Lords Sitting of 21 June 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (166); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (167); Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act Amendment* (168).
Committee—Houses of Parliament* (136); National Gallery Enlargement* (150); Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 3)* (161).
Report—County Courts Acts Amendment* (169); National Gallery Enlargement* (150); Houses of Parliament* (136).
Third Reading—Increase of the Episcopate (129); Bunhill Fields Burial Ground* (105); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (119), and passed.

GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBURG—THE RECENT DEBATE.—EXPLANATIONS.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, the debate of last evening had placed the question of the responsibility which had been incurred by this country by the treaty relative to the Duchy of Luxemburg in an eminently unsatisfactory position, on account of the contradictious in the statements of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and therefore he should take the liberty, on Tuesday next, of asking the First Lord of the Treasury what sense and what construction Her Majesty's Government placed upon the words "collective guarantee" in the second article of the treaty.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am somewhat surprised at the notice of the noble Lord. I stated last evening the interpretation

239
which we put upon the treaty, and I have nothing further to add. Of course, if the noble Lord wishes to make a Motion on the subject, he is quite at liberty to do so.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, the spirit of the language used by the noble Earl at the head of the Government and that used by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was so contradictory that he should bring the subject again under the attention of their Lordships.

ABYSSINIA—IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.—QUESTIONS.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFErose to call the attention of their Lordships to the case of the English subjects captive in Abyssinia, with the view of asking some Questions on the subject. The matter had been brought under the notice of the House last Session, but since then the condition of the unfortunate captives had remained unchanged. It was not his intention to go into the past circumstances of the case, or to enter into the question as to what was the original cause of the calamity which had overtaken these unfortunate persons, and whether any fault was attributable to Her Majesty's Government, It was enough for him to consider that these persons who were envoys from Her Majesty, bearing a letter in her own handwriting, and who had been sent out under the express authority of the Government to effect the liberation of the prisoners, were still captives. To show their Lordships what was the deplorable condition of these unfortunate persons, he would read an extract from a work recently published by Dr. Beke. He said—
"Captain Cameron, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul in Abyssinia, two missionaries of the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews, and several other British subjects and persons connected with British missionary societies—men, women, and children—have been for three years the captives of Theodore, Emperor of Abyssinia, Her Majesty's representative and several of these captives have further been subjected to the greatest indignities, and even to cruel torture, and they have long remained in prison, chained hand and foot, herded together with the lowest criminals; while, to add to the difficulties and disgrace of all parties concerned, Mr. Rassam, the envoy sent by the Government of this country, with a letter signed by Her Majesty's own hand, with a view to effect the liberation of the unfortunate persons who have so long lingered in captivity, has himself been thrown into prison, together with the members of his suite."
He could not consider any subject better
240
calculated to rouse the spirit of the people of England. That a number of English subjects should be at the mercy and caprice of a person like this Emperor of Abyssinia came home to our English feelings with a force that could hardly be exaggerated. Not only was our common humanity interested in this case, but our national honour and dignity were also at stake. There was a time when it used to be said that England, if she did no right to other nations, would suffer no wrong to be done to herself; and no doubt the epigram expressed pretty accurately the spirit of our policy at that time; but now the case seemed to be reversed, for at no previous period had so much sensitiveness been displayed with regard to the rights of other nations, and so much solicitude displayed to abstain from anything that could give them offence. He should be exceedingly sorry in any way to be the medium of placing this country in danger of war; but there were certain plain duties inseparable from our position among nations which could not be abandoned, without incurring even greater risk of the danger so justly feared. If upon repeated occasions we exhibited a want of sensibility to that which our interest or our honour required, we should soon discover by fresh insults offered to us that no nation can afford to brook indignities, and we might some day be called on to vindicate our honour at vastly greater cost. He therefore begged to ask the noble Earl at the head of the Government, What were the number, quality, and condition of the British captives in Abyssinia at the period of the latest reliable information received respecting them by Her Majesty's Government; what steps, if any, had been taken for their liberation since the close of the last Session of Parliament; was it in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government to adopt any further measure for that purpose either alone or in concert with any other Government; and, was it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to present any additional correspondence on the subject of our relations with King Theodore to the two Houses of Parliament?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that on receipt of intimation as to the question which his noble Friend (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) proposed to put, he had thought it his duty to ask what further information, if any, had been received at the Foreign Office, with a view of enabling him to answer those Questions specifically.

241
The subject was one of very deep and painful interest, and he wished it were in his power to give any assurance that the steps which had been taken were likely to lead to any satisfactory result. He was sorry to say that, according to the latest accounts, the captives remained in the same; state; and, although there was no reason to believe that they were treated with any fresh or extraordinary cruelties, they were still retained in imprisonment. In answer to the first Question put by his noble Friend as to the number, quality, and condition of the prisoners, he had to state that the number reported to Mr. Rassam on the 4th of April, 1866, as being in confinement, consisted of Consul Cameron, two Missionaries, Mr. Rassam and his suite, and several others, amounting in all to eighteen persons. In the autumn of last year intelligence was transmitted to this country that King Theodore had liberated the whole of the captives, and that they were placed at the disposal of Mr. Rassam; but, notwithstanding that this statement was made in a letter to the Queen, he not only failed to release the prisoners, but detained Mr. Rassam and his suite, which included two or three gentlemen of the Indian service as well. On receiving the assurance of the Emperor that the captives would be released, a number of presents had been sent out in accordance with his desire, together with a number of English artizans who were willing to go into Abyssinia to render their services on certain public works. But, when it was found that Mr. Rassam and the other gentlemen were detained, notwithstanding the assurance of King Theodore, instructions were given to Her Majesty's representative to take charge of the presents and not to permit the artizans to proceed further than Massowah, and on no account to give up one or the other except on the actual release of the captives, there being reason to believe that the object of the Emperor was to get possession of the presents and workmen and still to retain the captives in his own hands. It was known that the letter written by the Queen to King Theodore had been received; but no official reply had yet been received, consequently the presents had all been detained, and the artizans had returned, having abandoned the idea of going to Abyssinia. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had thought it proper to write to the Emperor in the name of the Queen requiring that the captives should forthwith be given up, and informing
242
him that if, within three months, they had not all left Abyssinia the presents would be returned to England. To that last communication no reply had yet been received, and till some further information was obtained, Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to state what course they would pursue. He might, however, state that any course which was adopted would be taken by themselves alone, and not in conjunction with any other Power. The Government would be very willing to lay any further correspondence upon the table; but in whatever course they adopted they must be guided by considerations affecting the safety of the prisoners. It was perfectly well known that nothing passed in the Parliament, or in this country, intelligence of which was not transmitted to King Theodore, and it was at the greatest possible risk that any opinions were expressed, or any discussions held in public, lest these should be conveyed in a shape unfavourable to the prisoners. He trusted their Lordships would therefore forgive him if he did not venture to enter into any further explanation than that which he had already given of the actual state of the relations between King Theodore and Her Majesty.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEasked whether, at the date of the latest information received, the captives were kept in chains?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that sometimes the prisoners were chained and sometimes released; in point of fact, it was impossible to say from month to month, or from week to week, what were the precise circumstances under which they were detained; but, as he had said, there was reason to suppose that their captivity was not attended with any circumstances of rigor or cruelty.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that he had seen a letter received from Consul Cameron, which was written in very bad spirits, and contained this expressive phrase "perhaps the sooner the mauvais quart d'heure is over the better."
EARL GRANVILLErepeated the advice which he had offered on the previous evening, that when Motions of an important character, affecting public business, were intended to be brought forward, notice to that effect ought to be given. To the question under discussion he would not add one word beyond the expression of his own satisfaction at hearing from Her Majesty's present Ministers language very

243
nearly similar to that which fell from Her Majesty's late Government.

THE RITUAL COMMISSION—PUBLIC WORSHIP (UNITED CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND).

  THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
  Copy of the Commission of Inquiry laid before the House (pursuant to Address of Thursday last); and to be printed (No. 171).
  EARL GRANVILLEproceeded to say that on the previous day he had inquired whether a most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) had declined to serve on the Commission to inquire into Ritualistic Practices, and was referred by the noble Earl opposite to the most rev. Prelate him self, who was not then in his place. Seeing him on the Episcopal Bench he begged to repeat the question.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: The reason I declined to take any part of the inquiry was, as I have twice explained to the Government, that, after fully considering the matter, I could not but object to the composition of the Commission; but, in saying that, I fear I must trouble your Lordships with a few words of explanation. When I received the proposed list of Commissioners I found myself utterly unable to understand the principle upon which it was framed. There were two modes upon which I conceived a momentous inquiry of this description might be conducted. One of those methods consisted in the appointment of a small Commission of learned and impartial persons likely to command the confidence of the country, who would sit in a capacity somewhat like that of a Court of Law, come to a conclusion upon the evidence given before them, and then give the country advice upon the subject for the future. The Commission, as I read it, certainly did not answer that description, because it seemed to me that it was largely formed of persons who were committed by interest to a view upon the subject. There were gentlemen of very high character and great name who had been placed upon the Commission apparently because they had written or had built churches in connection with this very subject. Therefore, that view of the case I thought the Commission did not satisfy. The other method of inquiring into the subject which presented itself to me was that of forming a kind of small Parliament in which every set of opinions would be fairly represented. I am obliged to say that, tried from that point
  244
  of view, the Commission appeared to me to fail also. For example, I found the name of one gentleman which could not have been put upon the Commission for any other reason than that he had written ably in defence of what is called ultra-Ritualism. But, then, why was there no name selected out of those who had written ably on the other side, like Mr. Benjamin Shaw? My Lords, I had another reason for declining. There are now pending two causes in Courts of Law, in which all points connected with Ritualism are raised, and there is every probability that these cases will ultimately be brought before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I shall be bound to serve on the Committee. Several of the counsel engaged in those causes are upon the Commission, but not all. In the St. Alban's case, the leading counsel for the defendant is on the Commission; I do not find the name of the leading counsel for the plaintiff. It seemed to me impossible that a person who was a member of the Privy Council, and anxious properly to fill the office of Judge, could go first into an assembly, such as the proposed Commission would form, and hear the matter discussed by counsel, and then go perfectly unprejudiced into the Chamber of the Privy Council to hear and decide on a case having reference to the very subject on which he may just have been taking part in a warm discussion. After considering the matter, therefore, with most deep and painful anxiety for three days, I came to the conclusion that I had better abstain from serving on such a Commission. I hope that in making these remarks I have said nothing to offend any person. I have found too much difficulty in deciding on my own course, not to feel tolerant towards those who have come to another conclusion. While objecting to the composition of the Commission as a whole for the purposes which it is intended to serve, I cannot help thinking that some of the best and highest names in the country are upon it. I have conversed with many persons upon the subject recently, but nothing I have heard has induced me to change my opinion.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I think it right to point out that this Commission does not meet to decide upon legal questions at all; it does not meet to decide whether such or such vestments are allowed, but whether it is expedient to recommend that legislation should follow their deliberations.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL. (No. 129.)—(The Lord Lyttelton.)

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, it would have been far better if this Bill had been allowed to pass in the judicious form in which it was presented when first introduced. Had it been so it would have found far more acceptance in the country than it can possibly find now. In order that the Bill might leave their Lordships' House in what he conceived to be a more worthy shape, he would call attention to the clause to which he took the greatest exception. There could be no doubt of the spiritual wants of the people, nor of the necessity which existed for strengthening the agency of the Church in its attempts to cope with it; and he was convinced that unless something more were done to amend existing state of things than was being done at present deplorable results would follow. The exertions of the Bishop of London and those associated with him in connection with his Fund, the efforts of the Church Pastoral Aid Society, and other similar associations were unable to accomplish a tithe of the work which should be accomplished. He admitted to a certain extent the necessity of an additional number of Bishops; but he insisted that the means of supporting that addition must be provided from the bounty and wealth of the laity, and that the spiritual wants of the people should first be attended to by a large addition to the number of clergy who would exert themselves towards regenerating the masses by immediate intercourse. The great parochial necessities and the spiritual destitution of the people of this country were of the first importance. The foundation of three bishoprics, with all their appurtenancies, would cost at least £500,000, and it was provided that as soon as half the sum required had been contributed the remainder should be supplied by the Common Fund, Now, he believed that if — as would scarcely be the case—the necessary amount could be soon raised from the public, the £250,000 which was to be obtained from the Common Fund could be used to much greater advantage in relieving the spiritual, moral, and parochial necessities of the nation. It might be, perhaps, urged that the claim on the Common Fund would be a very remote one; but he objected to it on that
  246
  account all the more strongly, because it entailed a reversal of the principle which had guided the House of Commons in their management of the Fund — a reversal to which he did not believe that the House of Commons would give their consent. He therefore, being unwilling to send down to the Commons such a proposition, however distant its fulfilment, moved that the words rendering the Common Fund liable should be omitted from the Bill.
  An Amendment moved, page 5 line 4, to leave out ("until One half of the Amount necessary for the Endowment of such Bishop shall have been otherwise provided.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he fully concurred in the remarks of the noble Earl as to the importance of relieving the spiritual destitution of the country. And he believed that one of the greatest national questions for the consideration of the Legislature was how some religious training could be communicated to the vast mass of men who were growing up in our great manufacturing centres without any such training. He differed, however, with the noble Earl on another point, inasmuch as he believed that the retention of the words entailed no reversal of the principle which had been adopted by the House of Commons. When the Episcopal Fund and the Fund for enlarging the small livings were united to form the Common Fund, it was on the distinct understanding that the Common Fund should be liable to all the claims to which theretofore the two Funds were separately liable. The omission of the words, as proposed by the noble Earl, would in effect affirm a new principle that nothing should, under any circumstances, be given out of the Common Fund to the endowment of new bishoprics. If the three bishoprics were founded at the present moment, the only demand made upon the Common Fund would amount to £6,000 a year—a very small sum indeed compared with what had been granted towards the augmentation of small livings. The reason why they desired to see the bishoprics increased was not for the sake of the Bishops who would fill the sees, but because they believed that such an increase would more than anything else tend to strengthen the Church, and add life and vitality to the work in which she was engaged—more, indeed, than if the same amount were devoted to the augmentation of small livings.

  247
  Their Lordships had only to turn their attention to the efforts of the Bishop of London to see what could be done by even a single Bishop. The noble Earl had capitalized the amount that would be required, and had stated that the expenditure of such a sum would go far to relieve the whole of the destitution in England and Wales. Now, in that opinion, he could by no means concur, for a sum as large had actually been expended during the past few years in London alone, with scarcely any perceptible effect. He trusted that their Lordships would not consent to strike out the words referred to by the noble Lord, and thus reverse the decision at which they had arrived at a previous stage, unless, indeed, they struck out the whole of the clause, leaving Parliament to deal with the subject as might be thought proper from time to time—a course to which he had no objection.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he fully agreed in the opinion that money bestowed on the foundation of a bishopric was by no means lost. For an example, during the sixteen years in which the most rev. Prelate on his right filled the see of Ripon, he raised for ecclesiastical purposes no less than £600,000. But he objected to the clause in its present form because, while it did not bind the Common Fund to raise the money at present, it involved a hazy claim upon it at some future period. He protested against this mode of treating the question. If the claim were to be satisfied now, it would put a stop to those operations which as yet had been attended by so much benefit to the country; and if the claim were only a future one, it would be better to let the matter be dealt with by Parliament at the proper time. It was only fair to the public, to Parliament, and to those clergymen whose incomes were less than £150 per annum, of whom there were thousands in this country, that the matter should be fairly discussed. He thought that for the present the Common Fund should be left to do its work of justice and mercy, and when the proper time came for increasing the Episcopate, Parliament could be applied to do what was just and right in the matter.
  VISCOUNT EVERSLEYstated, that the clause as it now stood would have the effect of directly repealing the present Act, and would deprive the Common Fund of a very large revenue, which would be far better employed in relieving spiritual destitution
  248
  than in the manner proposed by the clause.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he should like to see both wants supplied—both that of spiritual destitution and that of an increase in the Episcopate. Now, under the existing arrangements the two Funds had been combined into one, and the united Fund had been made applicable to the two purposes. It was now, for the first time, proposed by the clause as it stood at present to apply the united Fund to one of those purposes to the exclusion of the other. If the clause were omitted altogether the law affecting the Fund would be left as it stood at present—that was to say, the application of the Fund to the one or the other purpose would be left to the discretion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; whereas, if it were retained they would have affirmed that funds derived from episcopal estates should in no case be applied to episcopal purposes. That was quite a new principle. The more straightforward course would be to omit the clause altogether; but if that suggestion were not adopted, then he should support the moderate Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. He had had some correspondence with the newly-appointed Bishop of Rochester, who had represented the great inconvenience that arose from the great extent and large population of his diocese, and who stated that, although he had a most desirable residence, yet if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were empowered to sell that property and to erect two moderate residences, one in the diocese of Rochester and another for the Bishop of the diocese to be carved out of it, he would willingly contribute £1,000 per annum out of the £5,000 per annum he at present received towards the income of the new Bishop. The right rev. Prelate added that he should, on the whole, be better off in the more moderate residence. He gave his hearty assent to the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, as he was opposed to what he considered to be an unjust restriction of the present powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that it would be a breach of the understanding upon which the two Funds were fused if the clause were agreed to. The Episcopal Fund had for many years been indebted to the Common Fund, and it would therefore be very unjust to further charge it for this new purpose before the previous debt was paid. When the Common Fund was reimbursed

  249
  by the Episcopal Fund the case put by his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) might be considered. It would be against the understanding come to when the two Funds were fused to say that the Common Fund should never be chargeable for any increase of episcopal objects; but a specific Bill should be introduced for the purpose. The Amendment was not founded on any theoretical objection.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, it seemed to him that a considerable misapprehension existed on this subject. The observations which had fallen from some of his noble Friends opposite would convey the idea that from the merging of the Episcopal Fund in the Common Fund the purpose for which the Episcopal Fund was especially instituted had been lost sight of; but that was not the case. The proper reading of the Act was this—
  "All the several payments now payable out of the Episcopal and Common Funds respectively shall and may be payable out of the Common Fund."
  The word "respectively" governed both. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were carried it would amount to a reversal of the law which had subsisted since 1850.
  On Question, That the said Words stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 82; Not-Contents 73: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Manvers, E.

  Powis, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Romney, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Sandwich, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Stanhope, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Townshend, M.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Aylesford, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Bantry, E.

  Beauchamp, E.[Teller.]

  Belmore, E.

  De Vesci, V.

  Bradford, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Cadogan, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Cardigan, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Chester, Bp.

  Devon, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Eldon, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Haddington, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Home, E.

  London, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  250

  Bagot, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Boston, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Cairns, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Carew, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Clinton, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Denman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Digby, L.

  Egerton, L.

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

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Templemore, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Vernon, L.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, Archp.

  Blantyre, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Cleveland, D.

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

  Devonshire, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Camden, M.

  Churchill, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Churston, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Foley, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Harris, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Houghton, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Leigh, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Russell, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.[Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Sommers, E.

  Portman, L.

  Clancaty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Romilly, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Eversley, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Sydney, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Durham, Bp.

  Stratheden, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Winchester, Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Belper, L.

  Truro, L.

  EARL GREYremarked that a strong feeling existed as to the necessity of some increase of the Episcopate, but the discussion had shown how great the difficulty

  251
  was of raising the funds necessary for the purpose. He rose to move to insert a clause in place of Clause 13, which had been struck out on the Report.
  An Amendment moved at the end of the Bill to add the following clause:—
  "And whereas it is expedient that Assistance should be provided for Bishops who may require it for the more effectual Performance of their Duties; be it enacted, That if the Bishop of any Diocese in England or Wales shall Petition Her Majesty to appoint One or more of the Persons holding the Office of Dean, Archdeacon, or Canon Residentiary in his Diocese to be Assistant Bishop of the same, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, if She shall think fit, to present such Dean, Archdeacon, or Canon Residentiary, by Her Letters Patent under the Great Seal, to the Archbishop of the Province, and to require the Archbishop, if there shall be no lawful Impediment, to consecrate the Person so presented to him as Assistant Bishop of the See held by the Bishop whose Petition has been presented to Her Majesty, and it shall be the Duty of the Archbishop within Three Months of his receiving the Letters Patent to consecrate accordingly the Person therein named."—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that he was unable to agree to the clause. He considered the question one of the deepest moment to the future of the Church of England. The office of Suffragan or Assistant Bishop which the clause proposed to call into existence was an office unknown till this time in the Church of Christ, There was, in fact, no warrant in the ancient writers for the proposal of the noble Earl. At the time of the Reformation there were a number of suffragan Bishops who were employed to assist those Prelates who presided over large sees. They usually resided in large towns, where they exercised episcopal jurisdiction, and assisted the neighbouring Bishops. They were commonly called Bishops in partibus. There were certain Bishops in the sees within the pale in Ireland, who, having been driven from them, still retained the titles derived from their sees, and came and assisted the English Bishops in carrying out their work. Of course, these persons exercised the functions which had been conferred upon them originally in another country. In a word, they were precisely analogous to returned colonial Bishops at the present day. The declaration of the Church of England in the Ordination Service was that it was plain to all persons diligently reading the Holy Scripture and the ancient authors that there had been from the beginning in the Church of Christ three orders—Bishops, priests, and deacons.
  252
  It went on to say that these were to be continued amongst us. What authority, he would ask, had any branch of the Church to change altogether the conditions under which the office of Bishop had been created by its Founder, and then to say that it was the same office? In order that a marriage should be contracted it was necessary that there should be a wife as well as a husband. A man might, however, become a widower, and in the same manner a man who had been properly and perfectly consecrated to a see might be driven from it, and might then be capable of assisting other Bishops in their sees; but a Bishop could not be created unless he had a see in the first instance. If, however, their Lordships were called upon to create an office altogether new in the Church of Christ, he would ask whether that would be a safe thing in the present state of things around us? Would it not be a thousand times better that the Bishops, who were overworked at home, should be assisted by returned colonial Bishops? He had now stated his great objection to the scheme, Let them beware of what they were asked to do—let him remind them that everything they did was done in the face of a vigilant and insidious enemy—the Church of Rome, which was always striving to throw discredit on the validity of the episcopal succession in the Church of England. In charity to those persons who might be driven into the meshes which were so thickly spread around them, he would say to their Lordships, "Beware how you touch, without being fully aware of what you are doing, these ancient institutions of the Church of Christ." He also objected to the establishment of this new order on other grounds. Supposing they were created and multiplied, that they were enabled to perform episcopal offices, and that there was no taint about their spiritual patent of creation, what would be the duties to the discharge of which they could be limited? Why, the special spiritual duties of the episcopal order. They would have to confirm, to assist at ordinations, and to take the direct spiritual part of the episcopal office, in order to enable the Bishops to devote their chief attention to Parliament and other worldly matters. Nothing, in his opinion, would tend more to lower them in public estimation than a measure which would lead to their being mere men in Parliament and about Court, more writers of letters, I and which would take away from them

  253
  the dealing with the souls of men; their confirmation tours, and the coming in contact with the poor of this country in the direct discharge of their spiritual engagements. There was a pregnant passage in Lord Bacon which bore upon this question. Speaking of a proposal made in his day of certain parts of the episcopal office being delegated to others, Lord Bacon said—
  "Surely in this, ab initio non fuit sic; but it is probable that Bishops when they gave themselves too much to the glory of the world, and became grandees in kingdoms, and great councillors to princes, then did they delegate their proper jurisdictions as things of too inferior a nature for their greatness."
  He protested against a scheme which would sap the whole strength of the episcopal office. The words he had just read would be prophetic if their Lordships were going to make more Bishops to perform spiritual duties in order that the present Bishops might be left with what men considered to be the worldly parts of the office. Nothing, he believed, could so injure the Bishops in the estimation of the people of England as any such partition of duties. When he quitted this busy city and went into his diocese he ministered day by day among the poor, in confirmations and the like, giving advice in spiritual matters and bringing the episcopal office face to face with the spiritual necessities of the people. When he was doing this he felt conscious of a reality in his office. But if their Lordships were to relieve the Bishops of these duties they would be taking the very gem from their mitres and making them mere idle, empty pageants, representing a, thing that had passed away. He believed that it would be a great blessing to maintain intact the union between the Church and the State, and that the multiplication in connection with what professed to be the episcopal office of persons who should not be under the restraints which God's providence had put upon the present Bishops, and who should be much less closely connected with the State—that such a multiplication would, in the present temper of men's minds, be sowing the seeds of future danger and dissension, the extent of which it would be hard to estimate. If, for instance, the so-called Bishops were held to have the succession, what an opening would be afforded for new troubles in these troublous times. He confessed that when he reflected on the present position of the Church of England, he saw great danger
  254
  in giving in any sense the sacred trust of the episcopate to persons who might join one of the extreme parties whom it was now sought to bring back to the unity of the Church. In conclusion, he prayed their Lordships not rashly to take a step which he believed the Church of England would rue to the last day of its existence.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, it was the fate of the question of suffragans to be always brought under their Lordships' notice late in the evening; but he trusted he might be excused if even at that late hour he trespassed for a short time upon their attention. No one could more truly appreciate than himself the spiritual nature of the episcopal office, and no man could be more unwilling than himself to lend his aid to any system which might lead the Bishops of the Church of England to regard their secular, rather than their spiritual position. He thought, however, that there was another side to the picture which the right rev. Prelate had drawn. Suppose a Bishop in the extremity of old age, altogether unable to perform his spiritual functions and go through the ordinary business of his diocese—what was to become of his diocese under the present system? It might be said that he ought to resign; but Parliament had provided no means whatever for enabling a Bishop to do so. He did not contend that the plan of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) was the best that could be devised, but it was the only one which had been proposed; and unless their Lordships desired that three or four dioceses at a time should be totally uncared for, it was their bounden duty to provide some means suited to a case where a Bishop afflicted with incapacity through old age or sickness became unable to discharge his spiritual and temporal duties. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) suggested that recourse might be had to the assistance of their colonial brethren. Having himself cause to be deeply thankful for assistance which he had received during a severe illness last year, he should be the last to be wanting in respect or admiration for the colonial Bishops; but if this was a question affecting, not the Church, but the administration of justice, and a Judge became so old or unwell that he could not perform his duties, would it be deemed proper that no mode should exist for performing his functions except by sending for some retired Indian or colonial

  255
  Judge to take his place? That was precisely the position in which the Church was placed by the want of legislation to meet these difficulties. There might be dioceses in particular parts of the country where the pressure was not so constant or so great; but in London, unless the Bishop were able to appear from day to day, as much inconvenience arose to public business, and the spiritual affairs of the diocese would be thrown into as much confusion, as would arise in an assize court if the Judge were suddenly taken ill on his way to it. The plan proposed by the noble Earl was the only one proposed in an intelligible form to meet the difficulties of the case. In certain dioceses, also, it was obvious that the amount of work must always be such as to prevent its being fully accomplished unless some supplemental assistance were provided, and this would be the case however the limits of the diocese might be curtailed. He did not wish to refer again to the diocese over which he had been appointed; but outside its immediate duties, attention had to be given to the appointment of chaplains all over the Continent of Europe, and not merely in Europe, but in other parts of the world as well—for example, in South America. There were also various duties connected with chaplains going to India, and in a degree with army and navy chaplains. To enable all these duties to be fully and fairly performed it was most desirable that assistance should be given. While his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) was speaking he could not help recalling an incident in the career of his own predecessor, to whom, when in the full vigour of his intellectual powers, the appointment of suffragan bishops was suggested. He rejected the proposal unhesitatingly; when the person who proposed it to him said quietly, "Perhaps you will take a different view of the matter when you come to be seventy years of age." And therefore to his right rev. Friend, who now, with his undoubted ability and great physical and intellectual force, saw no difficulty in the discharge of his duties, he ventured to say that a time might come when even he would find it difficult to accomplish all those duties which he now discharged so much to the satisfaction of the Church. He certainly had been surprised to hear the proposal made by this Bill represented as a novelty, for their Lordships would remember the discussion which had taken place with regard to the
  256
  wisdom or otherwise of giving authority for the election of a suffragan Bishop to one of the colonial Bishops in Canada. The Bishop of Niagara appointed the other day was a suffragan Bishop. [The Bishop of OXFORD: Cum jure successions.] Whether this were so or not he could not say, for there were no letters patent in his case. But the Bishop of Kingston was appointed as suffragan, and in his patent he found no mention of any jus successionis—he was simply a suffragan of the Bishop of Jamaica, and the authority under which he performed his duties was exactly the same as that which was proposed to be given to the assistant Bishops whom it was now sought to create. The only difference was that the colonial Bishops who had been created had certainly territorial titles. He quite granted that the connection existing between a Bishop and his see was the same as that existing between husband and wife; but it was a strange application of the matrimonial simile to maintain that the name, and the name alone, constituted the true partnership of the matrimonial relation. Without going back to Leo, with whom their Lordships no doubt were as familiar as the right rev. Prelate, he tools his stand on the Act which was passed at the time of the Reformation, and continued to be put in force till the reign of Charles II., and, looking to its terms, he felt persuaded that by the plan which the noble Earl proposed there was no danger of introducing any novelty into the Church of England. That no great danger to the episcopal succession need be apprehended from the introduction of suffragan Bishops must be plain, because, if his judgment were accurate, the whole succession of the English Bishops depended on the presence of a suffragan Bishop on the occasion when Archbishop Parker was placed on the throne of Canterbury. What was the use of saying that the introduction of suffragan Bishops would invalidate the succession of English Bishops now, when, if the argument were good for anything, that succession must have been invalidated so far back as the time of Archbishop Parker? He did not believe that the system which the noble Earl proposed to introduce would be in any way an encouragement to Bishops to neglect their spiritual duties, or that it would introduce any novelty either into the Church of England or the Church of Christ. And the proposal of the noble Earl had this great recommendation, that before applying

  257
  for fresh funds and the creation of fresh bishoprics, it sought to utilise the machinery already existing in the Church. Large revenues were appropriated to our different cathedrals, and these were surrounded with officers and dignitaries who were resident. He desired that these should be maintained with all the influence they at present enjoyed, but that their usefulness should be increased. The proposal of the noble Earl having for its object practically to increase the usefulness of the existing institutions of the Church of England, this, in addition to the other reasons which had been put forward, induced him to believe that it was founded on good sense.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that with every respect for the learning and knowledge of Church matters which distinguished the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken, there appeared to him to be practical difficulties in the way of the proposal of the noble Earl, which made him hesitate to adopt it. At present one mode existed of appointing Bishops; they were chosen by the Crown and elected by the Chapter. It was proposed that in future there should be a totally different method of appointment; that the Chapter should be passed over, that the Bishops themselves should select, and the Crown confirm the appointment. Moreover, there would be difficulties with regard to the question of ordination. A suffragan Bishop would have, apparently, all the high and important duties of a Bishop; but would he be respected in the same manner? Would he be able to secure for his office that high veneration which he must say was usually given to Bishops of the Church of England in this country? In the first place the suffragan would be a nominee of the Bishop of the diocese; he could only perform his functions while holding the permission of that Bishop, and he might be at any time removed by the appointment of a new Bishop of the diocese. Again, was it likely that the successor of the Bishop would be satisfied in all cases with a person whom he had not chosen? Would he not desire to appoint his own suffragan? He could not help thinking that in consecrating to the office of Bishop a person who might afterwards cease to exercise the functions of Bishop, and even while he performed them only did so at the will of another, they would be creating grave confusion in the minds of the people, and doing much to lower the office of Bishop in the estimation
  258
  of the country. Cases would be continually arising in which persons who had solemnly engaged to perform episcopal functions would not be permitted to do so, and the tendency of this would be to lower the office of Bishop in the estimation of the people. He could, however, conceive cases in which a Bishop might be unable from age or infirmity to perform his duties, and it would be very desirable to make some provision permitting him to retire.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that if the noble Earl (Earl Russell) had introduced a Bill enabling Bishops to resign he would have at once given up all idea of proposing the course he had. It could not be said that the existence of ex-suffragan Bishops would tend to lower the office of Bishop, because their case would be exactly similar to that of ex-colonial Bishops, of whom several were now living in this country without producing the result the noble Earl feared. He did not know that they were treated with less respect or held in less esteem, because they no longer presided over dioceses. With regard to the advisability of intrusting ordination to a suffragan Bishop, in the case of an aged Bishop the assistant would merely ordain; the examination would be conducted by the chaplain of the Bishop. There were, however, very high authorities in support of the opinion that chorepiscopi were able to perform all the offices of a Bishop.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobjected to the clause, which he thought involved a most subversive change in the whole system of the Church—one which would operate generally, although it had been called for only by a particular case. It would be far better if the Government would promise to introduce a Bill during next Session relieving Bishops who had become unable to fulfil the duties of the office through age or other unavoidable circumstances. He thought such a proposition would be received with their favourable attention, The Bill under discussion not only made a general rule for assisting all Bishops, including those who, perhaps, did not deserve assistance, but it invaded the prerogative of the Crown in a most essential matter. For centuries Bishops had been appointed by the Crown, but this Bill proposed that one Bishop should appoint another. He was most anxious to preserve the Church, but did not much regard the convenience of Churchmen, and he insisted on the importance of upholding the prerogative of the Crown in its

  259
  integrity, as a means of maintaining the Church in its present position, and preserving the office of Bishop surrounded with all the dignity and reverence in which it was held by the people. If the country were covered with these dummy bishops; if a man were created a Bishop, but required to remain in a dormant state, capable of exercising all the functions of a Bishop, but not permitted to exercise one until touched by the inspiring hand of an existing Bishop; if it were determined to create a sort of lay figure in a Bishop's dress, with a real Bishop standing by to make use of him by moving a leg now, an arm then, and a head upon another occasion, and then to put him back in his dormant condition, a mixed figure of episcopal humanity—if all this were done, it would be impossible to support the respectability of the episcopal order, and would certainly injure the Church. He urged their Lordships to reject the clause.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that although he doubted whether the Bill would pass the other House, he should still think a great step had been gained by the passing of the measure through one House. The only vital part of the Bill in his estimation was that which provided for the creation, on such times as Parliament might see fit, of those three new sees the necessity for which had been urged on such high authority.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 72: Majority 37.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Cleveland, D.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Camden, M.

  Belper, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Blantyre, L.

  Westminster, M.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Airlie, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Foley, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Devon, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E. [Teller.]

  Overstone, L.

  Romney, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Clancarty, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Eversley, V.

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

  Bangor, Bp.

  Suffield, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Vernon, L.

  260

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Templetown, V.

  York, Archp.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Durham, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Bagot, L.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Cairns, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Carew, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Aylesford, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Denman, L.

  Derby, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Middleton, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Morley, E.

  Portman, L.

  Powis, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Russell, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Lifford, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Wharncliffe, L. [Teller].

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE SALMON FISHERY ACT (IRELAND), 1863.

  PETITION OF PELHAM JOSEPH MAYNE.
  LORD CRANWORTH, in rising to present a Petition from Pelham Joseph Mayne complaining of the operation of the Salmon Fishery Act (Ireland), 1863, and praying for relief, said, that at the time the Act regulating the fisheries of Ireland was before their Lordships' House he took objection to the clause which provided that any person should lose his right of fishing in a particular way, even though the privilege was one which he had lawfully enjoyed from time immemorial, if he had failed to exercise that right during the year 1862, being the year preceding the passing of that Act. He thought at the time that that

  261
  was a monstrous proposal, striking at the very root of private property, and as such he denounced it. A man might have enjoyed the right which had existed from time immemorial, and yet if he failed through want of funds, because it would have been attended by personal inconvenience, or for any other cause, to avail himself of his right during the year previous to the passing of the Act, he was never to be permitted to exercise it afterwards. The Petitioner in this case complained that he purchased the fishery in question in 1851 in the Encumbered Estates Court, and had worked the fishery down to the year 1859; but he had failed from some cause or other, which was immaterial in considering the subject, to exercise his right in 1862. He had resumed the fishing after 1862; and had to appear before the Fishing Commissioners to show his right so to work his fishery. The Commissioners acknowledged that he had proved a perfect and indefeasible title under the Encumbered Estates Act, but were of opinion that since he had not exercised his right in the year 1862, or the year preceding, the Act of 1863 compelled them to decide against him. He then appealed, as entitled to do, to the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland; but the Court felt themselves bound to decide against him under the express provision of the Act, contained in the clause which he (Lord Cranworth) had denounced. In confirming the decision of the Commissioners of Fisheries, one of the learned Judges expressed his great regret that the Act of Parliament should have such an effect, and said that the Petitioner's case was one of great hardship, and ought to be brought before Parliament. He (Lord Cranworth) had willingly complied with the request that he should present the Petition to their Lordships' House; and he also proposed to bring in a short Bill which would remedy the harsh effect of the previous Act.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYhoped that the noble and learned Lord would make the Act general, so as to make it extend to England.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he also had a Petition to present on the same subject, and he was glad to find that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth) had brought the question before the House. It was most unjust that property which had been possessed by individuals for many years, and which had been confirmed to them by Act of Parliament,
  262
  should be taken away from them by a subsequent Act. It was said that Parliament had the right to take away the property if they thought such a course to be desirable. Undoubtedly Parliament had the power to do so; but to take away property in that manner was a most unjust and improper proceeding. He would state shortly the facts contained in the Petition he had to present, which, he thought, would show that the effect of the law was as harsh as it was unjust. The petitioner, a Mr. Little, was the owner of a bag-net salmon fishery, from which he derived a profit of between £200 and £300 per annum. The Act prohibited bag-net fisheries within three miles of the mouth of a river, and empowered the Commissioners to fix the limits of the river's mouth. The Commissioners having decided that his fishery was unlawful, he appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, who reversed the judgment of the Commissioners, and declared his fishery to be lawful. After the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Commissioners defined the mouth of the river in such a manner as to bring the petitioner's fishery within three miles of it, and consequently his fishery was declared illegal, and he lost an income of above £200 per annum. He, therefore, trusted that the noble and learned Lord would persevere with his intention, and would bring in a Bill to mitigate the harshness and injustice of the Act of 1863.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDalso hoped that something would be done to protect the rights of the owners of salmon fisheries.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, there could be no doubt that the persons who had been deprived of their fisheries by the operation of the Act had enjoyed a peaceable title to their property before those Acts were passed. He suggested that an inquiry should be instituted into the operation of the existing Acts.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

  SALMON FISHERY (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act, 1863—Was presented by The Lord CRANWORTH; read 1a. (No. 168.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, after the discussion which took place last

  263
  night relative to the Motion of which he had given notice, which appeared to meet with the general concurrence of the House, and also with the consent of Government, he did not think it necessary to preface his Motion with any statement, but would content himself with simply moving the appointment of the Committee in the terms which stood in the paper. In the absence of Earl Granville, he would also move that the words his noble Friend proposed should be added to the Motion: "And to consider what further changes may be desirable for the better transaction of the business of the House." With respect to the other addition proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) opposite, he did not think it at all suitable for inquiry by the Committee. It was not in pari materiâ. It was rather a subject to be referred to an architect.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of making such arrangements as shall enable the House to meet at four o'clock instead of five o'clock for the despatch of business."—(The Marl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYquite agreed with his noble Friend that there could be no objection to the addition of the words proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who was not now present. He would suggest, however, to his noble Friend who had taken charge of the Amendment, that instead of "what further changes," the words "any and what further measures" should be substituted. To neither of the proposals did he offer any objection. With respect to the other addition proposed by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Carnarvon), he rather agreed that it ought to be referred to a separate Committee if to any at all.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, who had given notice to move the following further addition to the original Motion:—
  "Also to consider whether any and what arrangements can be made to remedy the present defective construction of the House in reference to hearing:"—
  said the subject of his Amendment had been pressed upon him very strongly by noble Lords on both sides of the House. At the same time he felt that it was not exactly in pari materiâ with those the Committee would have dealt with, and under the circumstances he was quite willing to postpone it. He should take another opportunity of making a substantive Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee
  264
  on the subject, when he hoped no objection would be made by the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEagreed with the noble Earl that the subject of his Amendment was one of great importance. When it was said that there ought to be a fuller attendance of their Lordships, it should be remembered that it was quite impossible for any Peer sitting at the other end of the House to hear a single word of what was going on; so that it was often a mere farce to come down to the sitting at all, and they might just as well send proxies. He should like to ask whether the Committee about to be appointed would take the question of proxies into consideration?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, it would come under the words added by Lord Granville.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he had thought the reasons given last night for continuing proxies were excessively futile. He had voted several years ago for the abolition of proxies, and he had not at all changed his mind on the subject. Nevertheless, he thought that it was for the whole House, and not for a Committee to consider whether that system ought to be abolished.
  EARL RUSSELLthought this a very fit subject to be considered by the Committee, but, of course, the Committee could not decide the question. It would be for the House to consider whether proxies should be continued or not.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, with respect to the Motion of his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Carnarvon) as to the difficulty of hearing in that House, there had been a Committee on the subject twelve or fourteen years ago, and everything was done that could be done after advice taken from architects and scientific persons. The gallery was advanced about twenty feet, and the House was therefore made smaller. Various experiments were gone into, but there was not the slightest hope of success without pulling the House to pieces.
  Motion amended and agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Expediency of making such arrangements as shall enable the House to meet at Four o'Clock instead of Five o'Clock for the Despatch of Business, and to consider if any and what Changes may be desirable for the better Transaction of the Business of the House."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  And, on June 24, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Privy Seal

  E. Granville

  M. Bath

  E. Kimberley

  Ld. Chamberlain

  L. Colville of Culross

  E. Shaftesbury

  L, Ponsonby

  E. Stanhope

  L. Redesdale

  E. Carnarvon

  L. Portman

  E. Grey

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  E. De Grey

  L. Lyveden

  E. Stradbroke

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Act 9th and 10th Vict. Cap. 20. and the Standing Orders of both Houses in relation to Parliamentary Deposits and for securing the Completion of Railways within a prescribed Time, and to report what Alterations it is expedient to make therein for the present and for the ensuing Session: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  D. Richmond

  L. Portman

  V. Eversley

  L. Stanley of Alderley:

  L. Redesdale

  And a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that this House has appointed a Committee of Five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Act 9th and 10th Vict. Cap. 20. and the Standing Orders of both Houses; in relation to Parliamentary Deposits and for securing the completion of Railways within a prescribed time, and to report what alterations it is expedient to make therein for the present and for the ensuing Session; and to request that the Commons will be pleased to appoint an equal Number of Members to be joined with the Members of this House. — (The Chairman of Committees.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.