Lords Sitting of 4 July 1870

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Third Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. (No. 177.)
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Benefices (130); Salmon Acts Amendment * (147); Cattle Disease (Ireland) * (171).
Select Committee—Married Women's Property * (125), nominated.
Committee—Report—Local Government Supplemental * (150); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental * (155).
Report—Benefices Resignation (161–178); Wine and Beerhouse Act (1869) Amendment * (172); Medical Act (1858) Amendment (173); Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (No. 2) * (174); Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal * (175).
Third Reading—Sequestration (145), and passed.
Royal Assent—Mortgage Debenture Act (1865) Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 20]; Bridgwater and Beverley Disfranchisement [33 & 31 Vict. c. 21]; Felony [33 & 34 Vict. c. 23]; Norwich Voters Disfranchisement [33 & 34 Vict. c. 25]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 24]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements [33 & 34 Vict. c. 22]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental [33 & 34 Vict. c, 81]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [33 & 34 Vict. c. 82],

THE NEW LECTIONARY, OR TABLE OF LESSONS.—QUESTION.
EARL STANHOPEasked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, When he proposed to fix the second

1331
reading of the Bill giving effect to the Report of the Ritual Commission on the Tables of Lessons, which had been before the House three or four weeks? It was desirable that the measure should reach the other House in sufficient time to be considered this Session.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that since he had introduced the Bill to confirm the Report at which the Ritual Commission had arrived with respect to the Lectionary; it had been mentioned to him that another Report was expected from the same Commission, altering to some extent—but to what extent he did not know—the Rubrics of the Prayer Book, and that there might be some convenience in waiting until both alterations could be embodied in a re-issue of the Prayer Book. On making inquiries, however, he found that any difficulty of the kind referred to might be obviated by printing the new Table of Lessons on a sheet which might be bound up with the present Prayer Book: and there was no reason to wait for another year for the Report in reference to the Rubrics. It, therefore, appeared to him advisable to proceed with the Bill he had introduced, and he would accordingly place the second reading on the Notice Paper for Thursday next.

RED RIVER TERRITORY.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that in asking the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies for some information respecting a transaction that has recently taken place in the North-west part of the American Continent, I have no intention to enter into any discussion as to the legality of what has occurred in that part of the world or into any disputes that may have taken place in reference to the Hudson's Bay Company; but my Lords there are matters connected with the occurrences to which I have alluded with respect to which I think Parliament ought to be informed and upon which, as far as I have heard, Parliament has as yet received no information whatever from the Government. I allude, my Lords, to the occurrences which have recently taken place in the Red River Settlement, which we are told has been engaged in hostilities of some sort or another. Of the
  1332
  nature of those hostilities or with whom they have been carried on I am altogether unaware—but I think that Parliament ought to be informed whether the war that has taken place there is a civil war between particular tribes, between different states, or between different nations. From all I have heard in reference to the subject, it appears to me that, practically, this is a case of Her Majesty's troops being engaged in a war without Parliament knowing anything about it. They have been sent for a long distance through a difficult and intricate country to the Red River Settlement, which is in the neighbourhood of the United States, and on the borders of which we learn that a war has occurred. My Lords, I should like to hear from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Colonies what is the object for which this war has been undertaken, and what are the instructions which have been given to whoever may command the troops, and who are the persons who have given those instructions. My Lords, the newspapers talk of the Red River Rebellion. Now, if there is a rebellion there must be rebels, and I want to know who these rebels are, and against whom they are in rebellion, and what are the disputed questions upon which they have disagreed—from the power against whom they are said to be in rebellion. Upon all these points Parliament has as yet received no information; and although the outbreak occurred in the month of October last year, the Speech from the Throne contained no allusion to it at the commencement of Parliament, perhaps because it was not thought to be of sufficient importance to warrant such notice being taken of it. My Lords, from all I can gather upon the subject, I do not believe that the general body of the settlers have the slightest intention to throw off the allegiance that they owe to this country, but they object to being transferred from the Hudson's Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada. Now, my Lords, I should like to know whether that is an accurate statement of the case, and if so, why we send our army to coerce these people into becoming a part of the newly established Canadian Dominion against their expressed wishes? Now, I do not intend to go into the question of the part taken by Great Britain in establishing that Dominion, but I do not understand, why we should coerce the inhabitants of

  1333
  the Red River Settlement into joining it if they were opposed to such an amalgamation, of their country with the other British States of North America. I understand that some of these persons have stated that they hold their land by right of occupation of waste and desert land, and that having paid money to the Hudson's Bay Company for permission to settle, they are about to be transferred to another Government without their consent having been obtained. Now, I want to know what their exact rights are in reference to this question. In the years 1749 and 1857 Committees of the House of Commons were appointed to inquire into this question. On the first occasion the whole principle of the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company was investigated, and I understand from the report of this Committee, it was declared that they had no territorial or property rights whatever; and on the last occasion, such Committee declined to entertain the question of any such right—which by two previous statutes of the 2 William & Mary and 23 & 24 William & Mary c. 15, was declared to be at an end; and that that is the opinion of a very learned person in this country upon the authority of these enactments. I do not intend to discuss that point at the present moment, but what I want to know is why these persons are considered to be in rebellion? They certainly do not appear to have rebelled against us—but it seems that a certain person was sent by the Canadian Government to take possession of the Red River Territory. Now I should like to know from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the true nature of his position, and what authority he had for going there, by whom his commission was signed, whether by the Home Government or by the newly established Canadian Government, and if by the latter, by what right they signed his commission and appointed him Governor of the territory in question? This district into which this expedition was sent, your Lordships will be aware, is very near the Oregon boundary, and many of the settlers upon it are subjects of the United States; therefore under these circumstances it was very rash to send a military force to those boundaries. I do not understand that we ourselves have sent there any civilian officer, or that we have established there any civilian go-
  1334
  vernment, but I hold in my hand a copy of the summons which is so extra ordinary and unique a document that I hope your Lordships will allow me to read it. It is a summons purporting to be issued by persons claiming to exercise authority in the Red River Territory, and is directed to a general trader, named Stewart, requiring him to attend the Court of the district to answer for selling spirits without a licence. It is as follows:—
  "Middle District Court to Stewart,—
  "I hereby order you to appear in the Court of this district, on the nineteenth of April, to answer the Public for selling spirits without a licence.
  "(Signed)
  "April 13th, 1869."
  Now, my Lords, I recollect that many questionable transactions were carried on in the name of the Trench Republic, and that occasionally, a system called Lynch Law has been adopted, but this is the first time I ever saw a summons for selling spirits without a licence which did not specify from whence and from whom the licence was to come. I should presume in this case that the judgment would depend very much upon the quality of the spirits sold, for I cannot see by what else the case could be determined. My Lords, if it be true, as it has been stated, that the Government having decided that the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company are no rights at all they are to be transferred to the Dominion of Canada, that may be a transaction perfectly justifiable in itself for ought I know, but it appears to be a most objectionable proceeding that in any part of the world we should sell not British land or property but British subjects—that we should buy them from one power to sell them to another. That is a proceeding which I should be very loth to sanction. I maintain that the Government have no right without the consent of Parliament to transfer the allegiance of the possessors of British soil from one party to another as though they were so many slaves. Both by common law and by statute law I apprehend that the power of making such a change must rest in Parliament alone and cannot be exercised by Orders in Council or by any similar proceeding. It is for these reasons I have moved for the production of the correspondence in relation to this subject, and I hope that the noble Lord will have no objection

  1335
  to give me the information to which I allude at the end of my Notice. What I want to know is, what are the feelings of these people, how far they are justly called rebels, and what is the nature of their position towards this country and towards Canada.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, requesting that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order that Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies do lay upon the Table of this House a copy of the correspondence had with the Reverend G. O. Corbett, one of the landed proprietors of British North West America, in reference to the Red River Rebellion and the causes that have led to it, as disclosed in certain communications addressed to the Colonial Office from the 25th of August 1868 to the present time; and also of all petitions that may have been addressed to Her Majesty or to Her Majesty's Government from the inhabitants of such localities."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was not aware till half-an-hour ago that the noble Marquess intended to do more than move for the Papers mentioned in his Notice. There had of late been much comment in the House of Commons and elsewhere on the unnecessary expense incurred in printing voluminous documents which nobody ever read. In this particular case it appeared that Mr. Corbett had addressed letters to himself (Earl Granville) and his predecessors in Office expressing opinions, but giving no authority for the statements of fact contained in them. He had since published them, after inquiring whether there was any objection to this, and being told there was none. Why Parliament, therefore, should be at the expense of printing and circulating for the rev. gentleman letters which probably had not had any great sale, or been much read, he was at a loss to understand. As to Petitions, there was not the slightest wish to hold back anything of the kind. Most of the Papers referred to in the Motion had been printed, and some would be ready almost immediately, while the rest would be presented before the end of the Session. It was too late now to question the legality of the transfer of the territory to the Dominion, and that arrangement was only made after long negotiation. The object of the military expedition which had started was not to conquer a rebellion, but for the purpose of securing that state of order which he trusted the expedition would find prevailing; and with regard to the Dominion Go-
  1336
  vernment, he would only say that, while he certainly could not defend certain of its acts to which the noble Marquess had referred, he was bound to say that ever since that time it had acted with singular judgment, caution, and moderation, and in perfect accord with Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he would not enter into a discussion now, as the noble Earl had stated that many of the Papers were already printed; but the subject was one of much importance, and must not be measured by the size of the territory or the number of its inhabitants. He was glad that by the sending of British troops it had been recognized as an Imperial question, and he looked forward with great interest to the explanations promised by the noble Earl, which he hoped would be given on an early day.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in withdrawing the Motion, said, that he was informed that the Papers referred to had only been published for private circulation.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

BENEFICES BILL—(No. 130.)
(The Duke of Marlborough.)
BENEFICES BILL—(No. 130.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was chiefly directed to prevent the sale of the next presentations to benefices, and in certain cases to render illegal the sale of advowsons. He did not conceal that the Bill did, to a certain extent, interfere with the rights of property—it did not, however, interfere with the property of advowsons, but only with the right of property—if any such could be said to exist—in reference to the sale of next presentations. He thought that they ought to look at the matter in the interests of the Church, and see how far the property had been used in accordance with those interests. It was important to bear in mind the distinction between an advowson and a next presentation. The former had always been considered property. In Stevens's Digest of the Laws of the Church, Lord Chief Justice De Grey's dictum was quoted to

  1337
  this effect—that there was the right to sell an advowson; but the exercise of the right of presentation was a public trust, and should not be exercised for private benefit or profit. Advowsons had also been declared by a statute of the first year of Her present Majesty to be real property, and therefore it would have been a serious interference with the rights of property to prevent the sale of advowsons. But the system had been, undoubtedly, attended by considerable abuses. Livings were advertised for sale in the most open and barefaced manner, and the age of the incumbent was stated as an element affecting the value. He did not say that they could at once provide a remedy for all abuses that were said to exist in the Church. Property would always be liable to abuse; but that was no reason why they should not attempt to remedy some portion of the abuses that existed. Now the right of presentation, though a species of property somewhat similar to advowsons, stood in a different position. He maintained that the result of patronage being invested in lay hands was very beneficial, because it was instrumental in introducing into the Church a variety of sentiment, character, and opinion which might otherwise not be found in it. It was, therefore, desirable to maintain this kind of property; but still that right should be restrained if it were exercised in a manner injurious to the Church. He asked their Lordships shortly to consider some of the evils that the sale of next presentations was exposed to. The law, as it now stood, forbad the sale of the next presentation where the living was vacant, but not where it was full; and ecclesiastics were forbidden to purchase next presentations. It was difficult to understand the principle of this law—why the law should prohibit the sale of the next presentation in the case of vacant benefices, and permit it if they were full, or why clergymen should be debarred from purchasing them, while laymen were permitted to do so. The only argument in favour of the existing practice was, that it afforded an opening for persons who desired to enter the Church, but who, for lack of interest, would otherwise be enabled to do so. But he thought this argument did not deserve much consideration. The sale of a next presentation amounted to this—that the patron
  1338
  became possessed of the fruits of the benefice. He could not, indeed, present himself; but he took a valuable consideration for the period during which the person to be presented was expected to enjoy it, and, therefore, pro tanto, he got the fruits of the living. On the other hand, it was impossible that a clergyman who had obtained a benefice by means of money should stand in the same relation to his parishioners as one who had been presented from no pecuniary considerations. Such a man, unless his motives were of the highest character, would regard the income of the benefice simply as a return for the money invested in the purchase. The moral obligation of consulting the interests of the parishioners and of selecting the fittest man was becoming, he was happy to say, far more generally felt by patrons; but no such element could enter into the sale of a presentation, which was a transaction entirely of bargain and sale; and when a person bought a next presentation, it could hardly be said that his object was to present the most fit person to the living. The oath, too, that the clergyman took upon induction seemed to his mind to be one of the greatest obstacles to the practice of purchasing next presentations. The oath was that no sum of money, reward, profit, or benefit, had passed between himself and the patron.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that now it was not an oath, but a declaration.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: But a declaration was as binding in foro conscientœ as an oath. It was idle to say that the bargain had been made with a third person, and that qui facit per caliam facit per se did not apply. The exercise of public and of private patronage also was surely a trust, and the public mind was becoming more sensitive as to the exercise of trusts. This was shown by the way in which abuses in reference to the electoral franchise, or to the selling of public offices, were viewed. The Bill dealt with three matters. In the first place, it prohibited the grant or demise, or the agreement to do so, of the next or other presentation or nomination; secondly, it prohibited the sale of an advowson under a colourable pretence, when the intention was that it should be handed back again after the person should have been in

  1339
  ducted; and, thirdly, it prohibited the sale of an advowson when the incumbent was in articulo mortis. He might add that the Bill was provided with various safeguards in reference to interference with existing rights; it saved settlements, and also next presentations that had already been purchased. It would simply remedy what was acknowledged on all hands to be a gross abuse in reference to the property of the Church, and also a violation of a public trust. He trusted that their Lordships, by passing this measure, small as it was, would confer a great and lasting benefit on the Church.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
  LORD CAMOYSsaid, that last year, during the discussion of a Bill having a different object, he urged the propriety of repealing the disqualification resting on Roman Catholics of exercising ecclesiastical patronage. Owing to the lateness of the Session and the opposition of the Primate, he did not then press the matter; but if the right of selling the next presentation were taken away the property of Roman Catholic patrons would be altogether forfeited. Any other persons, though Jews, Turks, or infidels, had a right to present to a living, and as the presentee must be approved by the Bishop, there could be no danger to the Church of England in permitting Roman Catholic patrons to nominate to livings. He hoped a clause to this effect would, for the sake of justice, be inserted in the Bill.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had reserved his opinion of the measure until he heard the arguments in its behalf; but though he had listened with great interest to the speech of his noble Friend, he must confess that the doubts he had all along entertained had by no means been removed. He must be permitted to say that his noble Friend's measure seemed to him to be a very strong one. His noble Friend had pointed out the difference between an advowson and a next presentation; that advowsons were well-known tangible, and valuable property, and he said that he had no desire to interfere with the rights of property with regard to them. If ever the time should arrive when, by proper means and without violating the rights of property, the whole system of selling advowsons and next presentations could be done away with, no one would rejoice
  1340
  more than himself; but before their Lordships assented to the second reading of the Bill, they should be clear as to the difference between an advowson and a next presentation. The most valuable part of an advowson was the next presentation, and if they cut off the most valuable part, and then said that they were not interfering with property, it would be the same as if they cut off three-fourths of a loaf and took it away, and then said that they were not interfering with the rights of property in the loaf. By this Bill they would, beyond all doubt, interfere with the property in advowsons, and, therefore, although he was loth to interfere with the second reading, he thought their Lordships should give a little more consideration to the matter before they sanctioned the principle of the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he rejoiced that so much of the patronage of the Church was vested in lay hands, for sooner or later a man was likely to get preferment from one source or another. He looked, however, on the possession of an advowson as rather an ornament to property than property itself; and though an advowson was necessarily liable to be sold, it did not follow that the sale of next presentations should be permitted. The latter, indeed, produced an amount of ill feeling in parishes which was beyond description. The more the thing was reflected upon the more profound was the dissatisfaction at a clergyman being intrusted with the charge of 1,000 or 5,000 souls not on account of any special fitness or piety, but because he had gone into the market and bought the property. He admitted that there was great difficulty in applying a remedy to this; but he strongly-approved the principle of the Bill, as it left intact the right of the laity to present, and prevented presentations from being bought and sold.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that a more difficult Bill had rarely come before their Lordships' House. As to the grounds of approval suggested by the most rev. Prelate, however much they might sympathize with them, they must remember that the principle which had been laid down could hardly be confined to the Church. Commissions were bought in the Army, and, though the purchase system would very likely some day be abolished, the most extreme reformers

  1341
  had not proposed to forfeit the property of those who had bought commissions by refusing to allow them to sell them again. Yet something like this, though not exactly the same, was proposed by the Bill as regarded the powers of next presentations. He did not say that the position of those who purchased Church preferments for speculative purposes was morally very high; but the Bill would take away from them money which they had invested in a manner authorized by the law, and which property they had every reason to expect would be respected.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDheld it very desirable to remove the scandal attending the sale of presentations, where the age of the present possessor was often a prominent feature in the transaction; but he thought it difficult to draw a distinction between advowsons and next presentations. The existence of patronage in lay hands was one of the greatest safeguards of the Church, into which various opinions thus found entrance much more easily than would be the case were all presentations in the hands of a public body or of the right rev. Bench. The Bill might hinder the admission into the Church of gentlemen of independent means, whose fathers now purchased livings for them. There were, however, so many questions connected with the subject that he hoped the House would not be called upon to pronounce a definite judgment on the measure.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLbelieved the Bill would go far to remove some great abuses. It respected existing rights and only dealt with the future. But though the Bill would remedy some admitted abuses, he thought the general wish was that the subject should be postponed.
  LORD ROMILLYwished to know whether under the Bill the sale of an advowson would carry with it the next presentation? If it would, the only effect would be that, instead of the presentation being sold, the advowson itself would be sold. If it would not, the Bill was simply taking away property. A next presentation was usually bought for the purpose of putting in as young a man as could be found, and the value of the advowson when the next presentation was deducted was merely nominal.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHhoped their Lordships would at once
  1342
  agree to the second reading, and thus sanction the principle of the measure; but he should be happy to consider Amendments in Committee. At present it was illegal to sell the presentation if the benefice were void, and his object was to prevent the sale of the next presentation. As to the noble and learned Lord's question, he understood the Bill to prohibit the sale of a next presentation; and if this was taking away three-fourths of a loaf, so that the remainder was worth little or nothing, all he could say was that he was sorry for it. Still he desired their Lordships to sanction the principle of the Bill, for he believed it would further the best interests of the Church. Although he would be the last to interfere with the rights of property, except upon most sufficient grounds, he insisted that the sale of presentations had become such a disgrace to the Church that the adoption of some such measure as that before their Lordships had become necessary.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would gladly assent to the second reading of the Bill, but he must not be taken by so doing to give his assent to the Bill in its present shape. He thought it would require considerable alteration in Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERpointed out that, although the sale of an advowson carried with it the next presentation, it must not be considered as a sale of the next presentation, because the transfer of the presentation was a natural consequence of the transfer of the advowson, and could not be compared with carrying a presentation into the market and offering it for sale. It was the common traffic in presentations that it was desired to put an end to.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that when he was a Member of the other House he had prepared a measure on the subject, so that he was aware of the gravity of the evil to be dealt with; but if the Bill were read a second time he hoped the noble Duke would postpone the Committee.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHassented, and remarked that he was not responsible for the title of the Bill.
  On Question? agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 12 th instant.

BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL.

  (NO. 161.) REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that at a former stage objection had been taken to the way in which the Bill proposed to deal with lunatic clergymen. He wished it to be understood that it was not the Bench of Bishops who had initiated legislation on this subject; but the Bill had been drawn up by the representatives of the clergy in the Lower House of Convocation, who protested against clergymen holding livings the duties of which they were not able to perform. He proposed to meet the difficulty which had been complained of by the introduction of a separate clause allowing the Bishop, through the Archdeacon, to appeal to the Lord Chancellor to take the course which the Lord Chancellor takes in other closely similar cases. Provision might thus be made for securing a retiring allowance. There were one or two other Amendments which were merely verbal.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 4, insert the following Clause:—
  "In case of any incumbent being afflicted with permanent mental incapacity it shall be lawful for the archdeacon, on the request of the Bishop to apply to The Lord Chancellor, or other the person or persons to whom the care of the estates and persons of lunatics may be intrusted by Her Majesty's sign manual, to direct the Committee, or, in the cases where there has not been any inquisition, to direct such person as to The Lord Chancellor or to such other person or persons as aforesaid shall seem fit, to resign the benefice in the name and on the part of the incumbent so incapacitated as aforesaid; and The Lord Chancellor, or such other person or persons as aforesaid, may therefore, if it shall to him or them seem fit, give such directions as may be proper for the resignation of the benefice, and for the assigning of a proper payment thereout for the benefit of the incumbent so incapacitated during his life, and such resignation shall have the same effect as if it had been made by the incumbent himself, and the allowance shall be paid in the same manner as in other cases provided for by this Act."—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, it appeared to him that there was much to recommend the Amendment. He would remark that no provision was made in the Bill for a retiring allowance when the living was of very small value.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, this was a real difficulty; but the mea-
  1344
  sure would give very great advantages in the case of the larger livings though the smaller should be excluded. In such cases the remedy must be applied in the best manner practicable, with reference to the circumstances of each. He thought that in most cases they might rely upon the benevolence of the patrons and wealthier parishioners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was impossible to legislate for the case of a living so poor that it could afford neither a pension nor a curate. He thought they might rely upon the zeal of Churchmen to provide against the spiritual destitution of a place so unfortunately circumstanced.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Friday next, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 178).

SEQUESTRATION BILL—(No. 145.)
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
SEQUESTRATION BILL—(No. 145.)

  THIRD READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on Motion for Third Reading, read: Debate resumed accordingly.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that having given the matter his best consideration he was willing to accept several of the Amendments suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns); but he did so reluctantly, and in order to facilitate the passing of the Bill, and to secure an instalment of justice. The principle ought to be understood and acted upon that benefices existed for the good of the parishioners, and not merely of the incumbents, and in that view he thought the provision of the Bill which entrusted the removal of a bankrupt clergyman to the Bishop of the diocese was the best course; but he clearly perceived that unless he acceded to the Amendments there would be no chance of carrying the Bill, because their Lordships intimated plainly that unless he consented to give an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he could have no hope of carrying the Bill through. Rather than lose the Bill he was prepared to accede to that demand, although he was convinced there was no necessity for it, and that in suggesting that the appeal

  1345
  should be from the Bishop to the Archbishop he had been proposing nothing new. He might venture to say most distinctly that he never intended, under the guise of bringing in a Bill to remedy a very great abuse and scandal in the Church, to get any more power for the Episcopal Bench; and he thought he might appeal to the noble and learned Lord who had opposed the Bill, to say that he had not intended to impute any such motive. The appeal originally proposed in this case was analogous to that provided in the deprivation of a curate of his curacy. It was not intended that the Archbishop should have the power of taking from a clergyman his freehold, but simply that he should be the instrument to exercise a checking power over the Bishop by declaring, in certain cases, that it was expedient that that which was the law of the land should operate to prevent a clergyman who was utterly and hopelessly bankrupt from leaving his parish in the care of an underpaid curate, while the greater part of the income of his benefice went to satisfy the claims of his creditors. For his own part, he could not see what advantage could be derived from giving an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In a case where a Bishop or an Archbishop had given judgment against a clergyman on the ground that he had preached false doctrine, there might be good ground for permitting an appeal to the Privy Council, because it was possible that the Bishop or the Archbishop might have misjudged the case; but all that would have to be done by the Bishop or the Archbishop under the Bill would be to determine whether, the facts of the case being beyond dispute, the law should be enforced against the bankrupt clergyman, and he saw no ground in such a case for an appeal to the Privy Council. The Bill, as proposed to be altered by the noble and learned Lord, would at any rate give an instalment of the principle for which he contended, by enabling the Bishop, where an incumbent had been declared bankrupt, to make such provision for the performance of the spiritual duties of the office by appointing curates, and paying the necessary stipends. This would be an admission so far that the clergyman was not to have a right to give his benefice as security to an unlimited amount to his creditors;
  1346
  and, as he had previously observed, rather than lose the Bill he would accept the suggestions of his noble and learned Friend.
  LORD CAIRNSentirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) as to the motives which had actuated those who had introduced this measure. The Bill had been introduced to remedy what had been most properly described as a very great scandal, arising in cases where the incumbent of a benefice had become bankrupt, where the parish was left in the hands of an improperly paid curate, and where the income of the benefice was enjoyed by the creditors of the incumbent. All were agreed upon the necessity that existed for devising some means for obviating such an evil, and the only question that could arise upon the matter was as to the mode of effecting the object which all had in view. It was scarcely necessary for the right rev. Prelate to have disclaimed any intention of surreptitiously increasing the power of the Episcopal Bench by means of this Bill, because no one had ever thought of bringing such a charge against him. There was no foundation for any suggestion of the kind, and it would be most unfortunate if they were unable to discuss the merits of measures that might be proposed without imagining there was some underhand motive on the part of those who brought them forward. There were two ways by which the scandal to which he had adverted might be obviated—one was to give greater latitude to the Bishop of the diocese than at present existed to appropriate the income of the benefice to the spiritual wants of the parish, and the other was to allow the benefice after a certain lapse of time to be declared vacant and to be filled up in the ordinary course. He confessed he had a preference for the first method and a great objection to the latter. The Bill proposed to give the power to the Bishop in the first instance, with an appeal to the Archbishop. Since then it was clear that the Bishop or the Archbishop would have to exercise a judicial discretion under the Bill, he saw no reason why in this case the ordinary course in relation to ecclesiastical matters should not be followed, and an appeal he to the Privy Council. The course taken by the right rev. Prelate now was the right one. They should

  1347
  hold their hand, and not go further than was necessary at present.
  On Question, That the Bill be read 3a? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly.
  Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 173.)
(The Lord President.)
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 173.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Further Amendments made.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he felt that an apology was due from him, for venturing at this late stage of the Bill to introduce an Amendment of considerable importance; but he believed he should be justified in doing so, even at a very short notice, if it should appear that the object of the Amendment was to carry out an almost unanimous feeling of the medical profession. In asking for such a representation on the General Medical Council as his Amendment would give them, the profession were not seeking to advance their own interests, but were actuated by a desire to promote the interests of the public. It appeared to him that they were indebted to the profession for the Bill introduced in 1858, and also for the Bill now before their Lordships. He had heard several objections made to the direct representation asked for by the profession. It was said that the medical body was represented indirectly, if not directly, on the Medical Council. Now, if it had no direct voice in the constitution of the Colleges and Universities—and it was only necessary to look into the pages of the medical calendars to see that it had not—it could not have an indirect representation on the Medical Council. It was urged also that a direct representation of the profession on the Council would not be worth the trouble and expense which it would involve; but he believed that the registration of the whole profession, established by the Act of 1858, rendered the carrying out of the object of his Amendment a very easy matter. Another objection was that the addition of eight members to the Council would make it too unwieldy. This was a matter of detail, and the difficulty might be met by linking together some
  1348
  more of the Colleges. A Petition emanating from some 4,000 members of the profession, a memorial presented to the President of the Council, and meetings held at Oxford, Leeds, Edinburgh, and Dublin, all went to show how strong was the opinion of the profession in favour of direct representation. Even at a meeting of the General Council held to consider the clauses of this Bill, a resolution was brought forward by one of the nominees of the Government strongly recommending a larger representation, though an indirect representation. A long discussion ensued, and a decided feeling was manifested by the Council in favour of a better representation of the medical profession. He was certain their Lordships would not desire to pass a measure which would not be acceptable to the profession at large, and therefore he proposed to insert a new clause, to the effect that the General Medical Council after the passing of that Act should always contain four representatives elected by the registered members of the medical profession residing in England and Wales, two representatives elected by the registered members of the profession in Scotland, and also two elected by the profession in Ireland. Although he did not wish to pledge himself as to that being the exact number or proportion of representatives of the profession who ought to sit in the General Medical Council, yet he thought their Lordships should not allow the Bill in its present shape to leave the House without at least giving to that which was really the desire of the medical profession generally a fair consideration.
  Moved, to insert the following new Clause:—
  "The General Medical Council shall, after the passing of this Act, always contain four representatives elected by the registered members of the medical profession residing in England and Wales, two representatives elected by the registered members of the profession residing in Scotland, and two representatives elected by the registered members of the profession residing in Ireland."—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he concluded from the concluding observations of the noble Earl, and from the nature of his clause itself, that it was not his intention now to press his Amendment on their Lordships for adoption. The noble Earl's object, no doubt, was simply to raise a discussion on the

  1349
  question whether such a change as he suggested was desirable, and whether this was the best time to carry it into effect. It was clear that the clause could not be admitted into the Bill, inasmuch as no machinery was provided for the election of the proposed representatives of the medical profession. Although the noble Earl might think it an exceedingly easy matter to have persons elected by the universal suffrage of the medical profession, yet that could not be done by simply enacting that it should be done, without supplying any machinery for carrying it practically into effect. The noble Earl had spoken as if there could be no question that the General Medical Council should be representative of the medical profession; but whether a body ought to be representative or not depended very much on the functions it had to discharge. In his view the functions of the General Medical Council might be rather called executive than properly representative. He was aware that many members of the profession desired to impose on the Council duties which would be more likely to be properly performed by a body largely containing a representative element; but he strongly doubted the advisability of that extension of its functions, and—speaking generally and with due reserve—he did not think it would be expedient to extend the functions of the Council in a greater degree than was proposed under the Bill. With regard to the number of members on the Council, he was inclined to think it was too large rather than not large enough, and that the proposed addition of eight members would be a serious hindrance to the proper transaction of its business—which was not that of a debating society, but should be confined as much as possible to duties of an executive description. He believed, however, that the Council was fully representative of the intelligence of the medical profession. It contained not only several most eminent members of the existing corporations, but also six members appointed by the Crown, who might be taken not merely from the profession but from the general body of the public, whose interests were concerned in the matter as well as those of the profession. The principal duty of the Council under the Bill would be to conduct the examinations by which persons were to be admitted to the medical pro-
  1350
  fession. It had another duty to perform as regarded those already in the profession—namely, that of striking practitioners off the register for proved offences; but that was a function of a strictly judicial character, to be exercised in a strictly judicial spirit, and it hardly formed a ground for giving to the body which exercised it more of a representative character. With these views, he should be ready to give his very careful consideration to any complete scheme which the noble Earl might propose on that subject. Had his noble Friend proposed his Amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill, he should have given it his careful consideration; but he owned it did not appear to him that this was the right moment when such a change should be made, nor did he think it a change from which the public or the profession in reality would derive advantage. He, therefore, ventured to suggest that the noble Earl should not press his clause on that occasion, but that the Bill, which had a distinct object quite separate from that aimed at by the clause, should be allowed to pass.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEregretted that the noble Earl the President of the Council had refused his assent to this clause. Notwithstanding the objections taken to it by that noble Earl, he thought there ought to be an element representative of the medical profession in the Council, and that without it the Council would be neither so authoritative nor so popular as it deserved to be. The only tangible objection urged by the noble Earl to the clause seemed to be its insufficiency in respect of the machinery for electing representatives; but such machinery could very easily be devised. As it stood, the Bill would not give satisfaction either to the public or to the profession, and it ought not to be sent down by their Lordships in its present shape to the other House. Unless the measure underwent material amendment he should, therefore, feel it his duty to move its rejection on the third reading.
  EARL GREYadmitted that without the required machinery it would be idle to insert the clause, and that at that late stage it might be difficult to add to the Bill the provisions necessary to give effect to this proposal. He also thought the President of the Council was right in objecting to make the Council too

  1351
  numerous. But he regretted that in effecting what was, he believed, a valuable reform in respect to the medical profession, some means had not been devised by which, without rendering the Council too unwieldy, the medical profession at large, as distinguished from the medical corporations, should be enabled to make its voice heard in the deliberations of that body.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished to say a word, lest there might be an appearance of unanimity on this subject which did not really exist. He had no doubt that if the Amendment had been proposed when their Lordships had met to discuss the Bill at the usual stage, the proposition to apply the elective principle to a body which had such functions to discharge as would fall to the Medical Council to discharge, would not have been received with much favour. The experiment of electing an executive body by a profession widely dispersed having no means of communication or of forming a public opinion except through the medium of newspapers, was something so new—not having been applied to any other body in this country—that he should regard it with great suspicion. He had not heard that any of the more eminent members of the medical profession were anxious for the proposed change. His own opinion was that they were content with the present constitution of the Medical Council, and that they would look upon this change as tending to introduce political controversy where peace now existed.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was mistaken in supposing that the number of entrances to the profession would be increased by the Bill in its present shape, and that the controlling power of the Government was weakened. The fact was under the Bill there would be only a triple door of entrance—namely, the examination of the conjoint Board in the three divisions of the country. All that the 18th clause permitted was, that the existing Universities might give their degrees to whom they liked; but such degrees would confer no right to be placed on the registry, and if the holders of them called themselves by these titles for the purpose of practising, they would be liable, under the 21st clause, to very heavy penalties. There would, therefore, be but this triple
  1352
  door instead of the 19 distinct and separate entrances which now existed. He hoped his noble Friend would not pursue the course of opposing the Bill on the third reading, as he had intimated. His noble Friend did not object to the constitution of the Medical Council in Committee, where all his objections might have been fully and fairly discussed, and, therefore, he trusted he would not attempt to stop the measure at its last stage.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, his object had been gained when he heard his noble Friend's statement that if the Amendment had been brought forward at an earlier stage he would have taken the subject into consideration. He would not, therefore, press the Amendment. As to the remark of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the leading members of the profession were not in favour of the clause, he begged to say that there was a strong feeling on the part of the leading members of the profession—even of those who were nominees of the Government, and sitting in the General Council—that the Council would not exercise the influence which it ought to possess owing to the fact of its not sufficiently representing the profession at large.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'olock: