Lords Sitting of 11 June 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Poor Relief (Ireland) Act (1862) Amendment* (124); Municipal Franchise * (125).
Second Reading — New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment (106): Beerhouses, &c. (122); Customs and Inland Revenue Duties (111); Election Commissioners (Expenses) (121).
Committee—Recorders' Deputies✶ (105).
Committee—Report—Oxford University Statutes✶ (114).
Report—Stannaries✶ (123).
Third Reading— Parochial Schools (Scotland)✶ (119); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental✶ (35), and passed.

THE IRISH CHURCH BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD BATEMANsaid, he ventured, with the kind indulgence of their Lordships, to make a few remarks, though he

  1579
  was not in regular Order. He had to apologize to their Lordships for taking this course, and to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) fort the very short notice he had given him of the Question which he intended to ask him, but he trusted that the gravity of the subject to which he was about to refer and the conciliatory feeling by which he was actuated, would be his apology. In common, with every Member of the House, he felt great anxiety with reference to the difficulty in which the House was placed in regard to a Bill of great importance winch would come before their Lordships next week. He had considered the matter very carefully, and was of opinion that some mode could be devised of extricating the House from what threatened to be a serious difficulty. Under what circumstances did the Bill come before the House? The Bill was introduced in the other House by the Prime Minister, who carried it by successive majorities perfectly without parallel. There was a large part of the people of this country who did not approve of the Bill. There was another party—he might call them the turbulent party— who were in favour of the Bill, and had used language in reference to their Lordships' House which, he believed, their Lordships would not brook. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that a measure of such importance as the Irish Church Bill could be considered more impartially in that House than in the House of Commons: but threats had been used towards their Lordship, in case they should reject or materially alter the Bill, which wore calculated to irritate and provoke the resistance of those who sat on his side of the House.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to Order. He had not the least conception what his noble Friend proposed to say: but he submitted that it was not right that a very important subject which was to come before the House next week should be brought forward without notice, and in a manner that could lead to no result whatever.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he also was about to rise to Order. Last year their Lordships had agreed that any Peer who desired to make a statement that was likely to lead to any debate, or to put a Question, should place a Notice to that effect upon the Paper. He understood
  1580
  that the noble Lord had given private notice to the noble Earl the Secretary of the Colonies of his intention to put a Question; and, if the noble Earl was prepared to answer it, there could be no objection to the course which the noble Lord was pursuing; but he (Lord Cairns) objected to it on behalf of the House generally, and he trusted his noble Friend would not proceed with his intended statement.
  LORD BATEMANsaid, he did not wish to proceed in opposition to the feeling of the House; but he thought the noble Earl opposite, with whom he an interview on the subject this morning, would agree with him that the Question would have led to a very satisfactory result, and might have saved the House from a position which all must deplore. The observations he had intended to make would, he believed, have strengthened the hands of the Government as well as of the House. In. deference, however, to the objection of the noble Earl, he felt bound to refrain from making' any further observations on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I entirely agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) as to the irregularity of the course taken by the noble Lord. The noble Lord was good enough to give me notice of a Question which he pro-posed to put, having reference to certain reports to which he has alluded, as to the course which the Government intend to take with respect to the Bill which will come before your Lordships next week. I told the noble Lord that, in my opinion, there were two objections to his putting the Question or to my answering it. One was that it was not desirable to raise a small debate to-night on the subject which will come before the House in due course next week; and the other was that it would be contrary to the rule which we laid down last Session and to which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) has adverted. At the same time I told him I could quite understand the anxiety which every Member of the House must feel with respect to the precise position in which they stood with regard to the Irish Church Bill, and I could also understand the wish of noble Lords for some information with regard to the threats to which he has referred as having been held out towards this House in case your Lordships should think

  1581
  proper to adopt a certain policy. I have seen those threats quoted in some detail in speeches made out-of-doors; but I am utterly unaware of any foundation there can possibly be for them. I shall not answer the noble Lord's Question now, but I shall take an opportunity, on Monday, of explaining to the House in a manner which I trust will be satisfactory to any reasonable man, that Her Majesty's Government neither has nor ever had any intention of departing from, that proper and respectful course which it is the duty of Her Majesty's servants to follow, whether they are dealing with the House of Commons or with your Lordships' House.

  THE IRISH CHURCH BILL—PETITION.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNrose to present a Petition from Belfast against the Irish Church Bill. This Petition had been agreed to at one of the most important meetings ever held in Ire- land. It was held on the 22nd of May was attended by 80,000 persons, and was remarkable for the large attendance of the respectable and intelligent classes, and for the unanimity which prevailed with regard to the mischievous and dangerous nature of the measure which would come before their Lordships next week. One of the most remarkable features of the meeting was the entire union of sentiment which was displayed between the Presbyterians and the members of the Established Church. The attendance of Presbyterians at this meeting, as well as that held at Londonderry, was extremely large and enthusiastic, and the cordial support which they gave to the resolutions condemnatory of the Bill furnished an unmistakeable proof of the remarkable change that had occurred in their views since the General Election, and since their eyes had been opened to the injustice and partiality of the Bill. The same fact was evinced by the Petition which he had presented, signed by 10,000 Protestants in the North-west of Ireland, some of the resolutions at that meeting being moved and seconded by Presbyterians. He believed that Belfast and Londonderry were not singular in this view, and that a very general change of feeling had manifested itself throughout the country, and not only iu Ireland but in England. The petitioners stated that
  1582
  they viewed with alarm and indignation the 33111 for the disestablishment and disendowment of Protestautism in Ireland; that they regarded it as a subversion of the Protestant institutions of the realm, a violation of the Act of Settlement, the Treaty of Union, and the Coronation Oath; they said that the measure was in the highest degree obnoxious to the Protestants of Ireland, and was fraught with eminent peril to the peace and prosperity of the Empire. While anxious for the removal of anomalies and for any wise measure of reform by which the efficiency of the Church would be increased, they strongly deprecated the present Bill, and prayed their Lordships to prevent the passing of a measure so injurious to the interests of true religion and so antagonistic to the industrious and loyal population of the North of Ireland.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW PARISHES AND CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Archbishop of York.)
NEW PARISHES AND CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 106.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Pleading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKin moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the Bill consisted of a number of details enlarging the powers given by existing Acts. It extended the powers of the 9th section of the "New Parishes Act, 1864" beyond the existing period of five years, so as to enable the Commissioners at any time to alter the boundaries of ecclesiastical districts, which may have become a new parish, for ecclesiastical purposes under that Act; and it enabled trustees or owners of private property, in whole or in part, to surrender their rights to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in order that the churches might have districts assigned to them, and become to all intents and purposes parish churches. It enabled portions of a benefice, held in severalty, to be consolidated into one. The 8th clause rendered it unnecessary, where the patronage of any benefice is in the incumbent of another benefice, to require the assent of the owner of the advowson to the assign- meat of the former, the lay patron being compensated for the diminution in value of his advowson; and the last section

  1583
  removed the disability under which certain persons mentioned in 58 Geo. III., c. 45, sec. 31, & 3 Geo. IV., c. 72, sec. 1, were placed to grant land as sites for churches, &c, provided that no such grant shall exceed one acre.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Archbishop of York.)
  LORD PORTMANreferred, in an inaudible tone, to some of the provisions of the Bill to which he objected.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, that some parts of the Bill were unnecessary and others objectionable.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in reply to some of these remarks, explained that no trustee could convey a greater right in churches than he actually possessed, and that, while thinking a right of appeal, on the part of the parishioners, not unreasonable, such a privilege was not contemplated in any of the Church Building Acts, which it was the object of this Bill to amend. As to allowing- a veto, the operation of such a clause in the case of the City churches was a warning against the multiplication of checks of this kind.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 21st Instant.

BEERHOUSES, &c, BILL—(No. 122.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury..)
BEERHOUSES, &c, BILL—(No. 122.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, this Bill, which the House of Commons had passed unanimously, practically repealed the change in the Licensing Law, effected by the Duke of Wellington's Government in 1830, by what was called the Beerhouses Act. Under the old law all public houses wore licensed by the justices; but the Act of 1830, the object of which was to secure to the public the benefit of a reduction in the duty on beer, vested the licensing of houses for the sale of beer in the Excise. This change had not worked satisfactorily, and only nine years after its passing, a Bill for its repeal, introduced by Lord Brougham, passed this House, but was rejected by the House of Commons. A Select Com-
  1584
  mittee of the House of Commons—which sat, sometime ago, under the presidency of Mr. Villiers—reported that the system had proved a failure; its object having been to secure the public cheap and pure beer, and to dissociate beer-drinking from drunkenness, and to induce the establishment of a class of refreshment houses free from The disorders supposed to attend exclusively on the sale of spirits. That Committee further expressed their concurrence in the Report of a Select Committee of this House, which sat in 1849, that the beer-shops were for the most part in the hands of the brewers, that they were notorious for the sale of an inferior article, that the consumption of ardent spirits had not diminished, and that, instead of its being a been to the lower classes, the comfort and morals of the poor had been seriously impaired by the measure. Now, the present Bill proposed that beer-houses, like public-houses should be licensed by the magistrates, who would withhold their certificate in the case of any house which was the resort of bad characters—and it was notorious that in many of these places all kinds of crimes were planned. The Government had accepted the measure; but, holding that a more comprehensive Bill was necessary, they had restricted its operations to two years, so that it was merely suspensory and tentative, and Parliament could retrace its steps before any mischief could happen in the event of its not working satisfactorily.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not object to the measure, but he desired to call attention, with a view to ulterior measures, to the conflicting principles on which benches of magistrates acted in granting or refusing licenses. At Liverpool great difference of opinion existed on this matter; and while some of the magistrates held that the eligibility of the house and the responsibility of the applicant were the only considerations, others considered likewise the question whether or not the wants of the district were already sufficiently supplied. Thus, a slight difference in the constitution of the bench made all the difference in granting or withholding the license, for one bench of magistrates sometimes granted a license, while another in a precisely similar case refused

  1585
  it. This anomaly ought to be removed, and a uniform principle laid down.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY, on the part of the Government, supported the Bill as a suspensory measure, paving the way for legislation on a larger scale. No fewer than thirty-two Acts at present existed regulating the sale of excisable liquors, many of them being obsolete or redundant, and the Act of 1839 had not fulfilled the expectations of its promoters. Some restriction was evidently necessary; and, though the Government did not pledge themselves to adhere to the principle of magisterial licensing, on which much difference of opinion existed, as shown by the congress which had been held in London this week, they accepted the Bill as a measure which would arrest the spread of the evil and prevent the creation of now vested interests which might hinder the adoption of a more extensive scheme. An apology was hardly needed for the question not having been dealt with this year; but next year, or, at least, the year after, the Government hoped to deal with the, whole licensing system.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 22 nd Instant.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE DUTIES BILL.—(No. 111.)
(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE DUTIES BILL.—(No. 111.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would briefly lay before the House the following statement of the Revenue and Expenditure of the country for the financial year 1868–9, and the Estimates, Income, and Expenditure of the present year, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had based his financial proposals. The Revenue for the financial year 1868–9 was as follows:—

  £

  Customs

  22,424,000

  Excise

  20,462,000

  Stamps

  9,218,000

  Taxes

  3,494,000

  Property Tax

  8,618,000

  Post Office

  4,660,000

  Crown Lands

  360,000

  Miscellaneous

  3,355,99l

  Total

  72,591,991

  The Expenditure had been—

  £

  Interest of Debt

  26,618,326

  Other Charges on the Consolidated Fund

  1,887,286

  Army

  15,000,000

  Navy

  11,366,545

  Miscellaneous Civil Service

  8,983,019

  Revenue Department

  2,576,164

  Post Office

  2,445,l38

  Post Office Packet Service

  1,096,338

  Abyssinia

  3,000,000

  Total

  72,972,816

  Adding £2,000,000 to the expenditure for the Abyssinian Expedition, the total Expenditure for the year was £74,972,816; to this was to be added for Fortifications, to be raised under special Acts of Parliament, £525,000, making a grand total of £75,497,816. The total Income being £72,951,991, there would be an excess of total Expenditure over Income for the year ended 31st March, 1869, of £2,905,824. The estimated Expenditure of this year as compared with the actual Expenditure of last year was

  £

  Interest on Debt, 1869–70

  26,700,000

  Interest on Debt, 1868–69

  26,700,000

  Other Charges on Consolidated Fund 1869–70

  1,700,000

  Other Charges on Consolidated Fund 1868–69

  1,865,000

  Army, 1869–70

  14,230,000

  Army 1868–69

  15,456,000

  Navy, 1869–70

  9,997,000

  Navy 1868–69

  11,157,000

  Miscellaneous—

  Civil Service Estimates, 1869–70

  9,530,000

  Civil Service Estimates 1868–69

  9,249,000

  Revenue Departments, 1869–70

  4,976,000

  Revenue Departments, 1868–69

  4,968,000

  Post Office Packet Service, 1869–70

  1,090,000

  Post Office Packet Service 1868–69

  1,089,000

  Total estimated Expenditure for 1869–70

  68,223,000

  Expenditure for last year, minus payments for expenditure to Abyssinia, £70,484,000; two payments for Abyssinia, £3,000,000 and £3,660,000, £6,600,000, bring the actual Expenditure of last year up to

  77,084,000

  Leaving Abyssinia out of the account, there would be a decrease of Expenditure for the current year as compared with last of £2,261,000. The estimated Revenue of the current year upon the scale existing at the close of the last financial year, and as compared with the Revenue of 1868–9, would stand thus—

  1587

  £

  Customs, 1869–70

  22,450,000

  Customs, 1868–69

  22,424,000

  Excise, 1869–70

  20,450,000

  Excise1868–69

  20,462,000

  Stamps,1869–70

  9,350,000

  Stamps 1868–69

  9,218,00

  Property Tax, 1869–70

  8,800,000

  Property Tax,1868–69

  8,618,000

  Post Office, 1869–70

  4,880,000

  Post Office,1868–69

  4,660,000

  Crown Lands, 1869–70

  375,000

  Crown Lands, 1868–69

  360,000

  Miscellaneous, 1869–70

  3,000,000

  Miscellaneous, 1868–69

  3,355,99l

  The total Income for 1868–69 was

  72,591,900

  The total Income for 1869–70 was estimated at

  72,855,000

  Total estimated Expenditure, exclusive of payments for Abyssinia, was

  68,223,000

  Comparing the estimated Revenue and Expenditure of the year 1869–70, there would have been a surplus of £4,632,000, bur for the cost of the Abyssinian War. This was estimated tit £9,000,000, of which £8,600,000 had been expended; but of this Ways and Means had been provided for only £4,000,000, us £1,000,000 of last year's Vote had been borrowed by means of Exchequer Bonds, leaving £4,000,000 still to be met. The surplus, therefore, of the current year, all but £32,000, would be required to make good the balance for the Abyssinian War. It appeared to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there had been great defects in the system of collecting the land and assessed taxes. They had been collected in two instalments, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that by collecting them at once, and by the machinery of the Excise, at least £100,000 a year might be saved. The right hon. Gout Ionian proposed to convert most of the assessed taxes into license duties, and to make these duties payable at the beginning of each year, instead of in two instalments in October and April. He proposed that the land tax, the inhabited house duty, and the income tax should be paid in one payment, and at the beginning of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that before the end of March, 1870. there would have been paid into the Exchequer £000,000 of the Excise licenses, £950,000 of the land and assessed taxes, and £1,800,000 of the income tax; or a total of £3,350,000: which, added to the £32,000, would give a. surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of £3,382,000 for the financial year.
  1588
  This "windfall," as it had been called the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to apply in remission of duties. A 1d. was to be taken off the income Tax, the 1s. duty on corn was to be abolished, as were also the fire insurance duties; various remissions and modifications were to be made in respect of the duties on hair-powder, armorial bearings, horses, and carriages. Comparing the estimated Revenue and Expenditure of the year 1869–70 there would have been a surplus of £4,632,000, but for the cost of the Abyssinian war, which was estimated at £9,000,000. Of this sum, £8,600,000 had been voted—namely, £2,000,000 in Novcmber,1867; £3,000,000 in April, 1868; and £3,600,000 in February, 1869. But of this Ways and Means had been provided for only £4,000,000, as £1,000,000 of last year's Votes had been borrowed on Exchequer Bonds, leaving £4,600,000 still to be met. With the exception, therefore, of the sum of £32,000, the surplus of the coming year would be absorbed by the amount due and voted for the Abyssinian War. The Bank balances stood at present at £3,775,000; but as we owed the Bank £1,000,000, there only stood to our credit £2,775,000—which was far too low a sum for safety. Apologizing to the House for the wearisome nature of the details, he had felt it to be his duty to lay before them, and thanking them for the patience with which they had listened to him, he begged to conclude by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  ELECTION COMMISSIONERS' (EXPENSES) BILL—(No. 121.)
  (The Lord Privy Seal.)
  ELECTION COMMISSIONERS' (EXPENSES) BILL—(No. 121.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYin moving that the Bill be now road the second time, said the Bill was rendered necessary by some imperfections in the Act of last year. That Act provided that the expenses of these inquiries should be defrayed as if they were expenses incurred in the registration of voters for the county or bo-

    1589
    rough, in respect of which Commissioners of Inquiry were appointed. The present Bill was introduced with the view of enabling the Treasury to advance the necessary money for the payment of the expenses of the Commission, which advances were to be re-paid by the local officers of the county, city, or borough in respect of which the Commissions of Inquiry had been appointed in the manner set forth in the Bill.
    Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.