Lords Sitting of 7 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners* (221); Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland) * (222); Clerks of the Peace, & c. (Ireland)*(221); Fairs (Metropolis)* (223); Railway Companies * (226); Assignees of Marine Policies * (225).
Second Reading—West Indies [135]; Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts (Lanarkshire) Amendment.* (202); New Zealand (Legislative Council)* (197); Admiralty Suits* (182); Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension *(184); Registration (218).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [No. 227].
Committee—Fairs*(141); Representation of the People (Ireland) (176); Reformatory Schools (Ireland)*(122); Medway Regulation Act Continuance* (190); Bank of Bombay*(196); County General Assessment (Scotland)*(190); Courts of Law Fees, & c. (Scotland)*(189).
Report—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings* (93–228); Fairs* (141); Representation of the People (Ireland) (176); Reformatory Schools (Ireland)* (122); County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction* (108); Medway Regulation Act Continuance* (199); Bank of Bombay* (196); County General Assessment (Scotland)* (190) Courts of Law Fees, & c. (Scotland)* (189).
Third Reading—Army Chaplains* (146); Vagrant Act Amendment* (138); Boundary* (170); Representation of the People (Scotland) (192).and passed.

WEST INDIES BILL—(No. 135.)
(The Duke of Buckingham.)
WEST INDIES BILL—(No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill for the relief of the Consolidated Fund from an annual payment of £20,300 for purposes connected with the Church of England in the West Indies. That grant originated in 1824, when the condition of the slave population having attracted much attention, among other measures for improving their condition preparatory to emancipation was one introduced on the Motion of Mr. Canning, for increasing the efficiency of the Church of England in those colonies. The Church had been established there for a long series of years, the parochial system having been introduced, and the clergy being subject to the Bishop of London; but the wants of the landowners and white population had been regarded in those arrangements rather than those of the slaves. Under these circumstances an immediate and considerable increase in the numbers of the clergy was necessary, and it was also requisite that ecclesiastical supervision nearer than that of Bishops in this country should be provided. Mr. Canning, in proposing the grant, said—
  "To provide the means of religious instruction and worship is an object first, indeed, in importance, but necessarily subsequent in order to those which I have already mentioned, because it is not till the slave population are raised in the scale of nature that they can be capable of comprehending or fitted to receive the blessings of Christianity. It is intended to increase the amount and widen the basis of the Ecclesiastical Establishment in the West Indies. That Establishment was founded for the benefit of the white population alone. It was no more calculated for the negro than for the brute animal that shares his toils. I am not stating this as a matter of charge, but as a matter of fact."—[2 Hansard, x. 1097.]
  It was not proposed by Mr. Canning as a permanent grant; but its object was to meet immediate and pressing wants, and from the first it was avowedly subject to such modifications as might be required from time to time, or to entire withdrawal; and, as a matter of course, it has been more than once discussed both with regard to the amount of the sum given and as to the mode of its application. Mr. Canning further said—

  785
  "One of the Episcopal Establishments is intended to be fixed at Jamaica, the other in the Leeward Islands. For the support of these Establishments it will not be necessary, for a time at least"—
  Your Lordships will remark these words, "for a time at least"—
  "that any demand should be made on the finances of the Islands."
  The grant was accordingly made, and in the first instance £14,000 of it was appropriated to the Bishops and archdeacons, while the remaining £6,300 was distributed among rectors and catechists. An alteration was soon found necessary with regard to the bishoprics, and a third see was constituted, the income originally allotted to two bishoprics being divided among three. Some years later the sees were further increased to five, and the amount paid to each Bishop has therefore been materially reduced, while the payment to the clergy has been distributed among a larger number of persons, new churches and rectors being admitted to a share in it. Among the changes also was a total repeal of the clause which gave pensions to Bishops appointed under the provisions of the Act. The reason why the withdrawal of the grant is now proposed is this—Last year a measure having that object, passed through several stages in the House of Commons without opposition, and that House was evidently of opinion that the grant had done its work, and that, while respecting existing interests, its continuance was unnecessary. That that is a correct view of the case is evident from the fact that when the giant was first made the whole sum appropriated by the various colonies to the maintenance of their clergy did not exceed £14,000 or £15,000 a year, so that the addition of the grant more than doubled the amount; whereas the sum now appropriated by them is about £60,000, so that the Imperial Votes form an augmentation of only a third. Moreover, the slaves were at that time incapable of holding property, and had no means of providing such spiritual ministrations as they might desire; but their descendants are now in many cases landed proprietors, and are not only able to subscribe, but do, in fact, subscribe considerable sums for religious purposes. Circumstances have thus entirely changed, and there is no reason why the Church in the West Indian colonies should be assisted out of the Imperial Revenue any more than those of our other colonies. Now, the provision for the West Indian
  786
  clergy being made, in most cases, by Ordinances or Acts renewable at intervals of eight or ten years, and it being in some of the islands about to undergo consideration, it is desirable that Parliament should declare its intentions with regard to the grant, in order that the colonies may know, in making their arrangements, whether it will be continued, and whether the appointments which have been allowed to remain vacant will be filled up. Now, as for some years, under the Governments of different parties, it has not been the practice to fill up appointments in the case of the higher order of clergy, it seems to me most desirable that these circumstances should be put an end to, and, therefore, in accordance with the general policy, the Government have come to the determination to propose the withdrawal of the grant, respect being had to vested interests. Before moving the second reading, I think it right to explain to the House that this question, of the abolition of the grant has no connection with the question of the suspension of certain appointments in Jamaica, with which the discussion the other night appears to have been to some extent mixed up. On the latter question a correspondence had arisen between my immediate predecessor and the Governor of Jamaica; but the question with which this Bill deals, on the contrary, has arisen altogether since I have had the honour of holding the Seals of the Colonial Office. Although this question has been mooted many years in Parliament as to whether the grant should be repealed, yet my predecessor in Office has not been mixed up with this particular Bill, to which I ask your Lordships now to give a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Duke of Buckingham).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I do not rise to offer a single word in opposition to the Bill, the second reading of which has been just moved by my noble Friend. I do not object to the Bill; though I can hardly concur in some of the reasons which he assigned for asking your Lordships to support the Bill. My noble Friend stated, as his first reason, that this measure, or many stages of it, had passed the House of Commons last Session without opposition. That, I hold, would be in itself a very poor and insufficient justification for asking your Lordships to agree to a measure if objectionable on other grounds. Nor do I quite

  787
  go along with my noble Friend when he says that the second reason which induced him to move the second reading is the great change which has occurred in the character of the population of the West Indies. I am afraid that population—changed possibly as it may be for the better in some respects—is still by no means in such a position as to dispense easily with the annual £20,000 which this Bill will take away from them. But, my Lords, as I said before, I shall not offer the smallest opposition to tills Bill; though I am bound to state to the House that it will fall as a very serious loss upon the Church in the West Indies. When I had the honour to hold the Seals of the Colonial Office, I was well aware that some considerable change—the ecclesiastical establishment of the West Indian Church—was coming. I foresaw from the temper of Parliament that it would not be disposed for very long to continue the grants which had been made; and when taking preparatory steps to endeavour to place the Church in the colonies in a somewhat better situation, I incurred at the time considerable reproach—reproach from those who thought this change was distant, but who now find that it is near. My Lords, the Church in the West Indies must fare like almost every other colonial Church. She must stand upon her own resources—so far, at least, as help and aid from this country are concerned; and I do not myself doubt, though her situation is not as favourable to her as in many other colonies, that she may gather strength and extend her ministrations by evoking sources of new latent strength—perhaps by means of Native clergy and Native catechists. My Lords, before I leave this point, I would suggest that when this Bill goes into Committee an Amendment may be introduced which will probably meet with the assent of both sides, to correspond with the clause introduced in the Canadian Clergy Reserves Act, and to enable the holders of life-interests to compound those interests for a gross sum which shall be paid into the hands of some trustees or other authorities. My Lords, I should be glad now to pause; but after the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a few nights ago, when alluding to this Bill, I feel it due to the House and to myself to say a few words. My Lords, I may safely say my whole object, my chief desire whenever I have had the honour to address your Lordships, has been to confine myself
  788
  as closely and with as much accuracy as possible to any statement of facts which I may have to make, and in return for the constant kindness and indulgence which this House has shown me never to state any fact which, without full care and consideration on my part, I do not believe to be correct. But, my Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack coming down upon me a few nights since, I must say, with all that forensic skill of which he is so great a master, and with all that long professional training and practice which distinguish him so much in this House and elsewhere—left upon your Lordships the impression that I had grossly exaggerated, not to say misrepresented, certain facts, and that I had endeavoured to mislead your Lordships upon matters on which as having lately had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Office I was bound to be especially correct. Now, upon that point I will ask your Lordships' attention for a very few minutes—and I will beg the House to believe that I have no wish whatever to revive any asperities of the past debate or to say one word which can give reasonable offence to Her Majesty's Government or those who supported them on that occasion. My only and my sole controversy is with the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Now, there are two questions which the noble Duke who has just spoken (the Duke of Buckingham) carefully distinguished at the end of his speech; the first is the question with regard to the suspension of ecclesiastical appointments in the island of Jamaica, and the other is the question of the disendowment of the Church of England in the West Indies under this Bill to the extent of £20,000. My Lords, that first question of the suspension of ecclesiastical appointments requires little notice, because it is, as the noble Duke said, not immediately and directly connected with the Bill before your Lordships, and if it had been that the noble and learned Lord had charged me with an inaccuracy on that point I should not have thought it worth while to allude further to the subject. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) who moved the second reading of the Established Church (Ireland) Bill the other evening stated that a parallel existed between the suspension of ecclesiastical appointments in Jamaica and their proposed suspension in Ireland in the Bill which your Lordships have rejected; and I, following on a subsequent evening, en-

  789
  dorsed entirely all that my noble Friend had said on that part of the subject. For this I was taken to task by the noble and learned Lord, who stated that there was nothing whatever parallel between the two cases. Now, my Lords, I, on the contrary, can, without taking up your Lordships' time, show that there is a great deal that is parallel. The Established Church of England in the West Indies, as in Ireland, is the Church of the few; it is also the Church of the rich few; it is a Church whose clergy, as educated men scattered in the midst of a far less educated race, stand in very much the same relation to the population in the West Indies as the clergy of the Established Church do to the population of Ireland. And what was the suspension of these ecclesiastical appointments? In Ireland, the Irish Suspensory Bill provided that the vacancies of sees and certain ecclesiastical offices that occurred should not be filled up for the space of one year—to do what?—to enable Parliament to consider whether, at the end of that time, it should not make modifications, reductions, and, on the admission of Her Majesty's Government itself, even a total abolition of the Ecclesiastical Establishment. And what was the Suspensory measure with regard to Jamaica? It provided that ecclesiastical vacancies among the clergy—not the Bishops—should not be filled up for the space of between two and three years, with the view that at the end of that period Her Majesty's Government might consider whether or not modifications, reductions, and even total abolition should not be enacted. And I say "total abolition" on the authority of a report which I saw in the paper of an Answer given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) about ten days since, in which he stated that no steps Her Majesty's Government were taking in this matter would preclude if desirable in the opinion of Parliament, the total abolition of the West Indian Church. My Lords, that, I think, is sufficient to justify the noble Earl and myself in saying that there was a strong parallel in principle between the two cases. But then the noble and learned Lord read a despatch from Sir John Grant, recommending to the Secretary of State this scheme, and he subsequently read a despatch from the Secretary of State approving it; and then be turned round on me, and, in a manner which brought down cheers unnumbered on my head, he said, "Shall I tell the House how the case really stands? Why, can it be possibly believed that the sig-
  790
  nature appended to that despatch was the signature of the Earl of Carnarvon?" Why, my Lords, I never denied—I never dreamt of denying—that I sanctioned the Suspensory scheme in Jamaica just as I voted for a Suspensory scheme in Ireland. I am at a loss to understand where is the inconsistency. The noble and learned Lord seems to have given me even greater credit for consistency than I ventured to claim for myself. And now I come to the subject really before the House—namely, this Bill—and upon this ground the noble and learned Lord attacked me severely. I had stated that this Bill, which withdraws the £20,000 originally granted to the West Indian Church, was a disendowment. The noble and learned Lord denied the justice of the term so applied. He said—and I will give you his very words—referring to the West Indian Church—
  "Nothing whatever has been done, nothing whatever is proposed to be done altering in any manner the establishment of Bishops, archdeacons, and clergy in the way in which it has subsisted ever since it had any existence."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 261.]
  Now, let me ask your Lordships to consider what the real facts are. My noble Friend the noble Duke stated them to your Lordships. Allow me to re-state them in a few words. The West Indian bishoprics had no existence before the year 1824. In that year the Crown, by letters patent, created these bishoprics. In the very next Session Parliament passed the Act which is here repealed, and that Act recited that the Crown had by letters patent constituted these three bishoprics; that the right of appointment was in the Crown; and it then proceeded to assign for the support and sustentation of these bishoprics the sum of £20,000 from the Consolidated Fund; providing, lastly, that if the 4½ per cent duties in the colony should reach a certain point, that sum of £20,000 should be transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the 4½ per cents. In the following year—1826—there was another Act, an amending Act, which simply apportioned part of this £20,000 among some of the minor clergy. From 1826 to 1842 I can find no trace of any legislative action on the subject; but, in 1842, another Act was passed, enabling the Crown to subdivide these dioceses, and diminish the stipends assigned to the clergy and Bishops without any increase of the gross sum of £20,000. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that no bishoprics were in existence prior to 1824, that then they

  791
  were created by letters patent; that an endowment was provided for them; that that endowment remained untouched up to 1842, though power was given and has been used of re-distributing the grant within the sphere and limits of the West Indian Church, just in the same way as the noble and learned Lord on a former occasion argued that the funds of the Irish Church ought to be re-distributed for the benefit of the Irish Church itself. I say, therefore, that so far as Act of Parliaments are concerned, if this is not the case of an endowment I am really at a loss to understand what an endowment is. But I may make my ground stronger still. In 1842, when my noble Friend Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley, introduced the Bill as Colonial Secretary, what did he state to the House of Commons? Why, that he proposed this measure for the subdivision of the existing dioceses only after consultation with the heads of the Church, and after receiving their approbation; thus clearly implying that the West Indian Church was intimately connected in interests and policy with the Established Church of this country. In the debate which followed Mr. Pakington thanked Lord Stanley for what he had done, and went on to state that for his part he always declared that wherever the authority of the British Crown existed, proper provision should be made for the Established Church. On the other hand, a noble Lord opposite (Lord Lyveden), then Mr. Vernon Smith, warned Lord Stanley not to establish Bishops in every colony, because nothing could be more detrimental, especially to the Church of England itself, than the establishment in all the colonies of the State religion of this country. That, therefore, in general, public, Parliamentary repute was the view taken of this Act.And if you go further you find undoubtedly the same view taken. I find no further allusion to these bishoprics until 1866, when Mr. Remington Mills complained that these Bishops were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of this country; and what was the answer of my predecessor, Mr. Cardwell, upon the subject? He said that the general views of Parliament and the country with respect to—what?—with respect to these "ecclesiastical endowments" had very much changed since the passing of the Act imposing the charge upon the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, I think I was warranted in speaking of this Church in the West Indies as an Estab-
  792
  lished Church, and of the money granted to it as an endowment. It is possible that—though I do not stop to argue the point—some persons may attempt to draw a distinction between income derived by the Church from tithe and income derived under statute. I confess I am at a loss to understand the grounds for such a distinction. The tithes rest on the security of the land from which those tithes are derived; money granted out of the Consolidated Fund by Act of Parliament is based on the security, not of one piece of land, but of the whole of the land and property of the country; and I am at a loss to understand what can be more binding or trustworthy than an Act of Parliament passed under such conditions as I have described. But the noble and learned Lord did not content himself with contradicting the accuracy of my statement with regard to the use of the word endowment. He went on to say that this was simply a transfer from Imperial to colonial funds. In order that there may be no mistake he will allow me to read his very words, He said—
  "The colonists are, I believe, perfectly ready to make provision for the payment of the Bishops and parochial clergy; and the whole of this great question of the disendowment of the Church in Jamaica turns out to be simply this—the transfer of the burden of £20,000 from the Imperial Exchequer to the Colonial Exchequer."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 261.]
  Now, I have examined these three Acts and I take on myself to say that there is not a word in any one of them with reference to such a transfer; and if it is not effected by virtue of anything in these Acts, how else can the transfer take place? As to the alleged readiness of the colonists to accept those burdens, it is true that I have resigned the Seals of the Colonial Office for a year and a half, and of course can know nothing of what may have passed since then; but no satisfied am I that the noble and learned Lord could have had no warrant for this statement that I will take the responsibility of saying that I am fully satisfied there can be no disposition on the part of these colonists to accept the burden; I am satisfied that there is little power on their part to accept it, even if they were so disposed; and I cannot, therefore, believe the statement which the noble and learned Lord unadvisedly, and I am sure unintentionally, made to this House. I must ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can produce any evidence, direct or indirect,

  793
  great or small, to show that the colonists have ever expressed in the smallest degree their readiness to accept this burden. I think I might safely go further, and ask the noble and learned Lord to produce a single despatch previous to the debate on the Irish Church in this House, in which the colonists have been even invited by the Government to accept that burden. If I am wrong in this statement which I now make I shall be the first to apologize for it; but if, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord has no evidence to produce in support of his statement, I hope that his sense of candour and fairness will lead him to acknowledge that that statement was wholly without foundation. Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord has contradicted me equally pointedly on another question of fact, and I beg the House to pay particular attention to it. He says—
  "From a very early period the dignitaries of the Church were supported by the colonies. The distress in the islands arising from emancipation was so great for the time, that the Parliament of England, as a matter of charity and as an eleemosynary gift, was content to pay out of the funds of the mother country, a sum of £20,000 a year in order to eke out and complete the salaries of some, not all, but a certain number of the Bishops and their archdeacons in those islands."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 261.]
  Now I am sorry to say that in these half-dozen lines the noble and learned Lord has fallen into not less than three distinct errors. In the first place, before emancipation, these Bishops as I have shown, were not supported by the colonies at all. In the next place, this sum of £20,000 has not been granted to eke out and complete the salaries. I believe that the Bishops have almost if not wholly and solely depended upon that grant. Thirdly, I deny that the distress arising from emancipation was in any degree or shape the cause of this endowment of the bishoprics. It is obvious it could not be so. Negro emancipation was passed in 1833, and the Act which gave this endowment was passed in 1825. That is my answer to this charge, and I do not care to make any further comment on it. Lastly, the noble and learned Lord told me I was so blinded with anger against the Government that I was ready to make a thrust whenever I could, and therefore that I had magnified what was "a very simple and commonplace transaction" into a matter of great importance Now, let this question be judged, whether or no it is a very simple and commonplace transaction, not from anything I say, but
  794
  from the words of a Colleague of the noble and learned Lord. I find that on the 13th of April last year Mr. Remington Mills, a Gentleman I believe of advanced Liberal opinions in the House of Commons, introduced a Bill which, with the exception of a single clause, was substantially the same as the measure now before the House. Mr. Adderley, on behalf of the Government and the Colonial Office, said he should not oppose the Bill, but he pointed out that it was in a very improper state to pass, and he went on to say—
  "The measure ought to be accompanied by considerable safeguards, for anything like a precipitate repeal of the Acts in question might lead to the production of great mischief, to injustice to individuals, and injury to the Church, and might even involve a breach of faith with the colonists of the West Indies. Not only must existing interests be saved, but the power of gradual reduction must be somewhere reserved, as also the power of anticipating vacancies."
  That Bill then and this being substantially the same, I must ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is fair to describe a measure which is "fraught with great mischief, injustice to individuals, injury to the Church, and possible breach of faith with the colonists of the West Indies," as a simple and commonplace transaction. I do not care to pursue this any further. I am indebted to your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me. I have studiously avoided by any word of mine reopening any part of the debate on the Irish Church. What I have said has been said in vindication of my own character, which was assailed for inaccuracy. The noble and learned Lord lectured me very severely, and he lamented that he was obliged to point out to me, who had been Colonial Secretary, the errors I had made in the matter of colonial fact. I leave it now to the House and to every impartial person to judge between the noble and learned Lord and myself, and to say which of the two has been most accurate. My Lords, I did not wish to say one word more, but when the noble and learned Lord uses that great skill and forensic power, to which I am the first to pay my tribute of respect, to charge an humble Member of your Lordships' House like myself with attempting to exaggerate and to mislead, and when that individual labours as I did under the disadvantage of being unable from the rules of the House to reply, and feels himself very far inferior to the noble and learned Lord

  795
  in rhetorical power, I think it would have been fairer and more generous if the noble and learned Lord himself were to measure his own statements of fact by a standard of the most precise accuracy.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of reopening the debate on the Irish Church. The noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Carnarvon) laments that statements were made by me when he had not the opportunity of replying. The noble Earl has had an opportunity, not often the lot of those who take part in debate, of replying, after an interval of several days, to the statements which I made. That advantage I do not in the slightest degree grudge the noble Earl. And now first as to the question he has asked me. He has asked me whether the statements I made in reference to the position of the Church in Jamaica were correct. I said that the grant of £20,000 a year had been made by Parliament as an eleemosynary grant in consequence of the state to which the islands had been reduced by emancipation. In point of fact the grant was made some years before emancipation took place. If the noble Lord thinks that material to the argument,—if he thinks it in the slightest degree affects the argument I advanced, he is perfectly welcome to my full admission. Even as to that I must remind the noble Earl that in a speech of Mr. Canning, which has been quoted to-night, he spoke of the ground of the grant as being the condition of the colony, not by reason of emancipation, which had not then been granted, but by reason of the necessity of ameliorating the condition of the people, which was one of the grounds of the subsequent emancipation. The noble Earl asked me further whether I was correct in saying that the grant of £20,000 was for the purpose of eking out the resources of the Church in the Islands. I certainly maintain that it was, and the noble Earl, had he heard the statement of my noble Friend to-night, would have known that the Church in the islands had possessions which brought in something like £50,000 a year, and this £20,000 a year went to eke out and supplement that income. I do not know in what shape the property was, but I think the noble Duke said it was worth something like £50,000 or £60,000 a year. The noble Earl also asked me what authority I had for saying that the colonists were willing to take upon themselves the burden. I said I believed the colonists
  796
  were prepared to provide for their Bishops and their parochial ministers; I said that, as soon as the present Bill received the Royal Assent, they would be invited by the Home Government so to do; and I added, whether they did or did not, in my opinion it did not matter a pin's point in the argument. I maintained that the donation we gave in aid of the funds of the island was not in any sense establishment or endowment, and that the action which would take effect under the Bill would amount to neither disendowment nor disestablishment. I have already stated that I do not in any respect grudge the noble Earl the advantage of his reply to-night; but with reference to the arguments I advanced and the statements I made, beyond what I have now said I have nothing to retract, qualify, or explain. I am perfectly willing that the statements I made and the arguments I urged should go forth to your Lordships and the country with the reply of the noble Earl to-night, and I leave your Lordships and the public to judge whether that which was the main topic of my observations, the original attack of the noble Earl on Her Majesty's Government, was or was not warranted.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not rise to re-open the Irish Church debate, but to say that I am most willing on my part to rest what little share of responsibility I have in introducing this matter first to your Lordships' notice upon the statement which was made by the noble Earl opposite, and the reply of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, however, there is one other question I should like to ask; and I wish to do it in guarded words, so as not to re-open what is past. Your Lordships may remember the severe censure which was passed upon us by Her Majesty's Ministers for not immediately retracting and apologizing for certain declarations, and it was said that it was usual in this House, when an attack was made on any Member of this House for anything he might have said, and he had completely and fully answered, that attack, that a retractation of that charge should be made. I will not go into what might be said to show the difficulties of our position at that moment, but I admit in the fullest degree the general principle which was laid down by noble Lords opposite. I really wish to know what are the peculiar circumstances in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) stands that, twice during the last ten days, he has been made a

  797
  marked exception to this rule? The other day he made a statement, to which he has referred this evening, with regard to the Church in the colonies. He was taunted with being inaccurate; but I think he has proved that he was absolutely correct in what he then stated. And yet no single word of apology has been offered him. On the other occasion I refer to, an opinion was imputed to the noble Earl on quite another subject—that of the Abyssinian War. The noble Earl denied that he had ever held that opinion, and the only excuse or retractation he got was that the noble Earl who made the imputation said that for the future he should never believe his own cars. I should be glad to hear it stated what are the peculiar circumstances which prevent the application of an honourable rule in his case.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville) is a most extraordinary one. He says that he brought a totally unfounded charge against Her Majesty's Ministers and refused to retract it; and then, because two perfectly fair charges are brought against my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon), he complains that those who bring them do not retract them.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: I do not wish to continue the criminations and recriminations of the discussion; but I have to offer an explanation in reference to what the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) said the other evening as to the expression made use of by the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Carnarvon) respecting the Abyssinian War. I have to state that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) afterwards referred to Hansard, in which there was a report of a speech by my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) which entirely justified the reference that was made to it. I think it right to make this statement in justification of Lord Derby, who is not now in the House.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I am extremely sorry the noble and learned Lord should have made that statement, because I also referred to Hansard, and satisfied myself that I was in the right. I am prepared to submit to any impartial jury the question whether there was the smallest foundation for what my noble Friend said. On the contrary, I totally deny having offered the recommendation imputed to me that a military dash should be made into Abyssinia. I recommended
  798
  a diplomatic mission, and the two things are wholly inconsistent.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: The noble Earl thought that a regiment or a regiment and a half would be quite sufficient to enforce that mission.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am getting quite accustomed to the character of these debates, and I venture to suggest that we are already travelling in the direction of those warm latitudes to which I alluded the other night. Although I have not long been a Member of your Lordships' House, I diligently read the reports of your Lordships' proceedings in the newspapers, and if my recollection serves me it is quite clear that what my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Carnarvon) wanted was an Embassy which should be properly protected. Lord Derby, however, understood my noble Friend to say that the Embassy was to fulfil all the purposes of a military expedition. Now I think a little consideration will show that the two things are wholly distinct from each other; but whether my noble Friend was right or wrong, his proposal had nothing to do with the Expedition under Sir Robert Napier. As to the thorny subject which has been brought forward this evening, I think that in reference to one, and that to the smallest part of it, my noble Friend was distinctly right; while in reference to the other, he, in reality, merely begged the question which is at issue between those who are in favour of and those who are opposed to the Irish Church Establishment. As far as the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum are concerned, I hold that the parallel between Ireland and Jamaica is complete. To withdraw those two grants is exactly the same thing as the withdrawal of the support which Parliament gave to the West Indian Church. In regard, however, to the Irish Church, I think my noble Friend, who alluded contemptuously to certain persons who believe there is a difference between the inherited property of a corporation and sums voted annually by Parliament, thereby indicated the confusion which had arisen in his own mind. We on this side of the House contend, whether rightly or wrongly, that the property of the Irish Church depends on something totally different from the sanction given by Parliament, when sums are voted out of the Consolidated Fund, We contend, in point of fact, that the Church depends on sanctions analogous in character to those by virtue of which my

  799
  noble Friend holds his own property. That, I believe, constitutes the great difference between us and the noble Lords opposite on the subject of the Irish Church property. It is a difference of principle; and if my noble Friend overlooked that difference of principle, and also the fact that numbers of people hold the views which he thinks absurd, I can easily understand how he imagined that in withdrawing the grant to the West Indian Church the Government were going in an opposite direction to that indicated by the policy which they pursued on the question of the Irish Church. That, I think, was the way in which the confusion of the noble Earl arose. I have ventured to make these few remarks, but, although only a young Member of your Lordships' House, I must earnestly protest against the growing practice of devoting, in the midst of the important questions which we have to decide, and of the serious problems which come up to us for solution, so much valuable time to the discussion of purely personal questions.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDthought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) had completely vindicated himself from the charge of inaccuracy that had been brought against him. With respect to the general subject then under their Lordships' consideration he was of opinion that it would not be possible to continue the policy hitherto pursued towards the colonies; and he was therefore prepared to support the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that if he might trust to his memory the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) said he thought the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Carnarvon) wished to have a flying squadron sent to Abyssinia, and suggested that perhaps the noble Earl might wish to have the Hampshire Yeomanry Cavalry despatched to that country. ["Question !"]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would not enter into the general question, but wished to ask the noble Duke the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the colonists were ready, or had at any time been invited, to take this increased burden upon themselves?
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: No application has yet been made to the colonies asking them to assume the charge for the episcopal supervision of those sees, which will be unprovided for, as far as regards the Imperial salaries, on the death of the present holders. The communications
  800
  which I have had with those who hold the most important sees in the West Indian colonies lead me to believe that there will not be any difficulty on the part of the colonists in providing out of their own resources for episcopal supervision, on the scale which is usual at present in our colonial dioceses. It is true that that is not such a provision as was contemplated years ago, when the grant was established, but still it has been found sufficient throughout our colonial possessions. With regard to the houses, lands, and certain allowances appertaining to the bishops, and which have been granted in the colonies, they will, of course, stand just as they did before the passing of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 176.)
(The Earl of Longford.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 176.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the said Bill read.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid that, as a measure of Parliamentary Reform, this Bill was a mockery and an absurdity. What was required in Ireland was not an extension of the franchise so much as a redistribution of seats. Anomalies existed in Ireland which could not be justified on any ground; and it seemed to him that it was precisely because there was so much to be done in that direction that no attempt at re-distribution had been made. It was evident that another Irish Reform Bill would have to be introduced next year. This measure conferred the franchise on the most doubtful class to which it could be extended in Ireland. He would not detain their Lordships by going into statistics on this subject further than to refer to one or two facts which would be found in a Paper laid upon the table of the other House of Parliament, though not communicated to their Lordships' House. He alluded to a Paper showing the population and the number of the electors in the different counties and boroughs in Ireland. It was evident from this Paper that there were very striking anomalies in connection with the representation of Ireland. There were eighteen boroughs, the largest of which, Lisburn,

  801
  had only 302 electors; of which one, Portarlington, had only ninety-two electors; and most of which had under 200 electors: and yet each of these boroughs returned a Member; while an important county containing 1,000 electors, and having within it no boroughs, returned only two Members. Such anomalies as these showed the absolute necessity of introducing a measure which should deal with the distribution of the seats, so far as Ireland was concerned. Again, it was impossible that the populous, wealthy, and increasing district to the south-east of the city of Dublin could remain without direct representation, and the ninety-two electors of such miserable places as Portarlington continue to return a Member. He had no intention of opposing this Bill; but he protested against the notion that it was a measure which would settle the question of Reform in Ireland, because he foresaw that within a year or two it would be necessary to take up the question of the re-distribution of the representation in that country.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he had intended to say a few words on the provisions of the Bill, even if the noble Marquess had not thought it necessary to refer to the subject. It was to be remembered that this was not the Bill originally introduced by the Government for the amendment of the representation of the people in Ireland in Parliament. The Government had introduced a Bill, by the provisions of which certain small boroughs in Ireland would have been abolished, and among them Portarlington—which he believed was the smallest borough in the kingdom—whose Member would have been given to the City of Dublin. That Bill, however, met with so small an amount of favour in the House of Commons that the Government were obliged to give up that scheme of re-distribution. Another part of the original scheme for Ireland was a revision of the electoral boundaries by a Commission; but it had since been determined that the boundaries should be settled by the Bill. Though in the Bill before their Lordships the qualification in boroughs was named at £4, practically the borough franchise in Ireland would be the same as that in England—as in the former country premises valued at under £4 were exempted from payment of rates. There was a lodger franchise for Ireland, as well as for England and Scotland. A noble Earl (the Earl of Bandon) had given Notice of two Amendments;
  802
  but they were not Amendments to which the Government could assent; and he therefore hoped that his noble Friend would not press them.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he was disposed to accept this Bill as it stood, because, notwithstanding the anomalies in the Irish representation pointed out by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanvicarde), he thought the measure was sufficient for the present time. His reason for saying this was that, taking the general question of representation, he thought it could not be said that the Irish boroughs generally had more than a fair proportion of representation in relation to the counties. It therefore seemed to him that it would be better for Parliament to wait for some years and see whether there were not some large and increasing towns, such as Belfast, entitled to additional representation before they made any change in the distribution of seats. With regard to a "hard and fast line," which was so strongly repudiated by the Government last year, he might observe that in England and Scotland we had it in respect of the county and the lodger franchises, and in Ireland it was now to be extended even to the boroughs. He was led to the conclusion, therefore, that either the pretence put forward last year was a false one—which he thought it was—or that the Government had departed from their own principles.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he would point out one of the anomalies of Parliamentary representation in Ireland, which he desired to see rectified. The large county of Cork in which he resided, contained no less than 15,995 voters, who only returned two Members; while four boroughs in the same county had a collecive constituency of only 814 voters, where turned four Members to the House of Commons. Even under the present Bill the whole constituency of these boroughs would not exceed 1,760, and, probably, would not be more than 1,300 or 1,400 voters. The Irish Reform Bill of 1850 had, unfortunately, given up the principle that the county franchise should be based upon property, and he still retained the opinion which he expressed at the time that this was a step in the direction of equal electoral divisions. He looked upon the lodger franchise as applied to Ireland with considerable distrust, for he could not forget that before the Bill of 1850 the great complaint was the swearing on both sides as to the value of the holdings. He had

  803
  presented a petition that evening from certain influential citizens of Dublin having houses in the neighbourhood, stating that they were much nearer to Dublin than formerly by means of the railway, but that they were still outside the seven-mile line, and urging that they should be allowed to vote within a distance of twelve miles. As to the Amendments, of which he had given Notice, he was willing to withdraw them for the present; but he trusted that at some future time a Bill for the re-distribution of seats in Ireland would be brought before their Lordships' House.
  House in Committee; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 218.)
(The Lord Chancellor,)
REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 218.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the object of this Bill was to make those arrangements with regard to registration which would allow of the dissolution of Parliament at the earliest possible moment. The contents of the Bill were entirely matters of detail, which would be best discussed in Committee, and he would, therefore simply move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 220.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 220.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving the Amendment, of which he had given notice, relative to the Boundaries of Glasgow, said, that the districts which he proposed to add to that place were virtually parts of the city, Govan comprising part of the harbour, and Partick containing the site of the now University, and were so identified in every way with the city that they ought to form part of it for electoral purposes. This could hardly be accounted a party question, for the Corporation of Glasgow,
  804
  which was, he believed, one of the most liberal Corporations in the country, had petitioned in favour of the extension. It was true that some of the inhabitants of these districts objected to the proposal, their fear being that it would be followed by their inclusion within the municipality, and that they would so become liable to taxation for municipal purposes; but that could only be done by a special Act, when they would have an opportunity of showing cause against it. He believed they would be unable in that case to show any sufficient cause, for it was very important, for drainage, police, and other purposes, that every portion of what was really one city should be comprised in one jurisdiction. At present, however, only the Parliamentary boundary was to be dealt with, and the House of Commons having decided this question by a narrow majority of 5, it seemed to him fair to give them an opportunity of re-considering it. Amendments had been already adopted, the consideration of which would probably occupy the House of Commons only a few minutes, and he did not anticipate that there would be any protracted discussion on this point—so that the progress of the Bill would not be delayed; for, in the event of the other House refusing to agree to the Amendment, he should not, ask their Lordships to insist upon it.
  Moved, at the end of the Bill to add the following clause:—
  "That the Boundaries of the City of Glasgow shall, until otherwise directed by Parliament, be those specified in Schedule (K.) hereunto annexed."—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was not sorry that the noble Lord had given him an opportunity of discussing the general bearings of the Bill, on which hitherto no observations had been offered in their Lordships' House, it not being usual to debate the principles of a measure brought in by the Government and accepted with trifling alterations by the Opposition. He regarded it as, on the whole, a very satisfactory solution of the Reform question with regard to Scotland. On some points, indeed, the Liberal party had been unsuccessful in the other House; but on others the Government had been defeated, and the Bill he thought might be regarded as very much of the nature of a compromise. He was glad that the Government had as regards Scotland been obliged to give way on the question of a rating franchise

  805
  in counties. A rating franchise had two meanings; in counties its object was to take the rateable instead of the value column, while in boroughs its object was to make the payment of rates a condition of the suffrage—and this was quite a different question from rateable value in the other sense. In Scotland a rating franchise in counties would have been quite unworkable; and after full discussion the Government had agreed to a franchise founded upon actual value, which was the basis of almost all rates in Scotland except the poor rate, and was, he believed, the best system. Had it been necessary to raise the question in this House, it could have been shown that the anomalies and absurdities of a rating qualification would have been greater in Scotland than in England; and the Government, by accepting a £14 rental instead of a £12 rating franchise, had shown that they could easily have accepted a similar basis in the case of England, and that no "principle" is involved except that of public convenience. In England the tenant might pay through his landlord or any other person, but must pay the full rate, compounding being abolished; whereas in Scotland the practice was for the tenant and the landlord to pay half the rate each—and this system would continue in force. As regards the borough franchise he thought the Bill had satisfactorily settled the question, for he did not deny the expediency of excluding from the borough franchise those who were unable to pay even half the poor rates. A noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) complained a few nights ago of the English Act of last Session having been tampered with, and of Scotland having invaded England and carried off blackmail in the shape of seven seats. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) had never contended for a re-distribution of political power as between the two countries, founded either on taxation or population, for he did not consider that Scotchmen had any special grievances, and they were allowed by their English friends to manage their own affairs very much as they pleased. He wished, therefore, for no re-distribution founded on taxation or population, though if such grounds were considered Scotland could make out a fair claim for additional scats. The only claim he had ever made was that particular constituencies of such magnitude and importance that were they in England they would be allotted a second or third seat, ought not to be denied that
  806
  privilege simply because they were in Scotland. He did not think the independent Members of their Lordships' House had any great reason to complain because seven seats were taken from England. He did not believe there was anyone who in his heart supposed that it would be possible in the next Parliament that all the small boroughs in England should retain their Members. Up to the present time no county in Scotland had had two representatives, while several of the smallest in England had two Members, and some of them had more. It could hardly be considered unreasonable, therefore, to give a second representative to a few counties in Scotland which had made such enormous advances in wealth and commercial importance. Many Conservatives thought it a point of policy that county constituencies should be composed almost exclusively of landed proprietors and tenant farmers, and that the urban element should be eliminated. It was on that principle that the Amendment to extend the boundaries of Glasgow was sustained. But that was a very dangerous policy, even from a Conservative point of view; because it should not be forgotten that there were many boroughs which were called town constituencies, but which were nothing in reality but small counties and belonged as exclusively to the agricultural interest as any county in England. If, therefore, they were to have a revision of boundaries, any Commission that might be appointed should be left perfectly free to deal with these so-called boroughs. Now, the case for the extension of the boundaries of Glasgow was, instead of being very strong, a very weak one. It was perfectly true that in the other House the Government proposed to include Govan and Partick within the Parliamentary limits, and upon that they were defeated; but they never ventured to propose such an extension as was contemplated by the Amendment that was now submitted to their Lordships, Such an Amendment had indeed been placed upon the Paper, but it had never been carried to a division. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) had talked of part of these suburbs being within the natural boundaries of Glasgow; but he (the Duke of Argyll) could assure the House from his own knowledge that these districts extended far beyond what could be at all considered as properly included within it. His noble Friend had appealed to the desire of the municipality of

  807
  Glasgow to take in the suburbs; but in February last a Petition had been presented from the magistrates of Glasgow, in which they prayed that four Members should be given to the city, and if it was decided not to give four Members then that the Parliamentary boundary should not be enlarged. It might be said that they had changed their minds when they found they could get only three Members; but the reason for that was because they wished to bring the whole of the inhabitants of the outlying districts within the area of Glasgow taxation. The inhabitants of those districts, on the other hand, resisted because they had a taxation of their own, and they feared that if brought within the municipality of Glasgow their taxation would be grievously increased. The population of Glasgow was somewhere about 450,000; and if this area, which had about 62,000 inhabitants, were added to it, the whole population of the city would be largely in excess of 500,000, and the number of voters would be between 60,000 and 70,000. A great many people therefore said that they would be entirely swamped by this immense mass of voters; and most of the intelligent inhabitants of the outlying districts did not desire to be taken within the city, because they would lose their county votes. On these and on other grounds, he thought it would be very inexpedient if that House was to interfere with the natural right of the House of Commons to define the boundaries of its own constituencies.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he must defend the Government against the charge of having abandoned their fundamental policy of taking rating instead of rental as the basis of the franchise. The state of Scotland was so peculiar and so different from that of every other part of the United Kingdom, that it would have been impossible to adhere in that country to all the provisions of the English Reform Bill; for there were parishes in Scotland where there were no rates at all, and consequently had the rating principle been adhered to it would have introduced nothing but confusion. But with regard to the essential principle of the payment of rates, the Government had adhered to their principle in the other House, and had successfully vindicated that principle. But with regard to the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale), he could only repeat what had been already stated as to the course the Government intended to pursue. What the opinion of the Govern-
  808
  ment was had been sufficiently indicated by the Amendments proposed by the noble Duke at the head of the Post Office (the Duke of Montrose) in regard to the Boundary Bill. But the same considerations which had weighed with the Government in the case of the Boundary Bill had weighed with them also with respect to this Bill—they did not think it right to interpose any obstacle in the way of passing those measures which they considered absolutely necessary to be carried before the close of the Session. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to his noble Friend not to press his Amendment; and if his appeal should be unsuccessful he should be compelled to divide against him.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he would not say more than a few words, as the Government had announced their intention not to support the Amendment. But he must say he felt some little surprise that the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) should be the person to bring forward this Amendment—particularly after the part which he had taken in respect of the English Reform Bill of lost year. On that occasion the noble Lord said that for this House to deal with the question of enfranchising or disfranchising boroughs was almost unconstitutional; it might be within the letter of the law, but certainly was a strain upon the Constitution. But was not an interference with the limits of boroughs in principle the same, seeing that you thereby affected one way or the other the franchise of a great number of persons? He thought that it was a mere question of degree between the enfranchisement or disfranchisement of boroughs and the alteration of borough limits.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not see any inconsistency at all. What he stated last year was that it was a very delicate thing to disfranchise a borough which had perhaps enjoyed the franchise for centuries, and which the other House of Parliament, to which the question more especially belonged, did not think should be disfranchised. On the other hand, to say that in determining the question of Reform this House had not a right to give an opinion upon the boundaries of one of the boroughs affected by the Bill was really to limit the power of this House to an extent which he thought would not be contemplated by anybody in his senses. He should press his Motion to a division, because he felt bound to assert the independ-

  809
  ence of this House, which had been most unfairly treated with regard to this Bill. Every Member of the Government admitted that his Amendment was a proper one; it could not interfere in any way with the passing of the Bill, and being admittedly a proper Amendment he hoped that their Lordships would support it.
  LORD LYVEDENwished to say a word on the inconsistency of the Government, who proposed this year the very thing which they strenuously objected to last year. Last year there was to be no disfranchisement of boroughs; but this year seven boroughs were taken away from the English representation by one small clause in the Scotch Bill, and no reason whatever was assigned why it was done. He thought some notice ought to have been taken of this before the third reading, and nothing but the necessity of passing the Scotch Bill at the present time would induce him to acquiesce in it.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 13; Not-Contents 53: Majority 40.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Churston, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Clarina, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Denman, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Coventry, E.

  Romney, E.

  Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Halifax, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Templetown, V.

  Grafton, D.

  Belper, L.

  Mar. lborough, D.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Abercorn, M.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Airlie, E.

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

  Camperdown, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Granville, E.

  Foley, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Minto, E.

  Nelson, E.

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

  Portarlington, E.

  Russell, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Monson, L.

  810

  Mostyn, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Raglan, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Silcheater, L. (E. Longford.) [Teller.]

  Wentworth, L.

  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to further amend the Law relating to Railway Companies—Was presented by The Duke of RICHMOND; read 1a. (No. 226.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.