of Uniformity, and therefore it must have an exemption, or people would say that the services were not being performed in the authorized way. With respect to the Amendment immediately before the Committee, it seemed to him to be a most reasonable proposal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmaintained that the passage quoted by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) with respect to the visitor being entitled to authorize a particular form of service on week days did not prove that the chapels in question had been taken out of the operation of the Act of Uniformity. That, moreover, was not the sort of thing which the present Bill proposed, because it said that all those colleges and chapels without the leave of the visitor might do as they liked. In reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), he might observe that if no machinery were provided in the Bill for putting its provisions into operation in the case of University chapels,
  896
  the necessary machinery might very easily be supplied in the Report. They were going to do that in another matter; and the case of cathedral and collegiate churches, and the case of these chapels were in pari imperio. It should be remembered that the University of Oxford, at times, had not been uniformly Protestant. By this clause the very churches would be exempted to which it was most important to apply the provisions of the Bill. It was to be hoped no such invidious distinctions would be made, and that machinery would be provided for dealing with these as well as other churches.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, there was no objection to the Universities and Colleges being under the Act of Uniformity. The objection of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was that the Committee was going to reverse that which Parliament had settled upon a great settlement of a very important question—namely, the admission of persons not members of the Church of England to the colleges in the Universities. The University Tests Act allowed, upon the ground of liberality, to non-members of the Church, with the consent of the Bishops and on the application of the Governing Body, certain shorter services to be used on week days, and to reverse that would be to throw back the legislation of the country instead of advancing it. He objected to omit this clause, unless a proper provision was made for securing that which was intended to be secured by the University Tests Act for the benefit both of Churchmen and non-members of the Church.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought they seemed to be rather running away from what was proposed to be done. It was said that there was no machinery for dealing with this class of cases, but that might be obviated by bringing up a clause on the Report. Under the first sub-section of Clause 8 the offences chargeable related to the introduction of forbidden decorations, and the clause went on to provide for the case of those clergymen who had made, or permitted to be made, any unlawful addition to, alteration of, or omission from the services, rites, and ceremonies enjoined. A clause might be inserted in the Report which would save the University Tests Act.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that he should be satisfied if they agreed upon the Report to insert a clause that nothing in this Bill should alter or affect the provisions contained in the University Tests Act, or the Act of 1872, with reference to this matter.
  MR. FORSYTHpointed out that, as the Bill made it unlawful on the part of the incumbent, to fail to observe the directions in the Book of Common Prayer, it would have the effect of overriding the provisions of the University Tests Act.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought it immaterial whether the clause was retained or not, inasmuch as if it was struck out there would be no machinery for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill, in so far as the college chapels were concerned. At the same time, for the sake of clearness, he would prefer to see it retained. Perhaps it would be better, under the circumstances, to reserve consideration of the matter till the Report, when they would have an opportunity of dealing again with the machinery.
  MR. MOWBRAYwould appeal to the right hon. and learned Recorder to let the clause stand as it was. The phraseology of Clause 8 had nothing whatever to do with college chapels.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, if there was a defect in the language of the clause as was suggested, that defect, so far as concerned the wording of this Bill, applied to every Protestant Church in England, because the Act of Uniformity was in force with reference to a parish church just as much as it was in force with reference to churches and chapels of colleges. In the case of a parish church, the ordinary might give his sanction to the mode of performing the service—in the case of a college church or chapel the visitor had the power of giving directions on that subject.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the general principle laid down in the Bill was that the worshippers had a right to call their minister to account for deviations unauthorized. But who were the worshippers in a college chapel? Undergraduates in statu pupillari. How could they expect these young men to call their superiors to order? In parish churches the congregations would find
  898
  no difficulty in doing so, but to encourage undergraduates to set themselves up as the dictators of the college authorities was simply to strike a blow at discipline.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it was surely most important that obedience to the law should be specially insisted upon in the great educational institutions of the country. The youth who were educated in them should be subject to the same law in this respect as prevailed in parish churches or chapels—namely, the Act of Uniformity. Who should complain of breaches of the law, and to whom those complaints should be addressed were only matters of detail, and could easily be arranged before the Report; but the question raised by the clause was clearly of the gravest importance; the matter would not stand as it did before the passing of this Bill; but this special exemption of the school and college chapels would probably be held to convey somewhat of a sanction from the Legislature to the introduction and continuance of practices and ceremonies in these chapels which were condemned in Parish churches.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, referring to the objection of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) that the clause would enable undergraduates to call their superiors to order with reference to the mode of conducting Divine Service, said, that objection could be removed by altering the clause so as to enable only the parents of undergraduates to make complaints on that subject.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that when during the last 20 years they had done everything to disassociate the Universities from the Church of England, it seemed strange that attempts should be made to bring these chapels, which were strictly private, within the operation of the Bill. At Oxford it had been a vexed question as to the colleges repudiating the jurisdiction of the Bishops. Were they going, by a side-wind, entirely to do away with the charters and foundations of these colleges, and place them under a jurisdiction that at present they were not subject to? This was the great difficulty that he had. He had seen several occasions where the jurisdiction of the Bishop in the University had been successfully resisted;

  899
  and if they were going to strike out the exemption clause they could not leave the matter in that position.
  MR. CAWLEYpointed out that the definition of a church in the Bill was a place of public worship in which the incumbent was bound to conduct Divine Service according to the Book of Common Prayer; and if it were true that these chapels were not bound so to conduct the service, then the Bill did not touch them at all. If, on the other hand, they were bound to conduct Divine Service according to the Book of Common Prayer, then there should be no exemption.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobjected to the inclusion of the chapels of public schools among the list of exemptions, because it involved the assumption that the services in these chapels were not conducted in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer, and in its present form the clause might be interpreted as leave to depart from the customary mode of conducting public worship.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the only doubt he ever had as to college chapels being included under the operation of the Bill arose from the provisions of the University Tests Act. It appeared however, that the Bill would only apply to cases where the service of the Church of England was required to be performed according to the Book of Common Prayer. It would, therefore, apply to those chapels on Sunday, but not on other days when the shorter services authorized by the University Tests Act were performed. He would withdraw his Amendment, and vote for striking out the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 200: Majority 147.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYmoved to leave out Clause 16, and insert the following clause—
  (Provisions relating to cathedral or collegiate church.)
  "The duties appointed under this Act to be performed by the bishop of the diocese shall in the case of a cathedral or collegiate church be performed by the visitor thereof.
  "If any complaint shall be made concerning the fabric, ornaments, furniture, or decorations of a cathedral or collegiate church, the person
  900
  complained of shall be the dean and chapter of such cathedral or collegiate church, and in the event of obedience not being rendered to a monition relating to the fabric, ornaments, furniture, or decorations of such cathedral or collegiate church, the visitor, or the judge, as the case may be, shall have power to carry into effect the directions contained in such monition, and if necessary to raise the sum required to defray the cost thereof by sequestration of the profits of the preferments held in such cathedral or collegiate church by the dean and chapter thereof.
  "If any complaint shall be made concerning the ornaments of the minister in a cathedral or collegiate church, or as to the observance therein of the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer, relating to the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the said book, or as to any alleged addition to, alteration of, or omission from such services, rites, and ceremonies in such cathedral or collegiate church, the person complained of shall be the clerk in holy orders alleged to have offended in the matter complained of, and the visitor, or the judge, as the case may be, in the event of obedience not being rendered to a monition, shall have the same power as to inhibition, and the preferment held in such cathedral or collegiate church by the person complained of, shall be subject to the same conditions as to avoidance, notice, and lapse, and as to any subsequent appointment, presentation, collation, or nomination thereto, and as to duo provision being made for the performance of the duties of such person as are contained in this Act concerning an incumbent to whom a monition has been issued, and concerning any benefice or other ecclesiastical preferment held by such incumbent."
  Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.
  MR. GREGORYmoved after Clause 10, to insert the following clause:—
  (Parties may appear in person or by proctor or solicitor.)
  "In any proceedings under this Act any person, whether complainant or defendant, may appear either by himself in person, or by any proctor or any solicitor of the Supreme Court."
  Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved the following clause—
  (Proceedings in case of bishops.)
  "If ten inhabitants of the diocese resident during the preceding twelve months, of whom three at least shall be incumbents, shall be of opinion that the bishop thereof has in any church or burial ground within the diocese (1st) used any unlawful ornament of the minister of the Church, or (2nd) failed to observe the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer relating to the performances in such church or burial ground of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the said book, or has made any unlawful addition to, alteration of, or omission from such services, rites, and ceremonies, such inhabitants may, if they think fit, represent the same to the Metropolitan by sending

  901
  to him a form as contained in Schedule (C) to this Act, duly filled up and signed, and accompanied by a declaration made by them under the Act of the fifth and sixth year of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-two, affirming the truth of the statements contained in the representation.
  "Such representation shall only relate to matters which have occurred within six months from the date of the sending thereof to the Metropolitan.
  "The Metropolitan may, if he think fit, within six months after he has received a representation in manner agreed proceed to consider the same in his Provincial Court, in public, with the assistance of the judge of his Provincial Court and two or more bishops of the province, to be chosen in the manner directed in the rules and orders; and the Metropolitan shall, after due consideration, pronounce judgment in regard to such representation, and if the judgment so require shall issue a monition to the Bishop in the form prescribed in Schedule (E) to this Act, admonishing him to refrain from such unlawful acts or omissions.
  "The persons making the representation, or the bishop, may appeal within twenty-eight days after judgment has been given to her Majesty in Council, and in such case the appeal shall be heard and determined in the same manner as if it had been an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the province.
  "A copy of such monition shall be sent within twenty-eight days from the date thereof to the bishop; and if, whilst a monition is in force, it be shown to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan in his provincial court, after notice to and hearing of the bishop, that obedience has not been paid to such monition, or to the part thereof (if any) which shall not have been annulled on appeal, the Metropolitan shall thereupon, unless the bishop shall show sufficient cause to the contrary, inflict upon the bishop such ecclesiastical censure or censures as shall he prescribed by the rules and orders.
  "Provided always, That if the bishop so proceeded against shall be the Archbishop of Canterbury or of York respectively, then the representation shall be made to the Metropolitan of the other province, who shall, if he think fit, proceed to hear the same as hereinbefore provided, with the assistance of the judge of his provincial court, and of two or more bishops of his province."
  The hon. Member observed that as every other clergyman in the land was to be subject to the operation of the Bill he thought there could be no objection to bring within the meshes of the law those, above all, whose duty it was to set an example of obedience to it. In bringing the Bishops within the framework of the Bill he thought the Committee would agree with him that there should be safeguards to protect them against vexatious proceedings, and to that end he had taken care to provide that the parties to institute proceedings against a Bishop should not be a chance churchwarden and
  902
  three parishioners, but 10 inhabitants of the diocese resident during the preceding 12 months, of whom three at least should be incumbents. The representations to be made, also, were to go back only six months, instead of five years, as in the case of an incumbent, subject to the penalties of the Act.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he hardly thought that the hon. Gentleman, in proposing this clause, seriously intended the House to adopt it. So far from contributing to uniformity, it would introduce a system different from that of the Bill, which proceeded on the principle of having a clergyman tried by a Judge. The Bill proceeded on the principle of amending the procedure, and enforcing the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, so far as related to the fabric of the Church and religious worship; but the Bishops were not included in that Act; and therefore the new clause departed from the scope of the Bill. There had been no such complaints of Bishops as would render it necessary to include them, and the clause was drawn in such a way as to suggest that it was not intended to work.
  MR. WAITsaid, he hoped the Committee would support the clause. He was sorry to hear the right hon. and learned Recorder suggest that the mover of it was not serious. It was a serious clause, and it was consistent with the principle that the Bill should countenance no exemptions, and that every one, high and low, Church dignitary or simple priest, should be within the scope of the Bill. They protested against the infallibility of a foreign Bishop, and they ought not to proceed on the assumption that English Bishops were infallible. As respected the working clergy, it would be a healing clause, because it would show that the Bill was not aimed at them exclusively.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEassured the Committee he was serious in moving the clause, and he had received widespread encouragement to do so from all parts of the country, and from all classes of the clergy, from the Bishops down-wards. If the Bill was to be complete,

  903
  it must take in the Episcopal Order—that was, if it was to be regarded as a fair Bill, dealing with ecclesiastical offences without favour or partiality. If something of the sort was not adopted, the existing irritation would be increased.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, that as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder had promised to bring in a Bill next Session to amend the Act of Uniformity, that would be the time to bring in the Bishops.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Bill contained no reference to the Church Discipline Act, but it would make absolutely now law, and he did not see why the Bishops should not be included. If they infringed the Rubrics he did not see why they should not be brought under the Act.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, one of the objects of the Bill was to give the Bishops a more ready jurisdiction, and the object of the new clause was to degrade the Bishops. ["No, no."] That would be the effect of it, because it implied that the Bishops themselves were guilty of these practices. He trusted it would not be agreed to.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not see why Bishops should be exempted more than any other of the clergy from the operations of the Bill. The object of the Bill was not to give greater power to the Bishops, but to promote greater uniformity he did not agree with the Bill at all, but could not see why there should be any exemptions.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he did not want to degrade the Bishops, but if the Bill was to be equal it must apply to all orders of the clergy. The clergy would see the propriety of obedience more clearly if the Bishops were amenable to the same law. He supported the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, five Members had spoken in favour of the clause, and they were among the most distinguished opponents of the Bill. If the clause were carried it was fatal to the Bill. Everybody knew that if this clause were carried the hon. Member who moved it would have achieved the object of all his opposition. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: No, no.] Of course, the hon. Member would deny that he wanted to defeat the Bill. Everybody knew the Bill had been introduced
  904
  to supply a new machinery for the cumbrous machinery of the Church Discipline Act. The object of this clause was to defeat the Bill in the House of Lords.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSquestioned the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Bill would be lost if this reasonable clause were accepted. He had no conception that the object of the Bill was to give additional dignity to the Bishops; if it was to place them above the law, he objected to their having any such additional dignity. It was new to him that there was to be a special order of the clergy excepted from the laws applicable to the rest. He hardly thought the right hon. and learned Recorder could be serious in objecting to the substance of the clause because it required Amendment. If the Bill was to be carried it should be in such a form as to be above the suspicion of partiality. If it was to become law, let it be a law for all classes of the clergy. The Bishops were not well served by those who advocated that they should be placed above or permitted to contravene the law.
  MR. WHITWELLwas surprised at the proposal to add such a clause as this to the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. B. Hope) did not even establish the Court by which the Bishop was to be tried.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, the clause would bring the whole question into ridicule if it were passed. There was no machinery in this Bill to deal with Bishops or Archbishops. He protested against its being considered that they were placing Bishops above the law by omitting this clause.
  MR. W. EGERTONsubmitted that this was a legitimate corollary of the clause that dealt with the question of appeal from the Bishops to the Archbishops.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTdenied that the object of those who supported this clause was to defeat the Bill by a side-wind. He believed the Bishops would set an example to those under them of obedience to the law; but if they did not, they would deserve to be brought under the operation of this law just in the same way as any incumbent. The Bill being in its present temperate state, he wished it to become law, and he repudiated the insinuation of the

  905
  hon. and learned Member (Sir William Harcourt) that he wished to oppose the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthought if any proceeding were to be taken against any Bishop or Archbishop, it should be instituted by the Crown.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 173: Majority 108.
  MR. FOESYTHmoved the following clause:—
  (Judge not to be a Member of the House of Commons.)
  "That no Judge appointed under this Act shall be capable of being elected as a Member of or sitting in the House of Commons."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, it was clear his hon. and learned Friend had not read Lord Macaulay's speech with reference to the exclusion of the Master of the Rolls from a seat in the House. Such a provision would exclude a man like the late Dr. Lushington.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 1 postponed.
  MR. HUBBARDmoved as an Amendment that, instead of the Act being cited as "The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," its short title should be "The Ecclesiastical Causes Procedure Act."
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he had no objection to the clause being omitted altogether, but he could not agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HUBBARDthen moved the omission of the clause.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 53: Majority 124.
  Schedule A.
  COLONEL MAKINSmoved, in page 11, line 4, after "England," to insert—
  "and that I have been baptised and confirmed in the same, and that I sincerely believe the doctrines contained in the Book of Common Prayer."
  to meet the view urged by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that every Nonconformist was by law a member of the Church of England, and would be entitled to take action under the Bill.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYobjected to the Amendment.
  MR. BASSETTasked what constituted a member of the Church of England? They were all members—some conforming, others not conforming.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSappealed to the hon. and gallant Colonel not to press the Amendment. The Bill was drawn not to include matters of doctrine, but of procedure.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. DILLWYNmoved the omission of the Schedule, on the ground that it was objectionable to limit the operation of the Bill to a mere section of the community.
  Question put, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 41: Majority 139.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]
  MR. DISRAELIgave Notice that on the Report he would bring up a clause to provide for the salary of the Judge.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL— [BILL 196.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL— [BILL 196.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power to Lord Lieutenant to fix revised salaries for Constabulary force.)
  MAJOR O'GORMANmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw his Motion. 'He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not mean to press the opposed clauses of the Bill on the present occasion.
  MR. BUTTsaid, there was no disposition to oppose the progress of the Bill, and, for his part, he was anxious to sea

  907
  it pass; but there were clauses in it which he was desirous to see amended.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGpointed out some details of the Bill which he thought objectionable.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHadverted to want of a proper scale of retiring pensions for the officers and men of the constabulary, and urged the necessity of passing the Bill in reference to them through Committee.
  MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, he should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what the salaries of those officers were?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the salaries of the superior officers were fixed by the Treasury, and therefore were not specified in the Bill.
  MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, he wanted to know what was the reason the right hon. Baronet did not disclose to the Committee what the salaries of the officers of the constabulary were. The Lords of the Treasury, who got £5,000 a-year, had their salaries proclaimed, and why should the public not know what the salaries of the police officers were?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Forfeiture of pension for misconduct).
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved the omission of the clause.
  MAJOR O'GORMANstrongly opposed the clause, and moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion negatived.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 24: Majority 80.
  Remaining clauses agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, ordered to he brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
Bill presented, and read the first time.
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.