Commons Sitting of 12 February 1878

MANCHESTER CORPORATION WATER BILL (by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. E. S. HOWARD: Sir, in rising to move the rejection of this Bill, I feel that the first thing I must do is to state the reasons why I feel myself justified in taking this rather unusual course. I can assure the House that I should not have undertaken so great a responsibility if I had not received the assurance of a very high and impartial authority that the circumstances of the case will justify such a proceeding. The first contention of the promoters of the Bill is that it would be unprecedented to refuse or to reject a Bill of this kind on the second reading, unless its object is of a novel character and contrary to public policy
  1504
  or general law. I do not pretend that the object of the Bill is altogether of a novel character; but I do say that the Bill raises questions which were never raised before, and of such importance that they ought not to be dealt with in the ordinary manner. Now, Sir, from time to time there have appeared in the local newspapers in the North statements that such and such a town—sometimes Newcastle, sometimes Liverpool, and sometimes Manchester—was contemplating a scheme for obtaining a supply of water from one or other of the Lakes. Hitherto all these schemes have come to nothing, and this is the first of the kind that has seriously been brought forward. At first I thought, and others thought the same, that there was nothing unreasonable in the proposal. Most hon. Members are aware that Glasgow is supplied with water from Loch Katrine, and it was naturally thought that if Manchester was in want of water, and there was no other available source of supply, and Manchester could afford the expense of bringing it from so great a distance, there was nothing unreasonable in going to Thirl-mere for the supply. But when Mr. Bateman's plans and estimates were made known, we who live in the Lake District changed our opinion; for we found that there was hardly any analogy between that scheme and that of Loch Katrine, and it involved such great changes in the natural features of the Lake District that we could no longer look upon it with indifference. Under these circumstances, we thought it not unreasonable to ask the House to postpone the Bill, in order that a full and public inquiry might take place. We think that the natural scenery of the Lake District is worth preserving, and we know that there are many schemes of this sort on foot. Liverpool contemplates a scheme of this kind, but proposes to go to Wales to carry it out. Wigan and other towns are in the same condition; and therefore we think it better to have a Select Committee or a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of the water supply of these manufacturing districts, in order to see how far recourse may be made to the Lakes, and under what conditions and limitations. We are strengthened in our request by the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Royal Commission, which

  1505
  sat on the Metropolitan Water Supply in 1869. That Commission was instructed also to inquire into the supply of the provincial towns; but they reported that such an inquiry would be one of great magnitude, and would involve a great amount of geographical and topographical knowledge over the whole country. They, therefore, found it impossible to undertake that further inquiry without further powers, and they resolved to complete their Report on the lesser subject—the Metropolitan Water Supply—and to limit their recommendations on the larger question to general principles. They prepared an elaborate map of the geographical distribution of sources of water, and they recommended shortly—first, that no town or district should be allowed to appropriate the source of supply which naturally and geographically belonged to the town or district nearer to that source, unless there were special circumstances which justified that appropriation; secondly, that when a town or district was supplied from a line or conduit from a distance, provision should be made for the supply of all places on that line; and, thirdly, that on introducing a Water Supply Bill to Parliament, efforts should be made to make the measure applicable to as large a district as possible, and not to limit it to the town immediately needing the supply. Now these are important questions, and it is quite worth while to have a Select Committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into them. But the promoters of this Bill object to any opposition, chiefly on three grounds. First, they say our objections are entirely sentimental, and such as no sensible or practical man would listen to for a moment; then they urge that the wants of Manchester are very pressing; and, lastly, that they have no other source of supply. Now, first let me answer their objection that our agitation against the Bill is purely sentimental, and ought not to be listened to. Although they object to our sentimental views, they have condescended to meet us on our own ground. Mr. Grave, the Chairman of the Waterworks Committee of the Manchester Corporation, and the real author of this scheme, and. Mr. Bateman, and the Waterworks Committee themselves, all consider that the beauty of Lake Thirlmere will be very much enhanced if this scheme is carried out. Mr. Bateman
  1506
  says the size of the Lake should correspond with the loftiness of the surrounding mountains; that Thirlmere is very small and the mountains around it very high; and that the carrying out of the Manchester scheme would make the Lake much more in harmony with the surrounding scenery. Mr. Grave, in a recent letter to The Times, says that "Nature has been for years at work destroying her own primitive and untouched beauty." Lake Thirlmere, in fact, is growing very old and very ugly, and it is high time that it should be restored by the appliances of engineering art—that object being attained by turning Thirlmere into a reservoir to supply Manchester with water. Then some of the arguments against us are founded upon questions of mathematical accuracy; for instance, if Thirlmere is very beautiful with only 300 acres of water, how much more beautiful must it be when its area is increased to 700 acres. One island at present in the Lake will be submerged by the Manchester scheme; but in place of that they propose to produce two new ones, and if one island is beautiful, two, of course, will be twice as pretty. Then they propose to construct a dam which will raise the level of the Lake 50 feet. That dam is to be invisible except to persons on the top. It is to be as irregular and picturesque in form as the neighbouring crag and rocks; it is to be ornamented with beautiful shrubs; and last, but not least, in future the place will, no doubt, become the habitat of rare birds. That is the last straw which is to break the back of our sentimental opposition. They propose to buy—if they have not bought already—10,000 acres of the adjoining common ground, and they are quite prepared to throw that open to the public for ever, and to make two brand new roads all round the Lake. The Lake and its surroundings are, in fact, to be converted into an extensive people's park, with a serpentine containing two artificial islands in the middle, and a great broad path all round. But there are some people who, after all, prefer Thirlmere as it is—small, wild, and inaccessible. We have been taunted with being sentimentalists and enthusiasts; but I do not see anything wicked in that. I can appeal to Lancashire sympathy on this question. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home

  1507
  Secretary is not now in his place, because I should like to appeal to him. Not long ago he delivered a lecture on what is called "Truth in Art," and in that he said that he entertained great objections to people who wore sham buttons on their boots. If he is such an advocate for truth in art, surely we might have counted on his advocacy in endeavouring in our poor way to preserve the truth of nature. So much, then, for our sentimental opposition. I now come to what Mr. Grave calls "the absolute wants of 2,000,000 of people." In the first place, I must point out that that statement is not exactly an accurate one. I am afraid that Mr. Grave's mind must have got muddled with his own magnificence, or with the magnificence of Manchester, for so far from there being 2,000,000 of people, there are only 800,000. The statements which I now make are taken from Mr. Grave and the Waterworks Committee of the Manchester Corporation. The district which Manchester is to supply is 84 square miles in extent, and comprises 800,000 persons. The present source of water supply, Mr. Grave stated, in the summer would afford 25,500,000 gallons per day; but Mr. Bateman has since reduced the amount to 24,000,000 gallons. In 1875 Mr. Bateman reported to the Waterworks Committee that, owing to the large increase in the demand for trading and other purposes, the supply per head of population was 22 gallons per day. By a very easy calculation, we find that the 24,000,000 gallons per day would supply 1,000,000 persons with 24 gallons per head per day, which would be a thoroughly ample supply; and if the population of Manchester increases at the same rate in the future as it did during the 10 years before the last Census, in 10 years' time the population would not have reached 1,000,000, but would be something over 900,000. If, as Mr. Bateman says, the present supply will produce 24,000,000 gallons per day, there would be an ample supply for over 900,000 persons at the very liberal allowance of 24 gallons per head per day. That is not my statement of a liberal allowance—it is the statement both of the Waterworks Committee and of Mr. Bateman—and therefore we say that Manchester can be in no great want of water for 10 years to come. Mr. Bateman argues from an
  1508
  opposite point of view; and, taking the increased consumption year by year, he says that during the last two years the increase has been as much as 1,200,000 gallons per day, and that you cannot count on a less increase than 1,000,000 gallons per day for each year to come. Well, the people of Manchester now require 18,000,000 gallons per day, and by this calculation they will require in 10 years 28,000,000 gallons per day. But as Mr. Bateman before considered that 22 gallons per head was sufficient, we cannot think that 28 gallons per head is a necessity. Such a supply must be in the nature of a luxury; and therefore we cannot say that the Manchester Corporation have proved their case as to the absolute necessity of having this Water Bill passed immediately. But I may be told that I am proving too much, and that it is quite impossible that a Corporation like that of Manchester should have come to Parliament with a Bill of this sort if they had not good reasons for doing so. But, in the first place, why is such a Bill asked for? I believe they have already expended much money in buying the property. Mr. Grave lives in the neighbourhood, and he has been carefully nursing the whole district for two or three years, buying here and there. Until the whole scheme came out, they did not anticipate that anybody could say "No" to Manchester, and they believed that Parliament would be no exception to the rule. They thought that, having spent thousands of pounds in the matter, they could easily get Parliament to ratify the purchase. The present waterworks of Manchester were commenced about 22 years ago, and it was then estimated by Mr. Bateman that the cost would be £460,000, and that it would provide a supply of 84,000,000 gallons per day. But the actual cost has been over £2,000,000, and the supply of water that Manchester has acquired by it has shrunk from 34,000,000 to 24,000,000 gallons per day. The result of that is, that the Manchester Corporation find that though they thought that, like wise men, they had provided for many generations to come, that is not the case, and the income arising from the city is not sufficient, without hardship, to bear the cost of the introduction of a supply for the future. The consequence has been that they have come to Parliament with Bills to extend their

  1509
  area of supply, intending to sell the surplus, which may in time be required for future generations for trading purposes outside the city, and thus increase the revenue of the Water Committee. Let me read the statement of Alderman King, who tried to go into the figures of the case; but who was unable to do so, principally because the Waterworks Committee of his own Corporation refused to give him any information whatever. But still he found out as much as he possibly could. He says the anxiety to sell water is manifested in a variety of ways, and the Waterworks Committee have congratulated the Council on the increased funds obtained by its sale. Mr. King read several extracts from the Committee's Reports, congratulating the Council on selling the water for trading purposes, and went on to show that they had passed two Acts since the first by which they had extended the area of supply. The last Act, passed in 1863, showed how great was the anxiety to do that. I need not quote any further to show the anxiety of the Corporation to sell their water, to extend the trade around the city, and thus to increase their own revenues. The result is, that they think they will be short of water much sooner than they expected years ago. We are told that the welfare of the poor people in and around Manchester depends on the prosperity of that city, and that its prosperity depends on the extension of trade. But I do not think the extension of trade is so much to be depended upon. What have we seen lately? There was a time, not long ago, when the expansion of our trade was considerable—new mines were opened, new mills set at work, and new factories, and thousands of people were brought into all these districts to share in the prosperity which was to result from the extension of trade. And now, Sir, what has happened? Bad times have come, trade has become dull and depressed, and these extensions of industry cannot be carried on any longer with profit. The mines are closed, the mills and factories are shut up, and thousands of people have been thrown out of work, with nothing to do but to become paupers and subsist on the charity of the public. I do not profess to understand these questions of political economy; but, if all this is the necessary consequence of the extension
  1510
  of trade, I do not think the result is satisfactory to many people. It is a grave and serious question whether we are justified in encouraging a forced extension of trade. I have shown that the object of the Corporation of Manchester in their proposal is to extend the trade in order to benefit their revenues. Within Manchester they do not require the water for domestic or sanitary wants'; and, in point of fact, it will be found that this is a gigantic speculation to carry out these works at an estimated cost of £4,000,000, which will probably be increased to £6,000,000 before the works are executed, without adding one farthing to their own rates. I say, Sir, that these are very important questions, and they ought not to be settled—as they will be settled if this Bill is allowed to proceed—in the ordinary way. We know that other large towns—such as Liverpool and Wigan—will be wanting water at some time or other, and will probably want to come to the Lakes. Why, then, should not a Royal Commission, or Select Committee, first hold this inquiry which we ask for? Such a tribunal would lay down certain regulations, and every Bill brought in would have to be subject to these regulations, and there would not be the necessity which now exists of fighting such a Bill as the present at enormous expense. I must say that throughout the whole country we have found the greatest public interest alive on this question. We have had Petitions from every county in the country, and from several thousand persons representing every rank and position, all interested, and all wishing to preserve the Lake District, if possible, as far as they can reasonably do so. On the other hand, the friends of the Bill have presented Petitions, which they say are from the people of the locality. I do not wish to weary the House by reading letters on the subject; but the whole of these Petitions have been got up in the most scandalous manner, and many of them have been signed by fraud. When it is represented that the Local Boards of Penrith, of Grasmere, and of Keswick have petitioned in favour of the Bill, it must be remembered that the Petition was carried in the Penrith Board by six votes to five, and in the Grasmere Board by four to three; and, of the four who were in its favour, three were publicans and one was a

  1511
  painter. I have endeavoured to show, as well as I can, that our "sentimental opposition" to this Bill is not so unreasonable as some seem to think; that we do not wish to press it to an unreasonable extent; that the Bill is not intended to supply Manchester's domestic and sanitary wants, but is much more in the nature of a trading speculation. I have endeavoured to show that there are very grave questions raised by the Bill, which ought to be matter for national inquiry, and ought not be left to be fought out by a few poor landowners on one side and a powerful Corporation on the other. The sequel to the Duke of Richmond's Commission has never taken place, for there has never been an inquiry—as the Commissioners suggested—into the water supply for manufacturing districts. Therefore, thanking the House for the attention which it has given to me, and in order that an inquiry may take place, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  MR. W. LOWTHER: In seconding the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, I may say that my hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. E. 8. Howard) has put the case so ably before the House, that there is little for me to add to it, and in what I have to say I will be as brief as I can. I appear here to-day, Sir, as a Representative of a very beautiful part of the country, for Westmoreland is one of the most beautiful counties in England; but if this plan be carried out, a very beautiful part of the country will be very much disfigured. The Lake, we are told, would be raised 35 feet, and that alone would cause the submergence of a large portion of the land. The Corporation of Manchester wishes to take 11,000 acres of land in the neighbourhood for this purpose, and 6,000 acres more between Thirlmere and Manchester, thereby occupying a very large space. The area of the Lake would be increased from 335 acres to 800 acres. My hon. Friend opposite has already dwelt upon the pretence that the Manchester Corporation are going to beautify that part of the country. If they will only leave it alone, we believe it would be quite as well. Manchester has herself admitted the beauty of that part of the country, and has also admitted "that that beauty would be very much interfered with and very much destroyed
  1512
  by this plan." The Corporation of Manchester is, no doubt, very powerful and very rich, and this is very much a question of who has the longer purse. The Manchester Corporation despise those who are opposed to this scheme; but if I know anything of the feeling which animates the British House of Commons, I think its Members will be rather inclined to take the part of the weaker side, and will not allow this scheme to be carried into effect. We shall, I dare say, be told that this is not the first time on which water has been taken for household and other similar purposes from a Lake. Well, no doubt, that is so. The case of Loch Katrine may be mentioned; but I am not aware that in that case any disfigurement was caused to the natural features of the Lake. Further, it is possible, that dwellers on the borders of Loch Katrine thought it better that the water of the Loch should be sold for the use of the people of Glasgow. We have another instance of a Lake being taken for a town in the case of Ennerdale, in Cumberland—water from which is taken by the town of Whitehaven, and the Lake is used to supply the ships at Whitehaven with excellent water; but if anyone who is fond of the picturesque will go to Ennerdale, he will find that there is no dam there, and nothing at all which is disfiguring. According to the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, I believe that any surplus land which is taken, but not used, must be offered for sale to the surrounding proprietors. But in this Bill the Manchester Corporation puts that provision entirely on one side, and says it is not to apply to the surplus land which it may acquire. Another provision is, that if what is called the "Curtilage" is touched, those who touch it are bound to take the whole of the property. But an exception from this provision in their own favour is made by the Corporation of Manchester in this instance. Then there is another exception to be made in favour of Manchester in regard to mines, for any regulations with regard to mines are in this case to be entirely put on one side. The amount of space which will be required for conducting the water is equal to that which would be required for a railway, and the water is to be carried by five lines of pipes, and those lines are not to be put down all at once; but one line is to be put down every five

  1513
  years, so that the part of the country through which the pipes pass will be in a continual state of disorder, and will constantly be being pulled to pieces. The people of Manchester and the neighbourhood are now 800,000 in number, and they propose, it is said, to take water enough for 3,000,000. But where are those 3,000,000? Our belief is that such a scheme will not be wanted for 20 years. Then, again, the Corporation of Manchester do not pretend to state that this water is wanted for domestic or sanitary purposes. They merely say that it is wanted. No doubt it is wanted. The Corporation of Manchester see a great opening for doing a very good business. I should not be at all surprised if, in the course of time, they find that this water will supply other places on the route to Manchester, and that they can as a result get their water in Manchester for nothing at all. Manchester was not always the great town it is now. In 1753 Manchester had only 23,000 inhabitants. Hon. Members have, no doubt, received a document from the Manchester Corporation, in which they say that it is wholly unprecedented to reject a Private Bill unless it is one of a novel character. Well, this Bill I consider one of a very novel character. Then it is said it is promoted by a large Corporation. It is promoted by a large Corporation; but that is no reason why injustice should be done and why the weaker side should go to the wall. And then they say that a large sum of money has been expended, and, therefore, that the Bill ought to pass. Now, that is a very bold statement, and I should not have thought that they had the amount of boldness to say that because they had spent a large sum of money, the Bill ought to pass. They say that the engineering works proposed are of the most trifling description, and will show nothing whatever to offend the eye. On the plans which have been deposited, however, we see embankments 10 and even 17 feet high. Then there is an aqueduct. The water must be carried over the valley somehow, that is clear, and hon. Gentlemen will understand whether that can be done without interfering with the scenery. I am quite willing, however, to leave the matter to the Committee, confident as I am that, though Manchester is powerful and rich, there are many Members who will recognize the
  1514
  necessity of looking after the interests of less powerful and poorer districts.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Stafford Howard.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BIRLEY: I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House by making my remarks as short as possible. I very much regret that the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. E. 8. Howard) and the hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. W. Lowther) should have thought it necessary to oppose this Bill on the second reading. No argument has been brought forward which would justify the House in rejecting a Bill of this character at this stage. It has not been proved that the Bill will injuriously affect the health and the social enjoyment of those who are affected by it. On the contrary, we have high authority that the case is very much the reverse. I rely upon this—that if it be necessary for the health and comfort of the people of Manchester and neighbourhood, the arguments used by our opponents fall to the ground. I insist that this is the case. Now, the hon. Member for East Cumberland has attempted to show that we have plenty of water for many years to come. He, perhaps, calls five or six years many years; but it is absolutely necessary that we should look further ahead, and to provide for the factories as well as the domestic supply of a great town like Manchester; and therefore I appeal to hon. Members to allow this Bill to be read a second time. I should have thought that the case of Loch Katrine would afford primâ facie a precedent for the Bill going to a second reading. People near Loch Katrine have benefited by the scheme, and I expect that those near Thirlmere will benefit also. The hon. Member for East Cumberland said that for a comparatively small district the Corporation of Manchester wanted a very large supply of water. It must be borne in mind, however, that the supply which they give for trading purposes to neighbouring towns is only what they are bound to give by statutory obligations. Then there was another argument he

  1515
  used—that we are monopolizing the water, and that many other towns with superior claims are thus deprived of the opportunity of getting a supply. In regard to this, I would conceive—though I have no authority for saying it—that the Corporation of Manchester would have no objection to place itself under an obligation to supply a certain quantity of water to those towns. It is hardly necessary to go further; but certain statements have been made as to the effect of the works on the scenery; and in regard to this part of the subject I have only to say that there will be very few parts of the works visible. We are not going to have great ugly embankments, or anything of that kind. Most of the conduit-pipes will be under ground, and though we have to cross the River Lune, care will be taken that the aqueduct shall not be an eyesore. There has been a great deal of talk about the picturesque scenery, and so far as I am concerned I wish to see the picturesque scenery retained; at the same time, however, utility must prevail. In the 15th and 16th centuries poets seemed to regard the Lake District as a very charming country to live out of; while, so lately as a century ago, Gray, writing on the same subject, passed by Thirl -mere with very slender praise, and when he came to Gasmere he remarked—
  "Not a single red tile, no staring gentleman's house breaks in upon the repose of this unsuspected Paradise: but all is peace, rusticity, and happy poverty in its sweetest, most becoming attire."
  There is a remarkable difference among the arbiters of taste on the subject, for the Thirlmere Defence Association writes admiringly of 10 miles of valuable and picturesque residential properties between Grasmere and Windermere. I hope the second reading of this Bill will be agreed to.
  MR. RODWELL: I should like to say just a very few words on this question, which appears to be one of a very important character, and has caused a very considerable degree of excitement outside, as well as inside, the walls of this House, and not the less so, because I understand—in fact, I know—that the Corporation of Manchester have taken steps to call the attention of different boroughs to this question, and have asked them to use any influence they
  1516
  could to assist the passing of the Bill. The consideration of this question has consequently assumed far larger proportions than is customary with ordinary Private Bills. I do not propose for one moment, especially after the able and lucid speech of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, to enter into any of the details. I would only ask the House whether it is prepared to approve of a Bill founded on two decidedly novel principles? And here I hope I may be excused for suggesting that if the Bill passes the present stage as it is, the Select Committee will probably consider itself precluded from considering these two novel principles? The population of Manchester is 800,000, and it is proposed by this Bill to take powers for supplying water sufficient for 3,000,000 people. The promoters propose to raise £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out of the undertaking, and of recouping themselves for engaging in so gigantic a speculation. Legislation has never hitherto given any such powers to a Corporation. No public body has ever been clothed with statutory powers for the purpose of making profit out of the commodity of water, and, therefore, I say this is a novel principle in the Bill now before us. The second novel principle is in connection with the question of taking water from distant watersheds. This question was discussed in the Report of the Royal Commission on Water Supplies which sat in 1869 under the presidency of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond). The proposal here is for Manchester to take water from a district more than 100 miles off. That question was more than once glanced at by the Committee on Water Supply of the Metropolis, and, strange to say, Mr. Bateman, who is the engineer of this large scheme, stated that where towns went for a supply of water at a great distance, not only the wants of the neighbourhoods of the supply, but the intermediate district, should be recognized and considered in discussing the scheme. Now, in this particular instance, the wants of the immediate district are peculiarly ignored, and no provision is made for the wants of the intermediate district. The Committee reported that—
  "The Legislature is most jealous in watching the proposal of a town to take water from the gathering ground of another town,"

  1517
  —and this is the ease here—
  "so as to deprive that other town of water nearer such gathering ground."
  Mr. Bateman has put this argument in the case of Liverpool, and I may quote his words—
  "I think it is wrong for Liverpool to take its supply of water from the gathering ground, where there are such densely-populated places as Blackburn and Wigan, and the places contiguous to Liverpool. Liverpool has put its paw on that supply, and has put it out of the power of certain districts to draw their supply from their own immediate neighbourhood."
  It seems to me that Manchester intends to put its paw on those towns between Thirlmere and Manchester. I agree with Mr. Bateman about Liverpool, and the same thing applies equally to the Thirlmere scheme. Mr. Bateman further says that for any supply taken from a neighbouring town Liverpool ought to be held liable; but there is no provision in this Bill to save their rights, and, therefore, this argument ought not to be lost sight of. The Report says—
  "Now, when circumstances render it necessary that water should be brought from a distance, it should be taken to include in the scheme the supply of all places along the route."
  I ask why, looking at this Report, is this Bill to be referred to a Committee affirming a principle in direct contravention of the Report of the Commission? The Report said the tendency towards that principle ought always to be considered in the arrangement of the water supply of towns. In this case Manchester is alone, and it has ignored the wants of the whole of the surrounding district and has appropriated it all to itself. These are the two positions which I venture to take, and I contend that the principle contained in this Bill is not in accordance with the suggestion of the Commission. I think this Bill ought not to go to a Select Committee, where the opponents will be bound down by technical rules; and I defy anyone to show that a large question of this character can be brought before a Select Committee. The reasons I urge are these—In the first place, with regard to locus standi, one knows how in this case certain admissions have been made with regard to the locus standi. But there are many people who never can be heard who have interests in this particular
  1518
  neighbourhood. I have been in communication with different persons, friends of my own, who go to the Lake District from Cambridge in the vacation, who are very much interested in this question, and these people cannot be heard before a Select Committee, and therefore a Select Committee is not the proper tribunal to which this Bill should be referred. You want some tribunal that would have more scope, so that you may have a fuller inquiry into the merits of the question without being hampered by technical rules. I can give an analogous instance in the New Forest Bill. There it was an interference with the lords of the manor and the rights of the New Forest. That Committee examined the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and it was looked at rather as a national question. I venture to think that some Committee or Commission might take the matter in hand and report on the whole subject, and not only upon the details, but upon the principles. If I wanted precedents, there was the Gas Bill of the Metropolis. There it was recognized that a Private Bill could not enter into the question of principle. That very important question must arise before the Private Bill Committee, and I speak from an experience of 27 days in contesting the supply of water for Edinburgh. You have to put forward alternative schemes. Committees are always reluctant to enter upon schemes, if they do so in a spirit of fairness, without having plans. It is impossible to have them in this case. In this particular instance it may be very hard to produce plans, involving, as the case does, so many interests; but parties will be affected in those gathering grounds who will be shut out if they go before a Committee. Therefore, this Bill should be referred to a special Committee to inquire into this matter. With regard to the people of Manchester, I am in a position to state that Manchester is not all agreed on this subject; and now that Manchester is aware of the scope of the Bill, when they know its details and have had them ventilated, there is a growing feeling that the question should not be decided at once and in haste. Now, they would be precluded from being heard, because they are represented by the Corporation and City Council, and they are parties which might well be heard. Now, £4,000,000,

  1519
  to my idea, is a very large sum for speculation. I have, as shortly and clearly as I can, stated the reasons why this Bill should not pass its second reading. There is no immediate hurry. There are no instances of people languishing for want of water. It can well lie over this Session, and a full inquiry be held. After such an inquiry as I have indicated, then it could be referred to the ordinary tribunal. There are other matters in regard to which I could have wished to say a few words; but I do not wish to detain the House, and therefore I will conclude by saying that I think it would be much more satisfactory to all interested in such a scheme to have its merits considered by a public Commission.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Rodwell) seems to think that Manchester is guilty of a great injustice to the neighbouring towns by promoting this scheme. It is a little curious that none of the neighbouring towns have petitioned against it. The real fact is, that the minor towns are benefited by Manchester going to Thirlmere. Manchester leaves many other gathering grounds, being able to afford to promote a large scheme like this. We should not go there for water if we did not want it, and we should not produce this scheme unless we thought it the best scheme available. The opponents have spoken of the Bill as if we did not want the water. If you want to show that we have plenty of water, let this Bill pass its second reading. We are sure we can show to the Committee that we have no other available source of supply suitable to our wants, and cannot get water anywhere else at such a cost. It has been said that this is a very great scheme, and that the quantity of water is excessive. We have now 25,000,000 gallons per day. It is true that this would give 50,000,000 gallons extra. Well, we shall want that extra quantity. The consumption of water in Manchester is a small consumption, and is only about one-half of the consumption of Glasgow, and it arises from the fact that the Manchester Corporation have made a stringent rule in order to limit the consumption of water. We wish the consumption of water to be abundant and lavishly used, and that, we think, would be for the benefit of the health and comfort of the population. The hon. Member who
  1520
  moved the rejection of the Bill has spoken of this as a novel Bill and a novel scheme. Why, it is an exact parallel to the Glasgow and Loch Katrine scheme. Glasgow goes to Loch Katrine for water, and it takes the water to Glasgow exactly as we propose to take this water to Manchester. The Loch Katrine schemes raised the levels of the Lakes in Scotland. One of the Lakes was raised 25 feet; that was interfered with. Let me tell hon. Members that within the district which the Corporation is to supply the water needed is for an annual increase of 5,000 houses. But 5,000 houses is a very great increase of houses in a year, and with the increase of houses there is an increase of industries, and of industries requiring water. The people of Manchester have to make very stringent provisions at present to limit the supply. But we think that it is as necessary to supply the people with water as it is necessary to supply their homes with food. In the Lake District there are 76 considerable Lakes; but of those there are only three sufficiently elevated to enable water to be supplied to Manchester by the force of gravitation. One of these Lakes we propose to use. It is a small Lake; it is one of those Lakes least visited and least known. It is a Lake the greater portion of which is seen only by pedestrians, but never is seen by people in carriages—at least, a considerable portion of it is so. The hotel-keepers in the district say that they never knew of an instance in which anyone took a carriage out for Thirlmere. Something has been said about the Petitions against the Bill. Why, in the district of Lake Thirlmere, or in the Lake District, we have 10 signatures in favour of the Bill to one that is presented from the other side. Then, with regard to the opinion of Manchester, the hon. and learned Member says that there is a growing feeling in Manchester against this scheme. There are 64 members of the Town Council, and out of the 64 members only four have voted against this scheme. In Manchester and the district we do not possess all the advantages of life. We have a bad climate; we live, necessarily, in a smoky sky. There are countries where an abundance of water is not wanted, but it is wanted for us. I hope that this House will hesitate long before obstructing this

  1521
  Bill. In Committee we are prepared with abundance of evidence. It is said that we have nothing to say; but almost every objection raised here is an objection that can only be made in Committee.
  MR. RAIKES: It cannot be denied that this is a very interesting debate on a very important subject, and I think those of the hon. Members who have addressed the House from both sides have given valuable contributions to what is a very difficult question. The hon. Members for East Cumberland and Westmoreland put forward their objections, with which the public has been for some time familiar, with regard to this particular scheme; but they may be summed up under these three heads —there is the question of scenery; there is the question of the private rights that would be affected, though those are not so much touched upon; and there is the question as to the propriety of enabling a Corporation like Manchester to be a proprietor of a large estate in a very distant part of the country. I think it was admitted that the objection on the ground of scenery is, after all, a secondary objection, and that if a case of necessity can be shown, even those hon. Members will not insist upon their views of the picturesque overriding public utility. The question of the private rights that may be affected by an aqueduct of this enormous length, passing through 113 miles of perhaps the most difficult country in the Kingdom, is also a very important one, and that is a sort of question that would best be considered in Committee. Then there is the other question as to whether the Corporation of Manchester should be allowed to become the proprietor of some 11,000 acres of land in Westmoreland and Cumberland, and, I believe, about 6,000 acres on their proposed line. That is a novel question, and one which, in its especial application to Manchester, might be very well dealt with in Committee. But when I said just now that the difficulty raised with regard to the scenery of the Lake District was, in my opinion, only a secondary difficulty, I meant to point out that the question of necessity was the one which ought primarily to occupy the attention of the House. With regard to a matter of this description, if the promoters of this Bill have made out
  1522
  their case to the satisfaction of the House, and an absolute necessity exists for this measure, then I think we need not trouble ourselves about other objections. But if they have failed to do so, I think the case would be one rather for the consideration of the House than for the consideration of any Committee upstairs. What is the case as put by the hon. Members for Manchester, who have both very fairly, and I think very moderately, stated the case of the promoters? They have told us—and there is no question between the figures on the two sides—that they have at present a water supply of some 25,000,000 gallons per day for a population of 800,000 persons, and the supply required is at the rate of 22 gallons per head per diem. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the water supply is adequate to the supply of 1,100,000 persons, which is 300,000 persons in excess of the existing population. We are told that Manchester is growing so rapidly that in the course of a very few years the population will have mounted from 800,000 to 1,100,000, and that then the necessity for this large additional supply will arise. I think I know something of Lancashire myself, and probably most hon. Members know something of that great county; but I certainly was not aware that the progress of Manchester, although considerable, was relatively so great as compared with the other populations surrounding as was sought to be pointed out to us. There are other parts of the county in which the progress of population is much greater relatively than in Manchester. Therefore, if the question of increase of population is to be discussed, these communities also deserve consideration. What do the Corporation of Manchester propose that we should do? Give them a water supply of 50,000,000 gallons daily for this population, in addition to their present supply of 25,000,000 gallons daily. That can only prospectively become an inadequate supply, and yet the Corporation of Manchester ask that they might be supplied with such additional supply of water as will give them a supply equal to the demands of a population of 3,500,000 people. I think that a piece of very heroic municipal legislation. There are some in this country, and even in this House, who consider that it becomes the great municipalities to adopt a more

  1523
  ambitious and enterprizing attitude than that which has hitherto characterized them. From that standpoint, we may regard this as being a step very legitimately taken on the part of the Corporation of Manchester, but still marking something in the nature of a new departure in the relation of the municipal bodies to the country at large. If Manchester is to be allowed this new supply of water, if Manchester is to take a sufficient supply for the whole county of Lancaster, you have to consider the three different bodies which may be affected by this heroic and enterprizing legislation. First of all, you must consider the case of the ratepayers of Manchester. Are the ratepayers of Manchester to be subjected to an immense amount of, at all events, temporary burden, to raise a sum equivalent, they say, to a sum of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000; but which would possibly reach£7,000,000or£8,000,000 before the scheme could be carried out completely? Secondly, are the owners of property throughout 100 miles to be exposed to such an interference with their property as would necessarily be caused by the formation of a gigantic culvert, which, I believe, must be of a size equal to that which would carry a double line of rails? Are all the other populations of Lancashire—Accrington, Blackburn, Wigan, Preston, and Bolton to be obliged to go to Manchester sueing humbly for water for all time to come Are we to suppose that Manchester does not intend to monopolize the water supply, or to deal in water, because it is not mentioned in the Bill? Of course, it is not; but it will be mentioned in future Bills. In future years you will have these populations asking you to legalize Bills empowering them to go to Manchester for water. I am sorry to detain the House so long on this question; but it appears to be one of the most important questions the House can consider. If the question stood as it was left by the speech of the hon. Members who first addressed the House, I should feel it my duty, although exceedingly reluctant to take such a course, to vote against the second reading of the Bill. But a suggestion has been thrown out by my hon. and learned Friend behind me the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), which I hope the House will adopt, and I trust to hear
  1524
  from the Government before the debate closes some indication of their views. It is impossible that such a Bill as this could be considered upstairs by an ordinary Private Bill Committee; and I would suggest that it should be referred to a Hybrid Committee, which is one of the most useful parts of the arrangements of this House. Before such a Committee persons might be examined who have not those sharply-defined interests which are usually represented before a Private Committee. Such a Committee might consider this question through all its bearings, public as well as private; and they might, at all events, lay down a principle for the guidance of the House in dealing with future questions connected with the water supply of populous districts. If such a scheme should be laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, I think we should not be justified in refusing the second reading of the Bill. But unless such a scheme is likely to be adopted by the House, I should most reluctantly, but as a matter of duty, find it impossible to support the second reading.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I quite agree with the course which has been recommended by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken; and, if the House will allow me, I will support it on one ground, which he scarcely refers to. I do think that the public are concerned in the question. I am very sorry to throw any obstacle in the way of my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester. I do not think we ought to throw any obstacle in the way of our large cities obtaining an adequate supply of water. It is possible that Manchester may be now asking for more water than most other towns, and perhaps for more water than appears to be necessary; but if so, I think it is a fault on the right side, and I should be sorry to throw any obstacle in its way. But, on the other hand, in the manner in which they propose to get their water, I do think they are likely to interfere with the public interests. Now, I hope I shall not be thought to be Quixotic, or over-sentimental, when I say that the scenery of the Lakes is a public interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) quoted the lines of a poet 100 years ago, in which the writer did

  1525
  not appear at that time to regard the Lake scenery with the eye of an artist. He appears to have been horrified and disgusted by the mountain scenery rather than pleased with it. But that is not the feeling now, and I do not look forward to any period when such notions will prevail again. We have in this part of England some of the most beautiful scenery in the world, and it is the object of the House of Commons and of the country to preserve it. Some of the supporters of this scheme think that the scheme would not injure the Lake which will be principally affected by it. I wish hon. Members would go down to the district and look at the Lake, and see for themselves what is going to be done. We are told, in the first place, that Thirlmere is a Lake which very few people go to see, and that most tourists who visit the Lakes pass it by without seeing it. Now, all you have to do, if you wish to see Thirlmere, is to go from Ambleside to Keswick and go round the Lake. A very little time will enable you to see its beauties, and to discover that it is one of the most beautiful objects in England. The Corporation of Manchester say they are not going to spoil it. Yet they are going to put on the top of this beautiful Lake a a great big reservoir, which may go up and down some 50 feet at least. ["No, no!"] I certainly believe myself, and I have some little knowledge of the Lake District, that it will go up and down some 50 feet on account of the conditions of the rainfall in the district. A very heavy rainfall is very often followed by a season of drought, and I believe the engineers are perfectly right in arranging for such a fluctuation of the level of the reservoir. The consequence will be that, instead of a very beautiful Lake, you will have a great pond, with a constant exposure of mud or ugly shingle. ["No, no!"] At any rate, if the hon. Member who says "No" will visit some of the other Lakes in the neighbourhood, I believe he will come to the conclusion that there may be a good deal of mud. Loch Katrine has been mentioned, but Loch Katrine is not a parallel case. Loch Katrine is so large that in supplying Glasgow with water there is no perceptible alteration in the Loch. It would be very different in the case of Thirlmere. Now, I quite admit that if Manchester cannot get water except
  1526
  by going to Thirlmere, even if the consequence would be that the Lake would be utterly spoiled, then the Lake must be spoiled. Manchester must have enough water for its drinking, washing, and sanitary purposes. There cannot be a doubt that in arranging this matter there ought not to be a question between scenery and a proper supply of water to any large population; but if, instead of this being the only place from which Manchester can get a supply, it turns out that Manchester could get it from many other places, I think that fact would make a great deal of difference in the view we should feel inclined to take of the question. It is said that there is a gentleman of great energy—I have not the honour of his personal acquaintance—who has set his mind on going to Thirlmere—that it is his great wish to carry out his plan in regard to Thirlmere; but that is not a sufficient reason why the beauty of the Lakes should be sacrificed, nor is it a sufficient reason why the Corporation should spend £4,000,000, which will probably grow to £6,000,000, upon this particular scheme. The present estimate is, I believe, £3,700,000; but there is very little doubt that the actual expenditure would be considerably more. That, however, is a question for the ratepayers of Manchester, and not for me. Taking the lowest estimate — namely, £3,700,000, if it was only a case of spending £100,000 or £200,000 more, I then think Manchester ought to be opposed. Gentlemen may say—"Why don't you let all these questions go to the Committee, by which they can be carefully inquired into?" For this simple reason—the Private Bill Committees are engaged in the examination of those who are personally interested in the questions involved, and you cannot expect the general public or the whole population of England, who are interested, to attend and give evidence; or to pay large engineering bills or counsels' fees, or to appear before a Committee to state their case merely through some riparian owner. Therefore, I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend that the question should be sent to a special Committee ad hoc, because I believe the public ought to be represented, as it is a public question. I hardly think that the promoters themselves will object to such a course. Surely they will acknow-

  1527
  ledge that the English people have some interest in such scenery as this, and will admit that it is quite fair they should be thoroughly heard before a Committee. I can only say that my vote will depend on whether such an arrangement can be made. I should myself prefer that there should be a general inquiry by a Committee or a Commission into the water supply of the large manufacturing towns, and I think London ought to be included. The inquiry should extend to how far there ought to be a supply obtained from those districts where there is a great rainfall, and under what conditions it should be given. It may be considered rather hard on Manchester to oblige them to wait until there has been such an inquiry; but I must say that one argument they use is not an argument at all. If the Corporation of Manchester has chosen in some measure to forestall the decision of Parliament by buying property at a considerable cost, they must take the consequences. Our object, however, now is to secure a thorough inquiry, and if a Hybrid Committee is appointed for that purpose then, I think, we ought not to vote against the second reading of the Bill. Otherwise, I shall be obliged personally to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. BIRLEY: If it be the wish of the House, I am prepared to accept the proposition of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MR. CHARLEY: I wish to state, as representing the largest community adjoining Manchester—Salford—that the Corporation of that borough have passed a unanimous vote in favour of the Bill, and have asked me to support it, and I have much pleasure in doing so. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) seemed to think that there had been some difference of opinion among the neighbouring communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) seemed to think there had not been a large increase in the neighbouring population. Speaking for Salford, all I can say is that in 1871 the population was 120,000, and that it is now nearly 200,000. Therefore, as far as Salford is concerned, the hon. Member for Chester's view is erroneous. The alleged grievance is a sentimental one, and, in my humble judgment, the interests involved in a sentimental grievance ought not for a single moment to be allowed to weigh
  1528
  against the interests represented by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) and myself.
  MR. FLETCHER: As a resident in the county of Cumberland, and in the neighbourhood of the great works proposed to be carried out by the Manchester Corporation, and representing the opinion of a great many of the residents of the Lake District, I trust the House will pardon me if I detain them for two or three minutes. I will not enter at all into the engineering matters which are connected with this scheme, but I will allude merely to its aesthetic aspect, which must be interesting to every Member of the House. It seems to me that there is a good deal of misapprehension as to what is proposed to be done by the Manchester Corporation. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has alluded to the question of the rise and fall of the Lake. He seems to be altogether under an error as to what is proposed to be done. I can assure the House that even if the Corporation draw the full 5,000,000 gallons per day which they propose to take, the Lake will not rise or fall more than it does at the present moment. The effect of this Bill will be to reclaim 11,000 or 12,000 acres of the most beautiful part of Cumberland from the incursions of those aesthetic gentlemen who come down surveying the district and building Gothic villas upon the shores of this beautiful Lake. The Corporation of Manchester have no intention of selling any portion of the area for building purposes; and, in fact, so far from Thirlmere being spoiled, I look upon it as a great public improvement, and as a brand plucked from the burning. You will find that every advantageous point has been seized by these aesthetic gentlemen for building their villas and for discharging their sewage into the Lake. There is nothing whatever proposed to be done by this Bill which would be prejudicial in the slightest respect to the county of Cumberland. If there is one town which is more interested than another in the preservation of the beauty of the Lake it is the town of Keswick, and what do I find? In a town of 700 ratepayers 650 are in favour of the Bill of the Manchester Corporation. They believe that so far from the Lake of Thirlmere being spoiled by

  1529
  what is proposed to be done, it will practically be improved. This is a great scheme, and a scheme which ought not to be burked in its inception, and I hope the House will, by a large majority, pass the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I think the House has probably by this time heard enough of the arguments for and against the second reading of this most important Bill. The provisions of the measure were brought before me some weeks ago by a deputation from Manchester; and I had the advantage of hearing from the accomplished engineer of that borough his views as to the mode in which it was proposed to carry out this scheme. I think the House will admit on all sides that there is much that is novel in this plan, something primâ facie objectionable, and a great deal that ought not to be considered and decided by an ordinary Private Bill Committee. Now, I have always felt that there is a great difficulty in getting upon a Private Bill Committee a fair and adequate representation of the public interests involved in such a measure as this. But it appears to me that it would be a harsh and unusual proceeding to refuse the second reading of a Bill involving a matter of so much importance to so great a community as Manchester. On the other hand, it is equally unreasonable that it should go before the Private Bill Committee, where, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means, these interests have no chance of being heard. I therefore propose the following Reference to the Committee:—
  "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection; and that such of the Petitioners as shall have presented Petitions for or against the Bill may, if they think fit, be heard before such Committee by their counsel or agents; that it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into and report upon the water supply of Manchester and the neighbourhood, and how far and under what conditions permission shall be given to make use of any of the Cumberland or Westmoreland Lakes for such supply, having particular regard to the requirements of the population in the immediate vicinity of the Lakes; and to report whether any, or, if so what, provision will be required to be made."
  This proposition, I believe, covers all the points which have been raised in the course of the debate, and if the House should be of opinion that the
  1530
  Bill should be read a second time, I will move a Resolution in accordance with the suggestion I have made.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: I will not enter into the merits of the case, as we now understand that the scope of the inquiry is to be very much enlarged; but I wish to put a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. If we are to understand that an inquiry of this nature will be entered into, it must necessarily cost an immense amount of money. Who is to pay the expense of opposing the Bill? The opponents will be virtually fighting the battle of the United Kingdom, and I would suggest that instead of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, there should be a Royal Commission.
  MR. DODSON: I understand the proposition of my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees to have been endorsed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and that proposition is that the Bill should be sent to a Hybrid Committee, which is to hear all the opponents who have petitioned against the Bill; and, further, that that Committee is to have power to call what witnesses they please, and to inquire into the general subject, just as if it were a public Committee, to whom a subject of public interest had been referred. If that be the proposition intended by the Chairman of Committees, and endorsed by my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government, I must say it appears to me to be a very proper course to adopt under the circumstances; and if I may venture to give advice to the hon. Member who has submitted a Motion on the subject, it would be to advise him to agree to that proposition.
  MR. E. S. HOWARD: I shall be very willing to accept this solution of the difficulty. I do not think we should ask any more, and I shall therefore withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. FAWCETT: I wish to ask a question before the Bill is read a second time. It has been admitted that this is a public question, and one in which the whole country is interested. The President of the Local Government Board has read out something which he proposes, but what he read was very imperfectly heard, and without having seen it on the Paper, we are asked to assent to

  1531
  it. What I wish to ask is that we should have at least 24 hours to consider the terms of this Reference before we actually decide upon adopting the proposal. I maybe under a mistake; but it seems to me, as far as I gathered the words, the terms of the Reference he proposes will omit what seems to me to be the gist of the whole inquiry— that is, whether if this additional water be necessary for Manchester, it cannot be obtained except from the Lakes? I think the great majority of this House and of the country think that if she can get it from any other place it is not desirable she should go to the Lakes, because the Lakes are particularly beautiful pieces of scenery which ought to be preserved. Therefore, it seems to me that the terms of Reference are not sufficient, but that there should be an Instruction to the Committee that they should not only make inquiry about the Lakes, but also inquiry as to whether the necessary water could not be obtained from any other place?
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I desire to make only one observation. I think the House is giving the Corporation enormous powers—I believe almost rash powers - for a work which is in the nature of a speculation supported by public money. We have before the House a Bill for creating some uniformity, some consolidation, in the governments of counties and towns. At present the districts affected by this scheme are in want, by the admission of the House, of that public representation and concentration of powers which is desirable; and I rejoice that the Government has brought in a measure which may adjust the differences and the powers that now exist as between the large borough interested and districts which will be affected by this scheme.
  MR. WHITWELL: I beg to endorse the suggestion] of the hon. Member for Hackney that the President of the Local Government Board should give us 24 hours; because I believe there is no doubt that within the district from which this proposal is undertaking to take water there is sufficient water to provide the whole Kingdom, if properly utilized. This is an important question, and I hope the Reference will be put on the Paper before it is finally debated.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: It is necessary that I should put the first part of
  1532
  the Reference now, otherwise the Bill would go to an ordinary Committee. But as it seems to be the desire of the House, I will put the words of the Instruction which I propose to move on the Paper, and then the House will adopt it or not, as it thinks fit.
  MR. GOLDSMID: It would, I think, be a much more regular course to postpone the second reading of the Bill until we know the exact terms of Reference. As I entirely concur in the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, I propose to move the adjournment of this debate, and to fix it for Thursday, in order to enable us to see the whole of the terms of Reference. This is a matter of public importance, and ought not to be hurried over; and the city of Manchester will gain nothing by precipitation. I think we shall be consulting the interests of Manchester and the country affected if we adjourn the whole matter till Thursday. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second this Motion?
  MR. FAWCETTrose to second the Motion.
  MR.SPEAKER: It is not competent for the hon. Member for Hackney to second the Motion, as he has already spoken in the debate.
  MR. BIGGARthen rose and said: I second the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERdeclared that the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmid) could not be put.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Goldsmid.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It seems to me hardly convenient to adjourn the debate. The Members who have considered the subject have already taken part in the discussion, and I do not know whether they wish to speak again. I believe it would be far more convenient that the course suggested by my right hon.

  1533
  Friend the President of the Local Government Board should be followed—that is to say, that the House should now decide that the Bill is to be sent to a Committee. It would be quite right, as suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney and others, that opportunity should be afforded to hon. Members of seeing the precise terms of the Reference; and what my right hon. Friend proposes to do is nothing more than a simple Motion that the question be referred to a Committee; and then he will propose to put on the paper the Instructions which are to be given to the Committee. These Instructions will come under the notice of the House, and can be discussed and settled at the convenience of the House.
  MR.GOLDSMID: We shall be satisfied with this assurance, and I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put. and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection; and that such of the Petitioners as shall have presented their Petitions against the Bill may, if they think fit, be heard before such Committee, by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.— (Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  And, on February 18, Ordered, That Mr. LYON PLAYFALR, Mr. SALT, Mr. RODWELL, Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, and Mr. KNOWLES be Members of the Committee.—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

SOUTH AFRICAN CONFEDERATION— THE ZULU KING.—QUESTION.
MR. E. JENKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received information that Mr. Frank J. Colenso and Dr. Walter Smith have been appointed by Cetywayo, the Zulu King, his agents in Natal to communicate with the British authorities; and, whether, having regard to the desirability of establishing direct diplomatic relations with the Zulus, Her Majesty's Government will consent to recognize Messrs Colenso and Smith as Cetywayo's agents?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have received information that letters have been addressed by Messrs. Colenso
1534
and Smith to Sir Henry Bulwer and Sir Theophilus Shepstone, in which they, being British subjects, claim to be recognized by the Governments of Natal and the Transvaal as agents of the Zulu King. But it appears at least doubtful whether any such appointment has been made by Cetywayo himself, as communications recently received from him in the ordinary way make no mention of anything of the kind; and, in any event, I think there are obvious objections to the recognition of persons in the position of these gentlemen, who are, I believe, practising lawyers in the Colony of Natal, without any special connection with the Zulus, as diplomatic agents from an independent Native King to the Colonial Government under which they live.

FISHERIES—DENMARK—RE-APPEARANCE OF THE HERRINGS.—QUESTION.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, To obtain and furnish the House with information as to the accuracy of the statement in the "Times" of the 7th February, in regard to the shoals of herrings having this winter resorted or returned to the Swedish coasts?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: We have heard, Sir, from the English Consul at Gothenburg, who reports that—
"The shoals of herrings of a large kind which disappeared from that coast in 1809 have made their appearance there again."
Letters on this subject have been prepared, and shall shortly be laid on the Table.

THE EASTERN QUESTION —THE DARDANELLES—MOVEMENTS OF THE FLEET.—QUESTION.
MAJOR NOLANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If the order forwarded to detach a squadron towards Constantinople was of a character sufficiently stringent to relieve the Admiral commanding the Mediterranean Fleet from responsibility should the squadron's line of retreat be seriously threatened?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the orders which have been forwarded to the Admiral commanding the Fleet in the Mediterranean are of a clear and

1535
distinct character. They have been sent upon the responsibility of the Government; and it would be extremely inconvenient and inconsistent with my duty, at the present moment, to state the nature of the orders.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE DARDANELLES—THE CONDITIONS OF PEACE.—QUESTION.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any answer has been received to Lord Derby's Despatch to Lord Augustus Loftus of 31st January 1878, stating that Her Majesty's Government had received with satisfaction the statement that Prince Gortchakoff had no objection to suppressing altogether the article in the conditions of peace communicated by Count Schouvaloff on the 25th January, referring to an understanding between Russia and Turkey in regard to the Straits, and further stating that Her Majesty's Government would be glad to learn that the Russian Government had suppressed it accordingly?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, no answer has been received to that despatch.

INDIA—SIR JOHN STRACHEY'S SPEECHES.—QUESTION.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will move for a Copy of Sir John Strachey's former Speech, in addition to the Speech more recently made by Sir John Strachey, which has been laid upon the Table?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: parts of the former speech which were relevant to the speech of last year were included in the Return of which I spoke, and, therefore, I do not think it will be necessary to move as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

SALE OF POOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1875.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to a recent decision by the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland, concerning "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875,"by which five Judges have decided that no offence
  1536
  can be proved on evidence taken from any article specially brought for analysis, the buyer in such case not having been prejudiced in the purpose for which he bought it; and, further, that two of the Judges, Lords Moncrieff and Young, expressed the opinion that the 6th section does not prevent tampering with an article to the deterioration of its quality, if without the addition of extraneous matter; and, whether he purposes taking any steps to prevent the Act in question becoming a dead letter?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: My attention has been called to the decision by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I regret that I have not had an opportunity of conferring with the Lord Advocate on the subject. It seems that previous to the Scottish case alluded to no question had been raised in England as to the validity of a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act by a person who purchases only with a view to analysis, and in the cases which have occurred since, the magistrates have decided against the objection when raised. I concur in that view, which, be it observed, is also the view of some of the Scottish Judges, and I cannot believe that the High Court of Justice, if appealed to, will come to any other decision. I am, therefore, not prepared, as at present advised, to introduce an amending Bill, though, if my anticipations were disappointed, such step might be necessary.

THE EASTERN QUESTION — THE RUSSIAN CONDITIONS OF PEACE, 1877.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Conditions of Peace required by the Emperor of Russia which were communicated to the Earl of Derby by Count Schouvaloff in July 1877; of a Despatch from the Earl of Derby to Mr. Layard, dated the 28th day of July 1877, instructing him to sound the Sultan on the subject of possible terms of Peace; and, of Mr. Layard's reply reporting his interview with the Sultan on the subject?
  MR. BOURKE: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that the conditions of peace alluded to in the

  1537
  Question were communicated to Her Majesty's Government last July in the most confidential manner by the Russian Ambassador. It would not, therefore, be proper for Her Majesty's Government to lay them upon tike Table of the House; besides which they relate to a condition of things long since gone by, and therefore no practical benefit could result from producing them. With regard to the other two Questions which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked me, I think if he will look at the Paper, Turkey, No. 2, page 4, he will find there a despatch from the Earl of Derby to Mr. Layard, which contains practically the information in the other two despatches mentioned, and there is, therefore, no necessity for producing the Papers alluded to.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: There is nothing in the despatch as to Mr. Layard's interview with the Sultan.
  MR. BOURKE: I think there is, and I will read the despatch. The Earl of Derby, writing to Mr. Layard on December 25th last, said—
  "With reference to my despatch of the 24th instant, your Excellency will bear in mind that on the 28th July last, Her Majesty's Government authorized you confidentially to sound the Sultan on the subject of possible terms of peace, and to state that should His Majesty be disposed to open negotiations, you might assure him that he might rely upon the friendly offices of Her Majesty's Government, which would be exerted with a view to obtain for him the most favourable terms possible under the circumstances; but Her Majesty's Government were not disposed to take the initiative in proposing any conditions. Your Excellency replied that you had reason to believe that conditions of peace could not at that time be proposed or listened to, but that you had informed His Majesty that should there be a favourable opportunity for opening negotiations for peace, he might rely on the friendly offices of Her Majesty's Government. You added that you did not think that anything more could then be done. The language held by you to the Sultan was approved by Her Majesty's Government."

  SOUTH AFRICA.—QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table any Papers connected with the disturbances in South Africa?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: A volume containing the Correspondence up to the end of 1877 has been prepared, and will shortly be presented, and
  1538
  a further collection of Papers is also being prepared; but the necessity of frequent reference to them has delayed the printing. All possible despatch will be used.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE TWELVE-THIRTY RULE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PARNELLwished to ask the Speaker a Question as to a Notice of Amendment given by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) to his intended Motion for leave to bring in a Bill relating to Absentee Proprietors (Ireland). That Amendment was to substitute for his Motion the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to attempt to interfere between landlord and tenant in reference to the sale and purchase of a tenant's holding, and that all such matters should be left to negotiation between the parties concerned."
  He wished to know, Whether such a Motion was in accordance with the custom and usage of the House; and, if so, whether he should be prevented by the action of the Sessional Order relating to half-past 12 o'clock from asking leave after that hour?
  MR. SPEAKER: An application for leave to bring in a Bill is in the form of a Motion before the House, and every Motion is subject to Amendment. The hon. Member for Londonderry is therefore entitled to move the Amendment which he has placed on the Paper. It is true that a practice has prevailed in recent years of allowing Bills to be introduced before the judgment of the House is taken upon them; but that does not preclude an hon. Member from moving an Amendment, if he thinks proper, on the application for leave to bring in the Bill. There can be no doubt that the Notice of Amendment by the hon. Member for Londonderry does bring the Bill within the operation of the Rule with regard to not taking opposed Business after half-past 12 o'clock.
  MR. PARNELL: I must request the indulgence of the House for a moment to point out—["Order, order!"] If necessary, to put myself in Order I shall conclude with a Motion,
  MR. SPEAKER: It has been my duty on several occasions to point out to the House the great inconvenience resulting from the practice of hon. Members, who are not satisfied with the Answers given to their Questions, rising to move the Adjournment. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with the Answer now given from the Chair, I submit that it is scarcely consistent with propriety to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Mr. PARNELL: I am perfectly satisfied, Sir, with the Answer you have been kind enough to give me; and, as it appears that the practice of moving the Adjournment of the House under these circumstances is deemed equivalent to expressing dissatisfaction with the Answer, I shall not further persist.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)— DEPORTATION OF IRISH PAUPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the case of Agnes Adams, a woman born in Dungannon, in the county Tyrone, who had been many years resident in Scotland, who was, under a warrant granted by two Justices of the Peace for the city of Glasgow, removed from Glasgow and delivered to the Master of Thomastown Union, in the county of Kilkenny, though it appears she was not born in, nor had ever been resident in, and was not in any way connected with, the county of Kilkenny; whether he can state was any, and, if so, what examination made by the said Justices before they addressed a warrant to compel the Thomastown, Union to receive Agnes Adams; has any investigation been made into the conduct of the said Justices in the matter, and what has been the result of the investigation; and, is there any remedy for the injury suffered by the Thomastown Union, and in what way can that Union be recouped the expenses occasioned by Agnes Adams having been thus illegally left a charge on that Union?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The Lord Advocate is confined to his room with severe inflammation of the chest, but he is expected here on Thursday.
  MAJOR NOLAN: I shall repeat the Question on that day.

CHURCH LIVINGS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. LEATHAM,in rising to call attention to the traffic in Church livings, and to move—
"That it is desirable to adopt measures for preventing simoniacal evasion' of the Law, and checking abuses in the sale of livings in private patronage,"
said: Mr. Speaker, I have purposely adhered to the words of the Resolution passed last year, with the full concurrence of the Government, and by the unanimous vote of this House. I have done so, because I am desirous of securing the same unanimity to-day, which, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for South - east Lancashire (Mr. Hardcastle), I was fortunate in securing last year; not because I do not think that the scandals and abuses in connection with the disposal of private patronage are not great enough, and patent enough, to have warranted a far stronger expression of opinion on the part of this House, and one which I shall not hesitate to embody in a Resolution at some future time, if it shall please the House to pass this Motion to-night; and if this reiterated expression of opinion on the part of the House shall meet with no further recognition on the part of the Government than that which they have bestowed upon the Motion of last year. And I express myself a little strongly, Sir, because I never remember, since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, that when a Resolution has received the unanimous assent of the House, and has been passed with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Government of the day has thought itself entitled to pass such a Resolution by—I do not say with contempt—but in absolute silence. Let me remind my right hon. Friend, who has the chief charge of domestic legislation in this House, of what fell from him during the debate last year. My right hon. Friend stated that—
"He felt bound to say that in this case there was proof of abuse, and he hoped, on whichever side of the House he might be sitting, he should never be found standing up for that which he believed to be an abuse,"

1541
He said further—
"This was a matter with which he had endeavoured to deal by a Bill which he introduced, as a private Member, in 1870, and he did not desire to shrink from a single word which he used on that occasion."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxv. 315.]
Now, what were the words which he used on that occasion?—
"When they loved an institution," he said, "as they all loved the Church, they ought to scrutinize every abuse; and the moment they found one they should sweep it away."—[3 Hansard, cci. 538.]
He then asked the House to put an end to what he justly called "a great scandal to the Church, and an absolute insult to parishioners;" and the House appeared to be perfectly willing to do so, for it read a second time, without a single dissentient voice, my right hon. Friend's Bill on the 11th of May; but, for some reason which I think my right hon. Friend has yet to explain, that was positively the very last which we heard of his Bill. He loved the Church so well that he thought such an abuse as this should be swept away in a moment. Many moments have since elapsed, yet my right hon. Friend has never renewed his attempt; and, to judge from the Answer which he made to a Question of mine at the commencement of the Session, there is no longer much of the ambition of a sweep, in the feeling with which he regards this "scandal" and this "insult." But when this question came up again last year, my right hon. Friend's love of the Church blazed forth afresh. He not only confirmed everything which had fallen from him before, but he added the important declaration that—
"In his opinion, the taking of money for the sale of a next presentation was in the same category as the taking of money for giving a vote for a Member of that House. He could not see the distinction."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxv. 315.]
And yet, though he thinks the sale of a next presentation as bad as bribery, though he thinks that such an abuse should be swept away in a moment, and though he is now armed with a unanimous Resolution of this House empowering him to deal with the question, he meets Parliament with his mind so fascinated by the roads and bridges of Scotland, that he has no leisure to deal with it at all, And it cannot be because
1542
my right hon. Friend stands alone in the Cabinet in his detestation of these abuses; for I remember that another right hon. Friend of mine, who, for a great Chief of warriors, I have always regarded as the most ecclesiastically-minded person in the House, stood manfully by him in his support of his Bill. I mean the Secretary of State for War. What he said was that—
"The Church of England did not consist of patrons and clergy alone, but of the flock also; and by this Bill the position of the flock was properly recognized."-—[3 Hansard, cci. 547.]
And yet this proper position of the flock remains as completely unrecognized now as when the proper position of these two right hon. Gentlemen was still unrecognized by the country. Now, I cannot see the advantage which the public derives from the expression of these admirable sentiments on the part of right hon. Gentlemen, if, when they have the opportunity of bringing them into practice, and when they are further encouraged to do so by that unanimous vote of this House, which used to be considered as a command, they entirely refrain from moving in the matter. Why is it, I should like to know, that everyone who puts his hand to this plough turns back? Is it because it is supposed that this question touches upon the rights of property? I remember that one voice was raised in this sense last year, that of my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). I wish that my hon. Friend had gone to a division. I should like the country to know precisely who they are in this House who regard the right of presentation less as a matter of trust than a matter of property. What said my hon. Friend?—
"The recommendations of the Committee of the other House, that the right of appointment should be considered as a trust, appeared to him to be begging the whole question. The point to be determined was not whether the right of presentation was a matter of trust, but a matter of property—a right, no doubt, to be governed and controlled in the interests of decency and propriety, but yet a right which was a matter of property."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxv. 317.]
Now, my hon. Friend spoke at so late an hour that he had scarcely time to develop his argument. If he had done so, I think that he would have added another proposition which I find in-

1543
variably coupled with it, in the reasoning of those who take this particular line, and it is this—that when a man is ordained by the Bishop, something happens which makes him an elegible presentee to any living in the Kingdom. Proceeding upon these two propositions, why should we not go on to say—and I am quoting now from an able defence of the existing system which was published when it was attacked by the Bishop of Peterborough—why should we not go on to say that
"the best thing which could happen to the Church would he to sweep away the Simony Laws into the waste-paper basket?"
"Laws," which we are told, "were enacted when witches bestrode a broomstick;" and, further—
"That any person, with the sanction of the Ordinary, should have the right of purchasing any benefice, vacant or full;"
and that, since
"fathers have bequeathed to their sons advowsons as their sole patrimony, women have gone to the altar, settlements have been made,"
and so forth; all "on the faith of the inviolable sanction of English law," any changes in the law which may have the effect of cheapening this vast property in the market would be just so much confiscation and robbery; and the Bishop of Peterborough's Bill, because it threatened to do so, was "a crimson sin." Now, if we are to grant the premises, it is perhaps difficult to point out a flaw in this argument; but if so, what are we compelled to infer? Why, that the Church of England is hopelessly saddled with a burthen which must weigh her to the earth. For if we are to be logical, if we are to sweep the Laws of Simony into the waste-paper basket, if we are to have free trade in benefices, vacant or full, how will the Church appear to the people, if not as a vast commercial organization for the profitable preaching of the Gospel? And I should like to know what Church has ever existed, which has dared to present so brazen a front to the world as that? Why, such a Church could not exist in this country for an hour! But if this be not the true notion of the rights of patrons, what is? There is only one other notion possible, and it is this—a notion sustained by all the laws and canons which have been passed upon the subject—that this kind
1544
of property carries a solemn trust, that the right of the patron to derive benefit from this property is strictly limited by the right of the congregation to enjoy the ministrations of a fit and proper person; therefore, that all methods of dealing with this property which defraud the congregation of that right ought to be prohibited by law, and that a law which does so prohibit them is no law of confiscation and robbery, but a measure of justice. Now, before I leave this point, let me quote a few words from a very powerful Pastoral delivered by the Bishop of Peterborough upon this subject a year or two ago; and I cannot help saying, in passing, that I think the highest praise is due to that right rev. Prelate for the courageous and unsparing censure which he has poured upon those who not only perpetrate these abuses, but defend them. Indeed, almost single-handed, I may say, he stood up in the House of Lords for the rights of religion against the claims of property—
"My answer to such a claim," he said, "is simply this. You are asking compensation for the loss of an immoral increment, and your claim is as immoral as the gain which you say will be lost to you. I ask you, if you have the courage to do so, to state plainly the items for which you claim compensation—for the privilege of forcing on a parish a paralytic pastor, so much; for the right to appoint a clergyman so scandalous that he cannot bring sufficient testimonials to his character, so much; for the right to appoint an octogenarian clergyman, in order to sell the living over his head, so much; and for the right generally to hurt the souls of parishioners for the sake of our private gain, so much."
And now, Sir, let me turn to quite another kind of objection—that which comes from hon. Friends of mine who think that the terms of this Motion are not nearly broad enough. I was almost startled, when this subject was under discussion last year, by the attitude of hon. Friends of mine, who rose, in midnight wrath, and denounced the very innocent verbal compromise into which I entered with the view of securing unanimity. That happy oblivion which overtakes so much of the eloquence of the small hours, prevents my re-producing the terms in which my hon. Friends condemned my apostacy; but I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) spoke of many clergymen of the Church of Eng-

1545
land as "atrocious and abominable Sepoys"—whatever that might mean— and that, with almost equal vivacity, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) declared that not for a moment could he agree that there was any difference between the sale of a next presentation and the sale of an advowson; and that what he condemned in toto was the sale of a spiritual charge at all. Now, I am prepared to go almost all lengths with my hon. Friend in his condemnation, not only of the sale of next presentations, but of the sale of advowsons in gross; but what I would venture to point out to him is, that it is quite unnecessary for us to enter at all into this controversy to-night. This Resolution simply affirms that these scandals and abuses exist, and that it is desirable to take legislative measures to prevent them; and surely the Radicalism of my hon. Friend does not carry him so far as to make him prefer no bread to half-a-loaf. If I were framing a grand declaration of opinion upon this whole subject, I should introduce many things into this Resolution which I have purposely omitted. But what chance would there be that such a Resolution should pass the present House of Commons, or that it should lead to future legislation? We are practical men here; and to refuse all reforms because we cannot obtain every reform is a concession to abstract theory to which I, for one, will never stoop. Now, Sir, what are the scandals and abuses at which this Motion is chiefly aimed? I do not know that I can do better than to quote a paragraph from the evidence which the Bishop of Exeter gave before the Bishop of Peterborough's Committee; for, with great clearness, and at the same time with great moderation, that right rev. Prelate stated what the chief of those evils are—
"I think the worst evil of all, "he said," is the shock to the religious feeling of a great number of people, especially of the artizan class, and the lower middle class, who, I think, find it a very great hindrance to them, and a stumbling-block, greater than it is quite easy for more educated people to measure. I think the evil is so great, that it cuts as it were, at the very reason for the existence of a Church at all, because a Church only exists to help people to he Christians, and to he better Christians; and this, I think, is a positive hindrance in their way. I have constantly found, in conversation with them, that they look upon it as a personal humiliation when the advowson of the parish in which they live is sold; and I have no doubt at all that in
1546
that class a considerable number of quiet, religious people become Nonconformists simply from their hatred of what seems to them so exceedingly wrong in principle. That, I think, is the worst evil. But, then, I think, in the second place, there is a very great evil in the demoralization of the Clergy. In respect to this matter, I find constantly that the artificial character of the Law of Simony has the effect of making clergymen insensible to the evils of Simoniacal transactions altogether. I have known of very good men who were mixed up with transactions of this kind, who seemed not to be at all aware of the evil to which they were lending themselves."
And he proceeds to give an instance—
"Then, in the third place," he goes on to say, "I think it is a very serious evil that there should be the scandal of such sales; that it should be constantly in the mouths of the enemies of the Church of England that positions in the Church are matters of barter and sale; and everybody is aware that it is constantly used by Nonconformists as an argument against the Church, and used with very considerable effect, to my knowledge. Then, in the fourth place, I think that the practice of sales has, to a very great degree, demoralized the patrons. The patrons very generally take a much lower view of their duty in the matter than they would take if there were no such thing as the sale of a living, and if a man felt only that he was a trustee, bound to find the best clergyman he could for the parish that was thus entrusted to his charge. I have not any doubt at all that the market-value of livings is higher in consequence of this general idea that a patron is not bound to find the best man that he can, and, indeed, that he is barely bound to find oven a fit man—that is to say, he is bound to find a man who is legally fit, a man who could not be proved to be unfit; but that he is not bound to take any very great pains to find a man who certainly is fit. Then, lastly, there can be no question at all that the present practice of the sale of advowsons and next presentations gives great facilities for abuse, and I have known instances of very serious abuse."—[Minutes of Evidence, pp. 61–62.]
It will be observed that the Bishop divides those evils under five heads, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to say a few words upon two or three of them. And first, as to the shock to religious feeling. The Bishops themselves are all valuable witnesses to this fact—
"The sale of livings, "says the Bishop of Manchester," is a scandal, an evil, an abuse of a high and solemn trust, so pernicious in its influence, that every well-wisher of the Church ought to desire its removal. There was no scandal in the Church of England that so alienated, and kept alienated, the great Nonconformist bodies from them — bodies whom it should be the desire of every Churchman to bring back to the fold—so much as the sight of such things as he had mentioned."

1547
Take an authority from quite another school of opinion in the Church—
"Shall any man," said the Bishop of Lincoln in his Pastoral for 1874,"treat Christian congregations, the sheep and lambs of Christ, as if they were only like the beasts that perish, to he carried from pens in market-places to slaughterhouses in the shambles? This is what is done by those Christian priests who, like the shepherds denounced in Ezekiel, undertake the pastoral office in order to eat the fat and clothe themselves with the wool."
Now I have only quoted from three right rev. Prelates; but I might have quoted from the whole Bench, for this is an evil so great and glaring, and so entirely indefensible, that if we hold our peace even the Bishops cry out. And now, Sir, just to show how frequently these next presentations change hands, when the system of sales has free play, and the odd uses which are made of them, let me take the history of one living, the presentation to which is uniformly sold. I will take that of Wilmslow in Cheshire, a living worth some £1,600 a-year, in the gift of the Roman Catholic family of Dr. Trafford, and therefore invariably sold—at least, it has been for 217 years. Let us go back, say, to the life-time of the existing generation. In 1814 the Rev. Mr. Clowes bought it for his sister who had married the Rev. Joseph Bradshaw. The Rev. Joseph Bradshaw was duly instituted; and when, in 1824, he was upon his deathbed, the next presentation was sold in a great hurry in the hunting field for £6,000 to Mr. E. Vijor Fox. As the incumbent was in articulo mortis when the sale was made, the Bishop refused to institute the presentee of the new patron; whereupon the latter brought three actions against the Bishop, in the last of which he was successful. The litigation, however, lasted during several years, and in the meantime the Crown twice presented to the living. Immediately before the promotion to a Bishopric of the second presentee of the Crown, Mr. Fox, who had by this time won his action, sold the living to a Mr. Chambers, who bought it for his daughter. The daughter married a Mr. Brownlow, and made him rector in 1829. This poor Mr. Brownlow had a great deal to answer for. He was one of those extremely delicate men who are always dying yet never die. For 43 years he acted as a perfect decoy to the spiritual
1548
speculators of the district; and no less than three gentlemen in succession purchased the living for their sons, and finally threw up their bargains in despair, all through Mr. Brownlow's unreasonable attachment to life. Finally, Mr. Cope, the last of them, two years before Mr. Brownlow died for the last time, sold the presentation to a gentleman, who bought it for his daughter; and I am glad to say that that lady now reigns happily at the rectory. Now, the House will observe that the presentation to this living has been made thrice by a lady—indeed, it is wonderful how eager ladies are to buy next presentations, or rather it would be wonderful if we did not see how much they managed to purchase at the same time. I am told that it is quite a common thing in Cheshire for next presentations to be bought for ladies. There are Wilmslow and Ashton—of which I spoke last year— and Cheadle, which possesses the farther distinction of having its religious aspirations ministered to by a gentleman who, I believe, beyond all controversy, is the very best judge of dogs in England. Well, but, Sir, as to that demoralization of the Clergy, of which the Bishop of Exeter speaks. If anyone has any doubt of that, he has only to turn to a letter which appeared in the leading journal a few days after our last debate upon this subject, and which was signed "An Essex Rector." This poor man is in great alarm about his spiritual property; indeed, I doubt whether Alexander the Coppersmith was in a greater panic. With reference to that debate, he says—
"There was no allusion made to the Clerical patrons. There are many men, like myself, with most of their property invested in Church livings. The majority of such advowsons were either purchased by their fathers for them, or left them by will. To stop the sale of advowsons would be starvation to their widows and children. In Essex alone we have something like £15,000 a-year, or £150,000, in such property; and for the sake of our children, we, the Clerical patrons, must defend the sale of Church property, which we hold to be justice in its truest sense.
He concludes his letter thus—
"It is impossible that any clergyman presented for life, or as a step in promotion, can take the same interest in a parish as one who is patron as well as rector and who trusts to be succeeded by his own son. Should any remedy be sought for stopping the sale of Church property, the son—however unfitted—of the rector must be ordained, if only for saving property

1549
to his family. Far better to do away with the oath of Simony, and allow the sale honestly, which would he for the good of the Church generally."
So that it has come to this—the cure of souls is regarded as so much family property to be handed down from father to son. I do not know that I have often come across so barefaced an expression of clerical opinion as this is; but it has one kind of value. It accounts for a great deal in the evidence contained in the Blue Book, which would otherwise be incomprehensible, if not incredible. For example, there is a complete consensus of opinion among witnesses as to the low view which appears to be taken by many clergymen of the binding nature of the declaration against Simony. And let the House bear in mind that the witnesses are none of them inimical to the Church or unfriendly to the Clergy. They are all either dignitaries of the Church, or men whom dignitaries delight to honour. We may accept, therefore, what they say as the literal truth, coloured, if it be coloured at all, by a natural tenderness for the system which they are describing, and under the shadow of which they have passed their lives. Now, Mr. Few, whose experience must have been enormous, speaks most strongly of what he calls the "density" of the Clergy in this respect. He says that their "density is quite remarkable." But what says Mr. Bridges? Who is Mr. Bridges? He is a solicitor in large practice in London, who has been concerned professionally for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, for the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy, for the Clergy Orphan Corporation, and for a body of Church Patronage Trustees; and he was asked these questions with regard to the Oath, and gave these answers—
"You think, it being a legal oath, persons not of a legal mind may not quite understand it?— Yet, such persons may be very much embarrassed, or else they may come to the conclusion, which I have often seen arrived at by clergymen, that the whole thing is an absurdity, and that they may get through the matter in the best way they can. That I know to be a very common state of mind.—Have you known instances of that kind? Yes; there have been many instances in which I have been fortunate enough to stop proceedings of this kind, and there have been other cases in which I have not been so fortunate, but in which the proceedings have gone on in spite of every remonstrance.—Have you had clergymen of really good repute and
1550
character come to you, and propose to carry out a transaction which you knew to be Simoniacal, although they did not? Undoubtedly; clergymen have frequently come to me in this kind of way: some clerical agent whom they have consulted has introduced them to some other clergyman, or to some patron, with whom the transaction was to be carried out, and they have got into correspondence with that other clergyman direct; and the letters which have been shown to me have frequently constituted what, in my judgment, was a Simoniacal contract. I have then pointed out the fact, and gone into the matter; but in spite of that I have known that the transaction has been carried out, although not through my instrumentality.—You have known that to occur in the case of clergymen who were patrons, and who were selling benefices, as well as in the case of clergymen who were buying benefices?—Undoubtedly. I have put it in this way, and it shows the state of conscience which prevails upon the subject. A patron, who was also an incumbent, has made an arrangement with some clergyman to purchase his living, and on its being pointed out, as I did, that the purchasing clergyman would have a difficulty in taking the oath, the remark was made, 'that is, of course, his affair,' which I ventured to point out was not entirely the case."—[Minutes of Evidence, pp. 37, 38.]
Well, Sir, after that evidence we are not surprised at the statement which is categorically made by Mr. Lee, secretary to many Bishops, that "evasions of the Law are almost universal."-—[Ibid. p. 31.] But the examination of Mr. Bridges proceeded as follows:—
"Are you also of opinion that the secrecy connected with transactions of this kind is mischievous in its effects? I think it is very mischievous, practically, as a moral question. When you are consulted upon these matters, you hardly venture to put the thing down in writing in the first instance, for fear you may commit, you do not know to what extent, the person who consults you? I have frequently had to go to counsel for a conference, without having anything put on paper, wishing to see whether the transaction is Simoniacal or not, before venturing to go any further.—As I understand it, secrecy is specially observed by clerical agents; they announce in their circulars and advertisements that the transaction will be strictly private? That appears to be the case with a certain class of clerical agents who advertise very freely. For instance, they advertise that they consider strict privacy vital to arrangements of this kind.—You have seen such advertisements, have you not? Yes; I see them constantly. You cannot road The Ecclesiastical Gazette without seeing them; the last number was full of them."—[Ibid. p. 39.]
And in this connection I may remind the House of the result of the calculation into which I entered minutely last year—as to the number of livings which are at this moment in the hands of these advertising agents for barter or sale.

1551
Making allowance for duplicate advertisements, I found that upwards of 2,000 livings, or one-fourth of the whole saleable patronage of the Church, were in the market at the same moment. Any hon. Gentleman may suit himself with a living by consulting these registers. Does he desire an active living? He may select, for example, St. Philip's, Liverpool, income £450, but
"with prospect of an increase, since this church possesses the privilege of marrying from all parts of the town."
Does he wish for a sinecure? He may take Trehaverock, in Cornwall, where there is no service, no residence, and the parsonage appears to be licensed for the sale of ardent spirits. He has only to glance at these advertisements to see how completely the system has secularized that portion of the Clergy which has mixed itself up with it. Much is constantly made of the amenities of the situation—the bracing air, the fine scenery, the good society, the hunting, fishing, and shooting, down to rooks, the hot-houses and ice-houses, the lawns, and avenues, and shrubberies, and so forth—and nothing whatever of the solemn duties which are attached to the office, except that hey are desirably light and few in number. If we did not know how many excellent and devoted men there are in the Church, we might readily infer that the whole Priesthood was a thing of purple and fine linen, or that these labourers in the Vineyard were intent upon nothing but the juice. But, to return to Mr. Bridges. He was asked—
"In these negotiations for sale, the Law of Simony is sometimes evaded in order to secure an immediate resignation, is it not?—Frequently. In what way do you suppose that might be done; by a deposit of money? What has been done, I know, in a case that came under my own cognizance, was this. A clergyman who was patron, and had been incumbent of a living, wishing to sell it, and knowing that the Bishop of that diocese had a particular objection to accepting the resignation of a clergyman who was also patron when there had been a sale, vacated the living and put in an intimate friend of his own, who undertook, as a matter of friendly feeling, to resign whenever he wished. He sold the living, of course with the understanding on the part of the purchaser of the surrounding circumstances. The purchaser was not absolutely satisfied to pay money down until he saw what he was going to get for it, and the arrangement which I understood was made was this, the money was deposited in the names of two persons who were supposed to be capable of being trusted, and as
1552
soon as the living was vacant and the clergyman instituted, the money was paid down."— [Ibid. p. 39.]
I may add here, that although there can be no moral distinction between the purchase of a vacant living and of one "with immediate possession"—"immediate possession" is continually advertised. I have a monthly Register of "Church Preferments for Sale," published last year by one of the best-known of these agents, in which there are 94 advertisements, and in 57 of them immediate possession is guaranteed. Mr. Bridges was asked again—
"Some of the clerical agents of whom he had just been speaking are, I believe, owners of donatives?—Yes; I know a case in which a a donative was used for the purpose of evasion; but how far it is a prevalent practice, I do not know."
I may mention that Lord S. G. Osborne tell us—[Ibid. p. 108.]—that donatives are used for another purpose—that of whitewashing black sheep. He gives an instance in which the same donative was thus used thrice in succession; but the sheep were all so black that the whitewash would not stick. But Mr. Bridges goes on to explain how useful a donative may be made. He says—
"A clergyman called upon me one day, a few years ago, and requested me to carry out the sale of an advowson. He was an old family client; he was the patron and incumbent of a living; he knew perfectly well that his Bishop objected to accept a resignation in cases where the patron was also the incumbent, and had made a sale; and he told me that he had arranged with a particular clerical agent, who kept two or three of those donatives in his pocket, to purchase one of those donatives for £100; he was then, having sold his own living, to appoint himself to this donative; and then, when the living thereby became vacated, and the purchaser was presented to the living which was sold, he was to sell back the donative to the clerical agent for the same price that he gave for it… He was a thorough gentleman by position; he was a man of good family, and there was nothing whatever against his character; he did not belong to any very earnest school in the Church.—For all these reasons which you have stated, you think the oath as well as the substituted declaration against Simony are really of little practical use? I think they are constantly in the habit of being evaded, and I do not think that they practically prevent Simoniacal transactions; we know that a great many transactions of this kind are being carried out, and I believe I am right in stating that there has been no prosecution for Simony for a great many years in any of the Courts."—[Ibid. p. 40.]
And Sir, a method of evasion equally

1553
objectionable with any mentioned by Mr. Bridges, is when a living which it is desired to sell falls vacant, and a venerable clergyman is presented, a clergyman the most venerable who can be found—so venerable sometimes, that, as in the case mentioned by Lord S. G. Osborne, "he is barely able to sit up in a chair."—[Ibid. p. 106.] Now, why is this sort of thing done? In order that the living may be sold by auction, and that the auctioneer may be in a position to announce that the incumbent is positively upon his last legs. I will give the House one instance, not because it is at all the worst which could be cited —far otherwise—but because I have had the opportunity of watching what was done with this living. I refer to Hilgay, in Norfolk. In 1870 the then incumbent, who was also patron, began to advertise his living for sale. This gentleman laboured under the disadvantage that he had not as yet reached the age when livings become attractive; so he availed himself of the only extenuating circumstances within his reach. He advertised himself—the incumbent—as"56 years of age, but he is, it is believed, in a very precarious state of health." Now, the precarious health of a man of 56 is not always to be trusted; so he advertised for two years in vain—and then died; with the consolation, no doubt, that, although he had not sold his living, he had abundantly justified the terms of his advertisement. Well, what did they do then? They put in the most charitable canon in all England, a man whose charitable construction of the motives of others exceeds almost anything of which I have ever read—the Rev. Canon St. Vincent Beechey. When he took leave of his old parishioners, this gentleman spoke of
"the kindly hearts and generous impulses of patrons to seek the best spiritual superintendence for the people they were called upon to provide for;"
and of his own preferment as coming
"from the spontaneous desire of a faithful widowed patron to carry out her husband's own desire, that his people be ministered to by a successor in his curate."
The husband being the advertising patron to whom I have alluded, and the curate being himself—and what an aroma of usefulness that curate must have left behind him to hang about the spot for 40 years! Now the living
1554
—which is a very valuable one—fell vacant in September; Canon Beechey was instituted in October; and in the May following, I saw the living put up to auction at the Auction Mart, Token-house Yard. I do not know whether Canon Beechey went there, too, to see the living sold over his head. If he did, he must have been surprised to find how little the auctioneer had to say about "the generous impulses of patrons." What he would have heard was an eloquent peroration about his own advanced age, coupled with the value of the living, the size of the dining-room and cellars, and the noble accommodation which had been provided for the pigs. Now, I do not wish to dwell upon these auctions—they are constantly occurring. There were two last Friday—an advowson with an incumbent aged 76, who was only instituted last year; and a next presentation, with an incumbent whose certificate of baptism, we are informed, is dated November 23rd, 1804. I do not wish, I say, to dwell upon these auctions. I know that the majority of this House are zealous and conscientious Churchmen, and I would not raise an unnecessary blush to any cheek. But I will say this—that if I were a Churchman, and if I happened to wander into Tokenhouse Yard at a time when the Church was disposing of her spiritual bargains, I should feel a pang of shame which would send me straight, I think, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to ask his Grace what he meant when the other day, at Croydon, he made broad his phylacteries, and almost hugged himself upon the fact that his Church was not as other Churches are? Now, I ask all zealous Churchmen in this House to aid me in forcing the consideration of these scandals upon the notice of what, I fear, is a reluctant Administration. And yet, if it were only to efface the memory of the last public jobbery in livings, I should have thought that the Government would have said something definite to-night. For his condemnation of the sale of next presentations was scarcely out of the lips of my right hon. Friend, when, looking into the newspaper, I saw that his Colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty was offering for sale by private tender the living of Humshaugh and seven others in a bunch. I do not know

1555
whether my right hon. Friend has still this tempting lot upon his hands. Probably he has, because the market just now is flat. There is a cloud resting upon every trade, and the trade in souls shares the common despondency. But when the market is alive again—when white shirtings once more are active— since Government livings can be sold— why not turn over the patronage of the Crown? What a field for the enterprize of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is bent upon raising £6,000,000 sterling! Sir, when the Bishop of Peterborough was moving for his Committee in "another place," he said—
"This reform, which I ask at your Lordships' hands, I ask in the name of the entire Church, which pleads for it earnestly and anxiously.—[3 Hansard, ccxviii. 921.]
When the same right rev. Prelate, a few months afterwards, was taking off his harness in disgust and despair, he stated that his reason for doing so was—
"Simply the utter want of such support from the Church at largo as alone could ensure the success of any measure of reform on this subject."
And he went on to say—
"The enemies of the Church now possess a new weapon in the fact that the Church either cannot or will not free herself from evils which no honest Churchman ventures to defend."
Now, how long is the Church to lie under this imputation—an imputation which is cast upon her, not by her enemies, but by one of the most gifted of her Prelates? Is the imputation true, or is it false? If it be false, I trust that we shall hear something more from Her Majesty's Government than words of barren sympathy with this Motion, or one of the common-places which are resorted to in order to postpone the consideration of an unwelcome question. But if it be true—if it be true that "the Church either cannot, or will not, free herself from evils which no honest Churchman ventures to defend," I must be permitted to ask this question — How long is an institution so hopelessly crippled and so incurably corrupt to continue to exercise the whole religious authority of the nation? The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
MR. HIBBERTseconded the Motion. As a Churchman he was much distressed with the account which the hon. Mem-
1556
ber had given, and he hoped it would have the effect of making the House do all they possibly could to prevent this dreadful scandal. His hon. Friend had found considerable fault with the Government for not taking in hand this question. When one considered the number of measures which the Government had before the House last year, and which they were unable, even with the greatest efforts, to place on the Statute Book, he was not surprised that they had not carried out the wish of his hon. Friend. They were indebted to his hon. Friend who had brought forward this Motion for keeping the subject before the country, the Church, and the Government; and he trusted that the Government, when they had more time—either in this Session or the next—would try to remedy what was one of the greatest scandals in the Church of England. Last year he referred his right hon. Friend to a Bill which he himself brought forward in 1870 to abolish the sale of next presentations, and that Bill passed through the House of Commons with very little opposition, and was carried to the House of Lords where it was comfortably lost sight of. But it was not only in the House of Commons he found difficulty in dealing with this question; but it was in the House of Lords, also, a difficulty existed. The Bishop of Peterborough, in a most eloquent and able speech, moved the House of Lords to appoint a Committee to consider the purchase system in our Church, and the evidence quoted by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was taken before that Committee. A Bill was prepared in the House of Lord with excellent clauses to take away some of these scandals; but that Bill when it left the House of Lords was so much cut down that it was scarcely worthy the consideration of this House on so important a question. They also knew that in almost every Congress which had been held of late years, in every diocesan meeting of the Church, this question of patronage was discussed, and the general opinion was in favour of doing certain things that would deal with the question. He wanted to know how it was with the Bishops, this House, and everybody else in favour of a great reform, the question could not be dealt with and the evils done away? Even the Bishop of Peterborough spoke of the

1557
great evils and the great necessity of dealing with the matter at once. That right rev. Prelate said—
"The evils resulting from the defects of our present system are so patent and so serious, and the demand for their reform is so strong and universal, that if it he not met, and met speedily, by wise and temperate reform, it may end in changes that will he neither wise nor temperate."—[3 Hansard, ccxviii. 900–1.]
He (Mr. Hibbert) thought the House ought to approach this question in a very temperate and moderate manner; and he felt quite sure that if they considered it in. that way they might do very much to reduce the evils of this system. One of its great evils was the mode in which the declaration against Simony was drawn up, and had to be taken by the presentee of a living. The presentee was called upon to solemnly declare that he had not by himself or any other person on his behalf made any payment, contract, or promise of any kind whatsoever which to the best of his knowledge or belief was simoniacal. He was sorry to think—and he believed it was really the case—that very few men knew what Simony really was—that neither the Clergy, nor the patron, nor even the Bishop knew exactly what a man might do or might not do. A clergyman might buy his next presentation, but he could not present himself. A layman might buy his presentation. They could not buy an advowson or a presentation when the benefice was void; but the sale of an advowson was legal when the incumbent was moribund, or in articulo mortis. His hon. Friend had referred to a case in which the incumbent was almost dead when the advowson was purchased. Then, a clergyman, though he might not buy the next presentation to a living, might buy the advowson within half-an-hour of the death of the incumbent and present himself. If there were so many difficulties connected with the question that even the patrons of presentations were unable to understand exactly what Simony was, and what they could do and could not do, what was wanted was that there should be some new form of declaration, in direct language, in which the presentee should be called upon to state what he had done and what he had not done as far as regarded the law against Simony. Sir Robert Phillimore, who had been examined before the Lords' Committee, expressed an opinion that
1558
the present declaration would be a snare to some people and a temptation to others, and he thought it would be desirable that the law should be stated in a clearer manner—that the presentee might know distinctly what he was declaring against. Well, he thought that this might be made clearer in the Act of Parliament. He also thought that the presentor, as well as the presentee, should make the declaration. That would be one more protection against Simony. Then came the question, were they to prevent the sale of next presentations and of advowsons? Many hon. Members at that side of the House were, as he knew, in favour of the abolition of Church patronage altogether; but, for his part, he thought there would be considerable difficulty in saying that they ought not to permit the sale of advowsons at all. He should not object to private patronage being abolished; but, at the same time, it seemed to him that private patronage in which there was no abuse had given the Church its best men. Nevertheless, there was an abuse in the system, and they were bound to see how that abuse could be best guarded against. As to advowsons, they were now held in two ways—they were connected with property and they were held separately from property; and where the advowson belonged to a person who was a lunatic, or almost a pauper, or was unfitted in any way to deal with it, a very great difficulty arose, and one which required much consideration with a view to its removal. The Committee which sat in the House of Lords on this subject did not go so far as to recommend the prohibition of the sale of next presentments; but while they represented themselves in favour of continuing the privilege of selling advowsons, they made recommendations as to the rights of parishioners, which were too little thought of, he regretted to say, in the sale of advowsons or next presentments, to which, he trusted, due regard would be had when the subject came to be dealt with. Notice of the sale of advowsons ought certainly to be given to the Bishop of the diocese, so that the sale should be made openly and not secretly. Then, as to donatives, he regarded them as the principal means of leading to scandal and abuses, and thought that they ought to be abolished. He did not see on what grounds they

1559
could be maintained, even in the interests of the Church. Then, as to the age of incumbents to be appointed, there ought, in his opinion, to be a limit. No incumbent ought to be appointed after the age of 70, except with the consent of the Bishop; because it was notorious that the bringing of aged men into those livings for particular purposes gave rise to the chance of carrying on the sales and abuses against which the Resolution of his hon. Friend was directed. While he could not go so far as his hon. Friend, he could not but think that the system had become so great a scandal in the Church to which he belonged that in the interest of the Church he hoped the whole question would be grappled with before many months were over by Her Majesty's Government. If those who did not belong to the Church were to be attracted to it, the abuses to which they objected must be got rid of. If they were, the strength of the feeling against the Church would be very much diminished, and the result would be to bring within its pale many who were now outside it.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is desirable to adopt measures for preventing simoniacal evasion of the Law, and checking abuses in the sale of livings in private patronage."—(Mr Leatham.)
MR. GOLDNEYmoved, as as Amendment, that
"The better to enable the adoption of measures for preventing simoniacal evasion of the Law and checking abuses in the sale of livings in private patronage, it is expedient that the Law of Simony and the circumstances under which the sale of livings in private patronage are by Law allowed, should be defined by Parliament."
His object in doing so was not so much opposing the Motion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield as the absolute necessity there was that there should be some means of dealing honestly and fairly with the subject. The Resolution as it stood was a mere truism and platitude. All admitted that something ought to be done if there was evasion or abuse of the law; it did not need a Resolution to affirm that. The subject was a matter so indistinct and indefinite that it was absolutely necessary, before taking measures of repression, that they should clearly define what was Simony, and under what circumstances a living might or might not be sold. There was too
1560
much tendency to confuse the recognized distinction between the sale of a living which might be considered as a trust, and the sale of an advowson which was a mere right of patronage. One of the most freely discussed provisions of the Municipal Reform Act was that relating to the sale by Corporations of their Ecclesiastical property. Every advowson was to be sold by auction, and the proceeds applied to municipal purposes. A question arising whether the direction to sell applied to certain rights of presentation, it was settled by an affirmative Act in 1835; so that the law on these matters directed the doing of the very things that were now derided. The remedy suggested by the hon. Member for Huddersfield and by the hon. Member for Oldham was to vest the choice in the parishioners whose spiritual wants were to be cared for; but in 1856 there were large complaints of very disgraceful scenes occurring where the parishioners had the right of electing their clergymen, and these complaints culminated in the election of the rector of Bilston. That election lasted five days. It cost the unsuccessful candidate £1,600 and the successful candidate £5,000, and more disturbance and riot occurred than was known to have happened at the election of a Member of Parliament or any other person. The consequence was that an Act was passed in 1856, whereby it was enacted that where the right of presentation was vested in the parishioners, or a portion of the parishioners, or in trustees for the inhabitants, the advowson should be sold, and, subject to certain special circumstances, the produce should be applied to the relief of the poor of the parish. In 1863 the then Lord Chancellor (Lord West-bury) passed a Bill to transfer the Lord Chancellor's patronage in 320 livings to private persons, urging, among other reasons, the incidental benefit of private patronage where the patron looked after the schools and the interest of the parish. So that, within 40 years, directions had been positively given by Acts of Parliament to dispose of by public sale of at least one-twelfth of the whole of the advowsons in the Kingdom. There were 12,000 benefices, of which half were public patronage, and of these 1,000 had been sold by the direct intervention of Parliament in the 40 years. Nearly 7,000 were under £300 a-year; 400

1561
under £50; 1,600 under £100; and between 1,600 and 1,700 were worth from £100 to £150 a-year. He did not dispute that there were many cases which might be looked upon as a scandal; but he failed to see that this had operated to the detriment of any parish that he had heard of. He had known very few cases where anything like a charge of corruption had been stated, or where the parishioners had been injured or the ministrations of the Church neglected by the existing state of things, or the operation of the Acts he had referred to; and he hoped, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary brought in a Bill on this subject, a clear and well-defined distinction would be drawn between the sale of presentations and the right of patronage; and the Amendment he now moved had that object in view.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the better to enable the adoption of measures for preventing simoniacal evasion of the Law and checking abuses in the sale of livings in private patronage, it is expedient that the Law of Simony, and the circumstances under which the sale of livings in private patronage are by Law allowed, should be denned by Parliament,"— (Mr. Goldney,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. RICHARD: It is very difficult to argue such a question as this, because, as it seems to me, it has only one side. At least, I find it difficult to conceive what can be said in defence of the practices condemned by the Resolution of my hon. Friend. The only wonder is that a scandal so flagrant should have been permitted to exist so long. I can only account for it by the fact that in past generations the Church itself had fallen into a state of spiritual lethargy and indifference, and during those evil times all kinds of abuses flourished with a rank and luxuriant growth. But with the revival of spiritual life, which I gladly and gratefully acknowledge has taken place in the Church of England within the last 50 years, I am not surprised that it should have become more sensitive to such evils, and that it is making some effort to throw off this incubus which is
1562
lying so heavily on its heart. There is a ludicrous aspect to this question, and indeed it is impossible to state such facts as my hon. Friend has cited without provoking some merriment. But it has also, in my opinion, a very serious aspect, especially to those who have been taught to regard the Christian ministry as a very sacred calling. Theoretically no Church has a higher ideal of the clerical office than the Church of England. Entrance into its ministry is protected by safeguards of singular stringency. All candidates for ordination have exacted of them vows and professions, and have committed to them powers and obligations, that appear to me, I own, of almost appalling solemnity. Even in regard to this particular matter, the Church cannot be accused of any levity or laxity in its general declarations. By the canons of 1603, every clergyman before his admission, institution, or confirmation to his living, is required to take the following oath:—
"I do swear that I have made no Simoniacal payment, contract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself, or any other, to my knowledge, or with my consent, to any person or persons whatsoever, for, or concerning the procuring and obtaining of the—of—, in the county of—, and diocese of—, nor will at any time hereafter perform or satisfy any such kind of payment, contract, or promise made by any other without my knowledge or consent. So help me God, through Jesus Christ."
Nothing could be more solemn than that, and nothing could be more minute and stringent to guard against Simony. And yet in the face of all this, it is notorious that sale and barter in the cure of souls is constantly going on day by day. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and many other earnest Churchmen in this House will acknowledge that the present system is utterly evil, and injures everybody concerned in it. It dishonours the Church, it degrades the Clergy, it demoralizes the patrons, it insults the parishes, and, worse than all, it brings religion itself into contempt. If I were the enemy of the Church of England I should say to my hon. Friend—"Leave this matter alone." No weapon can be so effective and formidable in the hands of the enemies of the Church as the perpetuation of such scandals as these. But I am not an enemy of the Church of England. I wish, indeed, to see it sepa-

1563
rated from the State, as in my belief likely to conduce to its own freedom, purity, and efficiency. But as a religious society, as a spiritual institution, I can, with the utmost sincerity, say that I wish it all possible prosperity. It has done, and is still doing, inestimable service to the cause of Christian civilization in this country; and God forbid that I should be moved by any sectarian jealousy to desire the continuance of anything that tends to impair its usefulness or to mar its glory as a Christian Church. I must do the Episcopal Bench the justice to say that they have set their face against these scandals with a unanimity and earnestness that leave no doubt of their sincerity. My hon. Friend has already quoted the sentiments of several of the Bishops. I only ask permission to add two more. The Bishop of Oxford says—
"Nowhere, I believe, and at no time—not even in the corrupt days of mediaeval Rome—-has the traffic in advowsons and presentations been more largely, more systematically, and more unscrupulously carried on than amongst ourselves at this hour.…It is impossible to believe that any religious society, having full control of its own affairs, would endure the continuance of such a system without energetic protest, and without some strenuous endeavours to remedy the wrong."
The Bishop of Peterborough, speaking of one kind of transaction of frequent occurrence—that of putting an old and decrepit man into an incumbency, in order to sell the living over his head, says—
"I say there are men now serving their term of penal servitude far fraud and conspiracy, who are guilty of less deliberate fraud and less odious conspiracy than the fraud and conspiracy of those who thus make a corrupt merchandise of the cure of souls.…This is a practice which makes the Church stink in the nostrils of many who might otherwise come within her fold."
The Bishop of Lincoln uses language, if possible, still stronger. Now the question is, if the evil be so great, if it be acknowledged and stigmatized in such terms as we have heard by the heads of the Church, why is it that no remedy is found? Here, again, we must do the Bishops the justice to say that they have made some efforts to provide a remedy. In 1874 the Bishop of Peterborough brought the subject forward in the House of Lords with all that incisive eloquence of which he is so great a master. He
1564
moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire and report. In 1875 he brought in a Bill founded on the Report of that Committee. It was a very mild and modest Bill, and as he himself, I think, acknowledged, only touched the fringe of the evil. And yet it was too strong for the House of Lords. After much hostile criticism it was referred to a Select Committee, where it was so watered down, that when it came down to this House, the Gentleman who had charge of it, I suppose, thought it of so little value, that he did not attempt to carry it to a second reading. The Bishop of Manchester has since said that the author of the Bill is so disheartened that he doubts if he will have courage to introduce it again; while the Bishop of Gloucester sorrowfully admits that there is no likelihood the evil will be effectually remedied. Now, why is this? Why is it that when there is a scandal so grievous as is admitted by the friends of the Church, all hands are paralyzed in the attempt to deal with it? I believe the explanation is found in a sentence I have already quoted from the Bishop of Oxford, who says it is impossible to believe that any religious society "having full control of its own affairs" could endure the continuance of such a system. But, unhappily, the Church of England has not the control of its own affairs. The control of its affairs is in the hands of Parliament, and there are too many Members in both Houses of Parliament who are themselves interested in this evil system of patronage to admit of the hope, that they will deal with it effectually. I wish, therefore, that the members of the Church of England could see that there is no way by which they can remedy these and other abuses except by acquiring control of their own affairs, and there is no way of acquiring control over their own affairs except by relinquishing the protection and patronage of the State.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEthanked the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Richard) for his acknowledgment of the growth of spirituality in the Church of England. To that happy and silent revolution, he believed, the delay in dealing with this question might be ascribed. In all human institutions, if there happened to be ant internal reformation and a strengthening of the healthy elements of any system, the common law of pro-

1565
gress facilitated, if it did not favour and counsel, postponing the amendment and removal of external anomalies. Such delay was, in fact, helpful to permanent reform, for it left the body politic in a more healthy state for that remedial treatment which might he too severe if applied to a morbid subject. As to the present debate, the fundamental agreement of all speakers could not be taken for granted, as behind its incidental subject-matter lay the deeper question to be faced—how far patronage in itself was a laudable feature "in the Christian Church? As to the Motion under discussion, however, there could be no theoretical difference of opinion. The delay in providing a remedy for the evil had occurred both for the reason he had indicated, and in consequence of the variety of conflicting interests which must be compared, set against each other, and co-ordinately dealt with in any practical settlement. He thought that the Bishop of Peterborough, with all his earnestness, had been too easily discouraged. Had the right rev. Prelate been a better Parliamentary tactician, he would have seen that the failure of his Bill was merely the normal fate of nearly all new measures. There had been a great improvement in the character of the Clergy, and the men for whom livings were now bought were, as a rule, better than the men for whom they were bought in the last century, or even 50 years ago; so that—granting the evil of commerce in patronage—the results of that commerce were of a far preferable material. In those days a living was frequently bought for a younger son, who showed himself to be a port-wine-drinking, hunting, dancing, lazy fellow. They had not only the disgusting pictures in Fielding and Smollett to remind them what once a parson might be; but they had the more refined and gentlemanly clergyman in Miss Austen's novels, an excellent and fashionable young man, but with an absolute blank on the spiritual side of his character. Now, he might be, and often was, a devoted parish priest, working early and late in his sacred calling for the salvation of souls. It was no wonder, therefore, that reform in such a case as this should work slowly; for though the theoretic evil might be patent, its practical results for bad were neither so solid nor so obvious now as they were formerly. The real remedy, in his opinion, con-
1566
sisted not so much in altering the form of law in the first stages, as in producing a machinery by which a man who was unfit for the cure of souls might, after he had been presented to a living, be called to account and his appointment be challenged and cancelled. Of course, the Bishop, in some way legally advised and supported by his Chapter and by his Chancellor, so as not to act despotically, but as a constitutional father of his flock, must be the judge, and, if need be, the doomster of improper nominees. Eight years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary passed through that House a Bill for the abolition of the sale of next presentations. No one had any wish to divide against the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman; only two voices were raised to point out that the measure might not be so satisfactory in all its details as was expected by his right hon. Friend and the House. One of those voices was that of Mr. Henley, whom he was sorry he could name by the forms of the House, and the other was his own. Why make a Jonah of the sale of next presentations? If they abolished the open sale of next presentations, he feared they would only produce their clandestine huxtering. These sales were pestilent when vendor and purchaser were unprincipled and unscrupulous, and of course these were the very people who would, when driven into a corner, devise a worse form of illegitimate traffic. If the authorized sale were prevented, the business of a sacred "man in the moon" would soon grow up in some quiet back street of the West End. The impecuniosity which prompted the alienation remaining the same, the temptation would continue. Besides, take the case of a living which had been in a family for centuries—it might now be in the hands, he would not say of a black sheep, but only of a needy and desperate owner. As the law stood, he might only care to turn the next chance into money. He had probably remaining vestiges of conscience, and might reflect with satisfaction that, after his time, the old hereditary link would be re-fastened. But abolish all means of parting with the next presentation, and in his despair, he would have under stress of debt for ever to destroy the old and happy connection of parson and squire. The other alternative to which he might be driven would be that of a

1567
clandestine and illegal, and therefore deeply criminal, sale of that turn. His right hon. Friend's measure was an admirably intended attempt; but he hoped that when the question was next taken up, it would not be as a Bill merely to abolish the sale of next presentations, but with the intention of dealing with the matter from top to bottom. There was one custom which was a cause of great scandal in some populous midland as well as metropolitan districts, and which had troubled earnest Churchmen, who were anxious to bring the subject before the House; but it was an evil not only to be confessed, but to be remedied—he meant the method of presentation by way of popular election. An election had been held in a parish in London two or three years ago which had provoked a great many unedifying comments in the newspapers, and ultimately made its appearance in the Courts at Westminster. Then there was another practice which seemed to himself the least defensible of anomalies, involving as it did the gift of a freehold under conditions which secretly brought it down to a leasehold— that of presentation to a living combined with a bond of resignation. Why not allow the patron, with some future nominee in his sight, to go to the Bishop and empower him to appoint a clergyman as locum tenens for a specified term, and with full enjoyment of endowment, patronage, and glebe? The choice might be limited to those who had been a certain time in the diocese, the appointment to specify that to hold the living for a certain number of years. This would be one more casual prize in the Bishop's hand to reward conscientious work, while resort to the arrangement would be a searching test of a patron's sincerity. It would show that his reason for desiring to keep the living open for a given person was so strong as to reconcile them, in the interval, to the ministrations of a stranger. If the question of patronage was to be taken up as of public interest, it ought to be dealt with all round, honestly, considerately, and reverently.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERrose to address the House when—
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock,