Lords Sitting of 26 March 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Inclosure (No. 58); Marine Mutiny; Augmentation of Benefices (No. 59).
Second Reading—Mutiny; Tobacco Duties (No. 56).
Committee—Post Office Savings Banks (No. 47).
Report—Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) (No. 57).

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (NEW METROPOLITAN STATION AND BRANCHES) BILL.

  SECOND READING. DEBATE RESUMED.
  Adjourned Debate [March 12] on the Motion, That the said Bill be now read 2a, and the Amendment thereto, "That the said Hill be read a. Second Time on this day Six Months,"—(The Earl of Shaftesbury,)—resumed (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the best speech he could make against this Bill would be to read section 17, page 6, of Colonel Yolland's Report on Metropolitan Railways. As their Lordships had doubtless read that Report, which recommended that all these schemes for railways through the metropolis should be postponed for further consideration, he would simply move that the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill be postponed. He had the authority of all their Lordships who had spoken on this subject, as well as of Colonel Yolland, to whom it had been specifically referred, in favour of the course he now proposed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that Colonel Yolland was in favour of the postponement of the greater part of these schemes to another year. There was, however, a portion of the line to be authorized by this particular Bill—that portion which related to the North London line—which he believed might be proceeded with in the present Session. Before, however, their Lordships determined to postpone this Bill, it might be desirable to appoint a Select Committee of their Lordships to consider whether it was desirable that any of these Bills should be proceeded with, or whether all of them should be rejected for the present Session. The Committee might go further, and consider how the question of metropolitan railways should be dealt with in future.
  EARL GREYsaid, he did not agree with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that the subject could be effectually dealt with by a Select Committee. Colonel Yolland, in his Report, referred to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1846, which investigated the various projects for establishing railway termini in the metropolis. The Royal Commission stated, that if at any time it should be deemed advisable to admit railways into the metropolis within certain limits north of the Thames, it should be done in conformity with some uniform plan, and that under no circum-
  1910
  stances should the thoroughfares of the metropolis be surrendered to separate schemes brought forward at different times and without reference to each other. He regretted that this recommendation had been so little attended to. Fortunately, however, the evil had not yet gone very far, and he thought there was still time, if their Lordships acted firmly, to arrest its further progress. The inconvenience and mischief of allowing the metropolis to be carved out by public companies, who were subject only to such a check as could be put upon them by a Select Committee of either House of Parliament at the time when those companies applied for Parliamentary powers, were such that he was sure, if they continued to pursue such a course, they would in the end arrive at an inconvenient result. In his opinion, there was no scheme whatever, however apparently unobjectionable it might be, which Parliament could safely consent to, until the Legislature had determined upon some general plan of railway communication within the metropolis; and if they sanctioned the lines at present asked for, it might happen that in future years, when they were called on to discuss some general scheme, they would find that they were prevented by these very works from adopting a general system. What they really wanted was, that a plan of railway communication throughout the metropolis should be duly considered by the Government, and a general scheme adopted, which should have no reference whatever to any scheme brought forward by existing railway companies merely for the sake of advancing their own interests. In his view such a scheme should be proposed by an impartial body, who would look at the whole subject. Was it possible that a Committee of their Lordships would satisfactorily deal with such a question? There could be no doubt whatever that the drawing up of a general scheme of railway communication was a work which required a large amount of scientific knowledge and experience; certainly an amount which none of their Lordships could pretend to possess. For his own part, he should feel utterly helpless in the matter, and should not venture to express an opinion as to what would be the best course to pursue. There was another question, and a serious one—that was, whether any railways within the metropolis should be the property of any private company at all? Probably the

  1911
  right course would be to declare that whatever railways were admitted into London should be the property of some public body, like the Metropolitan Board of Works. In that case the working of those railways might be let to some of the existing companies in the manner most convenient to the public. It would be extremely inconvenient, and even dangerous, to create private property in railways within the metropolis. He thought the Government ought to take the responsibility upon themselves, and propose to Parliament the creation of some Commission authorized to take evidence and hear all parties, and then recommend to Parliament a measure which might hereafter be adopted on the advice of Her Majesty's Government. That, in his opinion, would be the best course to take with reference to this extremely important question. He did not think that in the face of Colonel Yolland's Report they ought to consent to the passing of any one of the metropolitan railway schemes brought before them this Session; and with reference to the particular Bill which his noble Friend had moved should be read a second time this day six months, there were so many insurmountable objections to it that they could not be wrong in postponing it— leaving the question afterwards to be decided what other coarse should be ultimately adopted.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the plan suggested by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) did not meet the present difficulty. A Royal Commission had already reported on this subject; and they had had Royal Commissions on similar subjects before; and they all knew how jealous Parliament had shown itself of these Commissions. As soon as a plan came before the Legislature, which was founded on the Report of a Commission, it was usually overruled by a Committee of that or the other House of Parliament. It was stated by Colonel Yolland that the recommendations of the former Commission had been set aside; and yet the noble Earl proposed another Commission, and declared, moreover, that the Government ought to take up the whole question of metropolitan railway communication, and settle it by the report of persons appointed by the Government, and probably presided over by some Member of the Government. Such a body would labour, on entering into the consideration of such an important subject, under far greater disadvantage than a
  1912
  Committee of their Lordships' House. According to the noble Earl, the Government were not to make the railways; but the Government were to settle where the railways were to be made, and then the Government must make them. The meaning of that was, that the Government were to lay down a scheme for metropolitan railways, and then to come to Parliament for a grant of money to enable them to make these railways, or else to hand them over to the Metropolitan Board of Works to make them. Now, their Lordships knew something of the Board of Works. They were already engaged in a work of great magnitude—the construction of the main sewerage of the metropolis; and if they now attempted to carry out in addition a metropolitan system of railways, the public would have to wait a very long time before any of these metropolitan railways were brought into operation. If a Committee of their Lordships were to have the different companies before them, and to hear them with regard to the merits of their respective proposals, they would be able to point out to the House those which were decidedly objectionable, and those, on the other hand, to which they thought powers might be granted. It would do no good merely to throw out the various Bills this Session, because they would be reintroduced next year, when their Lordships would practically be in very much the same position. A Royal Commission could not settle the question. It was all very well for them to say "such and such lines ought to be made." The companies would very naturally say, "Then you must make them." The companies would only make those which accorded with their own interests. If a Royal Commission were appointed to determine upon, the construction of various lines, it would be necessary for Parliament to go a step further and to find the money requisite for that purpose. He thought that the best plan would be to appoint a Committee and lay before them the plans proposed, letting them hear the evidence brought forward by the companies.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that before saying anything with regard to the general question, he would call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that the question immediately under discussion was, what should be done with this particular Bill for the Extension of the Great Eastern Railway. It was five or six weeks since this Motion came first before the House,

  1913
  and he then took the liberty of stating to their Lordships the strong objections he entertained to the proposals contained in the Bill, which he thought sufficient to justify at that time its rejection. But then it was stated, not without reason, that their Lordships would only have an opportunity of hearing objections, and therefore it was only reasonable that time should be given for the companies to establish their case and refute his objections. For that purpose an adjournment was agreed upon, and a subsequent adjournment had since taken place; but during this whole five or six weeks, notwithstanding the question had been two or three times under discussion, not a single answer had been given to any of the arguments he then advanced. Not one of their Lordships had stood up to defend the line; and on the last occasion it was determined to lay the matter before the Board of Trade, for the purpose of its taking into consideration this line amongst others. Their Report was now before the House, and it virtually substantiated every one of the objections that he had urged. It stated distinctly that the main objection — independently of the grave objections that the line, in the greater part of its course, would run parallel to a line already sanctioned, and that it would occupy a very valuable open space in the City (an objection in itself almost sufficient to condemn the Bill) —was that in carrying out the plan proposed by the Bill they would absolutely put an insuperable obstacle to the construction of connecting lines of railway, by which the metropolis could be traversed from east to west and from north to south; and that inasmuch as there would be a difference in its level and that of the Metropolitan Railway of between thirty and forty feet, there would be an impossibility in adjusting the level of the various metropolitan lines. It was quite impossible that such a Bill could be sanctioned. Independently of any inquiry which might take place upon the general question, the discussions which had taken place in their Lordships' House, and the Report of the Board of Trade, put the Great Eastern line so completely out of court, that he should be surprised if the Motion for reading the Bill a second time that day six months were not adopted by their Lordships. The noble Duke who had just sat down (the Duke of Somerset) objected to the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the general subject, because he said it
  1914
  could not decide the question; but between the former Royal Commission and any which might now be issued there was a substantial difference. The Commission of 1846 recommended that no lines should be allowed to approach within certain limits of the metropolis. That recommendation subsequent experience had shown to be one that it was not desirable to carry out; and that the relief of the streets and a variety of other considerations rendered it desirable, if it could be effected, that there should be a junction of all the railways, so as to establish a through traffic, without the necessity of changing carriages. The present Commission would not have to lay down any principle, the principle having been already established that it was expedient that a through communication should take place through the metropolis. It would start with the object of seeing whether all or any of the schemes now submitted, or any substitute for them, could achieve this great object, without entailing serious injury upon the metropolis. Functions such as these seemed to him peculiarly applicable to a Commission, and peculiarly inapplicable to a Parliamentary Committee. It would be quite impossible for their Lordships, with the information they were likely to obtain in the course of the present Session, to investigate the subject thoroughly, and to lay down general rules for the guidance of railways, as well as of their Lordships' House. Some of the Bills, moreover, it must not be forgotten, were not before them at all, but at that moment were in the other House of Parliament. The noble Duke contended, that if all the Bills were thrown out, and nothing done in the mean time, they would be introduced next Session, and their Lordships would find themselves in exactly the same position. Undoubtedly, such would be the case. But no human being proposed to adopt that course. The reasonable and sensible proposal of his noble Friend on the cross benches (Earl Grey) was to reject, for this Session, the lines proposing to traverse the metropolis—'and the noble Duke had almost admitted that the great bulk of them must be rejected—and to establish a Committee of scientific men, who would sit during the Session, and during the Parliamentary recess, and would be enabled to lay before them at the next meeting of Parliament a general systematic scheme of railway communication for the metropolis. The noble Duke said, that if Parliament indicated the

  1915
  lines, it was bound to find the means of carrying them out, or at least to be responsible for their formation. He dissented from that position. It was not at all necessary, that because a Government Commission indicated the line of a certain railway, Parliament must provide the means for carrying it out. The noble Duke was familiar with the continental system, which seemed peculiarly applicable to the circumstances of the metropolis. That system consisted in pointing out the lines which ought to be made, and offering to the various companies interested in the district who were willing to undertake the service certain concessions for so doing; the works were then executed upon the sole responsibility of those engaging in the enterprise. If a general plan of railway intercommunication were sanctioned for the metropolis, he did not believe there would be any difficulty in inducing existing or other companies to carry out the proposals. He believed they would find railway proprietors only too ready and happy to assist in promoting the views of Parliament. For these reasons, he did not think the course recommended by his noble Friend (Earl Grey)—the appointment of a Committee of that House—a desirable one. With regard to the Bill promoted by the Great Eastern Railway Company, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that it ought not to pass. The fundamental objections to it were so great that it would be a waste of time and money to refer it to a Select Committee. The wisest, and to the promoters the kindest plan would be without further trouble, delay, or expense to reject it for the present Session, allowing it, if its details were susceptible of the requisite modifications, to form part of the general plan hereafter.
  LORD EBURYagreed with the noble Earl opposite that the Bill ought not to pass this Session, and that the kindest course to the promoters would be to reject it at once. In fact, there was scarcely one of the proposed measures which ought, to be adopted this year. It would be of great advantage that there should be some supervision over the construction of railways in the metropolis. There were serious and conclusive objections to the appointment of a Commission, but he thought that some good might be done by a Committee of that House to inquire into the different Bills that were now before the House—not into each particular Bill, nor to consider all the lines which were mentioned in Colonel
  1916
  Yolland's Report. It would be for them merely to consider whether there were among them any lines that might be permitted to go on this Session, such as the Midland line for instance; and then next year for the whole subject to be again, reported upon by the Board of Trade.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, there was no Motion for a Committee and he thought it desirable that their Lordships should confine their attention to the subject before them. If the plan suggested by the noble Lord who had just sat down were carried out, the Committee would have to inquire into the merits of every Bill in the whole group.
  EARL GRANVILLEcongratulated their Lordships upon the valuable Report which they had obtained from the Board of Trade upon this subject. He should have been glad to have heard arguments in support of this Bill; but as none had been adduced, he should be prepared to support the Amendment. It would, in his opinion, be desirable to appoint a Committee to consider in what manner all these metropolitan lines should be carried out. Committees of the Houses of Parliament had great power over private Bills, and it was impossible that any public Department should undertake the superintendence of the construction of these railways. A great deal would depend upon the goodwill of the different companies running into the metropolis; and, upon the whole, he was disposed to think that the matter could be better dealt with by a Committee than in any other way. All the metropolitan railway Bills were now before their Lordships' House, and the course which he proposed to take with reference to them was this:—He should not oppose the rejection of this Bill, and unless strong reason was shown to the contrary, he should, immediately after the recess, move the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question as to how these metropolitan railways should be dealt with.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that in many instances the Reports of Commissions and Committees had produced no results.
  LORD CHELMSFORDwanted to know whether the noble Earl proposed that all the Bills mentioned in Colonel Yolland's Report should be subject to the scrutiny of a Select Committee—because it appeared to him that in that way injustice might be done to some of the measures which it was desirable should be passed this Session.
  On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion, Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this Day Six Months.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 57.)—REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
On Motion that the Report be agreed to,
Clause 30 (Registrar to learn and register Births and Deaths).
THE EARL OF BANDONproposed an Amendment—
"Provided always that all Births and Deaths winch shall happen within the Workhouse shall be registered by the Superintendent Registrar."
THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, the matter had been fully discussed in the House of Commons, and he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed now.
After a few words from The Earl of LEITRIM.
THE EARL OF BANDONappealed to the Government to postpone the Report, in order that he might have the opportunity of submitting his Amendment to the House at a time when it could be fully discussed.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the discussion seemed to take the House somewhat by surprise; and he therefore suggested that the proposed Amendment should be moved on the third reading.
THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he would adopt the suggestion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Report agreed to; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

  (NO. 47.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that on the occasion of the second reading his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) had objected that the interests of minors were not sufficiently protected under the present Bill. He (Lord Stanley) found that the provisions in the Bill and those in the old Savings Banks Act, in respect of the transfer of the deposits of minors were precisely the same.
  LORD REDESDALEdesired to draw the attention of their Lordships to these provisions. At present, the managers of the old savings banks exercised a discre-
  1918
  tion as to the employment of the money of minors; but under tins Bill, on the application in writing of the parent or guardian, if the minor was under seven years of age, or of that of the minor himself if above that age, the deposit of such minor at a savings bank might be transferred to a Post Office savings bank; and the money might be withdrawn at the same age at which the minor might have withdrawn it at the old savings bank. Every one knew that a child of seven years could not exercise any sound judgment, and the parents or guardians in many instances were not proper persons to be intrusted with the money. The trustees and managers of the present savings banks generally knew who the depositors were, and ought to be able to exercise their discretion whether it was safe or right to allow the minor's money to be transferred. What he wished to propose was, that the transfer of money invested for the benefit of minors should be limited to those cases where the bank was about to be wound up, or where the trustees or managers saw reason to agree to the transfer. He wished also for some explanations with regard to the fourth clause, by which it was proposed that money invested in a 3 per cent stock should be converted into a 2½ per cent stock, the difference being converted into an annuity of the class which would terminate in twenty-two years. He regarded this clause as a confession that the expense of the Post Office savings banks had exceeded the estimate of their founders, and that they wanted a larger income to carry on the business. He pointed out that the part which would be converted into annuities would not be converted into fixed annuities for a certain number of years, but into annuities which became shorter and shorter every year, and therefore every year of less value.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the whole object of the conversion clause was to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the means of investing the monies of the Post Office savings banks to advantage, and that it would not affect the security of the depositors. With regard to the proposal of the noble Lord, in reference to the deposit of minors, it appeared to him that managers would be anxious to retain the money in their own banks, while the Post Office savings banks must afford better security to the depositors.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, who had given Notice "to call the attention of the House to the Ecclesiastical Patronage vested in The Lord Chancellor, and to present a Bill on the subject," said: My Lords, I rise with some anxiety to call your Lordships' attention to a subject which is certainly one of importance, and which has been to me, for a long time, a matter of much care and consideration, Your Lordships are aware that great ecclesiastical patronage is vested in the Lord Chancellor. The antiquity of that right in the Lord Chancellor, as the Keeper of the Great Seal, makes it difficult to ascertain its origin. As early as the rolls of Parliament of Edward III. the right of the Lord Chancellor to present to all the Crown livings rated at twenty marks and under is acknowledged as being incontestably vested in that officer. Subsequently —probably about the time of Henry VIII., when the denomination of the coinage was changed—£20 was substituted for twenty marks; and by the courts of law, and on various other occasions, the right of the Lord Chancellor to control and dispense the patronage of all the Crown livings not exceeding £20 has been acknowledged to be uncontested. I make these few observations at the outset, because it is important to show that I am not going to take away any part of the property of the Crown; for if the language were courteous —which it would not be—the Crown might properly be described, in respect to these livings, as the trustee of the Lord Chancellor. With regard to the Crown livings, which by constitutional usage belong to the Premier for the time being, the Premier, when he presents, takes the pleasure of the Crown; but when the Lord Chancellor presents, he presents, as a right, without taking the pleasure of the Crown. The writ is couched in words carefully selected for the purpose of acknowledging that right, for it contains these words:—"Which presentation doth to the Lord Chancellor as of right fully belong." Such is the origin and nature of the Lord Chancellor's right of presentation to certain Crown livings. These livings are numerous, but the greater part of them are small and insignificant in value, and many of them lie in unfavourable dis-
  1920
  tricts. Being small and so situated, they have had the fate which constantly attends patronage of that description. There being no resident proprietor interested in the living, they have been greatly neglected; they present a most unfavourable contrast with other livings equally small in value, and they show by their condition—frequently in respect of the church, oftener of the parsonage, and also by the want of schools—the absence of any person interested in the welfare of the advowson. Moved, therefore, by these and other considerations, I have selected out of the number of the Lord Chancellor's livings 320 of the smallest; and the object of the measure which I seek to introduce is to give me power to sell the advowsons of these livings on certain definite terms stated, and to apply the proceeds of that sale to the augmentation of their value. Then, instead of those 320 livings being held in the barren hand of the Lord Chancellor, they will be vested, I trust, in 320 landed proprietors, each one of whom, living on the spot, will take an interest in the maintenance and welfare of the Established Church. What I particularly desire to do is to bring back the present state of things to that which originally existed— because advowsons originally came into being from great lauded proprietors building and endowing churches; and then, by the sanction of the spiritual authority, lie who had created and endowed was thought best entitled to have the presentation to the living. This is in accordance with the great constitutional principle that the Church should be united, as it were, with the landed property of the country. Your Lordships must be familiar with the contrast between a parish which has no resident landed proprietor and a parish which has a proprietor resident, who, having a right to nominate, takes a pride in the maintenance of the parish church, in its ornamentation, in the maintenance of the parsonage, and in the building and endowing of schools. There is just as much difference in the condition of such parishes as there is between an estate where the proprietor is resident and an estate where he is always an absentee. Those circumstances have led me to believe that the time has come when some measure of this kind should be initiated, and I have every confidence that such a measure will lead to an augmentation of the welfare of the Established Church. All men who have paid attention to the state of the univer-

  1921
  sities, and observed plainly what is going on there, have been impressed with the conviction that the Church as a profession, in point of worldly advantage, does not offer adequate inducements for young men to enter it. I have long been of that opinion. I have been very anxious on the subject, particularly when I looked into history and observed the changes effected at the Reformation and the manner in which some of them have failed. The Roman Catholic Church had the advantage of a large number of cathedral, conventual, and monastic establishments. In these it gathered round it a large number of boys of all denominations and descriptions, who assisted in the services of the establishment and the Church; and from the most promising of these, after being carefully trained, the clergy were selected for the service of the Church. Our great reformer, Edward VI., observing this, endeavoured to provide for it by the establishment of grammar schools throughout the country. These grammar schools were almost always connected with some collegiate establishment in the universities; and the desire was that the grammar school should be a sort of seminary for the college, and that boys should be carefully trained there to be sent to college afterwards, and there be trained for the Church. Unfortunately, from the insufficiency of the endowments, and the inefficiency of the means employed, that plan has in a great measure failed; and hence it is, that unless we increase the number and value of its endowments, the Church at the present time, in the mutter of worldly inducements, is in a state of entire inferiority when contrasted with other professions. It is in the case of 320 of these livings only that I have ventured to propose any change. I am perfectly well aware—and I desire particularly to attract attention to it—that, however promising this scheme may seem when stated in the abstract, the real practical utility of it depends entirely on the wisdom and prudence shown in the due selection of the details for carrying it into effect. If your Lordships will bear with me a few moments, I will endeavour to explain the nature of the scheme which I have embodied in this Bill, rather as a matter of consideration than with any kind of notion that what I have here written down is to be the plan which in all things is to be carried into effect. If your Lordships approve the principle of the Bill, I
  1922
  shall entreat you to grant me that mode of proceeding in which, from my experience, I have the greatest confidence—a Select Committee of this House, to which I am sure all parties will be desirous to send Members who will treat this subject without the smallest political bias. In that Select Committee I shall submit the details of my Bill to your wisdom for discussion and consideration, trusting that your Lordships will find the best practical means for giving full effect to the measure. I shall now explain to your Lordships how I propose to fix the standard of value of advowsons. This is an extremely difficult part of the measure, and requires the greatest consideration. It is extremely difficult to lay down, with any amount of certainty, what is the standard market value of the thing that is sold. I am sure your Lordships will have found, from your own experience, that nothing is more unsound than the estimate of surveyors. If you employ two surveyors, the great probability is that you will have a very different estimate from each. In fixing the standard, I have taken the most approved table of value of advowsons, and from the amounts given in these tables I have deducted one-fourth, to allow for the practical difference which almost always exists between theoretical value and market price. By that deduction I arrive at something like an accurate expression of the market value; and I have then, ventured to double that value, for the reason which I shall explain to the House. Your Lordships will be aware that the principle of my measure is, that the purchaser has nothing to pay to the party who sells. The purchase money is expended on the improvement of the subject of the purchase. But, further, I do not propose that he shall expend the whole of the purchase money instanter. I propose that he shall pay one-half instanter, either in a solid sum or by way of annuity. Let me suppose for a moment that the advowson is worth £100 a year, and that the incumbent is fifty years of age; according to the tables, taking the value of money at 6 per cent, the advowson would be worth 6 years' purchase. I have deducted one-fourth, and taken the money at 4 per cent, in order to estimate the allowance which should be made for the remuneration of the services of the incumbent; for when a man buys a living, he buys that for which he is to do duty. Therefore, in calculating the price

  1923
  which he should give for it, he must make a deduction for the value of his services. I allow for that deduction. I take the value of money at 4 per cent, and double what remains after the deduction of one-fourth from the theoretical value. Take a living of the value of £100 a year. At ten years' purchase the value of the purchase is £1,000. If the purchaser proposes to pay this in money, I propose that he shall begin by paying £500—one-half. With regard to the other £500, the purchaser is to give security for payment, when the living shall become vacant, of such a sum as shall be equal to the amount which the £500 would produce, if it were duly accumulated with compound interest at 4 per cent, between the time appointed for the completion of the purchase and the next avoidance of the living. Your Lordships will thus see, that though the purchaser pays his money, he parts with it to be laid out on the subject he has bought. I have ascertained that the propositions in my Bill would not be deemed unreasonable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I do not mean to represent that those Commissioners assent to the principle of my Bill. All I mean to say is, that what I have put in it with reference to the value of these advowsons is not so unreasonable as not to be likely to be entertained by them. Your Lordships are aware, that if any proprietor advance a sum not exceeding £1,000 for the augmentation of the value of a living, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have a rule by which they may grant an equal amount for the same object. I propose, that when the Lord Chancellor sells an advowson, he shall, to the extent of a limited number of livings in the year, hand to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a portion of the purchase money. In the case of an advowson sold for £1,000, the moiety of £500 would be handed to them, and they would be required to add to that a sum of £500, making £1,000, which would create an annuity of 3½ per cent, charged on their common stock. The £500, the first moiety, would in this way produce an instant annuity of £35, which would go to the present augmentation of the living of £100 a year. When the living becomes vacant, the remaining £500, with the accumulated interest, may be applied in a similar manner, or may be applied to the purpose of tithe rent charges, debentures, or Government securities, the income to be applied to the augmentation of the in-
  1924
  come of the living. In this way I estimate that those small livings may ultimately be augmented to the amount of, in some cases, two-thirds, and in others one-half of their original value. I offer the purchaser another advantage — that instead of paying the first moiety of the purchase money at once he may grant a rent-charge of 5 per cent, to be secured upon freehold or copyhold property; and as to the other moiety which would be paid upon the next avoidance of the living, such a rent-charge as shall be equal to 5 per cent upon the principal sum with its accumulations at 4 per cent. The whole principle of the measure is, that the purchaser, either in the shape of money or an annuity, is to pay one-half the consideration of the advowson instanter; the other one-half, with compound interest, not to be paid till he comes into the actual possession and exercise of his advowson. Your Lordships will see that my object is to give an immediate benefit, but a greater augmentation to the living when the advowson comes into the enjoyment of the purchaser. I cannot imagine a more beneficial manner of dealing with an advowson. I will give an instance. A gentleman has an estate in the country, but the advowson of the living does not belong to him; it belongs to the Lord Chancellor. It may be matter of importance to this gentleman to have the control of the presentation in his own hands; and he might be glad to give a sum of money to have that right. Under the present Bill the owner of the land would be enabled to become the purchaser of the advowson. I have inserted a proviso in the Bill to prevent a purchaser of one of these advowsons from being at liberty to sell it until at least after a period of five years from the time of purchase. It would be no satisfaction to me to strip the Lord Chancellor of this patronage if it were to fall into the hands of societies or bodies of persons formed for the purpose of inculcating and promoting particular opinions, and getting subscribers to become purchasers of the advowsons with a view to effect particular purposes. I have therefore put in a proviso that no person or body of persons shall purchase or cause to be purchased more than four of these advowsons. I trust and hope that these advowsons will get for the most part into the hands of landed proprietors, who will become desirous not only of being owners of them, but also of discharging their duty to the

  1925
  Church, by taking a particular interest in the welfare of the parish and of religion. There are many other provisions in the Bill which I hope will be thought good by your Lordships, but with the details of which I will not weary you at present. I have just indicated the details of the Bill; they may be very different from the details which shall be ultimately arrived at in Committee, but I believe your Lordships will find them so far well-considered and accurate as to serve to show that this great principle of converting these advowsons into a source of strength to the Established Church is a practical one, and I hope and trust that this measure may leave your Lordships' House in a shape well adapted to fulfil the expectations which may justly be entertained of it.
  LORD CRANWORTHcongratulated his noble and learned Friend upon the part which he had taken in framing so able and important a scheme. As for the details of the plan, of course it could not be expected that any noble Lord would express an opinion until time was given for further consideration. Having had the honour of holding the Great Seal, he felt bound to say that he thought the measure would be not only beneficial to the public, but extremely useful to whoever might, for the time being, be in the position of Lord Chancellor. These advowsons were now generally scrambled for, and experience showed that those who obtained them were not the fittest persons to hold them. He thought, however, his noble and learned Friend had greatly over-estimated the probable value of these small advowsons. For instance, a living of the nominal value of £100 would probably not be worth more than £40, as £60, or thereabouts, would have to be deducted for the services of a curate to administer the living.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he felt great satisfaction that the noble and learned Lord had turned his attention to this most important and interesting subject. This was not the time to enter into details, which he hoped would be carefully considered by the Select Committee to which it was proposed to refer the Bill, and which he hoped would include some Members of the right rev. Bench. The principle of the Bill, however, had his entire and cordial concurrence. Nothing could be more embarrassing to a person holding the Great Seal than the proper mode of presenting to those small livings; for no matter how zealous a man might be, if he had not in-
  1926
  dependent means, it was no kindness to give him the presentation. No matter how poor a clergyman was, an idea always prevailed among the destitute of a parish that he must have sufficient means to assist them in their difficulties, and that he failed in his duty if he did not assist them. This Bill would, he trusted, be of the highest possible advantage, as it would transfer a patronage, which was most irksome, perplexing, and painful from the Lord Chancellor, to persons who must have an interest in the parishes to which it referred, and who would be able to do what was certainly not in the power of the present official patron with regard to schools, churches, and other matters.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he begged to state on the part of his right rev. Brethren, that they felt deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having taken this matter in hand. The details of so important a subject must, of course, be reserved for the Select Committee, or for some future occasion in their Lordships' House. No person, who had sat on the Ecclesiastical Commission, could be ignorant of the fact that there were very many livings which did not deserve the name of livings —the labourers in these unremunerative parishes would now have a chance of being repaid for their toils. He would suggest, as the matter was one of great importance, that as little time as possible after Easter should be lost in proceeding with the measure and settling the details.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that having some time since had the honour of proposing in the House of Commons a measure somewhat analogous to that of the noble and learned Lord, he could not but express his gratification that a Bill of this kind should have been introduced. The great object was to bring up the smaller livings to a higher amount. He would therefore suggest that the Lord Chancellor should sanction the sale of some of the larger and more valuable livings, and add the value to the smaller livings.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was much gratified by the kind expressions of concurrence from the noble Lords, and his right rev. Friends who had spoken on his proposition. He had, in his original statement, made an omission which he should be glad to supply. The greater number of the livings contained in the schedule—about three fourths—were under £200 a year. A small number ran up

  1927
  to £250 a year; and there was a provision in the Bill that those now under £200 should be augmented to £300 a year, and that any surplus should be carried over for the augmentation of smaller livings. That arrangement was subject, however, to a proviso. Power was taken for applying a portion of the surplus to the building and repairing of parsonage houses, provided the purchaser was ready to add a proportionate sum of money to the fund for that purpose. The very thing desired by the noble Duke was therefore, as far as possible, endeavoured to be attained by the Bill. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury was unable to be present in his place that night, but had wished to express his entire concurrence in the general objects of the Bill. He should ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time to-morrow, in the hope that it might be referred to a Select Committee immediately after Easter. By so doing he trusted it might be sent down to the other House of Parliament in good time, so as to escape being lost in the "ruck" of Bills which usually took place towards the end of the Session.
  Bill for the Augmentation of certain Benefices the Right of Presentation to which is vested in The Lord Chancellor—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 59.)

LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).

  ADDRESS FOR A COMMISSION.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Propriety of the Loan Fund Board having ordered that the Cloone Loan Fund should be closed and the Funds confiscated, and to inquire into the State of those Funds, the Manner in which they have been employed, and how far the same can be appropriated to the Benefit of the Poor of that Locality."
  EARL GRANVILLEconsidered it absolutely necessary that a primâ facie case should be established against the Loan Commissioners before an inquiry was ordered into their conduct. There did not appear to be a shadow of ground for the accusations which had been levelled against them. The power of appeal existing, in case of the dissolution by them of any local loan fund, had not been exercised in the case of Cloone, to which the noble Earl referred. The dissolution complained of undoubtedly took place at a period of distress; but the inhabitants of the dis-
  1928
  trict did not suffer inconvenience, for a committee, consisting of the magistrates resident upon the spot, aided by the Protestant and Roman Catholic clergymen, had been intrusted with the administration of the funds. What was the action of the noble Earl? He was informed that having been written to by one of the clergymen, the noble Earl, in return, expressed a desire that the writer would never communicate with him on any subject whatever.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM: That is not correct.
  EARL GRANVILLEcould only state what he had been informed. The funds administered by the committee amounted to £1,800; and he was assured that the noble Earl actually advised some of his tenants not to repay the advances made to them.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM: That is not correct.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the noble Earl would be good enough to express himself in Parliamentary language. From everybody, except the noble Earl, he had received the facts as he had just stated them to the House, He must say, that he had never heard a more idle accusation against a body so respectable as the Loan Fund Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMdid not deny that the Loan Commissioners were very respectable in name; but the members of that Commission rarely attended to their duties. The Board was a mere farce, the whole business being in the hands of one gentleman. As regarded the correspondence to which reference had been made, the fact was, that having applied for information at the outset, he received a letter stating that his interference was not required. Subsequently, when all the funds had been expended, one of the clergymen wrote to him, asking for additional contributions, which were to be expended in the very manner of which he had all along expressed disapproval. Not unnaturally he returned a refusal. Conceiving that there had been an improper use of public money, when applied to for advice by several of his neighbours, he advised them to resist payment of sums with which they were improperly charged. But he never recommended any man to withhold money that was legitimately due.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.

  INCLOSURE BILL.
  Bill read 1a and to be printed, (No. 58).

  MARINE MUTINY BILL.
  Bill read 1a, and to be read 2a To-morrow: (The Duke of Somerset.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Three o'clock.