Lords Sitting of 14 June 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—First Reading—Transubstantiation, &c., Declaration Abolition٭ (157); Princess Mary of Cambridge's Annuity٭ (158); Carriage and Deposit of Dangerous Goods٭ (159).
Second Reading—Rights of Dramatizing Works of Fiction (142), negatived; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland)٭ (115).
Committee— Ecclesiastical Commission (52 & 149); Labouring Classes' Dwellings (Ireland)٭ (128); Fishery Piers and Harbours (Ireland)٭ (130); Belfast Constabulary٭ (133); Indian Prize Money٭ (140).
Report—Public Schools٭ (143); Prosecution Expenses٭ (155); Labouring Classes' Dwellings (Ireland)٭ (128); Fishery Piers and Harbours (Ireland)٭ (130); Belfast Constabulary٭ (133); Indian Prize Money٭ (140); Charitable Trusts Deeds Enrolment٭ (156).
Third Reading—Drainage Maintenance (Ireland)٭ (151), and passed.

TOTNES ELECTION—GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION — REIGATE ELECTION — LANCASTER ELECTION.
The QUEEN'S Answers to Addresses of both Houses reported by The LORD CHAMBERLAIN.
RIGHTS OF DRAMATIZING WORKS OF FICTION BILL—(The Lord Lyttelton.)

  (NO. 142.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LYTTELTON,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, he need not trouble their Lordships at any length, because he was sure that the object was one which would have the general approval of their Lordships; and moreover the subject was one on which he did not pretend to any special information. It had, however, been presented to his notice in a manner he could not disregard. He was requested to give his attention to the subject by an authoress of great distinction connected with his own county, with whose works no doubt many of their Lordships were familiar—he referred to Mrs. Henry Wood, the authoress of East Lynne. Before, however, alluding to the case of Mrs. Wood he would make a few remarks on the general subject. He would remind the House that the law of copyright was one wholly founded upon statute, dating from the time of Queen Anne. The first Act gave to authors of books and their heirs the sole right of publication for fourteen years, and if the author outlived the expiration of that term the right was extended to another fourteen years. That was the general state of the law up to the present day with two alterations and extensions. By the 54 Geo. III. the period was extended from fourteen to twenty-eight years, and in the event of the author being alive at the expiration of that time the copyright was extended over the remainder of his life. And lastly, within the memory of many noble Lords, the Act received its present extension after a long contest, by the energetic perseverance of Mr. Justice Talfourd. There had also been some special legislation, not immaterial to the subject of the present Bill, with reference to particular points. Dramatic productions were the subject of a special law passed in the 3 & 4 Will. IV., a long time previous to Serjeant Talfourd's Act. This Act conferred the same privileges upon the authors of plays not printed and published as had previously been conferred upon authors by the 54 Geo. III., and by Serjeant Talfourd's Act the same privileges were extended to musical compositions. By several Acts passed in the reigns of George II. George III., George

  361
  IV., and Queen Victoria, similar privileges were bestowed upon engravings, drawings, and photographs. These statutes being of a restrictive and penal character, had always been strictly construed by the Courts of Law. Serjeant Talfourd's Act applied distinctly to dramatic pieces, but not to the adaptation of books of fiction, and their alteration into another form. It would have been no very unreasonable interpretation of that Act to hold that it had that application; but by various decisions of the Courts of Law it had been held that the production and acting of novels was not prohibited, and that persons had a right to dramatize works of fiction. What he now asked for was, he believed, but a fair and reasonable extension of the principle which had been acknowledged in other directions. As to the particular case to which he had referred, he had a statement from Mrs. Henry Wood, in which she complained that she heard a short time ago that East Lynne was being brought out at one of the theatres, and she applied for remedy. The person who dramatized the work referred her to the lessee of the theatre where it was to be performed; and he, averring that he had a perfect right to produce the piece, declined to withdraw it, or even give her a share of the gains it might bring. Mrs. Wood felt it was a great injustice that the products of her time and brains should be taken in this way; but, as was the case with other authors, her chief grievance was, not the pecuniary wrong, but the fact that the piece was put upon the stage in an offensive, vulgar, and inaccurate manner. His Bill simply proposed that when the copyright of any work of fiction had not been sold or disposed of the exclusive right of dramatizing such work and causing it to be performed should be lodged in the author.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Lyttelton.)
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, he thought the protection to authors went far enough already. He thought the term "Dramatizing" was very vague, and that the proposal would give rise to a great deal of litigation. This was a sort of petty legislation to which he thought they ought not to have recourse. He did not think that authors should protect themselves in this way. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(The Lord Taunton.)
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he hoped to be able to persuade their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill. He considered it a necessary complement of the Bill of 1842 which he had himself been instrumental in carrying through the House of Commons, although it had been attributed to Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, who was not in the House at the time. Practical hardships arose under the present state of the law for which he thought a remedy ought to be provided. Authors now suffered in purse and in fame. Authors suffered in purse because when a work of fiction was profitable, a drama founded on it was frequently profitable also, and that profit ought to belong to the author; and they suffered in fame by their works being badly dramatized. If their Lordships were prepared to stand by the principle of the Act of 1842, he defied them to state any tangible ground why they should not agree to this measure. He did not see why they should give protection in one shape and refuse it in another. He need not remind their Lordships that several conventions had been entered into with foreign countries, based on the Copyright Act, and if this Bill passed, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to include dramatized works in those conventions.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not rise on behalf of the Government, but to express his individual opinion that the Bill was unnecessary. The noble Earl who had just sat down regarded the measure as a necessary complement of the Act of 1842; and that those who were in favour of the one must necessarily be in favour of the other. But in his (Earl Granville's) view that was not the case. The Bill appeared to him to be likely to injure every person whom it was intended to benefit. With regard to authors, in nine cases out of ten they would be benefited, for by dramatizing a work a desire was created among the public to read it; and with regard to the public, it would be a great hardship upon the playgoing public if play writers were to be precluded from founding dramas upon successful works of fiction. Very few of the plots of dramas were original; undoubtedly the plots of Shakspeare's plays were not invented by himself. Much had been said lately on the subject of patents. Now, there was this great difference between patents and books, that

  363
  while in the former case there might be a monopoly, in the latter there could be none, for as soon as a book was published the world in general was at liberty to use in every sort of literary production the ideas which it contained. The only part of the existing law to which he objected was the right of translation, which he thought had operated injuriously. He could not, however, support a proposal to prevent any person dramatizing any part of a work. For these reasons he would advise his noble Friend to withdraw the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that having examined the Bill that morning, he was of opinion that it would open a most fruitful source of interminable litigation. It proposed to give to authors during their lifetime and seven years after the sole and exclusive right of dramatizing, or causing to be represented at any theatre, any novel, romance, poem, or other work of fiction of which they were the authors. The argument in support of the existing law had always been that, though it gave an author a copyright in his work, it did not prohibit anything founded upon that work which was new and original in its character. Now, nothing could be more different from a novel than a drama founded upon that novel, or, as generally happened, upon some particular portion of it; and, as his noble Friend had remarked, there were very few plays the plots of which were original. It was alleged that it was unfair that an author should not get the benefit of such a drama. But he might disapprove dramas altogether, and was he to prevent anybody from doing that which he would not do himself? Moreover, the interpretation of the Bill would cause endless litigation. A "poem," he supposed, every one might understand; but what was a "novel" or a "romance," and what was a "work of fiction?" Why, it had been said of M. Thiers' histories that they were works of fiction. He hoped his noble Friend would not press the Bill to the second reading, for he was quite certain that its provisions would be as impossible to carry into effect as they were contrary to all reason.
  On Question, that ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided: Contents 11; Not-Contents 89: Majority 78.
  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this Day Six Months.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Boyle, L.(E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Cranworth, L.(L. Chancellor.)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

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

  Devonshire, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Normanby, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Airlie, E.

  Chichester, E.[Teller.]

  Mostyn, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Oxenfoord,L.(E.Stair.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Ponsonby, L.(E. Bessborough.)

  Granville, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Sandys, L.

  Minto, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Morley, E.

  Somerhill, L.(M. Clanricarde.)

  Russell, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Sundridge, L.(D. Argyll.)

  Halifax, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Taunton, L.

  London, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, Archp.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Marlborough, D.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Oxford, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

  Brooke and Warwick,E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Clifton.L.(E.Darnley.)

  Derby, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Devon, E.

  Denman, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D.Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Feversham, L.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Ellenborough, E.

  Hastings, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Pomfret, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Romney, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Silchester, L.(E. Longford.)

  Clancarty, V.(E. Clancarty.)

  Southampton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Walsingham, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Wentworth, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Wynford, L.

  (NO. 142.) SECOND READING.

    ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
    (The Earl Russell.)
    (Nos. 52, 149.) COMMITTEE.
    Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
    LORD REDESDALEcalled the attention of their Lordships to the second clause, which proposed to appoint a second Church Estates Commissioner with a salary of £1,000 a year. He saw no reason for any such appointment—it could only have been done with the view of creating a nice place for somebody. Why should the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners be diminished to pay a second Commissioner?
    House in Committee.
    Clause 1 (Meaning of the word "Commissioners").
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK,in answer to the remark of the Chairman of Committees, said, that it became necessary to have the attention of another paid Commissioner, inasmuch as the funds to be administered by the Ecclesiastical Commission had grown enormously. They originally amounted to only £130,000 a year, but they had increased beyond all expectation till they now reached £500,000.
    THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHremarked that if either Italy or Austria had possessed half the wealth of the Ecclesiastical Commission they would have been at war six weeks ago.
    THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he thought it a strange proceeding to appoint another Commissioner with a large salary at the moment that a Select Committee of the House of Commons had reported that the constitution of the whole Commission was objectionable. No one of the recommendations of the Select Committee had as yet been carried into effect. He hoped their Lordships would not pass the clause.
    THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he was not aware that anything had been stated to show that the business of the Commission required an additional paid Commissioner. There was an analogous case of management of property by a Commission—the Commission of Woods and Forests—the Crown revenue had increased considerably in the course of the last half century, and yet no one had ever proposed to add another paid Commissioner to that body.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHstated that the reason why it was proposed to give a salary to the additional Commissioner
    366
    was that the Bill proposed to effect certain changes in the mode of conducting the business of the Ecclesiastical Commission. These changes, although they appeared to be desirable, were in his opinion, on some grounds open to serious objections, more particularly as regarded the provisions in the 4th clause, which proposed to vest almost all the most important functions now exercised by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the Estates Committee; in which case the Commission would have nothing to do, and would be little better than a caput mortuum. He thought that it would be better to leave these-questions to be disposed of by the general body of the Commissioners, and then the appointment of another paid Commissioner would be wholly unnecessary. Even if this suggestion were not agreed to he trusted that their Lordships would not agree to give a salary to the second Estates Commissioner.
    THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsuggested the postponement of Clause 2 until Clause 4 had been disposed of.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBYdefended the Ecclesiastical Commission from the attacks which, he said, had been made upon it, observing that it had in the administration of the Common Fund in its hands effected a great deal of good throughout the country. The result of the wise economy which it had practised in the management of the estates under its control was that instead of having, as the original Commission expected to have, £130,000 a year, he believed it had £400,000, which enabled it to make the most liberal response to local claims, and to contribute largely to Ecclesiastical charities. So long as the Commissioners had these enormous revenues to manage, he trusted they would not shrink from giving them the assistance necessary to administer them properly; and in this view he was of opinion that the additional paid Commissioner was necessary.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHexplained that at present the general body of the Commissioners referred to the Estates Commissioners many duties which it was optional with them to perform or not; but there would no longer be an option if this Bill passed, and therefore it would be necessary to appoint a second Estates Commissioner with a salary.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYbelieved that there would be great difficulty in finding a person to discharge the duties in question efficiently unless a sufficient

    367
    salary was attached to his office. A Member of the other House of Parliament, Mr. Bouverie, declined, he understood, to undertake the performance of those duties because the weight of the business was too great.
    THE BISHOP OF OXFORDregretted that he had been unable to attend the Select Committee when the Bill was under its consideration. He believed that the real difficulty in the matter arose not from the amount of work to be done so much as from the fact that under the existing law it was necessary that three Commissioners should be present to constitute a quorum. If that provision were repealed, and two were declared to be a sufficient number to form a quorum, then the business might very well be transacted by two paid Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman to whom the most rev. Prelate referred (Mr. Bouverie) was one of the unpaid Commissioners, and he very naturally objected merely to go to the Office and take his seat with the view of making a quorum when there was no further need of his services. There was not too much work for two paid Commissioners to do, and no necessary accession of weight or character would be gained by the appointment of another paid Commissioner. He believed that there was no necessity for paying a third Estates Commissioner, and that the case might be met by reducing the quorum of the Estates Committee. The abstraction of another £1,000 a year from the fund for the augmentation of poor livings would be very severely felt, and it should not be done unless it was absolutely necessary. He believed that the business of the Commissioners was likely to decrease rather than to increase, because their business had now been got into good train. Parliament had placed upon the Estates Commissioners the duty of managing the estates only; but the 4th clause of this Bill would impose upon them as a duty the consideration of various questions arising under the Church Building Act. He thought them very objectionable and he trusted their Lordships would reject the clause; and then the new paid Commissioner would be objectionable.
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he thought the duties had become too great to be performed by two paid Commissioners.
    EARL RUSSELLwas understood to support the appointment of a third Commissioner as being necessary under the circumstances.
    After further discussion, which was imperfectly heard,
    Clause postponed.
    Clause 3 postponed.
    Clause 4 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 94 ss. 8 and 12, to extend to proceedings of Ecclesiastical Commissioners in certain cases).
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKthought that the Bishop of the diocese was naturally a most competent person to pronounce an opinion on the question as to what parishes needed subdivision and what new district churches were required in his diocese; and the Bishop had the assistance of his right rev. Brethren as a kind of council. But it was now proposed to take away from the Bishops that which so essentially belonged to their duties, and reduce them to a mere nonentity, and to say that a body of laymen sitting in the next room should have these functions handed over to them. The Members of the Episcopal Bench could not be expected to give their assent to a measure so absurd and so extremely injurious. He could conceive of no reason for proposing the change except that a good deal had been said in the House of Commons against so many Bishops being on the Board. But, if the matters dealt with under the Bill did not concern the Bishops, nothing did.
    Moved to omit Clause 4.—(The Archbishop of York.)
    THE EARL OF CHICHESTERspoke in favour of retaining the clause, which he declared had been approved by the Bishops.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that could not have been so. He had never been consulted upon the matter.
    THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he had consented to the introduction of the clause on the ground that it would save much time. It was merely a question whether things should be done once or twice—first, in Committee and afterwards by the general Board.
    THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, there ought to be some communication between the Estates Committee and the diocesan, and thought the Committee should come to a conclusion under the consciousness that what they decided would be re-considered by the Board.
    THE EARL OF DERBYstated, that he should vote for the rejection of the clause. On Question, "That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 76: Majority 42.
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 5 (Compensation to Ecclesiastical Corporations for Loss from the restriction of the power of Leasing).
    On Motion of The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, the words—
    "And in case any difference or dispute shall arise as to the amount of such compensation the same shall be referred to arbitration in the usual way,"
    added to the clause.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 6 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Certain Payments and Conveyances and Assignments to he made by instruments of Commissioners instead of Orders in Council).
    THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that when this system was first established every act of the Commission was submitted for the approval of the Queen in Council. It was very seldom that that assent was refused, but there was one such occasion, because the thing recommended was illegal. It was now proposed to alter this regulation; but the mere knowledge that these subjects were to be submitted to a second tribunal acted as a check upon irresponsibility. He protested against making the power of the Commissioners absolute in the disposition of this mass of property.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the object of the clause was to save expense. An Order in Council cost £25.
    THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that the matter should not be looked at as a question of money, but as one of security to the public. He questioned whether such a clause would ever pass the House of Commons.
    LORD LYTTELTON,while agreeing with the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) as to the advantage of the check afforded by the Privy Council, thought that the question should depend upon whether or not the power referred to was of a Ministerial or of an Executive character.
    THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he quite agreed with the opinion that the supervision of the Queen in Council was of great importance as a check upon the Commissioners, but it was hardly fair to put the Commission to the expense of £25 each time the intervention of the Council was required.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 15 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 26 (Commissions may assign certain Stipends to be payable out of the Estates of Cathedral Churches, &c).
    THE EARL OF CHICHESTER moved the omission of Clause 26, which he had opposed in the Select Committee which inserted it. He objected to the unlimited power it gave to the Commissioners to augment the incomes of the deans and minor canons of the different chapters.
    Moved to omit Clause 26.—(The Earl of Chichester.)
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he thought the clause was one of the chief objects of the Bill, as it would enable the Commissioners to do justice where justice was necessary. The Ecclesiastical Commission was founded for two purposes—one of which was to provide for the spiritual wants of the country, by which was understood the proper payment of ministers wherever they were needed. So long as minor canons did their duty they ought to be properly remunerated.
    On Question, "That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 42; Not-Contents 18: Majority 24.
    Clause agreed to.

    CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, Archp.

    Verulam, E.

    Cranworth,L.(L. Chancellor.)

    Hawarden, V.

    Lifford, V.

    Sidmouth, V.

    York, Archp.

    Bangor, Bp.

    Rutland, D.

    Oxford, Bp.

    Ripon, Bp.

    Bath, M. [Teller.]

    Winchester, Bp.

    Salisbury, M.

    Boyle, L.(E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Amherst, E.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

    Belmore, E. [Teller.]

    Carnarvon, E.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Derby, E.

    Denman, L.

    Devon, E.

    Kilmaine, L.

    Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

    Lyttelton, L.

    Ravensworth, L.

    Redesdale, L.

    Ellenborough, E.

    Saltoun, L.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Silchester, L.(E. Longford.)

    Nelson, E.

    Orkney, E.

    Southampton, L.

    Powis, E.

    Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

    Romney, E.

    Russell, E.

    Wentworth, L.

    Selkirk, E.

    372

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Devonshire, D.

    Dufferin and Claneboye.)

    Somerset, D.

    Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

    Chichester, E. [Teller.]

    Fortescue, E.

    Foley, L.

    Granville, E.

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

    Harrowby, E.

    Overstone, L.

    Halifax, V.

    Ponsonby, L.(E. Bessborough.)

    Sydney, V. [Teller.]

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Carlisle, Bp.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Talbot de Malahido, L.

    Clandeboye, L. (L.

    Clause 27 agreed to.
    Clause 28 (Cathedral and Collegiate Chapters may prepare new Codes of Statutes).
    THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEopposed the clause on the ground that the subject it dealt with was so important that it ought not to be introduced into a Bill of this kind. It would be pregnant with the most serious consequences to the cathedrals themselves, as it would tend to introduce diversity of practice in different cathedrals.
    THE BISHOP OF OXFORDhoped the Committee would not take the advice of his right rev. Brother. The evils pointed out were what the clause specially guarded against, and there was every conceivable check put in their way. The statutes were to have no effect until the approval of the Visitor, the Archbishop of the Province, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and of Her Majesty in Council had been given. It was desirable that there should be a power given to these bodies to meet difficulties as they arose. Such statutes ought to vary, and unless they varied they would not meet the requirements of the people.
    THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he trusted the clause would pass, because it was very desirable the cathedrals should rid themselves of old statutes, many of which were quite unsuited to modern times, and were more honoured in the breach than the observance.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKpointed out an old cathedral statute which allowed the Dean to give days of recreation, and this statute was so interpreted as to set at nought the Act of Parliament which required residence.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 29 agreed to.
    Clause 30 (The Annual Incomes of Deans and Canons of Cathedral Churches in Wales).
    THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was glad the Welsh Deans were to receive an addition to their incomes. There were other persons, however, who had grievances besides the Welsh Deans, and he should like the consideration which had been shown extended to others.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Salary to be paid to the Second Church Estates Commissioners. Church Estates Commissioner may sit in the House of Commons).
    THE BISHOP OF OXFORD moved to omit the clause, with the view to substitute a provision making two instead of three Commissioners a quorum, and thus avoiding the necessity for a third and salaried Commissioner. The only objection that could be urged to this was that when only two Members were present they might not agree, but any question on which this happened would stand over till a larger number were present.
    Moved to omit Clause 2.—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKthought that, considering the large number of estates now under the control of the Commissioners, the annual produce having increased since 1850 from £100,000 to £400,000, it was only right that an additional person should be appointed, with a sufficient salary, to do what could not be properly done by volunteers.
    On Question, That the said clause stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 26: Majority 5.
    Clause struck out.

    CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, Arcbp.

    London, Bp.

    Cranworth, L.(L.Chancellor.)

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

    York, Archp.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Somerset, D.

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

    Chichester, E. [Teller.]

    Granville, E.

    Foley, L. [Teller.]

    Russell, E.

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

    Halifax, V.

    Lyttelton, L.

    Sydney, V.

    Saye and Sele, E.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Bangor, Bp.

    Wentworth, L.

    374

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Rutland, D.

    Hawarden, V.

    Lifford, V.

    Bath, M. [Teller.]

    Sidmouth, V.

    Salisbury, M.

    Carlisle, Bp.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Oxford, Bp.

    Belmore, E. [Teller.]

    Ripon, Bp.

    Carnarvon, E.

    Winchester, Bp.

    Derby, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Nelson, E.

    Denman, L.

    Orkney, E.

    Redesdale, L.

    Powis, E.

    Saltoun, L.

    Romney, E.

    Silchester, L.(E. Longford.)

    Selkirk, E.

    Verulam, E.

    Wynford, L.

    The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 160.)
    House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.