Lords Sitting of 26 April 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Weights and Measures; Public Improvements; Pawnbrokers Act Amendment; Petitions of Right; Law of Divorce (Ireland).
2a Union of Benefices.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that two years ago his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Exeter obtained the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the spiritual destitution existing in the metropolis and other populous places. Their Report had been circulated throughout the country, and very important results had flowed from it. Many earnest efforts had been made to remedy the evils there pointed out, and he only spoke, he believed, the sentiments of the Members of the Committee when he said that the self-denying efforts of the clergy in those populous places were more appreciated now than they ever were before. These men laboured in courts and alleys, with scarcely any hope of temporal reward, and with very little to cheer them except the approval of their own consciences; and, indeed, if it were not for their exertions there would be danger of the social system of our present complicated state of society almost collapsing. But their Lordships were entitled to expect some more definite results from the Report, and when the Committee was appointed, he ventured to point out two legislative results as likely to flow from it. The first was the adoption of some change in the system which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had hitherto, under the authority of Parliament, been obliged to follow in the distribution of their funds, and that the principle might be recognized—that where the Church held property on which a great number of persons were gathered together as occupiers, that it was the first duty of the Commissioners where the rents were paid into their hands, to provide for the tenants of the church before the rents of such property were added to the Common Fund applicable to the whole country. He hoped they might look for some legis-

  109
  lation this Session in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on that point. The second point on which he had ventured to anticipate legislation, and which he had attempted to embody in the Bill to the second reading of which he now asked their Lordships to assent, was that in parishes once populous, but now populous no more, and where there were, if not large, yet considerable endowments for religious instruction, the funds might by some better arrangement be made more available for the spiritual wants of the poor; and that the pastors might, in such circumstances, be relieved from the unpleasant position of being pastors in name only, having under their care dead stone walls rather than living souls. It was to remedy that state of things, in the City of London especially, that this Bill had been framed. There were other places to which the same principle might apply; but this Bill had been especially prepared in relation to the state of things existing in the City of London. An illustration would show what he hoped to accomplish. In the City of London this happened—two parishes adjoined each other; the one was rich and endowed with revenues yielding £2,000 a year, while the population, although the parish was one of the largest in the City, was only between 800 and 900, and the number of poor 100. The erection of warehouses had driven the poor of many of these parishes to seek their residence elsewhere. The very next parish to the one first mentioned contained 15,000 persons, mostly of the humbler class; and the means for their religious instruction, so far as endowments went, amounted to nothing at all, the clergyman having to subsist on such fees as could be collected in his church, and the average sum raised by those fees for the spiritual supervision of 15,000 souls was £150 per annum; out of which, moreover, house-rent had to be paid, there being no parsonage for the incumbent. His object, therefore, was that the wealthy parish with the small population should contribute to the necessities of its poorer and more populous neighbours, or rather that the wealthy parish should contribute to the spiritual instruction of those who, notwithstanding the imaginary boundary line between them, were really its own poor. The case he had described was, he was hound to say, an exceptional one. It was generally supposed that the incumbents of the City of London were very wealthy; and certainly some of them
  110
  were very well provided for. But both in the richer and the poorer parishes the state of things was very unsatisfactory. The clergyman could not attract to his ministrations on Sunday more than thirty, forty, fifty, or at most sixty persons:—not from any fault of his, but because there was little or no population. As their Lordships were aware, entire parishes were occupied by warehouses; and, notwithstanding that in some of them young persons connected with trade lived during the week—though even that was the exception—yet on Sunday they naturally went to see their friends in the country. It was, therefore, a hopeless task for the pastor, however zealous, to attempt to draw around him a satifactory congregation. What made the matter worse was, that comparatively few of the City parishes had parsonage houses; where they did exist, in some cases generations had passed since the clergymen had occupied them, and they had been converted to other uses; and as the law allowed every clergyman who had not a residence found him to live anywhere within two miles of his church, it very naturally happened that many of the City clergy lived at a distance from the sphere of their labours. Moreover, as the incumbencies were mostly very poor, it was impossible for the Bishop to order the erection of parsonage houses. The consequence was that the evil of non-residence existed to a greater degree in the City of London than in any other part of the kingdom. The present Bill sought to open up the means whereby this evil might be removed, and, by amalgamating different parishes, to secure that the pastor should live in the midst of his flock. He was now only asking their Lordships to continue an Act which had already existed, but which, having been passed for five years, would expire in August next. At the same time, he had undertaken to make considerable alterations in that Act, because, owing to the complicated state of things with which it had to deal, it had proved inoperative. About three years ago the subject had received renewed attention, and he had put himself into communication with his clergy. The clergy of the City of London and its liberties, formed an ancient corporation, called Sion College, and that body had devoted great attention to the present Bill. They had appointed Committees among themselves; they had caused to be made—what he believed did not exist be-

  111
  fore—a very accurate map of all the numerous parishes of the City of London and their boundaries; and they had issued inquiries to members of their own body, which had been generally responded to, giving the information necessary to understand the state of those parishes. They had also published several reports containing a narrative of their proceedings; all of which showed the interest taken in this measure by the clergy of London. The clergy were almost unanimous in favour of such a measure as that he now laid on their Lordships' table. Of course, in so intricate a matter there were many details upon which persons might vary, but he believed that on the general principle there was very little difference of opinion. He should, however, have neglected his duty if he had confined himself to obtaining the opinions of the clergy only; because in a matter like this, which contemplated extensive alterations of existing boundaries, the laity were as much interested as the clergy. He had been fortunate enough to secure the assistance of two among the Members of the Lower House of Parliament, both highly respected and influential in the City, who became, with three of the clergy he had named, members of a Commission to endeavour to apply in one important instance the Act which expired this year; and it was upon the difficulties which beset their endeavours to carry out that Act that the present Bill had been based. He, therefore, believed that he was entitled to recommend this Bill to their Lordships' favourable consideration as being a thoroughly practical measure, based on the actual difficulties which had been found in the way of carrying out what their Lordships had fully sanctioned as the existing Act of Parliament. This matter involved a great many interests, some belonging to the clergy, others to the laity, and where so many personal interests were concerned, it was only natural to expect that some opposition would arise to its provisions. It was so when the former Bill was passed. Considerable discussion took place, and advantage was taken of the excitement which existed as respected some of its provisions by persons who were animated, he feared, not so much by religious as by personal motives. He therefore felt it in-incumbent on him to show that the improvements he sought to effect could not be obtained without a new Act of Parliament. It was said, as this Bill recited
  112
  two existing Acts of Parliament, both for the union of parishes, why not proceed on these Acts? There was also another power in an existing Act, by which they might tax a rich parish for the endowment of a poor one, where the patronage of both was in the same hands—why, therefore, should they not be content with the existing law, when to attempt fresh legislation was sure to provoke a great deal of opposition? Now, the reason why they could not be content with existing Acts was this, that these Acts were found, from the complicated state of things in the City of London, to be incapable of application. Their Lordships were, perhaps, aware that in a space of one mile in length, and half a mile in breadth, there were in the City of London fifty-eight different parishes; that within that space, in a limited area about the size of Grosvenor Square, there were in some instances four, and in others five churches, each belonging to a separate parish. If they were to deal with such a case as this, and so to alter the arrangements of these parishes that they shall be made available for other parishes at some distance, it was impossible to apply the machinery of the existing Acts. The City of London, he had stated, contained fifty-eight churches in a very limited area. They were generally in the habit of supposing when they entered Temple Bar they entered the City of London; but they must travel along for half a mile till they came to the site of the ancient Ludgate, the entrance of the City proper, between which and Aldgate, in a space, as he had said, of one mile long and half a mile broad, there were no fewer than fifty-eight churches and parishes. These churches were erected, most of them, at the time of the fire, representing as many as ninety-two churches which had been destroyed at that time. After the fire, in the time of Charles II., it was intended in rebuilding the City to reduce the number of churches from ninety-two to thirty-one, and the first Act passed in that reign contained provisions for the reduction of the churches in that space to thirty-one. Some difficulties however arose, and the number of fifty-eight was finally fixed upon. The City of London was then inhabited in a very different manner from what it was now. Turning to the pages of the great historian, they found an account of what the City then was—the very heart and centre of London life. Even at that time, although men had already begun to spread their houses beyond

  113
  the City, in the time of Charles II., the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Shaftesbury had their houses in the City; and though it was true that Covent Garden and Lincoln's Inn Fields were at that time beginning to be overspread with great houses, London proper, the City, was nevertheless full of habitable houses. At that time the solitudes of Islington and the wastes of Marylebone had no houses in them at all, and such persons as now lived in those places were all crowded in the City. Yet, even at that time it was the decision of those who looked carefully into the matter, that thirty-one churches would be sufficient for the City of London. It was found impossible to carry out that arrangement, and, accordingly, when the churches were rebuilt, fifty-eight were erected within the space he had described. What the state of things was which originally called into existence ninety-one churches in that very limited space, it was scarcely possible for them at this time to understand. These parishes never could have contained any very great number of persons, though each of them was the centre of some parochial life. But between the walls of old London and the outer fortifications, as e.g. between Ludgate and Temple Bar, there was a space in which large parishes existed; the whole of the smaller parishes he had described were belted round with large parishes. The space between the walls and the outer fortifications was probably intended, at an early period, as a receptacle for cattle in a time of danger; but in progress of time these wastes had become overspread with habitations. The practice, however, appeared to have been for the citizens to erect their parish churches close to their houses, and to make little provision for those who lived immediately outside of the walls. It was to enable them to deal with this state of things, to make what was merely a reminiscence of the past a Church really active at the centre, to relieve the clergy of the great difficulty under which they laboured, and provide for the spiritual wants of the poor lying in thousands around this narrow space, which was at present so unprofitably occupied, that he brought this Bill now before their Lordships. The object of the Bill was, in the first place, to enable them to take down some of these churches under particular circumstances. He was quite aware that it was treading on dangerous ground to talk of taking down churches in a day when so many efforts were being
  114
  made for erecting them. But his trust was that, for every church taken down, another would be erected somewhere else in a more populous neighbourhood. It might be that the funds raised under the operation of this Bill would of themselves enable them to erect these churches; but those who were acquainted with the difficulties of church-building were aware that it was not generally the erection of a church, which, after all, was the great difficulty—the great difficulty was to find the endowment for the clergyman. He confidently anticipated that if it were found necessary, as, no doubt, it would be, to take down some of those churches, which were of no use; for every one so taken down in places comparatively uninhabited, there would arise another in some place that was teeming with inhabitants. Then it was said, with great reason, would it not be an act of barbarism to take down such buildings, some of which were the most beautiful in the land, consecrated by the genius of Wren, or the more ancient structures—such as St. Helens, or St. Bartholomew's, which carried us back, amid the hubbub of modern life, to those early times, to which it was good for us sometimes to be recalled? The safeguards introduced into this Bill, he believed, would effectually prevent such desecration. The process by which the whole arrangements were to be executed would effectually prevent the removal of any of those buildings consecrated by the reminiscences of the past; but those who were practically acquainted with the City churches, probably knew that some of them had neither beauty, nor antiquity, nor usefulness to recommend them. There was no great reason, therefore, why they should hesitate to remove them. He was aware that a very difficult and tender question remained—with respect to the dead, who had been buried within their vaults. They were told, in a Report lately published, that as many as 11,000 of the dead slept in leaden coffins below these churches; and he remembered that when a similar measure had been advocated five years ago by his revered predecessor, the images of the departed friends of families still in existence had been conjured up to prevent any practical result from being arrived at. These objections, however, he feared were not always raised by the relatives of persons buried in the City churches, but by persons whose pecuniary interests were involved, who, taking ad-

  115
  vantage of the popular feeling of reverence for the dead, had sometimes succeeded in getting the measures rejected. He (the Bishop of London) had, however, provided that the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as well as that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the Bishop of the diocese, together with that of the patron, and, where they could be ascertained, the concurrence of the relatives of the deceased, should be necessary before any such removal as that which he proposed should take place. Moreover, their Lordships must not suppose that he was submitting a measure to their notice for laying waste a great number of churches, inasmuch as it was only by the operation of a gradual process that his object would be effected. It was, he might add, found necessary every year to carry into effect, in some one instance or more, by means of an Act of Parliament, a change quite as great as that which he sought to bring about; so that, if the Bill were passed into a law, a system would be established whereby the same result as was now annually accomplished, would be achieved, without being attended with considerable expense, and with the full consent of the parties interested. He felt confident, moreover, that if the Bill were agreed to, the removal of the dead, in case the necessity for such removal should arise, would be effected in such a manner that it would never shock the feelings of a single individual. He did not propose to establish any new machinery with the view of attaining the object which he sought to attain. He provided that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should still continue to be the authority to deal with the question; that the consent of the patron and the Bishop of the diocese should in all cases be obtained; and that eventually the whole matter should be deliberately settled by an Order in Council, the vestry and the churchwardens being afforded a full opportunity of being heard. Every thing should be done with the greatest possible consideration. He proposed that when it appeared to the Bishop of any diocese in England and Wales that an union of benefices might with advantage be effected, he should have power to issue a Commission, consisting of three clergymen and two laymen, with authority to inquire into the expediency of the proposed union; that in the case of the parishes being situated within a city or borough, the two laymen
  116
  should be nominated by the Corporation; and that proceedings should be taken only upon the Report of the Commission so constituted. Having said thus much, he should not detain the House longer, were it not that he desired briefly to refer to certain prejudices which might he created against the Bill, because of certain projects for the sanitary reform of the City of London. With respect to this subject, a calculation had been made, tending to create alarm, to the effect that, besides the 11,000 corpses he had already mentioned as having been deposited in the vaults of the churches, there were beneath the churchyards in the City 48,000 tons of human remains. It was not, he thought, quite called for that such a statement should be put forth as directed against the present Bill; because it was quite obvious that, if we were to take any city in the world, and enter into a calculation of the numbers of the dead who lay beneath its streets, a panic upon sanitary grounds might be created. He thought it would have been better if that statement had been omitted from the Report; but as the fact had been mentioned, there would be laid on the table the opinion of high authorities to show that the operation of this Bill would in no wise have a prejudicial effect on the health of the people, and that they might sleep in their beds in perfect security that any apprehension of injury to the public health was unfounded. Before he resumed his seat he should wish briefly to refer to the somewhat exaggerated notions which seemed to prevail as to the wealth of the incumbents of the City of London. A few of them, it is true, were wealthy, but the majority were poor. From an interesting speech of Bishop Horsley on the mode in which the City clergy were paid, it appeared that in ancient times they received the small fee of one farthing on every 10 s. rent for every fast day of a certain kind throughout the year. In the time of Henry VIII., however, an arrangement had been made by which it was settled that 2s. 9d. in the pound on the rental for every house in the parish would remunerate the clergy in lieu of the sum which they had formerly been in the habit of receiving in the shape of fees. Subsequently, at the period of the great fire, a new state of things had been introduced, and a fixed money compensation instead of the charge of 2s. 9d. had been introduced; but the changing value of money had rendered that compensation so inadequate that

  117
  the clergy of the City of London had in consequence been reduced to great poverty. With the view of remedying that state of things, an Act of Parliament had been passed, which, however, proceeded on the same vicious principle of a fixed money payment; so that the remuneration still continued inadequate from a similar cause. In former times, however, the difficulty was in a great degree obviated, inasmuch as the system of pluralities existed. That state of things had since been most wisely abolished and the result was that the majority of the clergy of the City of London were at the present day poorly remunerated. He hoped, therefore, that by assenting to the present Bill the House would place the clergy in the position of having a house in which to live, and afford them, if not enough to support them, at least something approaching to that amount. He might also observe that in dealing with the question of the union of benefices he did not seek so to amalgamate different parishes as to make them actually one parish for temporal purposes. They might, therefore, for such purposes have as many churchwardens as was deemed fit, and a vestry and clerk for each; his object was simply to unite them together for the promotion of spiritual objects. There was one more point connected with the small parishes of the City of London. It was said they afforded a maintenance for learned clergymen, and that it was not desirable all the clergy should be so overpowered by their pastoral work as to have no time for study. No one would object to any system that tended to do away with a class of learned men in the Church more strongly than he would do. He believed there had been too great a tendency to this result in some of the recent legislation as to cathedrals. He should be sorry that the good effect ascribed to the small City parishes in this respect should be interfered with. But he was convinced that the passing of the present Bill would be productive of no such evil, and that under the change which it would introduce learned men would be able to obtain benefices in which they could combine more satsfactorily than they could now do the gratification of their literary tastes with the performance of their clerical duties. A benefice of moderate size, with a residence, instead of a house for which a high rent must be paid, would be more favourable to literary pursuits on the part of a clergyman than the present system.
  118
  For the sake, then, of the clergy of the City of London, for the sake of those poor persons who still lived within the City, and could not at present be properly attended to by their clergy, and for the sake of those poor who lived on the outskirts of London, and were to be counted by thousands, and whose spiritual wants could not be neglected, but must be neglected if Parliament did not adopt some such change as that which he recommended, he begged leave to ask their Lordships to give a second reading to the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he quite appreciated the motives which had influenced the right rev. Prelate in introducing this Bill; but he trusted the House would give full attention to the measure before they proceeded further with it. He believed that the measure involved questions of such gravity and importance that it would require the most careful consideration at the hands of their Lordships before they gave their assent to all its provisions. The right rev. Prelate had very truly said that the Bill was a continuance of the provisions of an Act passed in 1855; but it was also a very material enlargement, and in some cases a departure from those provisions. Many of their Lordships were aware that in the year preceding a great difference of opinion arose out of this subject, and the question was at last referred to a Select Committee, on which he had the honour to serve. A Bill was then sketched out, which was considered a compromise, and taken as the result of an understanding on many disputed points, which Bill passed in the following Session. The cardinal point of dispute and subsequently of compromise was the conditions under which the pulling down and the sale of church sites wore to be effected. It was then agreed that those sites only should be sold where no interments and taken place; but this was absolutely thrown over by the present Bill, which legalized, subject to certain consents of almost a formal character, the sale of church and churchyard. He must say that in a Bill which professed to be a continuance Bill, continuing the provisions of the Act of 1855, it would have been safer to have followed in the framing of this measure the wording and construction of the clauses of that Act. But a reverse course had been adopted; he ventured to say that their was scarcely one single clause in the Bill, though identical in substance with the Act of 1855, which

  119
  was not so ingeniously inverted that it was very difficult to see what were the real alterations which had been made; and in two or three instances, very material changes in the sense of the Act of 1855 had been made. The entire machinery of the Act of 1855 appeared to have been altered. (The noble Lord then compared several of the clauses for the purpose of showing the variations.) Another point was that the Bill purported to apply to England and Wales; but the right rev. Prelate throughout his speech confined it almost entirely to the necessities of the diocese of London. It was right that they should properly understand the application of this measure. If it applied to the whole of England and Wales, let it be discussed upon that principle; but if on the other hand it was simply a question of the diocese of London, then limit the application of the Bill to the diocese of London. He would not follow the right rev. Prelate into the large and general questions he had raised; but in this particular measure very large powers were given; and he wished to impress upon their Lordships the necessity of giving deliberate consideration to the proposition before they sanctioned such extensive changes.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he had felt it his duty to oppose very strongly some of the clauses of the Bill of 1855, and more especially that which related to the power of selling consecrated ground in which the dead had been laid to rest. He entertained precisely the same objection to a provision of a similar description in the measure which they were then discussing, and he wished in limine to remind their Lordships of what seemed to him a strong reason why they should not agree to the proposal which they were now asked to sanction. He had no objection to selling the site of a church if no burials had taken place underneath the edifice, because he believed that the consecration of a church was nothing more than attaching the idea of dedication to the building in which the faithful assembled for the purposes of Divine worship; and if the building was removed, all the idea that had been morally and spiritually attached to it by the Church's Act was removed also, and there remained nothing but the mere soil on which the edifice had stood; which, as it seemed to him, was invested with no sanctity whatever. But, in his judgment, the site of a churchyard stood on an entirely different footing. The Church, by
  120
  consecrating such a site, had entered into a moral engagement of the highest conceivable character, that, so far as its acts could go, the bodies of the dead would not be disturbed. If the State, exercising its supreme power, overruled the power of the Church, and required the removal of those bodies for the public good, he had I nothing to say against such a proceeding. A superior power there intervened, and the compact between the Church and those who had laid their dead in the consecrated soil was not violated by the Church. But it appeared to him that the Church would directly violate the engagement involved in the act of consecration for the sake of the compensation if she were to sell the ground which had perhaps been rendered more valuable because the consecration had prevented its being built upon. He could not understand the bringing in of any Act to enable the Church to sell sites that ought to remain undisturbed. An alteration in the 15th clause to that effect would meet his objection, and he would insert after the words, "to legalise the sale of the site of churches to be pulled down," the words, "unless any burial shall have taken place on the said site," so that in this way an estoppel might be put on selling the site. Though it was a secondary objection, he might mention that in a recent sanitory report sent into the Government, it was stated that there was nothing so dangerous as disturbing these old sites in churchyards, and that there was no calculating, upon physical grounds, what amount of evil might break out by disturbing the dead in the churchyards of these parishes in the shape of diseases that had disappeared amongst us for a long time past. There was another great objection to the Bill as it stood. The right rev. Prelate had drawn the Bill absolutely and entirely for the metropolitan diocese, and without great alteration it would be inapplicable to any other diocese. Whilst moving in this highly revolutionary direction, however needful, a very strong case should be made out before they attempted further changes, and it was very desirable that, if the Bill was intended for the metropolis, they should first of all try it for the metropolis, and it might then be easily extended to other places. Apart from the technical difficulty, he trusted his right rev. Friend would let this Bill be dealt with as only affecting the metropolitan district, in which case one of his most serious objections would be removed. He

  121
  objected also to the 11th clause, in which unlimited power was taken for a transfer of the endowment of a rich to a poor parish, and which seemed to him to be necessarily capable of application in the ease of largo livings over the whole country. If the House admitted the principle that a parish worth £800 a year could be served at £500, and that they might take away the £300 and give it to a poor neighbourhood, it might naturally be asked what has the neighbourhood to do with it? and why should they not apply the same principle to the whole country, and transfer to Manchester and other places the superabundance of these better livings? If they were prepared to do that they were prepared to do an entirely revolution any thing, and therefore he thought some limitation should be introduced. It was said that many of the attendants at these City churches had migrated to neighboirrhoods close by; if so, let the change be provided for in the Bill. There were other objections that were chiefly matters of detail. He trusted that the 17th clause which empowered the Bishop to grant the use of additional churches left standing to the services of any denomination of Protestant Dissenters would be struck out altogether. In the first place, they could not limit the particular kind of Protestant Dissenters to whom such permission should be given, and there were some to whom, he thought, the House would be very unwilling that it should be granted. The Socinians of North America and the Mormons of the Salt Lake District would be entitled to come in under this uninhabited churches clause. It would be found to be impossible to deal with various sects drawing distinctions so nicely as to admit one and leave out another. The effect of this clause would be to open a door to principles which, if carried to their legitimate extent, would sanction the conclusions of those who claimed the churches as the common property of all sects and denominations of religion. He objected also to the 27th clause, which sought to introduce a wholly new system in reference to the appropriation of pews or seats in the churches of the united parishes, and no advantage, he thought, would be derived from introducing the machinery of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. With reference to the representation of the different parties he thought the inclusion of the archdeacon, incumbent, and others, would be a fair representation. He would
  122
  suggest these as matters for consideration in Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) that this Bill should be limited to the City of London. As to the question of whether so doing would make this a Private and not a Public Bill, it certainly would have no such effect. Occupying as he did a position in the House, he must protest against a disposition to treat measures which dealt with matters of great public importance as private Bills. This Bill referred to a question which had been brought before their Lordships for a very long time, and he had taken such interest in the matter that he had last summer attended Divine service in very many of the City churches, to see what took place within them; and he would recommend those of their Lordships who were fond of a walk on a Sunday morning to do the same. He found those churches very well served, notwithstanding the smallness of the. congregations and other discouraging circumstances. In no one single instance did he witness the slightest carelessness in the conduct of the service. Upon the whole, the service was better performed in these City churches—so far as his experience went—than in many of the chapels at the west end of the town. The attendance of school children, small as many of the parishes were, was good; though he remarked with regret that there was only a small attendance of poor; but that was not remarkable merely in the City. First, second, and third class seats were all very well in a railway train whore people had to pay; but he protested against the principle of providing third class seats for the poor in churches. He believed that more persons of the humbler classes would attend if they could find seats without inconvenience; and without being placed in an inferior position with regard to the rest of the congregation. Some of the City churches were not very large, but most of them were pewed up from one end to the other, and in many there were pews of the most objectionable kind, in which the people sat face to face so closely, as almost to preclude devotion, or at any rate kneeling. He noticed that though there might not be a large parochial attendance, there was a large moving population around, which would more than fill these churches, and he was confident that a great many more persons would attend them if accommodation were found for them. He had

  123
  not fully considered the details of the Bill, but he had no great objection to the principle upon which it proceeded. In many instances churches might be pulled down with great advantage, and wherever livings were united, he should prefer having one of the churches removed rather than incur the risk of the disused church being subsequently devoted to exceptional purposes. He did not think that the union of parishes and pulling down churches should be carried to the extent which some persons contemplated. In carrying out the objects of the Bill he trusted that the Bight Rev. Prelate would bear in mind that there was always in this Metropolis a large number of strangers for whom Church accommodation should be provided, and he believed that many of the City churches, and particularly those in the great thoroughfares, might be rendered available for that purpose by being properly reseated, and obtain the attendance of large congregations.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the principal part of the conversation which had taken place on the second reading would have been more appropriate to a discussion in Committee. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees admitted that the congregations were extremely small, but seemed to think that a different arrangement of pews would fill the City churches. If that were so, it would be a valid objection to this Bill; but in his opinion it was too much to suppose that any such effect would be produced. He agreed that the Bill had better be limited to the metropolitan district; and he hoped his right rev. Friend the Bishop of London would take that suggestion into his consideration. He did not think that it should be confined entirely to the City of London.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that as it would be impossible for him to attend the Committee, he would now express his earnest prayer that their Lordships would reject that clause which contained a permission to grant the use of those churches which might not be wanted to other protestant congregations. "Protestant" was a very vague term, and under it might be included the Mormons of America and all those who professed to be Christians, and who were not Roman Catholics, but who differed very much from the Church of England on points of doctrine which the Church of England thought essential to salvation. It would be improper for the Church of England to hand over such
  124
  churches so that they might be used by other denominations.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he wished to submit some difficulties which he felt with regard to the course which it was intended to pursue. The noble Earl the President of the Council intimated his approval of the suggestion to confine the operation of the Bill to the Metropolitan Diocese, and it had been supposed that if it were confined to the City of London it would have the effect of making it a private Bill; but he understood his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees to be of opinion that, although it should be confined to the City of London, it would not be a matter of local, but of general concern, and therefore should be treated as a public and not as a private Bill. The view of his noble Friend seemed reasonable. He did not see how a Bill for the Reform of the Corporation of London could not be treated as a public Bill, and a Bill for the Reformation of the Parochial System in the City of London as a private Bill. They seemed to be equally matters of public concern, and equally the subject of a public and not of a private measure. He had, however, some doubts whether if the Bill was read a second time in its present form it could in Committee be so altered as to be confined to the Metropolitan Diocese alone. If it were so limited it would also be necessary for their Lordships to consider what course ought to be adopted with regard to other Acts relating to this subject which were now in force, but were about to expire. Other difficulties arose in this way. This Bill was a continuance Bill, purporting to continue the existing law, which applied equally to the City of London and to all other parts of the country. But finding that the present Act was in. applicable, or rather not available, for the purposes for which it was intended in the City of London, the right rev. Prelate proposed to do away with a great many of the provisions of the Act, equally those which related to other parts of the country as to the City of London, and he proposed to introduce new clauses which would be applicable to the City only. The noble President of the Council had asked the right rev. Prelate who had charge of the Bill to consent to limit its operation to the diocese of London; but he (the Earl of Derby) thought that if they legislated for the diocese of London alone, a difficulty would arise in other districts to which previous Acts in reference to the union of

  125
  benefices applied. He should be sorry to interpose any obstacle in the way of the passing of a measure which for the City of London he believed to be a matter of great importance; but he saw considerable difficulty, if it should be read a second time, of limiting it in Committee within the limits desired by many of their Lordships.
  EARL GREYwas understood to say that he was afraid that great inconvenience might arise from confining the Bill to too narrow limits. If they did not give a fair degree of confidence to some authority other than Parliament it was impossible that such Amendment as was required in our churches could be accomplished. Parliament had become in this day a very cumbrous institution, and it required great energy and power to overcome difficulties to carry a Pill through the Houses, and what was wanted in such a matter as this was a more quick and easily available authority. They should not keep power too much in their own hands when dealing with a matter of this kind, and he advised them to confer on some other authority, power which no doubt might be, but which they must trust would not be, abused.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that if it was the opinion of their Lordships that the operation of this Bill ought to be confined to a certain district he should be quite willing to accede to such an arrangement. He wished, however, to consider the poor outside the City of London sa well as within it. The Bill as it at present stood was to some degree restricted in its operation, for it was limited to cities, towns, and boroughs. He had studied this subject for the last three years and had found it very intricate; and he did not wonder that it had been misunderstood. With regard to the accommodation of foreign Protestants in disused churches, he reminded his right rev. Brother that in the centre of the metropolitan cathedral of Canterbury there was a place of worship which was occupied by French Protestants, and that among the Chapels Royal, over which he, as Dean, was called upon to preside, there was a Lutheran chapel. He did not think that the clause which had been inserted in this Bill involved any departure from the principles of the Church of England in recognizing that there wore such persons as Lutherans, and in affording them that accommodation which since the Reformation it had been the habit of one Protestant Church to extend to another.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and Committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday, the 21st of May next.

DIVORCE COURT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that the principle of the Bill was to give the Judge Ordinary power to act alone in cases in which he was now assisted by other Judges, and to leave to his discretion to call in other Judges to sit with him or not. It was impossible that his decision without assistance in cases of dissolution of marriage would have the same weight as a decision of the full Court; and one result of giving the Judge Ordinary sole jurisdiction in such cases would be that parties would be dissatisfied with his decisions and would appeal to that House, and thus bring back to their Lordships that very jurisdiction which it was the object of the previous Act almost wholly to extinguish. When he stated his objections on a former occasion it was said that there were instances in which a single Judge had already power to decide most important questions, and yet gave universal satisfaction. Criminal cases were referred to, and also the instance of the Lord Chancellor sitting in equity. If, however, there was one thing more than another that had for many years past been a ground of complaint, it was the leaving it within the power of a single Judge to adjudicate upon matters of great importance. In the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer they had four Judges sitting to determine questions of inferior interest to those of the dissolution or the nullity of marriage: and it had been found necessary, with a view to the due administration of justice, to appoint two Judges of Appeal to assist with their advice, and, if necessary, control the Lord Chancellor himself, the highest law officer of the country. It had also proved inconvenient that the appellate functions of that House should be exercised by two law Lords sitting alone, because, if they happened to differ in opinion, the decision of the Court below was practically affirmed by one of them. They were, however, now asked to give to a single Judge the power they re-

  127
  fused the other day, except to a full Court, composed of the greatest legal authorities in the kingdom. A Judge of assize hearing criminal eases, if he experienced any difficulty, walked into another court and consulted his brother Judge; and, if he went wrong, there was a Court of Criminal appeal or the Home Office to grant relief. It was impossible to speak too highly of the Judge-Ordinary of the Divorce Court; but was it fair to throw upon him individually all the great labour which they had so lately thought required a full Court, with the highest Judges in the land, properly to dispose of it? If the Judge Ordinary, sitting alone, decided questions of the dissolution or the nullity of marriage, his judgments would frequently be appealed against. If they then happened to be reversed, it was impossible to exaggerate the dissatisfaction and mischief that would ensue. He had been taunted with objecting to this Bill with out offering any alternative proposal of his own. As an individual Peer, he had a perfect right to criticise the measures introduced by the Government, although he might not have any counter-measure to submit. But he had in this case a proposition to make to their Lordships, and it was one of the simplest nature. It was that there should be one other Judge always sitting with the Judge-Ordinary, to deal with questions of the dissolution and the nullity of marriage. It could hardly be objected to this suggestion that the Judges had no time to attend to this duty, especially when it was remembered that it was now sought to transfer a largo equitable jurisdiction to the Common Law Courts, the effect of which would be to double the work of those tribunals. The existing law cast upon the fifteen common law Judges the duty of attending the Divorce Court in such cases; and, if they could not spare one of their number for this purpose, why was this particular portion of the functions vested in them, any more than in any other, to be cut off from the rest, and thrown upon some one else? If the common law Judges were not competent to discharge the duties imposed upon them, they ought to have further aid. But certainly they had no higher or more important duty cast upon them by the law than the jurisdiction now in question. If the matter could not otherwise be arranged with the present staff, he would propose that the Common Law Courts should sit with three Judges instead of
  128
  four. Four was the worst of all Courts, because, in case of a difference of opinion, there being two on one side and two on the other, no decision could be come to at all. At any rate it was better that the Common Law Courts should sit with three Judges, than that the Judge-Ordinary of the Divorce Court should sit to decide Cases alone.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not help thinking that his noble and learned Friend had fallen into a considerable irregularity. That was his opinion, and he believed it was the opinion of their Lordships. On the second reading of the Bill the question was whether the Judge-Ordinary should be trusted to sit alone except in cases where he might think it expedient to call in the assistance of a brother Judge from the Common Law Courts. That was opposed by his noble and learned Friend in a very long, and, therefore, able speech; but that speech had been answered by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), who had been present this evening, but retired, not supposing that the discussion would be revived. That speech, even from his noble and learned Friend, excited unusual admiration and satisfaction. Except his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), he believed there was not a single one of their Lordships who was not convinced by it. Indeed, he rather thought his noble and learned Friend himself (Lord St. Leonards) had been convinced, for after that speech was delivered he retired from the House. The question was not whether the Judge-Ordinary should sit alone, but whether a considerable portion of the business in the Divorce Court might not be fairly intrusted to him, he having at all times the power of calling in the assistance of another Judge; and he did not think it would become him to try to repeat the arguments of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) in answer to the statements which had been reiterated. While he was coming into the House he received a letter from the Chief Justice of England, written with his usual ability, and which he thought would remove any doubt on this subject, even from the mind of his noble and learned Friend. The letter was in these words:—
  "April 24, 1860.
  "My Lord,—Understanding that the Bill introduced by your Lordship for remodelling the Divorce Court is about to be discussed in the House of Lords, it occurs to me that it may not be inexpedient that your Lordship should be pos-

  129
  sessed of the view taken by the Judges of this mutter, after a practical experience of two years. I trust, therefore, I am not stepping beyond my province in conveying to your Lordship what I know to be the unanimous opinion of the Judges"—
  LORD CHELMSFORDrose to order. It was not regular to read a letter on the subject of a Bill before the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORapprehended that it was perfectly regular. His noble and learned Friend the other evening referred to the opinion of the equity Judges on the Bill then under discussion. This was not a private letter, but written for the express purpose of being communicated to the House.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought that, in that case, the noble and learned Lord ought to have moved for its production. He could not read a letter unless he laid it before the House.
  EARL GRANVILLEbelieved the rule to be that such a letter to be read must either have been laid before the House, or his noble and learned Friend must be prepared to lay it before the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas prepared to lay the lettter before the House the moment he had read it.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSapprehended that the letter must be laid on the table by command of Her Majesty before it could regularly be read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the letter was written to give information and assistance of great importance to that House.
  EARL GRANVILLEbelieved the constant practice was to read letters from individuals. Was it fit, then, that because a letter possessed great authority as coming from a Judge, and conveyed important information, it should not be read?
  LORD ST. LEONARDSdid not think it regular to read the opinion of one of Her Majesty's Judges as to the Bill under discussion.
  LORD CHELMSFORDwas not aware of any similar instance of such a letter being read, either in that or the other House of Parliament, with reference to a Bill under discussion.
  EARL GRANVILLEremembered a letter being read in the other House from Sir George Clerk, Under Secretary of the India Board, stating the course taken by Government in regard to a particular measure.
  LORD CHELMSFORDvery much doubted whether the letter alluded to by the
  130
  noble Earl referred at all to the policy of the course taken by the Government.
  After a few words from LORD WENSLEYDALE,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he should, if necessary, take the sense of the House on the Question whether the letter should be read ["No, no."] The noble and learned Lord then proceeded to read the letter:—
  "My Lord,—Understanding that the Bill introduced by your Lordship for remodelling the Divorce Court—"
  when
  LORD REDESDALErose and said, he thought the noble and learned Lord had read quite enough to raise the question. When a person occupying the position of a Judge of the land, whom we may call upon to aid us by his advice if we please, desires of his own motion that his opinion should be laid before the House, with the view of guiding its decision with respect to a Bill which is under its consideration, your Lordships ought, I think, to be cautious how you allow such a communication to be read as a question of right. Information such as that which the letter contains may be very useful, but I contend that we ought not so far to accede to the wish of the noble and learned Lord in the matter as to allow him to set a precedent of this nature.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: If the noble and learned Lord were about to read a letter from any ordinary person—a person, for instance, not conversant with the subject before us—he might have adopted the course which he is about to take without comment. It seems, however, that because the letter is one which contains some valuable information we are to be precluded from having it submitted to our notice. For my own part I cannot see why it should be expedient that we should have withheld from us the expression of an opinion which may be calculated to guide us in coming to a satisfactory decision with respect to an important Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthen read the letter as follows:—
  "April 24, 1860.
  "My Lord—Understanding that the Bill introduced by your Lordship for remodelling the Divorce Court is about to be discussed in the House of Lords, it occurs to me that it may not be inexpedient that your Lordship should be possessed of the view taken by the Judges of this matter after a practical experience of two years.
  "I trust, therefore, I am not stepping beyond my province in conveying to your Lordship what

  131
  I know to be the unanimous opinion of the Judges, that the attendance of the common law Judges in the Divorce Court, and their consequent withdrawal from the Courts to which they properly belong, cannot be continued without great inconvenience and detriment to the judicial department of the public service; while, on the other hand, no corresponding advantage results to the constitution of the Divorce Court itself.
  "The fact is, that at the present time the judicial establishment in the Superior Courts of common law is not more than barely adequate to the discharge of those duties which were incidental to the judicial office before this new duty was imposed on them.
  "For, though it is true that the County Courts have to a considerable extent relieved the Superior Courts of a large extent of the lighter and less important cases, yet the amount of business in the latter never was heavier than at the present moment. The increase of population and of commercial and manufacturing activity, the multiplication of inventions and patents, the right recently conferred on the representatives of deceased persons, where loss of life has resulted from negligence, to bring actions for compensation, the facility afforded by railways for bringing causes to London for trial, with other circumstances unnecessary to detail, produce an amount of important business which presses heavily on the Courts; more especially as the modern changes in our procedure (I allude more particularly to the examination of parties, which leads to the calling of witnesses for the defendant in almost every case, and to the allowing of second speeches to counsel for defendants), while tending materially to promote justice, have, on the other hand, a necessary tendency to prolong proceedings in Court and to occupy time. Besides this, new duties have been thrown on the Courts; for instance, on the Court of Queen's Bench, by the power of appeal from the decision of magistrates in petty sessions, given by the Act of the 20 & 21 Vict., which, added to the former appeals from quarter sessions, produces an amount of Crown business which occupies the Court two days a week in every term; on the Court of Common Pleas by the reference to that Court of questions arising on the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, and of appeals from the decisions of Revising Barristers.
  "The effect of the whole is that the utmost diligence and activity of the Judges is no more than adequate to prevent the accumulation of arrears to a serious and mischievous extent.
  "In term time it is, as your Lordship is aware, absolutely necessary that Nisi Prius sittings should be constantly going on. One Judge in each Court being thus employed, four would be left for the sittings in Banco, were it not that during one-half of the day another Judge is required to attend at chambers, whereby the number is reduced to three. I trust your Lordship will concur with me in thinking that the number of the Judges for sittings in Banco ought not to be reduced below the ancient and accustomed number. It is the unanimity of so many as four Judges, or in the event of difference the proportion of the majority, which has given so much authority to the decisions of these Courts. It is, no doubt, impossible to prevent the number from being at times reduced to three by the incidents to which I have referred; but when it is considered that the Court on applications for new trials is practically a Court of
  132
  Appeal from the ruling of single Judges, or from the decisions of juries, that it is often called upon to decide difficult and complicated questions of law, and to settle the construction of important Acts of Parliament, I feel assured I shall have the sanction of your Lordship's opinion in saying that the number of the sitting Judges of each Court ought not to be intentionally reduced below three. Yet the withdrawal of one of the Judges for the purposes of the Divorce Court has necessarily the effect of reducing the number to two during a portion of every sitting, and, in case of absence by ill-health or other casualty, would have the effect of reducing the Court to a single Judge, or, as the alternative, of preventing the sittings at Nisi Prius or attendance at chambers.
  "Out of term the inconvenience is still greater. The state of the cause-lists necessitates, as your Lordship knows, the constant sitting of the two Courts. Attendance at chambers continues to be as necessary as in term. post-terminal sittings in Banco are indispensable to dispose of the arrears of term business, and at this period occur the sittings of the Court of Error in the Exchequer Chamber, in which the presence of as many Judges as possible is most desirable, and less than six ought not to be dispensed with. Any one of these important Courts may be suspended by the withdrawal of two Judges (or even of a single one) from their proper and primary duties.
  "I have omitted to advert to the sittings of the Central Criminal Court, as well as to the recently established Court of Criminal Appeal, which constitute an additional drain on the strength of the judicial establishment.
  "These explanations, of which, fortunately, no one can be better qualified to form a correct estimate than your Lordship, will, I conceive, fully bear out the opinion expressed by the Judges as the result of their practical experience.
  "Equally strong and general is the opinion that the expenditure of judicial force involved in the attendance of the Judges in the Divorce Court is, for the most part, pure waste, uncompensated by any advantage to the administration of justice in that Court. The great majority of cases dealt with in the Court of Divorce are either undefended, or the facts are too clear to admit of doubt, or at all events the question to be decided is one of fact alone, determinable by the evidence, and with which a Judge or a Judge and Jury are perfectly competent to deal, just as the latter would before have been in an action for criminal conversation, or a Judge would have been in a suit for divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court. Collusion, the apprehension of which excites so much alarm in these cases, occurs, I am satisfied, much less frequently than seems to be supposed. Where it does, the sagacity and acuteness of one competent Judge, especially of so eminently distinguished and able a Judge as Sir Cresswell Cresswell, may well be expected to detect and frustrate it. At the same time, as cases will no doubt at times occur involving more than ordinary difficulty, and in which the Judge-Ordinary may desire assistance, if, in such cases, no other means can be resorted to for strengthening the Court than the having recourse to the Judges, of course the latter must do their utmost to render the required assistance, so far as this can be made consistent with the exigencies of their more immediate duties. What they at present object to, and strongly feel, is the idle waste of their time, imperatively called for elsewhere, in

  133
  sitting to hear causes in which there is neither necessity nor occasion for their taking part at all. At all events, they confidently trust that the Legislature will relieve them from attendance on the Divorce Court, except where the Judge-Ordinary requires their aid, or where appeals are brought against his decisions.
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord,
  "Your obedient and faithful servant,
  "A. E. COCKBURN.
  "The Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor."
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
  LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved the insertion of the following clause, which embodied two Amendments of which his Lordship and Lord WENSLEYDALE had severally given notice.
  "Every Decree for a Divorce shall in the first Instance be a Decree nisi, not to be made absolute till after the Expiration of such Time, not less than Three Months from the pronouncing thereof, as the Court shall by General or Special Order from Time to Time direct; and during that Period any Person shall be at liberty, in such Manner as the Court shall by General or Special Order in that behalf from Time to Time direct, to show Cause why the said Decree should not be made absolute by reason of the same having been obtained by Collusion or by reason I of material Facts not brought before the Court; and, on Cause being so shown, the Court shall deal with the Case by making the Decree absolute, or by reversing the Decree nisi, or by requiring further Inquiry, or otherwise as Justice may require; and at any Time during the Progress of the Cause or before the Decree is made absolute any Person may give Information to Her Majesty's Proctor of any Matter material to the due Decision of the Case, who may thereupon take such Steps as he may deem necessary or expedient; and if from any such Information or otherwise the said Proctor shall suspect that any Parties to the Suit are or have been acting in collusion for the Purpose of obtaining a Divorce contrary to the Justice of the Case he may, by Leave of the Court, intervene in the Suit, alleging such Case of Collusion, and retain Counsel and subpoena Witnesses to prove it; and it shall be lawful for the Court to order the Costs of such Counsel and Witnesses, and otherwise arising from such Intervention, to be paid by the Parties or such of them as it shall fee fit, including a Wife if she have separate Property; and in case the said Proctor shall not thereby be fully satisfied his reasonable Costs, he shall be entitled to charge and be reimbursed the Difference as Part of the Expense of his Office.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORapproved the clause; he had in the Bill of last year, given power to the Attorney General to obtain such further evidence in cases in which collusion was suspected. The delay was by no means to be complained of. In France, the decree in such cases was never pronounced till twelve months after the presentation of the petition.
  Clause agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

LAW OF DIVORCE (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  LORD CHELMSFORDpresented a Bill to amend the Law relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwould not oppose the measure, but to the greater part of the population of Ireland it would be useless.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at a Quarter-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter before Five o'clock.