Lords Sitting of 15 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Infants Marriage Act Amendment.
3a Bank of Ireland; Union of Benefices.

INDIA.—LEASING OF CHILDREN.
  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had yesterday presented a Petition praying for the suppression of a gross abuse that existed in India, that of parents leasing out their children, and had stated that it was a practice destructive of all morality. He hoped, by returns, for which he meant to move, to show fully the infamous character of this description of slavery. The specific evil to which he referred was that of individuals leasing out their female children, of eight, nine, or ten years, for ninety-nine years, for purposes of prostitution; and leasing out their male children for purposes of mutilation. He hoped that steps would be taken to put an end to this monstrous evil, to alter the law, if that was found necessary; but if no alteration of the law was required, to have it declared in such a way as to make it known to the people of India.

  RIFLED CAST-IRON GUNS.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of considerable importance, of which he had given notice. It was a question connected with the national defences of the country. He was one of those who believed that the defence of this country must mainly depend upon our maintaining our navy in a greater state of efficiency than that of any other country in the world, and it gave him great satisfaction when the Secretary for War stated

  493
  in February last in the other House, in moving the Army Estimates, that he was anxious, as soon as possible, to issue rifle guns for the use of the navy. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that he hoped, by means of enlarging the Royal Factory at Woolwich, and with the aid of Sir William Armstrong's factory at Elswick, to have, between the 1st of January last and the end of the next financial year, something not very far short of 3,000 rifled guns on board Her Majesty's ships. When rifled guns were about to be introduced into the French and other navies, he hoped the answer which his noble Friend was able to give would be that a large number of guns had been rifled and delivered to the navy. He had so framed his question that it might have reference to cast-iron guns, because he found this class of guns distinctly mentioned in the evidence of Captain Caffin before the National Defence Commission. When asked about the guns that were being prepared for the navy, he said—"The present arrangement is to encase a east-iron gun in a wrought-iron cylinder;" and on being further asked if Sir William Armstrong was doing that, his answer was "Yes." Now he was informed that the Government had been warned that these cast-iron guns, when they came to be tested, would be sure to burst. Nevertheless, large contracts for cast-iron guns had been entered into by the Government, and he was informed that when experiments came to be made the result was that the whole of the guns experimented upon burst. The consequence, he believed, was that the contracts had been cancelled. He wished, therefore, to ask his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War, What number of cast-iron guns have been rifled and delivered to the navy; by whose advice cast-iron guns have been hooped and rifled; what has been the results of the experiments upon the cast-iron guns so treated; and whether the Ordnance Select Committee were consulted on the subject, and approved of the rifling of the guns in question? He asked this question because he was at a loss to know who was responsible for the advice that had been given—whether it was the Secretary for War, the Commander-in-Chief, or Sir William Armstrong. He thought it was an anomalous position to place Sir William Armstrong in, a gentleman enjoying a salary from the Government, to ask him to make a report on the very article which he had contracted to manufacture for the Government. He
  494
  thought it right that the very best advice should be given to the Government on such a subject, but it was unfair to place an individual in the invidious position of being a contractor for the manufacture of an article, and then to call on him to give advice to the Government with respect to the very article he and his partners were manufacturing.
  THE EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in answering the Question of the noble Earl, had, in the first place, to draw their Lordships' attention to the circumstance, that he thought it desirable that he should answer it strictly as it stood on the paper, and in the next, that there were good reasons why he should not go into all the particulars to which his noble Friend had referred. With regard to the question, what number of cast-iron guns had been rifled and delivered to the navy, his answer was that no rifled cast-iron guns had been delivered to the navy; for that description did not apply to the guns called the Armstrong guns, which were not cast-iron guns. With regard to the second question, by whose advice cast-iron guns had been hooped and rifled, he had to state that at the end of last year, and in the early part of the present, it was a subject of serious consideration with the Government how they should be able, at the earliest possible period, to supply both the army and navy with rifled guns. The gun of Sir William Armstrong had been adopted after a full and satisfactory trial, but it was found that Sir William Armstrong's guns could only be delivered comparatively slowly. The Government had therefore to consider whether they might not issue guns not exactly so perfect as the Armstrong, but still rifled guns, that could be supplied more rapidly. At that time orders were given that cast-iron guns should be provided, and subsequently rifled by Sir William Armstrong. A certain number of guns were prepared and hooped, and some of them were subsequently rifled. The rifling was upon what was called the "shunting" plan, which was suggested by Sir William Armstrong. Those guns were tried, but the result was not satisfactory, and all proceedings with respect to guns rifled upon that plan had been suspended. The hooped guns—that was, the ordinary service guns turned down and hooped, but not rifled—had also been tried, and in the experiments those smoothbore guns had stood considerable trials, but all had ultimately burst—in fact, they

  495
  had been tested to destruction; and although it was not in his power to say that the hooped smooth-bore guns had established any marked superiority over the ordinary smooth-bore guns, yet neither could he say that the trials had proved them to be failures. It would be, in fact, rather premature to pronounce upon the matter as it then stood. The noble Earl had further asked whether the Ordnance Select Committee had been consulted on the subject, and had approved the rifling of the guns in question. That question implied some misconception on the part of the noble Earl as to the nature of the functions of the Ordnance Select Committee. That Committee was a body of officers of experience and scientific attainments, to whom every description of invention for warlike purposes that was brought forward was referred. They examined all those inventions and reported to the Secretary of State whether they were likely to be useful, or whether they were of such a nature as to render it undesirable that the Government should have anything to do with them. The Committee had no function to decide what description of gun or other materials should be ordered for experiment—that was the function of the Secretary of State—it was the province of the Committee to conduct the experiments and to report the result. Therefore, the answer to the third question of the noble Earl must be in the negative—that the Ordnance Select Committeee was not consulted before these guns were rifled. The noble Earl, at the conclusion of his speech, had alluded to the position of Sir William Armstrong, and had spoken of that gentleman as contractor with the Government. It was due to Sir William Armstrong that that matter should be cleared up. The facts were that Sir William Armstrong was not a Government contractor at all, for he was not a partner in the Elswick Iron Works, which supplied the guns. He had no profitable interest in those works, but he had advanced money to that concern, for which he held security, and of course received interest, but none of the profits of the concern. It was also true that Sir William Armstrong was a partner in certain iron Works at Elswick, but those were not the Works which supplied ordnance to the Government. Having now answered the noble Earl's questions, he would only further observe that their Lordships would not expect him to give very minute in-
  496
  formation upon a subject of this nature. He had answered the questions, he hoped, to the satisfaction of his noble Friend, but certainly as far as was consistent with the public interests.

FURIOUS RIDING AND DRIVING BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that by the present law the penalty for furious riding or driving through the streets of the Metropolis, so as to endanger the life and limb of any person, or to the common danger of passengers, was but 40 s., a sum totally inadequate to ensure protection for the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects. It appeared from a Return laid upon their Lordships' table that, within the last two years, no less than 134 persons had been run over and killed outright, and 1,827 injured. Of those who had been run over but not killed at the time, eight had subsequently died, and of those who had been knocked down, nine had afterwards died. Even this inadequate penalty of 40 s. might, under certain circumstances, be reduced to 2s. 6d. He thought it was monstrous that any person should be able to set the law at defiance merely because he was able to put his hand into his pocket and pay the fine imposed. He therefore proposed that in cases of accident or loss of life through reckless driving, the perpetrators should be visited with imprisonment, and not mulcted in a fine. He had himself seen examples of reckless driving in the streets of London, particularly in those neighbourhoods in which the traffic was not very great, such as in Belgravia, which was perfectly inconsistent with the preservation of public safety. The furious driving was principally by persons in one-horse carts belonging to tradesmen and others. The noble Marquess cited several cases of the lamentable and even fatal effects of furious driving:—among them the case of one Thomas Barnard, who had been tried in February previously for feloniously killing a man by furious driving. It appeared that Barnard had driven against a poor old man of 70, and knocked him down, and he died in two hours afterwards. The defence was that the driver was on the right side of the road. That man only got two months' imprisonment; but within a few minutes afterwards a man was convicted of stealing

  497
  a watch, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. He thought such an inequality of punishments afforded ample justification for bringing forward the present Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was obliged to the noble Marquess for his laudable efforts to improve the law in this particular, but doubted whether the Bill would effect the object. This question had very recently been considered by a Select Committee, consisting of all the law Lords and other Peers, and after great deliberation they came to the unanimous conclusion that the law upon the subject ought not to be altered as was now proposed. The noble Marquess did not appear to have accurately studied the existing law. It would be supposed from the noble Marquess's statement that if a man by furious driving killed another he was only subjected to a fine; but the law really was that if a man by furious driving maliciously killed another, he would be in jeopardy to lose his life; and if it were done by negligence he would be guilty of manslaughter, and would be liable to a sentence of penal servitude. Now, the Bill before their Lordships was only confined to improper driving where no injury was sustained. As the law now stood, upon any such occurrence a pecuniary penalty might be inflicted upon the offender by summary conviction before the magistrates; but the noble Marquess proposed that even where no injury had been done, any person might be convicted of furious driving—that was, in fact, for driving at a greater rate than some nervous or timid person thought he ought to do—before a single magistrate, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. For so undefinable an offence as furious driving, unaccompanied by personal injury, he thought it would be hard to inflict a punishment so severe. Believing the provisions of the Bill to be inexpedient and improper, he must ask their Lordships to reject the second reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he did not think the explanation of the noble and learned Lord was any answer to the very serious state of things disclosed by the Return which he had quoted.
  LORD PORTMAN LORD PORTMAN moved, that the Bill be read that day three months. The Bill only proposed to inflict a punishment of imprisonment, but without hard labour he could not see that that would be of much use in checking the evil complained of.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now"), and insert ("this day throe months").
  LORD DENMANrecommended the noble Marquess to withdraw the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that after the strong expression of opinion from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor—an opinion from which it was, nevertheless, his misfortune strongly to dissent —he would not persevere in the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
  Amendment and original Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn; and Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.—INTRODUCTION OF ANIMALS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, Whether the Question of introducing and acclimatising in the Australian Colonies Animals of a rare and valuable Character, has been brought under the Consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and is favourably entertained by Her Majesty's Government? The question, he thought, did not fall within the category of ordinary questions, inasmuch as no principle of public policy was involved in it; but it was one, nevertheless, of considerable interest and importance both to the Colonies and to this country. The expediency of introducing and acclimatizing in Australia various British and other animals had been mooted some time since, and had been brought under the notice of the Colonial Office by an Australian gentleman, and since then a scheme for that object had been sketched out, and had now acquired considerable maturity. The noble Earl here mentioned several of the animals which had been introduced into that country, and stated that Her Majesty had countenanced the scheme by sending out specimens. The introduction of British fish into Australia was a matter which received a good deal of attention, and, considering the great value of the salmon fishery in this kingdom, the introduction of the salmon would, doubtless, be of the greatest advantage to Australia. Moreover, numbers of the fine birds which thronged the English woods, or flew about the fields, had been exported to Australia, and he was glad to think that in the groves and streams of the British colonies the birds and fish of the mother country would be revived. The Victoria Government had given £500 towards the encouragement of

  499
  this scheme, and in public meetings the Government had been urged to increase the grant to £2,000. He should certainly not wish to make any addition to the Miscellaneous Estimates of this country in the present year, because he thought them high enough already; but the scheme might be promoted by other means besides money, and much might be done for it by the expression of opinion in its favour.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the subject of the introduction and acclimatizing animals of a rare and valuable kind into a distant quarter of the world was no doubt one of very great interest, not only in a scientific point of view and with reference to the enjoyment which it was calculated to produce, but also for a more practicable reason—namely, the value of those animals to those countries in which they were introduced. The matter had attracted some attention for a number of years, and two great attempts had been made to introduce animals from this and from other countries into Australia. One of these attempts had hitherto been successful, while the other had met with eminent success. The first, of course, was the introduction of salmon into the Australian waters. That was attempted during the previous time that he was at the head of the Colonial Office; but that undertaking, although it was conducted under very scientific superintendence, failed in consequence, it was now supposed, of mistakes which might in future be obviated. Another effort was at present being made for the attainment of the same object, and he earnestly hoped that it might prove successful, because it would tend greatly to the pecuniary advantage as well as the social enjoyment of the colonists. The second experiment to which he referred was the introduction of the alpaca into Australia; which he believed might already be said to have completely succeeded. His noble Friend said that he did not wish that any Vote should be taken in the present year among the Miscellaneous Estimates for the promotion of these experiments; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) should go rather further than his noble Friend, and he should express his belief that, as a matter of principle, it would not be desirable to take a Vote in any year for such a purpose. He believed that the Government could assist such an undertaking more effectually in other ways than by any pecuniary contributions, and he felt persuaded that the general superintend-
  500
  ence of such schemes would be best conducted by private individuals. That was the opinion he had maintained with respect to the transmission of botanical specimens, and he held it with respect to the removal of animals also. He could, however, assure his noble Friend that he was sincerely desirous of assisting those who engaged in such experiments by addressing communications in their favour to the Governors of colonies, and other measures. In the case, for instance, of the removal to Australia of that very rare and delicate fish which had originally come from China to the Mauritius, he had written to the Governor of the latter colony for the purpose of asking him to give all the aid in his power to the undertaking. As his noble Friend had brought forward that subject he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it would be wrong for him not to give credit to a gentleman connected with Australia—namely, Mr. Edward Wilson, for his efforts in ensuring the success of the experiment as far as it had gone. He certainly could not hold out any expectation that the Government would contribute pecuniarily to that object; but on the other hand he should feel it to be both a duty and a pleasure to afford every other kind of aid in his power to those who were so generously and patriotically promoting an object of such great social and scientific importance.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble Duke had misunderstood him upon one point. He had not expressed the opinion that a Vote should be taken either in the present or in any future year. On the contrary, he believed with the noble Duke that such an object as the introduction of animals into Australia should be left to the enterprise of private individuals.

BANK OF IRELAND BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  On Motion, That the Bill be now read a third time;
  LORD MONTEAGLEobjected.
  On Question, resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 3a and passed.

  PROTEST.
  DISSENTIENT:
  "Because no Evidence or Argument has been adduced to prove that the Restraint imposed on the Bank of Ireland, prohibiting the Loan of Money on Mortgage or other Landed Security, has been productive of Injury to that Establishment, or of public or private Inconvenience, and has thus justified its Repeal.
  "Because this Restraint forming a part of the

  501
  original Constitution of the Bank of Ireland, and steadily maintained to the present Time during a Period of about 80 Years, has been shown to be consistent with a System of successful and prudent Management, upholding public and private Credit, not only in prosperous Times but during Periods of Commercial Pressure and of Political disquiet.
  "Because even during the Crisis which produced the Bank Restriction that Measure was recommended, adopted, and condemned in Ireland less in reference to Dangers or Exigencies affecting Irish interests, than as a Consequence of the Suspension of Cash Payments enacted by the Legislature of Great Britain.
  "Because the Repeal of this Restraint upon Loans and Mortgages of Land, which has so long subsisted, cannot but he interpreted as giving the Sanction of the Legislature to the Investment in Landed Securities of the Capital of Banks issuing Promissory Notes payable on Demand; a Practice which has been condemned as contrary to sound Principle, and therefore open to serious Objection.
  "Because the ultimate Security of the Promissory Notes payable on Demand is insufficient for the Public Interests, unless their immediate Convertibility is also provided for, and for this reason the practice of locking-up Capital thus rendered unavailable to answer pressing Demands is inconsistent with the true Theory of Banking, or with its safe Application.
  "Because if this Repeal of the wholesome Restraint of the Irish Bank Charter Act, 21 & 22 Geo. III. Cap. 16, had taken place during the existence of the Agricultural Distress consequent upon the Failure of Crops, it can hardly be doubted that a Pressure so urgent would have been cast on the Bank of Ireland as would have led them to unwise and dangerous Advances, adding to the existing Agricultural Distress the further Risks attendant on an imprudent Extension of the Circulation.
  "Because the Danger of the Principle involved in the Bill becomes greater when it is proposed that it should be applied to the central and most important Bank in Ireland, which, as holding the Public Accounts of the Treasury and Exchequer, as paying the Dividends, and intrusted with the Public Remittances from England, stands in all these important respects in the Position of a National Bank, and is liable, if deviating from its present more prudent Course, to risk the certain Convertibility of its Notes by Investments not available in the immediate Discharge of its legitimate Banking Engagements.
  "MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON."

DUCHY OF CORNWALL (LIMITATION OF ACTIONS) BILL.

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the day for the Report of the Amendments in this Bill read.
  LORD KINGSDOWNstated for the information of their Lordships the mode in which the accounts of the Duchy were kept.
  LORD VIVIANrose for the purpose of asking the noble Duke below him (the
  502
  Duke of Newcastle) a question as to the meaning of a remark which the noble Duke used in a former debate, but which then escaped his notice. The noble Duke was reported to have said that the Duchy had always exercised its rights with leniency and forbearance, and that many of those noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who were now most forward to complain had received favours at their hands. He wished the noble Duke would explain who were the parties to whom he referred. A noble Lord who opposed the Bill the other evening, but who was not now in his place (Lord Churston) had authorized him to say that he had never received any favour at the hands of the Duchy; for himself he could say that he had never asked for or received any. The Council of the Duchy, he considered, had failed in their duty if they had granted any, and he challenged the noble Duke to mention the names of the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen to whom he referred. He might say here, too, that he had been taken to task for applying the term "sharp practice" to the officers of the Duchy. He was quite aware that that term ought not to be applied unless there were ample means of justifying it. He did not apply the term to the Council—the term was applied to some of the subordinates; and he only wished that noble Lords who were on the Council would examine into these questions and see for themselves whether their conduct did not deserve the name of "sharp practice." He had formerly explained that he had no longer an interest in the Bill— the case in which he was interested was decided before this Bill was brought forward; but he had thought it right to refer all the correspondence that had passed between him and the officers of the Duchy in reference to that case to the hands of an eminent counsel, whose name he was not at liberty to mention because he had only received his reply as he entered the House; but it was to the effect that he thought a degree of pressure existed which few gentlemen would have thought it desirable to exercise; and however technically justifiable the course of the Duchy might be it was one which he would not advise any client of his to take unless he were a Jew or "some sharp practitioner." It was legally right, but it would hardly be thought right by any fair-dealing man. He might also add that he was borne out by many of his Friends—some of them Members of the other House of Parliament

  503
  —in the application of the term "sharp practice" to the conduct of the officers of the Duchy.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he did not rise to discuss the provisions of the Bill, but to reply to the question of the noble Lord—a question, however, he must say, which appeared to him to be not only a singular but an irregular one. The noble Lord asked him what he meant by an assertion that was made in the noble Lord's own hearing, and which he then allowed to pass without challenge, but now came down with it cut out of a newspaper, and challenged its correctness. He had not a word to say against the correctness of the report, which he believed conveyed a fair representation of what he said, but the noble Lord had put into it a word which he did not use, and which he did not think was in the report. He never said that either Lords or Gentlemen had received favour at the hands of the Duchy. What he said was, that noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who were most forward in complaints had derived great advantages at the expense of the Duchy. In saying this he intended no personal attack on the noble Lord himself, still less on the noble Lord who had been before alluded to (Lord Churston), there was no one who had shown more courtesy, and he might say kindness, to the officers of the Duchy than that noble Lord. He was stating a general fact which applied to all the landed gentry of Cornwall. There was no reflection on them; but, nevertheless, for several years past a course of events had taken place tending, pro tanto, to enrich the landowners at the expense of the Duchy. Fifty or sixty years ago a measure was passed through Parliament by which about 20,000 acres of land, the property of the Duchy, were disposed of at nominal prices. Then came a dispute about the settlement of the septennial leases. Though it was generally admitted that the holders of those leases could not enforce any right to renew, yet by the Cession of Manors Bill the property thus held on leases was converted into freehold, by which several years' value was added to the property of the landowners. Then, one of the most ancient rights of the Duchy of Cornwall was the duty on tin. Disputes, however, arose with respect to them, and a Bill was introduced by Lord Mont-eagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which these tolls were given up, the Duchy receiving a compensation out of the
  504
  public Exchequer. He had no hesitation in stating that if those rights were existing now they would be worth £25,000 a year. Altogether he believed that the property the Duchy had lost of late years in this way was of the value of between £50,000 and £60,000 a year; and this was a public question, because it must be remembered that the revenues of the Duchy diminished the provision that must be made from the public Exchequer for the heir to the Crown. The subordinates of the Council had been accused of sharp practice. As to that he must say that they had occasional law suits; but considering the nature and extent of the property these were very few, and he did not recollect a single case in which the Duchy had not been successful. Was not that a proof there was no sharp practice in the matter? He could assure the noble Lord that he would not make either himself or his colleagues angry by the employment of these terms; and as to the opinion which the noble Lord had read he knew nothing of the counsel or of the case that had been submitted to him; but he was quite willing to take the opinion of any independent and honourable man whether the opinion which the noble Lord had read was a fair description of the transaction. The noble Lord had made these complaints to him several months ago, and also to his noble and learned Friend opposite, the Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord Kings-down); and they had both gone over the noble Lord's case with the utmost minuteness, calling in the aid of their most experienced servants, and they convinced themselves that there was no just cause of complaint against what had been done. He did not say the noble Lord had not a case; when both he and his noble and learned Friend began to look into it they thought he had cause of complaint, but they were now satisfied that the decision was legally, morally, equitably, and generally right. As to any other complaints the noble Lord or others might have, he could only say that if they were sent to the Council he would take care that they should be investigated.
  LORD VIVIANthanked the noble Luke for his offer, and said he would accept it.
  LORD PORTMANsaid that the noble Duke who had to-night defended the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall was not a Member of their Lordships' House when the first investigation was made into the affairs of the Duchy. The Report then made

  505
  to the House was that customs had been abandoned, fees and heriots had been lost, boundaries of estates had become doubtful, and adverse claims had been made which had grown into habits, if not into legal rights. It had taken the Council twenty years to put the affairs of the Duchy to rights. The Council did not wish to encroach upon the property of others, but it was their duty to guard the rights, privileges, and estates of the Duchy.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he remembered, in the days of His late Majesty, George IV., great complaints had been made of malversation in favour of particular individuals, and against the interests of the Duchy. He deprecated the employment of such terms as "sharp practice."
  Amendments reported; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  BILL READ 3a, AND PASSED.
  Order of the Day for the Third Beading read.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved that some of the Commissioners under the Bill were to be appointed by Corporations. Now, whatever might be the merits of Corporations, they were certainly not religious bodies, and he recommended that this portion of the Bill should be altered.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, this point had received very serious consideration. It was difficult to say in what way the Commissioners should be appointed, and the mode proposed in the Bill was adopted as the least objectionable that could be thought of. The duties were not wholly of a religious kind. There was property to look after, and Corporations were considered the proper guardians of such property.
  Bill read 3a.
  On Question that the Bill do pass,
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON THE BISHOP OF LONDON moved to insert at the end of the 1st Section the words—
  ("And a Benefice, Sinecure Rectory, or Vicarage in the Suburbs of any City, Town, or Borough in the Schedule to this Act, and the Parish of any such Suburban Benefice, shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be within such City, Town, or Borough, and shall be included in and subject to the provisions of this Act accordingly.")
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to insert
  506
  in Clause 17 words to permit the appropriation of the disused churches to foreign congregations not being in communion with the Church of Borne. The object of this proposal was to include the Greek Church, to which a large and influential community in London, Manchester, and Liverpool belonged; and which was not at all of a hostile character as regarded the Church of England. But for the remarks of a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Durham), it would never have occurred to him that such an Amendment as he proposed would be thought objectionable; for the object of the contemplated enactment had nothing whatever to do with questions of orthodoxy, but it was simply a matter of international courtesy, such as English congregations often received in foreign countries.
  Moved in Clause 17 line 31, instead of ("Foreign Protestant Congregations,") to insert ("Christian Congregations not in communion with the Church of Borne.")
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAM, after the pointed allusion of the noble Earl, felt bound to explain that he did not oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl on the ground that the Greek Church was a hostile or proselytizing body. Still he could not forget that there were important differences between the docrines of the Greek and the English Churches —that the former did not hold the same doctrine as the latter with regard to the Procession of the Holy Ghost; that it held as much as the Roman Catholic Church the dogma of the Real Presence; that it enforced compulsory confession; and that, though it did not worship images, in indulged in the adoration of pictures. He considered that there was in particular a spirit rising in this country against compulsory confession, and he thought it would be unwise to do anything that might seem to encourage that practice.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHpreferred the existing words of the Bill— "Foreign Protestant Churches." The Amendment would allow churches to be appropriated to congregations of Mahomedans, Jews, or Buddhists.
  LORD REDESDALEconceived that under the proposed clause Unitarians would be admitted, which would be very repugnant to the feelings of English Churchmen. If the clause was good for anything it was good as showing that the English Church took a comprehensive and tolerant view of the subject, and that the Christian Protes-

  507
  tant Church of England held out the hand of fellowship to other Christian Churches.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought that in introducing the clause he was only following out principle and precedent in allowing churches to be used by foreign Protestants, and he considered that the clause should remain as it was.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHwas of opinion that the qualification of "Christian" was equally necessary.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sapproved the Amendment.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he thought it would show a very great want of Christian charity if we were expressly to exclude the members of the Roman Catholic Church from the power of the clause. The Roman Catholics were a very large proportion of our fellow subjects. We provided chaplains who professed that religion for the army, the navy, and various public establishments, and, in his opinion, to except Catholics in a case of this kind would be an offensive provision, and one which he should regret to see adopted. There should be a community of religious feeling between all Christian Churches; he trusted therefore that their Lordships would not give their assent to the Amendment now proposed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause enabling the reseating and rearranging of churches inserted.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.