Lords Sitting of 23 June 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (211); Comptroller of the Exchequer and Public Audit* (212); Rochdale Vicarage* (213); Naval Discipline Act Amendment* (214); Sugar Duties and Drawbacks* (195).
Second Reading —Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act Amendment* (168); Navy and Marines (Wills) * (169); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (183); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (184); Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions* (177); Naval and Marines (Property of Deceased)* (176); National Gallery (Dublin)* (196); Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment* (199).
Select Committee—Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (144).
Committee—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)* (180); Malt Duty* (181); Harbours Transfer* (182); Kingstown Harbour* (188); Ecclesiastical Commission (Superannuation Allowances)* (189).
Report—Partnership Amendment (162); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)* (180); Malt Duty* (181); Kingstown Harbour* (188); General Post Office (Additional Site)* (124); Small Benefices (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment* (205); Ecclesiastical Commission (Superannuation Allowances)* (189).
Third Reading —LunaticAsylum Act(1853), &c. Amendment* (160); Railway Debentures, &c. Registry* (191); Admiralty, Ac. Acts Repeal* (165); Admiralty Powers, Ac* (166); Dockyard Ports Regulation* (167); Mortgage Debentures* (206); Prisons (Scotland) Act Amendment* (106); Smoke Nuisances (Scotland) Acts Amendment* (136); Procurators (Scotland)* (207).

THE CONSUL AT SARAWAK.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE RED-CLIFFEasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in sanctioning the appointment of Mr. Richardson as Consul at Sarawak, under the exequatur of Sir James Brooke, Her Majesty's Government intended to recognize Sir James Brooke as an independent Sovereign in Borneo?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that application having been made for the appointment of

  691
  a Consul by the Rajah of Sarawak, he felt it his duty to ascertain first whether Sir James Brooke had been placed in an independent position by the Sultan of Borneo; and, secondly, whether, if he had, there was any objection to the appointment of a Consul in his dominions. It appeared to be clear from the papers which were submitted to him that an independent position had been granted by the Sultan of Borneo to Sir James Brooke; and the Law Officers of the Crown, upon being consulted, gave their opinion that there was no objection to the appointment of a Consul at Sarawak. He therefore advised Her Majesty to appoint Mr. Richardson to be Consul at that place.

  STATE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, there was a subject of considerable importance which he wished to bring before their Lordships—he referred to the state of Public and Private business before Parliament. In respect to the Public business, it was pretty nearly concluded. In the other House the Appropriation Bill had been read a second time last evening, and there was no need that the proceedings of Parliament should be protracted much longer in regard to Public business. With regard to Private business, it was desirable that some mode should be adopted by which parties interested in Private Bills might not be put to inconvenience. It was obvious that if any of those Bills met with any determined opposition they would occupy a considerable length of time, and Parliament in that case would be obliged to sit without having any Public business before it. He thought, however, that if the Session were prolonged to suit the convenience of these parties the country, which was expecting an immediate dissolution, would think itself hardly dealt with. He had ascertained that at that moment there were sixty-four Private Bills which had not received a second reading. How many of those were opposed or were not it was impossible for him to say. But what he wished now to do was to call the attention of the Chairman of Committees to the state of Private business, in order that he might make himself master of the facts some day next week, and be able to inform their Lordships in how short a time the House might be able to dispose of
  692
  them. It would be for their Lordships' consideration whether they should, under the circumstances, follow the same course as that on a former occasion—in 1857 and 1859—namely, to pass a Resolution by which parties having Private Bills might be enabled to take them up in the ensuing Session of Parliament at the stage at which they were left now, or whether it would be desirable to adopt any other course with respect to the Private business before the House. He thought it right to say at the same time that their Lordships were not to blame for anything that might have occurred in respect to Private business. On the contrary, he believed that their Lordships had disposed of all the Private Bills that had been sent up as expeditiously as could be reasonably expected.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he hoped he should be in a position, probably on Monday, certainly on Tuesday, to speak pretty confidently as to the number of Private Bills that would be opposed in Committee. He did not think that there were quite so many as might be expected. He had seen some of the agents that day, and they all desired very much to proceed with their Bills. He had certainly a great objection to the plan of suspending Bills. It had been done on three occasions; but two of these—in the instances of 1857 and 1859— afforded no precedent for the adoption of a similar course in the present case; in 1857 the Resolution was adopted by the House on the 20th March, and the dissolution took place on the 21st. Therefore, in that Session, it would be observed, that all the Bills came to the New Parliament precisely in the same state as they would have done if the Session had begun in February; and the only change was that whatever had been done before that period was done as if Parliament had just met. In 1859 the dissolution took place just a month later—namely, on the 23rd of April; but still in that case the Bills all stood on the Notices for the year. Therefore there was no objection in that case, and very little inconvenience would have arisen even if the House had decided that the Bills should commence de novo. In 1847 the business before the House was extremely heavy, and as early as the 3rd June a Select Committee was appointed by that House to consider the subject. The Committee recommended that an option should be given to the parties to suspend any Bills they might have before Parliament if they

  693
  thought proper. That Resolution having been adopted by the House of Commons on the 10th June, the parties were required to give notice on the 18th June whether they wished their Bills to be suspended or not. Now the option was very different on the present occasion. On the occasion of 1847 he entered a protest against proceeding at all with the Resolution, on the ground that it was very objectionable that one Parliament should bind another. He thought that the principle was a bad one. And there was this objection to it, that whereas in some instances competing schemes might have been rejected, and one Bill adopted in preference to another, it was in the power of those persons who had promoted those schemes to bring in improved schemes of the same character in the next Parliament, and the parties to them might demand to have their schemes heard in connection with the others. At the same time the House was placed in a great difficulty, the public business being nearly at an end, to finish the private business as soon as it was desired, although he did not think it would take very long to dispose of the private business in the ordinary way. Under these circumstances he must leave the matter in the hands of the House for their decision. The House would sit to-morrow, and be should then move the following notice on Standing Order 179, sec. 1:—
  "That this day shall be considered as a sitting day with respect to any petition praying to be heard upon the merits against any Bill mentioned in either of the two classes of Private Bills, except to any such Bill which was read a first time on Friday last."
  The effect of that Order would be, that all petitions to be heard against Private Bills must be presented on Monday next.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought it unfortunate, when a course of so unusual a character was proposed, that some notice should not have been given to their Lordships of the intention to submit a Resolution of this kind in order that the parties immediately interested in the Bills to be affected by it might have an opportunity given them of stating their objections to such a proceeding if they thought fit to do so.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he had not proposed any Resolution—he had merely made an inquiry of the Chairman of Committees as to the state of private business, and suggested whether it might not be expedient to fol-
  694
  low the same course as that adopted under similar circumstances.
  THE EARL OF DERBYrepeated, that the House ought not to be called upon to pronounce an opinion upon a question so important without previous notice. The proposition, or rather the suggestion, of the noble Lord was, that the House should allow all Private Bills not disposed of by Committees of their Lordships' House to stand over until next Session, and then to be taken up from the stage in which they now wore. The noble Lord had cited certain instances in which he said that course had been adopted. But he (the Earl of Derby) doubted that these cases were analogous to the present position of Parliament. One of the cases was that of 1859, when it had become indispensable that a dissolution should take place in the spring of the year, owing to the then state of parties, and it was therefore desirable that some provision should be made in order to prevent the private business then before Parliament being unnecessarily affected; but, in the present case, there was no reason why Parliament should be dissolved or prorogued before the business was gone through in the ordinary way. It might be very convenient to the Government, and to the Members of the other House of Parliament, that they should not be kept a long time in suspense, and that the elections should take place without delay; but that was not a sufficient reason for the adoption of such a course as that suggested—a course that would necessarily expose the parties immediately interested in those Bills to much inconvenience. He did not know what the state of the private business was; but he had not heard any reason assigned for the adoption of so unusual a course as the prorogation of Parliament, without any apparent cause, at the end of June or the beginning of July, and to call upon the parties promoting those Private Bills to suspend their proceedings in respect to them now, and to resume them in the next Session, when a new Parliament would be assembled. With regard to the suggestion made by his noble Friend, he (the Earl of Derby) wished to know whether he was to understand by the notice which the Chairman of Committees had given that he intended that their Lordships should meet tomorrow to consider the subject.
  LORD REDESDALEanswered in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, all he wished to know from Her Majesty's Go-

  695
  vernment was, whether they meant to propose to-morrow any specific course of proceeding founded upon any specific grounds, and if such was their intention he was anxious to know what those grounds were?
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the noble Lord opposite stated that the public business would probably be soon disposed of, and that the public would become impatient if the House should continue sitting after that time, and he suggested a mode of disposing of the remaining private business. But he must remind their Lordships there was still some public business of much importance to be transacted in the shape of a great number of appeals that were yet to be heard. Now, it would be a great hardship to the parties concerned in those appeals if Parliament, in consideration of what it called the public business being disposed of, were to be prorogued before there was any absolute necessity for such a course. He, therefore, entered his protest, on behalf of the parties whose cases were ready to be heard, against the proposed unnecessary prorogation of the House before the proper time.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had merely made the suggestion to his noble Friend for the purpose of obtaining information as to the position of the private business before their Lordships' House; and he mentioned the course adopted by Parliament under similar circumstances on former occasions, and left it to their Lordships to consider what would be the most desirable means to take for meeting the difficulty in which Parliament was placed.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, that the noble Lord had stated that, seeing that the private business would occupy a longtime if they proceeded to dispose of it in the ordinary way, he thought it was extremely desirable to close the Session at once. He (the Duke of Montrose) could not assent to so unusual a course being adopted without some strong reason being shown for its necessity. Why, he would ask, was there this great hurry? The noble Lord opposite spoke of the natural end of the Session, but that natural end was usually the middle of August, and not the end of June. There could he no good reason for imposing upon parties who had had their Bills before the House of Commons for six weeks or two months the hardship and inconvenience of having further proceedings suspended until next year. The proposition of the Government was a
  696
  monstrous one, and was not justified by any absolute necessity.
  EARL RUSSELLthought that, according to precedent, after the Appropriation Bill had been introduced, after all the Votes in Supply had been taken, and after all public business had been disposed of, it was not usual to delay the prorogation simply for the sake of private business and appeals. Such was not the case in 1859. The public knew that the present Parliament had been in existence for six years, and that it was not usual to continue seven years, and therefore the general expectation was that there would be a speedy dissolution. The promoters of Private Bills were, therefore, quite aware of the chance to which they were exposed.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the delay suggested was not one of weeks but of days. The case of 1859 was not applicable here, because then it was absolutely necessary to know at once what was the opinion of the country, and then very little inconvenience was produced to the promoters of Private Bills, because they knew that, as the dissolution must necessarily be followed by the meeting of the new Parliament, within forty days their business might be resumed. But now they were told by an authoritative journal, The Times, that Parliament would not meet until February; so that there would be a recess of seven months, during which time all those interested in private business and appeals would be left in a state of anxiety and suspense.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE.

  PETITION.
  LORD LYTTELTON, in presenting a Petition of Clergy and Laity of the Church of England for the increase of the Episcopate, said, the petition was so respectably and numerously signed by about 1,500 persons, clergy and laity in about equal proportions, that he had felt bound to give notice of his intention, in order that in presenting the Petition he might draw the attention of their Lordships to the subject of its prayer. He had not intended to say more than a few words upon the subject; but, as the most reverend Primate had requested him to delay the presentation until he and some of his right rev. Brethren could be in their places that there might be the opportunity for a full expression of opinion on the subject, he thought it would be expected that he

  697
  should do a little more. He would, therefore, briefly advert to the few events of importance which had occurred since last he alluded to the subject. One of those events was the fact that both Houses of Convocation had concurred in opinion that an increase of the Episcopate was desirable, and the Upper House had gone so far as to specify a certain number of new sees which it was desirable should be created, and addressed the Crown to that effect. Thus the opinion of both Houses of Convocation had been in accordance with the views which he had expressed on a former occasion. Some time since a journal, highly distinguished for its zeal in the cause of the Church, had said that Convocation ought to be suppressed, because it did nothing, but confined itself to discussion, and the public cared nothing for what was said in Convocation. The first objection was natural, but not, therefore, reasonable. They first debarred Convocation from going further than discussion, and then sneered at it because it did nothing but discuss. Whether any one cared for what Convocation said was, no doubt, a question of opinion and observation. His own belief was that people did care, and much more than formerly, for the expression of the opinions of Convocation, and that it was precisely for that reason that those who desired that there should be no action by the Church of England, except as a branch of the State, were jealous of the degree of influence which Convocation had obtained. The Upper House had recommended the formation of three additional sees. One was to be the division of the see of Exeter by the severance from it of the county of Cornwall. So far, it was connected with the other main event to which he had alluded—the presentation of an address from the county of Cornwall to one of Her Majesty's Ministers, in favour of a bishop for that county being appointed. He believed that neither the address of Convocation nor the memorial from Cornwall went into the question of how the object should be attained. He did not complain of any Government for declining to undertake to bring in such a measure of its own motion. He himself had presented a petition from the diocese of Winchester in favour of a subdivision of that diocese; but he then expressed his opinion, which he still retained, that it was for those who desired to see such a measure carried into effect in their own
  698
  district to indicate the means to be provided, and to lay the details specifically before Government and Parliament. All these addresses had suggested that one great means of endowment for the new sees should be looked for in the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which used to be called the Episcopal Fund, but which was now merged in the general funds of that body. That was certainly a reasonable suggestion in itself, but yet he did not advocate its adoption in the present state of public feeling. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were now becoming for the first time in their existence a popular body, because they seemed likely to be able really to deal with the spiritual destitution of the country, by increasing out of their general funds a large number of small endowments to a fair and reasonable amount; and he did not maintain that that process could now be interrupted. He certainly could not agree in the answer which had been given by the Home Secretary, or by some clerk in his Office, to these addresses, that railways and the penny post had greatly diminished whatever necessity might have existed for an increase of the Episcopate. It was a wonder he had not added telegraphs, elastic bands, and envelopes. He was ashamed to answer such an argument. Railways of course had increased the facilities of getting about for bishops as well as for everybody else; it did not take so long to get from Exeter to the Land's End as it used to do; but, at the same time, they brought more people to see and consult with the Bishops, and thus increased their work. Had any noble Lord found that the penny post had diminished the labour of correspondence? It made it easier and cheaper, but it multiplied it tenfold. Such an answer was totally unworthy of the subject. Some time ago the late Sir James Graham, in the other House of Parliament, had given a description of a bishop. He said he had to preside at certain committees and to answer certain letters, and that was all. This Grahamic model of what a dignitary of the Church of England ought to be had excited a good deal of remark. But the true theory of a bishop's duties was that he had the cure of souls of the whole of his diocese. There were Bishops who had a personal and accurate knowledge of every parish in their diocess, who had been in them all, could tell what was going on in them, and know many of the leading

  699
  people in them. Some time ago be had seen a complaint from a layman in the diocese of Oxford, in a pamphlet, that he could not go anywhere in the diocese but that the Bishop had been before him; he could not get anywhere out of the reach of ecclesiastical activity. No amount of railways or other accommodation of that kind could increase the powers of the human mind or facilitate the work of a Bishop in dealing with the souls of his diocese. In a diocese like London, where the population was increasing at the rate of 40,000 or 50,000 souls a year, facilities of this kind were not of the slightest advantage and no one could suppose that it was possible for one man to perform the duties of such a diocese in a satisfactory manner. On the general question he had really nothing to add to what he had said formerly. He was not about to attempt again to legislate on the subject, certainly not without receiving assurances of greater support, whether from open enemies or professed supporters, than he had received before. He considered that nobody could legislate on the subject but the Government; but he hoped that serious consideration would be given to the subject, and that the result would be some practical move in the direction pointed at in this petition.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he felt very much indebted to the noble Lord for having brought forward this subject, and was only sorry that the noble Lord did not propose to submit a legislative measure to their Lordships. When he had requested the noble Lord to postpone the presentation of the Petition until his Episcopal Brethren could be present, it was not in the hope of being able to bring forward any additional arguments in favour of the increase of the Episcopate, for, in truth, the arguments had been used so frequently that they would not bear repeating, but because he thought the subject was one deserving of the fullest discussion. It seemed to him very hard that while the population of England had increased four-fold since the time of Henry VIII., every attempt to increase the number of bishops should meet with such opposition. Though it was his earnest wish that the most perfect harmony should exist between the clergy and the Government, of whatever party it might be composed, he could not refrain from saying that the discouragement which had been given by the Go-
  700
  vernment to these efforts had created the greatest disappointment and dissatisfaction. He wished to express the opinion, most emphatically, that in places where the population had multiplied in an extraordinary degree enlarged episcopal supervision should be supplied. As to finding endowments, undoubtedly there were some difficulties to be encountered. He was far, however, from thinking that by devoting a certain proportion of the ecclesiastical revenues under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the endowment of new sees they would be withdrawing from the effectiveness of the funds applied to the relief of spiritual destitution. On the contrary, they found that where a large diocese was divided there followed a large increase in the means provided for supplying spiritual need. If he wished to employ a still more striking exemplification of this truth he should find it in the case of the colonial dioceses. Let their Lordships endeavour to realize what were the duties cast upon the Bishop of Calcutta when the see was first founded, and when his authority extended over the whole of the peninsula of India, Ceylon, and the whole of Australia. Was it possible to suppose that there would have been the increase of churches, of clergy, and of souls gathered into the fold of Christ's Church which they had witnessed, unless there had been successive divisions of a diocese formerly so vast? The Address presented by Convocation prayed for the erection of only three new dioceses—Bodmin or Truro, Southwark and St. Albans—a plan of most moderate dimensions when the great spiritual necessities of the country were taken into consideration. A great anxiety on the subject existed in the districts themselves, and the document which had been entrusted to the noble Lord was signed by persons varying very much in some of their theological views, and comprised representatives of almost every shade of political opinion, and he should be very glad to see legislative provisions introduced for carrying into effect the prayer of the Petition.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that as the most rev. Prelate had made an allusion to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in that matter, he wished to observe that they had not shown themselves indifferent to the wants of the Church in respect to episcopal supervision. He might refer to the creation of the Bishoprics of Ripon and Manchester in support of his assertion.

  701
  There were difficulties in the matter which could not he overlooked, and which it was impossible for them altogether to control.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhoped their Lordships would consider the question for a few minutes before they gave their assent to the prayer of the petition. With every respect for the episcopal bench, there was a higher and a holier interest to be considered—the high and holy interest of the mass of the people. If there was one thing more than another which the people of England believed they had a right to, it was the full development of the parochial system; and yet, except in the rural parishes, that system was at present a delusion. As far as the great towns were concerned, certainly it was not carried into effect. Their Lordships knew that the parochial system was not carried into effect owing to the want of funds, and the most strenuous efforts of the friends of the Church ought in the first instance to be devoted to supplying that great deficiency. The Committee of 1858 moved for by the Bishop of Exeter, speaking in their Report of church accommodation, and referring to the statement in the Census that 58 per cent was sufficient for the entire community, said—
  "Looking at the actual provision made in London, considered in the large and popular sense as the metropolis, it appears that the population being 2,362,236, and the sittings actually provided for by all denominations being only 713,561, or 29·7 per cent, no fewer than 669,514, or not much less than half of the whole number, are required to raise the sittings to 58 per cent of the population."
  Their Lordships knew what was being done in London to extend the parochial system, and there was scarcely a diocess in the kingdom in which some such efforts were not made. For instance, in the diocese of Rochester, it is so stated in an appeal now in circulation, out of 601 benefices, 128 were without a residence for the pastor, and 181 yielded an income of less than £200. Under these circumstances he deprecated any proposal for taking from the Episcopal Fund in the hands of the Commissioners money for the proposed new bishoprics.
  LORD LYTTELTONexplained that he had not advocated practically the taking of the necessary money from the fund alluded to by the noble Earl, though it might be his own private opinion that the money ought to come from that source.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had a right to comment on the proposi-
  702
  tion, even though the noble Lord had not actually called upon the House to adopt it. He would ask their Lordships to bear in mind the private efforts which were being made for the extension of the parochial system. There was the Church Pastoral Aid Society, for the appointment and payment of additional curates in populous parishes, which Society raised with difficulty £40,000 a year. There was the Curates' Aid Society, having the same object in view, and raising about the same amount annually. He ventured to say that there was scarcely a day on which each of their Lordships did not receive one or more letters applying for assistance to Churches. Their Lorpships were aware of the judicious exertions being made by the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Winchester to meet the spiritual destitution of their respective diocesses. Other right rev. Prelates were working in the same direction; but he believed that it would be with difficulty, if at all, they would succeed in raising the necessary amount from private bounty. He remembered Bishop Blomfield saying that he wanted for London alone 250 additional clergy, which, at £200 a year for each, would require an outlay of £50,000 annually. And surely 1,000 additional clergy would be wanted for the Provinces, a demand which, at the same rate, would amount in the whole to £250,000 a year-He would direct their Lordships' attention to a passage in the fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was in these words—
  "That the property and revenues to be vested in and paid to the said Commissioners, under these propositions, be (after a due consideration of the wants and circumstances of the place in which they accrue) applied, except as herein specified, to the purpose of making additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required."
  He would admit, but only for sake of argument, that the episcopal service was insufficient. Better it should be so than that the parochial service should be insufficient. If they could not have an increased episcopacy without spiritual destitution, let them not have it. The late Archbishop of Canterbury had said that he should not be satisfied till he had a fold for every sheep, and a shepherd for every fold. He thought his Grace was right; and he now protested against this petition for an extension of the Episcopacy at the expense of the parochial system.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDgave the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Shaftesbury) credit for the purest motives in the conclusion to which he had come on this subject, and he agreed with him that this question was to be considered with reference to what was for the benefit of the whole of the people. The noble Bail seemed to represent that the petition had been brought forward in the interest of the episcopal order; but that order existed only for the benefit of the mass of the people, and consequently it might be that, in consenting to the increase of the episcopacy, their Lordships would be promoting the interests of the poor and of the mass of the people. Therefore an assertion that their Lordships ought to have regard to the wants of the people was no argument, because the noble Earl must go one step further, and show that by concurring in the prayer of the petition they would not be promoting the interests of the mass of the people, in the most efficient way of doing so. Taking the main question on the lowest ground—for he thought that, in a great country like this, the ground on which the noble Earl had argued it was the lowest—so far from thinking that the establishment of these three new episcopates would draw away one farthing from parochial purposes, it was his opinion that nothing would do so much to stimulate exertion in that direction as this moderate increase in the episcopal order. The experience of our colonies and our experience at home supported his view. The Bishop having charge of an entire diocess could bring the wants of the parishes home to the holders of property and capital in a way which the clergyman of a particular parish could not. If there had not been a Bishop of London, they would not have had the Bishop of London's Fund. The same might be said in respect of the Bishop of Winchester and other members of the Episcopal body. Where would these funds have been if there had been no Bishop to urge and superintend the collection of the money? That, however, was, as he had already observed, arguing the question on the lowest ground; but if they could show that there were large districts of the country which were not sufficiently supplied with Episcopal overlooking, they might say they wanted, by increasing the Bishops, to increase the shepherds under them, and the folds under the shepherds. The efficiency of diocesan management did not depend
  704
  merely on the multiplication of clergy or of churches, important as were these elements of success. It depended more on the spirit in which the parishes were worked, in which the pulpits were filled, in which the cottages were visited; and it is the Bishop who must be the main instrument in encouraging the zealous, in stirring up the faint-hearted, in animating the despondent—he must be to his clergy the example and the mainspring of holy living and dying for the people committed to their care. He believed, therefore, that it would be good and not bad economy if they diverted, not public bounty, but some of the money derived from the Episcopal estates, and founded with it the mother centre of future parishes, instead of devoting it to the parishes themselves. But he would argue the matter upon another ground. When he beheld the constantly growing wealth of Great Britain, when he heard the increase, as he recently had done, reckoned by millions by an eminent capitalist, and when he added thereto his conviction that deep in the hearts of this mighty and wealthy people was the love of their God and their religion, he could not believe that if an appeal were rightly made the necessary funds would be wanting. If he understood his remarks aright his most rev. Brother stated that he would be satisfied if the Government would give an assurance that if private beneficence removed any difficulty with regard to the funds no opposition with respect to the erection of those sees should be encountered in other quarters. He would remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) in respect to the cases to which he had referred that the aspect of things had greatly changed of late years, and that if the offer were repeated he believed it would now be received in a different spirit. He could not help referring, before he sat down, to an allusion which fell from his noble Friend who presented the petition with reference to the pamphlet published in his diocess many years ago, and in a moment of haste. If he did not refer to that allusion it might possibly convey to the public a false impression, and give pain to a most excellent man. He might safely say that he had not in the whole of his diocess a layman who worked with him more heartily or more cordially than the writer of the pamphlet, nor any one who interested himself more sincerely in the lay machinery of the diocess. He must, in conclusion, express a hope that the Government would

  705
  receive with sympathy and give their consideration to any proposal which might be made with reference to this subject.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERexpressed his belief that a moderate extension of the episcopate would be in every way desirable.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYalso believed that a strong case had been made out for a moderate increase of the episcopate. It should be remembered that the powers of the Episcopal Bench had been much curtailed by law, and that it was chiefly by their personal influence that its members exercised authority. He thought it would oven be advantageous if their legal powers were somewhat increased, because according to the present state of the law a parochial clergyman could, if he wished, act in conformity with doctrines not warranted by the Church of England, without the bishop of his diocese being able to interfere. The enormous increase which had of late years taken place in the work imposed upon bishops naturally called for an increase of their number. It was only by personal communication with his clergy and the people of his diocese generally that a bishop could make his influence fully felt; and that communication would be impossible if his jurisdiction extended over vast and densely populated districts. It was therefore desirable that the personal influence of the members of the Episcopal Bench should be increased by the area of their dioceses being curtailed. He could not but hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would give their best and most favourable consideration to any proposal which might be made in this direction; believing as he did that a moderate extension of the episcopate would tend to promote the welfare of the Church.
  Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

CHARITIES OF THE CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER,.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON, in moving
  "That the Digest of the Parochial Charities of the Cities of London and Westminster, referred to in the Eleventh and Twelfth Reports of the Charity Commissioners, be laid before the House,"
  said, that the income of these charities throughout the kingdom was stated in these Reports to be somewhat more than £150,000 a year, their productiveness
  706
  having been considerably augmented of late years. The Reports also stated that the matter was one which would deserve at no distant period the interposition of the Legislature, that the application of these funds might be regulated. The document to which the Commissioners referred entered very minutely into all the charities of the City of London; and a short analysis of it was given in the Appendix to the Report, It appeared that the parochial charities of the City of London amounted altogether to £66,000 a year, of which £26,000 was available for the repair and general purposes of the churches in the City of London. These churches now occupied a very different position from that in which they wore a short time ago. The population of the City of Loudon had greatly decreased; at the same time, the funds available for parochial purposes had very greatly increased. This was so strongly felt by the gentlemen who were interested in various parishes as to the distribution of these funds, that in one instance they had even gone the length of preparing a scheme with the intention of submitting it to the Charity Commissioners, whereby large parochial funds which they believed to be at present wasted, should be applied to middle class education. The powers of the Charity Commissioners, however, even under the Act of 1860, were extremely limited. No movement, as he understood, could be made with reference to any charity which was above £50 per annum, unless a majority of the local trustees themselves applied to the Charity Commissioners for an alteration of their trust. Even in the case of charities of small amount there was a great practical difficulty arising from the power of appeal vested in any person who might consider himself interested in the matter; and as the expenses of these appeals were generally paid out of the charity funds, it was obvious that appeals were likely to be very numerous, even when there was no very great cause for them. What, therefore, had been suggested was that, at some future time, the area throughout which these charities are dispersed, might be extended so as to include not only the City, but the actual London of the present day. Certainly the present state of things was anomalous, and the impression that there were these large funds which were not made useful, was extremely detrimental in all efforts to improve the diocese with reference to the

  707
  parochial system; because it naturally occurred to every one that, before going to other public funds, or appealing very earnestly to private benevolence, they ought to see that the funds actually possessed were thoroughly well used.
  Motion agreed to.
  [Parl. Paper, No. 3461.]

THE BURIAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EBURY, in rising, according to notice,
  "To inquire what steps have been taken in order to remove the Grievance which exists in the present indiscriminate Use of the Burial Service, and to obtain a Revision of the Lectionary of the Established Church; also, if any measures are in contemplation to remedy certain Practices in the Performance of Divine Service of which Complaint is made,"
  said, their Lordships would probably remember that two years ago he proposed a Motion for an Address for a Royal Commission in order to consider the best method of obviating evils arising from the almost indiscriminate use of the Burial Service by law established. On that occasion the gravity of the case was admitted by all who took part in the debate which ensued, and specially by the most rev. the Primate, and three or four other right rev. Prelates who spoke on the subject. He did not, however, press the Motion, because he was glad to leave the matter in the hands of the most rev. Primate, who undertook to consult the clergy and see whether he could not bring forward some measure to remedy the evil. Last year he inquired whether it was his Grace's intention to propose anything to remove the grievance? and his Grace's reply was that he had taken means of consulting the clergy, and finding that an overwhelming majority of them objected to any change whatever, he had nothing to propose. Upon this he (Lord Ebury) gave notice of his intention again to bring the Service before the House, and was about to do so when he received an intimation that the most rev. Prelate thought he saw a way of dealing with the question without altering the Service. He was sure his most rev. Friend would bear him witness that he never concurred in his opinion that this proposed mode of dealing with the subject was practicable; but, so anxious was he to leave the matter in his hands that he at once withdrew his Motion. They were now approaching the termination, not
  708
  only of another Session, but of a Parliament; nothing, that he was aware of, had been done in this direction, and he was sure he would not think it impertinent if he asked his most rev. Friend the question in relation to the Burial Service of which he had given notice? He wished also to include in his question the Lectionary of the Church, the Table of Lessons, which his most rev. Friend also undertook to deal with; and after what passed in this House on Friday last with reference to the statements made by a noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Westmeath) which not only were not denied, but admitted and deplored, he wished to ask further whether his most rev. Friend was able to say if any measures were in contemplation having reference to these matters?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in reply to the three Questions put by his noble Friend, would state, that last year he had intimated his entire willingness, in concurrence with his right rev. Brethren, to acquiesce in the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the question of the revision of the Lectionary; but, at the commencement of this year the Government proposed to introduce a Bill for altering the terms of subscription, and the Home Secretary, with whom these matters generally rested, intimated that one subject of this kind was enough at a time, and at his desire the subject was postponed for another year. With regard to the Question touching the Ritual, he had to answer, that neither he nor his right rev. Brethren had yet in contemplation any measure which would put an end to the practices complained of. And with regard to the Burial Service, he had before intimated his entire disinclination to any alteration in the Service itself; but, if any mode of removing what he admitted to be a grievance, without touching the Service, could be suggested, he should he glad to consider it. He honestly confessed, however, that he did not yet see any mode of doing so.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYasked the most rev. Primate, whether he would be prepared to include among the subjects of inquiry by the Royal Commission, the appointment of which he had recommended, the propriety of altering the following rubric which appeared under the "Order for Morning and Evening Prayer?"—
  "And here it is to be noted that all such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers

  709
  thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward the Sixth."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that he should not like to give a de-finite answer to this question without consulting his right rev. Brethren.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 162.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD WENSLEYDALE LORD WENSLEYDALE moved to insert the following Amendments after Clause 1:—
  In order to entitle any Person, so lending Money, to the Benefit of this Act, the following Particulars shall be registered in the Manner hereinafter provided:

  (1.) The Surname and Christian Name or other Name or Names in full, and the Place or Places of Residence, of the Lender and of the Partner, or, if more than One, the Partners, to whom the Money is so advanced.

  (2.) The Nature of the Trade or Undertaking and of the Place or Places at which it is carried on or to be carried on.

  (3.) The Name of the Firm or Style in which the said Trade or Undertaking is or is to be carried on.

  (4.) The full Particulars of the Contract by which the Advance of Money by way of Loan is agreed to be made.

  The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies shall be the Registrar, and shall keep a separate Register for the Registration of Trades and Undertakings under this Act.
  Every Registration shall be effected within Fifteen Days after the Contract for the Advance of Money to the Person or Persons engaged or about to engage in the Trade or Undertaking shall have been entered into; and no Person lending Money shall be entitled to the Benefit of this Act in respect thereof unless the several Sums specified in the Registration shall he lent to the Person borrowing the same at the Time or at the Times respectively specified in that Behalf in such Registration, or within Fourteen Days thereof.
  No Part of the Money lent under the Provisions of this Act shall be repaid, satisfied, or secured in any Manner before the Expiration of the Time registered as aforesaid in that Behalf.
  Any Person so advancing Money who shall violate the Provisions of the foregoing Sections, or cither of them, shall become and be a General Partner with the Person to whom it is lent.
  Provided also, that such Person or Persons to whom such Advances by way of Loan shall be made shall cause in all Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Cheques, Orders for Money, Bills of Parcels, Invoices, Receipts, Letters, and other Writings used in the Transaction of the Business of the Company to be added the Word, Registered, to his Name or Partnership Name.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he concurred in the Amendments of his noble
  710
  Friend. He (Lord Chelmsford), however, agreed with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Cranworth), in not being able to discover any difference in principle between a person receiving a fixed interest for a sum of money which he advanced, and being paid a fluctuating interest by taking a share of the profits. But he confessed that he had a lingering prejudice in favour of the view that a person who took a share of the profits ought to bear his share of the losses. The Bill before the House would lead to a revolution in the law of partnership, and what might be the effect of it upon the character and commercial credit of the country it was impossible to say. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made an admirable speech the other evening, in moving the second reading of the Bill, and after listening to that speech their Lordships were quite prepared to accept the measure as it stood. But his noble and learned Friend, while he placed the advantages of the Bill in a strong light, took care to throw into the shade all the objections. He (Lord Chelmsford) ventured to submit to their Lordships that when they were about to enter into an untried system of law, such as this Bill proposed, it would not be proper for the Legislature to take such a step without taking care to provide all proper safeguards. A useful lesson might be learnt from their neighbours, the French, amongst whom there has been established for some time the partnership called societé en commandite, in which the general partners are liable for the whole of the society's obligations, while the commanditaire is liable only to the amount of the capital he has put into the concern. Thus there is combined a general and a limited partnership. In a partnership of this kind it is necessary that there should be registration, and in particular that there should be stated the amount advanced to the partnership by the commanditaire. The registered particulars are afterwards affixed to the walls of the Tribunal of Commerce. Certainly if the French think it necessary that there should be registration in order that the public might know the persons with whom they were dealing, â fortiori, in a case where a man is to be allowed to receive a large portion of the profits without being a partner the public should have warning of the terms upon which the business is carried on. Under these circumstances it was impossible for him not to agree with the Amendment of his noble

  711
  and learned Friend, and he trusted that their Lordships would pause before they passed the Bill without some such safeguard as was now proposed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he should be extremely sorry if the good work done in giving this Bill a second reading should be annulled and their progress retraced in the manner proposed by the noble and learned Lord's Amendments. The noble and learned Lord had spoken of the difficulty of divesting our minds of early impressions, and lawyers certainly were not exempt from this difficulty. The truth was that from their earliest education they imbibed the principle that the rule of law was right—they published it in their opinions, they carried it into effect in their judgments, and the feeling increased and intensified until it seemed a kind of sacrilege to question its accuracy. What this Bill proposed was not to reverse a positive principle of law, hut a rule which was founded on a mistaken decision, and which, repeated from mouth to mouth with a kind of superstitious authority, had grown to be reverenced as an irreversible principle of law. What the Bill did say, and what their Lordships, by giving it a second reading, had affirmed, was this—that a trader might be at liberty to borrow, in the same manner as any other person, upon the best terms and conditions he could. If he could borrow on the condition of giving part of his profits, instead of paying a definite rate of interest, then he should be at liberty to do so. What reason or justice could there be in preventing him from doing this? The observations of his two noble and learned Friends came to this— that a great deal of mischief would ensue from this secret dealing—but what it was they did not condescend to tell their Lordships. This was the kind of terrible thing with which children were frightened. At present a trader might borrow at any rate of interest he pleased. The contract was good. The lender need not be known, although the terms might be such as would grind the trader down and prevent him deriving anything like a fair remuneration from his business. That was one instance in which there was no registration; and what evil results had flowed from it? When the usury laws were abolished they had been the idols of many generations, they had been looked on almost as matters of religion, and yet they expired with the approbation of all men. Had any evil results followed from these laws coming to
  712
  an end? A man might be a secret partner now, and no registration was required. The instances referred to by the noble and learned Lord in the French law was that of anonymous partnerships, not partnerships en commandite, and in similar partnerships our own law required the registration of the partners. Registration was required in the case of joint stock companies; but that was an obligation attached to the privilege of a great number of individuals being associated together, none of whose names would otherwise be known to the world, and it was not done by reason of fear, but for the sake of the partnership, which would not get credit if no one knew of whom it was composed. What was proposed by his noble and learned Friend would, in fact, be utterly destructive to the trade. Noble Lords were aware how extremely sensitive credit was, and if at the same time that the trader were given the means of borrowing money on fair terms, the obligation were imposed on him of publishing to the world that he had been obliged to borrow money, how long would his credit last? The Bill might as well be put behind the fire at once if it was to have a condition of this kind annexed to it. In the House of Commons this very point was very anxiously discussed by men of the greatest mercantile experience, and upon an examination of the arguments one way and the other no one could fail to see that it had been demonstrated that the proposal was utterly at variance with the principle of the Bill, and would destroy it, and that there was no ground whatever for requiring it. He could see no reason why a restriction should be placed on the liberty of the trader to borrow which was not placed on anybody else, and he hoped their Lordships would not sanction the Amendment.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he had frequently heard the noble and learned Lord recommend the House to disregard the opinions held in past times, but he confessed for himself that he did feel some respect for those who had gone before him, and for the principles they had laid down. His noble and learned Friend was far above this feeling. His noble and learned Friend said, the present rule was founded on a mistake; but why were they to assume that all the learned authorities of past times had been unable to detect the mistake, and that it was left for the present age to discover for the first time the true principle of action? Were they of the present time to arrogate

  713
  to themselves that sort of authority that would entitle them to disregard everything that had been established before their time? Then the noble and learned Lord told them, that if they admitted the Amendment they might as well put the Bill behind the fire; but let their Lordships consider what was the object of the Amendment. The object of the Amendment was simply to give to the public that kind of knowledge that would be sufficient to prevent men from embarking their money without knowing what security they had. His noble and learned Friend said, that what was proposed to deal with was not in effect a partnership; but he (Lord St. Leonards) must say that by the law of England, as it now stood, it was a partnership. By this Bill they proposed to allow for the first time a trader to allow another to take a share of his profits without assuming the liability of a partner. What they should guard against was that a man might trade apparently for himself, whereas in reality he was only trustee of the profits for another person. Under the proposed law a man might advance money to a trader on condition that he should receive three-fourths of the profits. The trader would then get credit from others who might think he was in a sound position, being unaware of the private arrangement with the lender of the capital. He could assure their Lordships that there was a great feeling of apprehension in the country in reference to this Bill, but there had not been full time for the expression of that opinion. He had himself presented two petitions to their Lordships, from the Chamber of Commerce of Dundee and the Chamber of Commerce and Merchants of Edinburgh, and both petitions contained exactly the same complaints of the absence of publicity in such transactions as were about to be authorized. He had also received a letter from a gentleman who had been in a large way of business, and who had establishments both in London and Lyons. The gentleman took a warm interest in this Bill. He wrote—
  "To my mind there is something frightful in contemplating the fraud, litigation, and uncertainty that must ensue from the Bill if it is passed in its present shape. An English partnership will he as uncertain and equivocal as a Scotch marriage, and commercial credit will he much endangered."
  He added—
  "Only ten days ago I showed the proposed Bill to the Judge of the Tribunal of Commerce in
  714
  Lyons, and he shook his head and held up his hands in amazoment."
  He (Lord St. Leonards) spoke in the interest of the trader, when he advocated a certain amount of publicity in these transactions. The usury laws, which had been referred to, were not analogous to the present case; they affected all classes, and not the trading class only. Several recent Acts of Parliament had established the principle which he sought to introduce into this Bill—that of registering liabilities, so that all the world might know the solvency or insolvency of the man with whom they were dealing. If a man, for instance, gave a warrant of attorney to confess judgment his creditor must publish that document by registering it. The wholesale traders were beginning to feel that if this Bill passed they would not know whom to trust, or whether a man was carrying on a business for his own interest or in the interest of other parties. A more important measure, as regarded trade and commerce, than that before their Lordships had never been introduced into Parliament, and time would tell whether the warning uttered from his side of the House was well or ill founded.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 14; Not-contents 39: Majority 25.
  Amendment negatived.

  CONTENTS.

  Derby, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Lei-trim.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Denman, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Wensleydale, L. [Teller.]

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Wynford, L.

  Churston, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Eversley, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Falmouth, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Abinger, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Belper, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  De Grey, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Grey, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Nelson, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Romney, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  715

  Granard, L, (E. Granard.)

  Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

  Hastings, L,

  Stanley of Alderley, L

  Leigh, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Wentworth, L.

  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which had become infinitely more important and necessary for the protection of the public, in consequence of the rejection of those safeguards which his noble and learned Friend had brought forward for the registration of the particular contract into which a party entered for the loan of money. A person advancing money to carry on a business would always have access to the books. If the concern flourished, he would be content with the profits he had stipulated to receive; but if he saw there was danger, and the trade was likely to prove a failing One, he would immediately withdraw his capital, render himself safe, and leave to the other creditors a man of no substance for the satisfaction of their debts. He therefore proposed that if within twelve months after the lender had withdrawn his money, bankruptcy, or insolvency, or a composition with creditors should take place, or the person conducting the business should die insolvent, the money withdrawn should be liable to the debts of the concern, or so much thereof as the assets of the partnership should be insufficient to satisfy.
  An Amendment moved, in Page 1, Line 14, after ("such") insert the following clause:—
  "If the Lender of such Loan shall withdraw the same or any Part thereof from the Trade or Undertaking, and within a Year afterwards the Trader shall be adjudged bankrupt, or shall take the Benefit of any Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, or shall enter into any Agreement to pay his Creditors less than Twenty Shillings in the Pound, or shall die in insolvent Circumstances, the Sum so withdrawn shall be applicable to the Payment of the Debts and Liabilities incurred in carrying on such Trade or Undertaking."—(Lord Chelmsford.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYopposed the Amendment as unnecessary. The principle of the Bill having been already affirmed, it was not, in his opinion, competent to the noble and learned Lord to treat as a partner a person who lent money out of his share in the profits. Sufficient security would be given to the public by the clause which provided that the claims of the lender should, in case of bankruptcy, be postponed until all other creditors had been satisfied.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that in the case which he had suggested the lender would have withdrawn his money, and therefore would not be a creditor or have any claim to be postponed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the existing law as to fraudulent preferences would be sufficient to attain the object which the noble and learned Lord had in view. He objected to the provision that money withdrawn within twelve months of bankruptcy should be recovered by the creditors, that it was possible that none of those who were creditors at the time of the bankruptcy might have been creditors when the money was withdrawn.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 5 (In case of Bankruptcy, &c, Lender not to rank with other Creditors).
  On Motion of Lord CHELMSFORD, the words "or such Widow or Child"struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  ROCHDALE VICARAGE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate the Appointment of a Vicar or Incumbent to the Vicarage of the Parish Church of Rochdale in the County of Lancaster and in the Diocese of Manchester—Was presented by The Earl of CHICHESTER; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 213.)

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1864 —Was presented by The Duke of SOMERSET; read la; to be printed. (No. 214.)
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.