Lords Sitting of 13 July 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Queen Anne's Bounty* (185); Sunday and Ragged Schools* (188).
Second Reading—Education of Children [88], negatived; Bishops Resignation (171); Charity Commissioners (170); Special Bails (166); Assessed Rates (174); Poor Law Board Provisional Orders Confirmation* (142).
Committee—Court of Common Pleas (County Palatine of Lancaster)* (79–186); Municipal Franchise* (125–187); Diplomatic Salaries, &c. * (128).
Report—New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment* (184).
Withdrawn—Infant Life Preservation (89).

PORTADOWN INQUEST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERsaid, he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Dufferin) to the adjournment by the coroner of this inquiry for three or four weeks—namely, till the 3rd of August. The inquest was on the body of a man who was shot down by the police, they having fired, as he understood, by the order of the sub-inspector of the district. It was most important that the inquiry should be a continuous one, and should be brought to a close as soon as possible; for in the meantime the influence and authority of the sub-inspector would be very much weakened. He would suggest his temporary transfer to a post of equal rank in another part of the country in the event of the Government being unable to direct the speedy resumption of the inquiry. The coroner's reason for the adjournment was his having to attend Assizes in another district, but three or four days would surely have been sufficient for this purpose.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, the Government had been informed of the adjournment with great surprise and regret; but it was entirely within the discretion of the coroner to adjourn for any period he might think proper, and they had no power to interfere. The noble Duke's suggestion as to the temporary removal of the officer was open to the obvious objection that it would naturally be regarded both by him and by the public as somewhat prejudging the case.

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
(The Marquess Townshend.)
EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.

  (NO. 88.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its principle was that of compulsory education, which he was persuaded was essential to any efficient measure on this subject. As to the religious difficulty, it would be best met by giving secular instruction in day schools, leaving it to the ministers of all denominations to provide by Sunday Schools or otherwise for that religious teaching which should form an important part of education. His proposal was that wherever free schools existed within reach of the parents they should be required to send their children for at least twelve hours' teaching a week. This would not interfere with the employment of children of ten or twelve years of age, whose earnings might be important to their parents, while it would in most cases lead to children being allowed to remain at school the greater part of the day. Compulsory education was already the law of the land with reference to children employed in factories and workshops, and there could be no objection to extending the principle to those who were in a more disadvantageous position. Parents were bound to provide proper food and clothing for their children's bodies; surely, therefore, the law ought to require them to provide for their minds.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess Townshend.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he thought no one could doubt the excellence of his noble Friend's object, but it was doubtful whether this Bill would further it. The Government had promised their serious attention to the whole question of public education, and he appealed to his noble Friend and to all desiring the spread of education whether it was well to deal with the question piecemeal, especially with that most difficult part of it, the mode of securing the attendance of children at school. It would be improper for him now to state the opinion of the Government on the question of popular education, and as at this period of the Session

  1739
  no practical result could be expected, he trusted that his noble Friend would not press the measure.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day three months.

INFANT LIFE PRESERVATION BILL.
(The Marquess Townshend.)
INFANT LIFE PRESERVATION BILL.

  (NO. 89.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDexplained that the Bill was directed against "baby farming." It was notorious that in many cases infants were intrusted to persons whose wish was that the children's lives might come to a speedy end, and whose character was such that, but for the lowness of their terms, they would not be vested with so important a trust. Instances were but too common in which infants thus perished from neglect or ill-treatment, and his proposal, therefore, was that every person taking charge of them should be licensed by a magistrate, and should be required to give security for the proper discharge of her duties.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he regarded the Bill as a most extraordinary one, since it would make it unlawful for any person, including, therefore, the mother, to take charge of any child under five years of age for the purpose of nursing without having previously obtained the authorization of a justice of the peace. He would advise the noble Marquess to subject these very numerous Bills to some more careful scrutiny before he submitted them to the consideration of the House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the Bill was calculated to defeat the object of the noble Marquess, for, if carried into effect, there would soon, probably, be no infant life to preserve. It would moreover, require all nurses in hospitals and workhouses to be licensed. He hoped the noble Marquess would remodel the Bill before he again brought it forward.
  EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps the noble Marquess would not object to this
  1740
  Amendment of his Bill—"That no woman shall nurse a child without the authority of her husband or the license of a magistrate." That would simplify matters very much; the husband's authority could be obtained without trouble.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDsaid, that the Bill would only apply to children placed out to nurse. After the way in which the Bill had been received it would be useless for him to press it.
  Order for Second Reading discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

BISHOPS RESIGNATION BILL—(No. 171.)
(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
BISHOPS RESIGNATION BILL—(No. 171.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, this Bill consisted of two parts. One part had reference to the resignation of Bishops, and the other was to amend the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 62, which provided that in the case of the mental incapacity of a Bishop a Commission should issue in order to supply proper superintendence of the diocese. The first part of the Bill met the difficulty which had been experienced in former attempts in the same direction, by providing that in case of the resignation of a Bishop the revenues of the see should be applied for the benefit at once of the retiring Bishop and of his coadjutor. It had been found impossible to provide any income for a retiring Bishop from any other source, and although inconvenience might arise from dividing the revenues of the see during the time when there was both a retired Bishop and a Bishop exercising jurisdiction, yet that inconvenience was not so great as that arising from the present state of things, there being at present no provision for the resignation of a Bishop. With regard to the second part of the Bill, he had followed as nearly as possible the precedent of the 6 & 7 Vict., which gave compulsory powers in cases of mental incapacity. Their Lordships were aware that under that Act a Commission might be issued in the case of a Bishop who was mentally incapacitated from discharging his duties, and that on the Report of that Commission another Bishop holding a see in England or Wales was appointed

  1741
  to administer the diocese. Provision was made in that Act that one-fifth part of the revenue should be paid to the assisting Bishop with which to meet his additional expenses; but the difficulty still remained of laying on one who had already enough to do in his own diocese, additional duties in the entire charge of another diocese. In this Bill it was proposed to meet that difficulty by providing that, instead of a Bishop already charged with a see in England or Wales, a Bishop-coadjutor, with right of succession, should be appointed. Provision was made to secure his payment and his right of succession to the see when it became vacant in various clauses, which, no doubt, their Lordships would carefully consider in Committee. The evil which the Bill was intended to remedy was one that had often been complained of, and the inconvenience arising from which had been felt by none more than by those who were charged with the administration of the several dioceses.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  EARL NELSONsaid, he regretted the necessity, for such he feared it was, of limiting the income of a Bishop who would have to perform the entire duties of a diocese. In dioceses which were too large for the Bishops to visit their clergy, it was essential that they should have large incomes in order to be able to entertain their clergy, otherwise they would not see them at all; and he should have been glad if an arrangement could have been made for reviving some of the suppressed canonries, or for reserving some of the existing ones as a provision for retiring Bishops. He feared, however, that there was little chance of this being done. Residence in the cathedral city being very essential under the present management of large dioceses, he regretted that the Bill proposed to leave the episcopal residence to the retiring Bishop. This was, no doubt, designed as a kindness to him; but it was very desirable that his successor, having all the duties of the diocese, should also have the house, and he hoped this would be done, even should some larger sum be consequently allowed to the retiring Prelate. It being clear that a mentally incapacitated Bishop was less able to perform his duties than one who volun-
  1742
  tarily resigned, he could not see why the former should have a much larger income than the latter, nor why a coadjutor Bishop, who would have exactly the same duties as the successor to a retiring Bishop, should only have two-thirds of the income. Another anomaly in the Bill was that whereas a Bishop's capacity was to be determined by three judges—the Archbishop and two of the Bishops of the province—two Bishops only were, in the case of an Archbishop, to state in writing whether they considered him incapacitated. It was proposed, too, that his coadjutor should be nominated by the Crown from among the Bishops of his province; but, as he understood the Bill, the Bishop so nominated would retain the charge of his present diocese as well as that of the archbishopric. He thought the Bill might be amended as regarded some of its details.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he thought the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) could not have read the Bill very closely. It was not necessary that the house should be occupied by the Bishop resigning, and this would be left to arrangement. He admitted the inconvenience which had been pointed out with regard to income; but a Bishop subjected to compulsory retirement was entitled to some consideration. If he retained the house he incurred a large expense, while, on the other hand, the coadjutor, beside the prospect of succession, would have the power of choosing a residence adapted to his means. As to Archbishops, they were rather better protected than the noble Earl supposed, for the only difference in their case was the substitution of another Bishop to take the place of the Archbishop, and constitute a court of three persons. He believed that on examination the Bill would be found the best practicable remedy for the sad condition of things which was at present unprovided for.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he thought the Bill made very fair provision for retiring Bishops, but he doubted whether it went far enough. A provision should be made to meet the case of Bishops who, from their advanced period of life, though not mentally incapacitated, were incapable of performing their duties.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he must remind the noble Duke that it

  1743
  would be difficult to determine the particular point at which physical infirmity would justify the enforcement of a coadjutor. In such cases a Bishop could take his choice as to retiring, whereas in cases of mental incapacity he could not decide for himself. There might, in the lapse of centuries, be an occasional case which the Bill would not meet, but on the whole he believed it would be found sufficient.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he hoped the right rev. Bench would agree on the adoption of an Amendment in the 3rd clause, which would make the same provisions apply to physical as to mental incapacity, for the public would expect that this should be secured.
  THE BISHOP OP GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLadmitted that the noble Duke's (the Duke of Somerset's) suggestion was deserving of consideration. It was difficult, however, to draw a line between that degree of infirmity which caused the loss of a Bishop's services to a diocese and that in which the presiding power of the mind might remain, though accompanied by physical weakness.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was grateful to the right rev. Bench for having taken up a question of such urgency and importance, and he felt that it was a rather ungracious task to criticize the provisions of the Bill; but it was desirable before going into Committee to point out how it would strike lay Members of the House, and persons outside. The Bill proposed that a coadjutor Bishop should be appointed in certain cases, and should have an income of at least £2,000 a year from the see. Now, he would have to bear the whole burden and responsibility, and though Parliament would wish to deal tenderly with the retiring Bishop, it was not desirable that there should be so unsatisfactory a contrast between his position and that of the coadjutor as would exist under provisions of the Bill, which assigned to the retiring Bishop not less than £2,000 a year, besides all the temporalities and other emoluments, and, in certain cases, the episcopal palace. He would, moreover, have the power of initiating this state of things, for unless the incapacitated Bishop desired to retire, this part of the Bill could not come into force. In the case of a Bishop not taking the initiative the Bill shadowed
  1744
  out rather than detailed the course which was to be adopted, and pointed to the establishment of some tribunal the constitution and functions of which were not explained. Such a court would hardly be a satisfactory one, unless it contained a lay and legal element, competent to determine with precision the difficult question of mental capacity. One of the anomalies of the Bill was that in the case of an Archbishop the tribunal would not be the same. It might be greatly to the interest of the Church that an Archbishop should retire, but the Bill merely proposed the appointment of one of the Bishops of his province as coadjutor.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYasked the noble Earl to refer to clause 11.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he understood that clause to provide that a Bishop-coadjutor might be appointed in the case of an Archbishop being incapacitated, and that where an Archbishop's capacity was in question there should be substituted for him such Bishop of his province as Her Majesty might appoint. This seemed to him consistent with his statement that a Bishop of the province might be appointed the Archbishop's coadjutor.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexplained that the substitution of a Bishop of the province for the Archbishop was not for the purpose of acting as coadjutor, but for the purpose of sitting on the Commission, it being obvious that an Archbishop could not sit on the Commission by which his own lunacy was to be tried. When the Archbishop had been ascertained to be a lunatic, another person, and not one of the Bishops of the province, would be appointed to act as his coadjutor.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONaccepted this explanation as removing an objection which he was about to offer, but thought the terms of the clause were open to the construction he had put upon it. His criticisms were not conceived in a hostile spirit, but it was important, especially at this late period of the Session, that the details of the Bill should be carefully considered, and that ambiguities should be removed.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKremarked that while an incapacitated Bishop would be relieved from all his other duties, the Bill would continue to him the privilege of sitting in this House. The explana-

  1745
  tion given by the most rev. Prelate of the 11th clause raised some other objections to that clause, because from that explanation it would follow that the person to be appointed to assist the Archbishop need not necessarily be a Bishop at all.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he thought it was undesirable that the burden of the retiring allowance of a Bishop who was incapacitated should be thrown upon his successor. There was no doubt that, if not at the present moment, at least eventually, the episcopal property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be much more than sufficient to provide all the regular episcopal incomes, and, therefore, he thought such retiring allowances would form a legitimate charge, to be placed either wholly or in part upon those surplus funds. With regard to Bishops retiring on account of age, as in the case of the Civil Service, he thought there ought to be some limit as to the age at which applications to retire should be entertained—say, only from sixty-five or seventy years. With respect to the provision for investigating cases of alleged lunacy against a Bishop, it would, in his opinion, be much better that, as a Bishop was a public officer, on a representation being made to Her Majesty, Her Majesty should direct the Lunacy Commissioners, who were men of legal and medical experience, to conduct a formal inquiry and ascertain whether the alleged infirmity really existed. The part of Clause 11 which related to Archbishops and their coadjutors required some consideration. The coadjutor who was to be appointed was not only to discharge the ordinary duties of the Archbishop—that was to say, to carry on the discipline of the archdiocese of Canterbury or York; but, although a new man and just appointed, and being incapacitated from sitting in Parliament, he was to have power to institute legal inquiries, not only against priests, but against other Bishops of the province; for example, he might be allowed to prosecute the Bishops of London, Durham, or Winchester, who might have occupied their sees for ten or twenty years. It was difficult to say, in the case of the incapacity of the Archbishop, how his metropolitical functions were to be discharged; but it would not be proper to place those metropolitical functions in the hands of his junior and temporary successor.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he wished to make a suggestion in regard to the amendment of the Bill. The 3rd clause pointed out the steps by which a coadjutor Bishop was to be appointed. Their Lordships' attention had been already called to the fact that it applied merely to the case of mental incapacity; and it was obvious that if the Bill became law in its present form it would be entirely inoperative to reach some of the cases which had occurred under their own observation, as to which certainly a strong public feeling had been expressed that there ought to be some legislation. There was another objection to the clause as it now stood. It contemplated proceedings of a somewhat judicial character; and there was this great anomaly, that the Archbishop, who was to be the principal Judge, was also the person who put the whole judicial proceeding in motion. The Archbishop was to be, he would not say the prosecutor, but the mover in setting the inquiry on foot. That was open to grave objection, and what he would suggest was that a great improvement of the Bill might be effected by providing that upon a representation being made to the Archbishop, emanating from the Dean and Chapter, who were the guardians of the spiritualities, the Archbishop should then call to his aid the two Bishops, as the clause provided, and should hold an inquiry. He would suggest that the clause should go further, and enact that upon the Dean and Chapter undertaking to prove a degree of physical infirmity sufficient permanently to incapacitate the Bishop from the discharge of his duties an inquiry should take place, and in the event of the Archbishop being satisfied of the truth of the representation he should have power to appoint a coadjutor. The case of infirmity of an Archbishop was a matter of great difficulty, and great caution ought to be exercised in providing for the discharge of the duties of the office. It would, in his opinion, be very objectionable to devolve the performance of the functions of an incapacitated Archbishop upon a coadjutor, who from the necessity of the case was not likely to have the experience that was required in a person appointed to such an office. It would be far better to provide for the actual resignation of the most reverend Prelate, the revenues of the sees being large enough to provide a retiring pen-

  1747
  sion for the Archbishop, and a sufficient income for his successor.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished to call attention to one or two points which appeared to have been overlooked. Sometimes a man might for two or three years be subject to a slight infirmity, and a report might be made upon him according to the Bill; but when he recovered, what was to be his position, and what was to be the position of the see with two Bishops? Again, if some infirmity should happen to the coadjutor, what was to be done?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that several of the difficulties which had been suggested were worthy of consideration, but most of them were met by the fact that this was in every respect a voluntary Bill. It was not intended to effect by any compulsory procedure whatever the resignation of any Bishop. If a man was absolutely incapable of having a will, evidence as to his supposed mental incapacity was to be submitted to one of the Secretaries of State—he supposed the Home Secretary—and then it remained for the Crown to make or not to make the appointment of a coadjutor as it should think fit. Under such circumstances there could not be any contemplation of doubtful cases, or such as involved serious difficulty in investigation. The Bill had for its object simply to provide for the discharge of necessary duties, in the one ease at the desire of the Bishop, and in the other where there was a clear and undoubted case of mental incapacity. That object seemed to him very desirable, and he had no doubt that their Lordships might make this in Committee a valuable measure.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that the various suggestions which their Lordships had made should be taken into serious consideration before the Bill went into Committee. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) had mentioned that the Dean and Chapter, being regarded as the guardians of the spiritualities, were the proper persons to make the representation. But the Dean and Chapter were not to be regarded as the guardians of the spiritualities except in the case of Archbishops' sees. The Archbishop was the guardian of the spiritualities in other cases, and therefore this Bill, as regarded incapacity, followed the prece-
  1748
  dent of chap. 62 of the 6th and 7th of the Queen. He himself thought there was an incongruity in a Bishop appointed coadjutor exercising metropolitical jurisdiction, and a provision to remedy that would be introduced in Committee. He trusted that it was only the first part of the Bill that would really have to be put into operation, and he would take that opportunity of saying that he could not but believe that as soon as the Houses of Parliament should have provided proper means to enable Bishops afflicted with physical infirmities to retire there would be no hesitation on the part of the persons incapacitated from availing themselves of the arrangements which should be made. From the correspondence which he had had with the right rev. Prelates who were so afflicted, he knew that their position was very painful to themselves, and he could not but believe that they would be very thankful to their Lordships and the other House of Parliament if they should put it within their reach to do what he was sure they were very anxious to do—namely, to commit their sees to more vigorous hands.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL.

  (NO. 170.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to remove some difficulties which had occurred in the administration of charitable trusts, in consequence of certain formalities which were required to be observed, and which, while not serving any useful purpose, gave rise from time to time to serious inconvenience, the omission of them having thrown a doubt on the validity of orders which the Commissioners had made. The Bill in all the earlier parts of it dealt with the removal of difficulties of that description, and gave the Commissioners powers to discharge their own orders on the discovery of any irregularity in them. The 9th clause empowered the Commissioners to

  1749
  authorize those administering any charity to employ competent persons to frame a scheme or make inquiries under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 to 1869, and to pay those so employed. The 10th clause provided that a petition to the Court of Chancery under the 8th section of the Charitable Trusts Act—1860—must be presented in all cases by the same persons only as the existing law provided in the case of charities of which the annual income did not exceed £50—namely, the Attorney General and the trustees managing a trust. It might be a question for discussion in Committee whether a simple majority instead of two-thirds of the trustees administering a charity should be able to decide on the sale or exchange of any property held by them in trust. Other clauses facilitated the placing of charities under the Commissioners, for the jealousy with which these functionaries were originally regarded had recently disappeared, and all classes, including the representatives of Dissenting bodies, were anxious to avail themselves of the services of the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYwas understood to recommend some slight Amendment of Clause 9.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SPECIAL BAILS BILL—(No. 166.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SPECIAL BAILS BILL—(No. 166.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had had considerable inquiry made into the matter, and he was satisfied that it was necessary a Bill of this kind should be passed. It had not been introduced into the other House by the Government, but the able Master of the Court of Exchequer had been requested to examine it carefully, and he reported that the grievance sought to be redressed was a real one. By an Act of Charles II., and another of William III., no person was allowed to be appointed to take special bail in the country who was an attorney or a solicitor. This might be proper at one time, but now, in consequence of changes in the
  1750
  law, the cases of special bail were so few that it was not worth any person's while to take the office who was not an attorney or solicitor, and no one was appointed; so that in the few cases where special bail was required persons were put to the inconvenience of coming up to London for the purpose. The Bill empowered anyone authorized to administer an oath, whether he was a solicitor or not, provided he were not interested in the matter, to take special bail.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

ASSESSED RATES BILL—(No. 174.)
(The Lord Privy Seal)
ASSESSED RATES BILL—(No. 174.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was rendered necessary by the great inconvenience which had resulted from the abolition of composition for rates by a clause in the Representation of the People Act of 1867. Some idea might be formed of the inconvenience occasioned when it was stated that in nine boroughs 87,500 summonses for non-payment of rates had been issued. Before the Act passed composition was in force in no fewer than 171 boroughs, and the operation of the Act was felt to be a great hardship by the occupiers of small tenements, who paid rent weekly, because they were called upon to pay in advance a rate which exceeded in amount the rent due, while they were liable to be turned out at a week's notice. Under this Bill an occupier would not be called upon to pay a rate exceeding in amount the rent due to the landlord, and it was provided that they might deduct the rate so paid from the rent. The main object of the Bill was to reverse what was done by the clause in the Reform Act in depriving a large number of persons of the Parliamentary franchise. The Bill repealed the Small Tenements Act, and made composition possible throughout the country upon terms which were prescribed. In one case the occupier might pay the rate and deduct it from the landlord's rent; in a second the landlord would agree with the overseers, and would pay the rates; in which

  1751
  case he would get an allowance of 5 per cent; and in a third, the vestry might impose upon owners the obligation of paying the rates, and allow them a deduction of 15 per cent. In short, the Bill restored the power of compounding, and enabled it to be made universal throughout the country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Privy Seal)
  LORD DENMANwas understood to say it had been represented to him that in the north-west part of England owners of property rated for their tenants had coerced them in voting.
  EARL GREYsaid, he did not wish to offer any opposition to the Bill, but could not allow the second reading to pass without pointing out that the necessity for introducing it afforded a striking example of the inconvenience and mischief which arose from political parties pursuing a course for a temporary object. Two years ago, when this subject occupied attention, they were told that the security for the due exercise of the franchise was to be the personal payment of rates by those to whom it was granted. It was this that was to make the new extension of the franchise perfectly safe. In the discussion of the Reform Bill it was found that difficulties arose in applying this principle, and Parliament, in order to get rid of them, proceeded at once, without discussion and without consideration, to cut the Gordian knot by simply resolving that the whole system of compounding for rates should be put an end to. The then Government proposed this, and the Opposition, not to be left behind, said—"This is all we want; we approve entirely of what you propose to do—abolish compounding." It was in vain that persons from London and various parts of the country waited upon the then Leaders of the Opposition, as they had previously waited on Ministers, and pointed out to them the ill consequences which would result from such a measure. They were told—"Perhaps inconvenience may arise, but the political object for which the change is proposed is so important that we cannot resist the abolition of the compound-householder." When the Bill came up to this House he ventured to oppose the clause for the abolition of compounding, but his Motion for omitting it was resisted both by the Government and the
  1752
  Opposition. The inconvenience that had resulted from this change in the law of rating, thus recklessly made for a political object, had proved as he anticipated so great that, after much inquiry and consideration, it was now found necessary to restore compounding in some form; and this Bill was brought before them for that purpose. The result will be that when it is passed the imagined security of personal rating for the due exercise of the franchise will disappear altogether, and we shall have an extended franchise without any check of the kind. The inconvenience which arose from the abolition of compounding, exactly as he expected, had proved so intolerable—so great had been the hardship inflicted upon the smaller class of occupiers—that it was quite impossible to allow matters to remain as they were. An inquiry was consequently held, and they now came by a roundabout and inconvenient method to the old system, though the mode in which it was restored had made it less convenient than it was previously. Practical experience of the personal payment of rates had shown that the whole thing was a mockery and a delusion. Both parties had advocated it; the change was made purely for party and political purposes, and those purposes having been served they were now obliged to return to the old system.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he felt really bound to condole with his noble Friend (Earl Grey) at his finding no opportunity for objecting to this Bill. He should, however, be pleased if his noble Friend would be accurate in his statement of facts, because it was well known that Mr. Gladstone, then the Leader of the Opposition, opposed, in the strongest possible manner, the clause putting an end to compounding. In that opposition he did not receive the support which he might have expected; and. the inference that he (Earl Granville) drew from this was that it would be better for parties who were agreed in the main to act together than for small sections to unite with other parties in order to secure some particular object.
  EARL GREYwas understood to maintain the correctness of his own version.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SCOTCH SALMON FISHERY ACT, 1862.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ABINGER, in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether they intended to introduce any Bill to further amend the Scotch Salmon Fishery Act of 1862?—said that, though the clauses of that Act were good, the Act itself was inoperative, owing to the absence of proper inspection and adequate means of carrying out its provisions.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYreplied that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send two inspectors into Scotland in the autumn to inquire into the subject. The inspectors would, of course, prepare a Report, and by that Report the course of Her Majesty's Government would be guided. Until that Report had been furnished it would be impossible for the Government to say whether they would introduce any legislation upon the subject; and if they did, whether it would assume the form of a comprehensive measure, embracing the whole of Scotland, or whether exceptional provisions would be introduced with regard to certain rivers.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor Clergy, to grant superannuation allowances to officers and clerks employed in their service—Was presented by The LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 185.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.