Lords Sitting of 26 June 1873

MINUTES.
.—PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision * (174); Crown Private Estates* (175).
Second Reading—Public Worship Facilities (.56), negatived; Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Electors (133), negatived.
Committee — Canonries * (169); Admission to Benefices and Church warden ships, &c. * (153–176); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (134–177).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (110); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) * (154), and passed.

PUBLIC WORSHIP FACILITIES BILL.
(The Earl of Carnarvon.)

(No. 56.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he had hoped that the second reading would have passed without opposition; but the Notice for its rejection given by his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) rendered it necessary for him to give an explanation of the measure; and whatever its fate, he was desirous that it should be fully discussed. Its object and its provisions were very simple. Its object was to pro-

1379
vide facilities for the performance of Public Worship, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. To its first provision that upon the application or with the consent in writing of the incumbent of any parish, the Bishop of the diocese might licence a clergyman of the Church of England to officiate in a schoolroom or other suitable building within the parish, he anticipated no objection. The second provision empowered a Bishop, in a parish containing not less than 1,000 inhabitants, on the application of 25 resident inhabitants, setting forth the existing facilities for public worship in the parish, and the additional facilities which they desire to have provided, and after hearing any objections, to licence a clergyman for the performance of Divine worship in any specified schoolroom or other suitable building; and the third provision empowered the Bishop to licence a clergyman to officiate in chapels attached to private residences, on the application of the owner, subject to the conditions that such chapel should be for the sole use of the owner or occupier and of the persons residing in the premises or precincts, or that the residence was situated in a parish containing more than 1,000 inhabitants, or was distant at least one mile from any parish church. These clauses were carefully guarded by provisions against abuse—such as for the revocation of the licence, that the licence should not include the solemnization of marriage, and for the registration of baptisms, and in Committee the securities might, if necessary—he should himself wish to alter one or two points—be strengthened without impairing the principle of the Bill. He was quite at a loss to know what was the precise objection to the Bill entertained by his noble Friend who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the second reading. The only reasonable objections which he could foresee were that the measure might involve a certain invasion of the parochial system; that it might excite division and strife, and that it vested too large a power in Bishops. Now, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) yielded to no man in his admiration and love for the parochial system—it had, as he believed, been the means of affording the greatest spiritual advantages and blessings throughout the
1380
country; but at the same time that he admired the system he thought it would be absurd to raise it into a sort of fetish, and to say that under no circumstances should it be touched. That would be to sacrifice the spirit and to preserve the dry bones. Moreover, already from the mere force of circumstances the principle had been infringed in the cases of the Army, the hospitals, and workhouses, and the case of large towns, for it was admittedly impossible to enforce it strictly in the case of parishes with overgrown populations. As to country districts, he at first entertained some doubts, but the magnitude of the evil and the insufficiency of the existing machinery had convinced him that the Bill was necessary. Without quoting the numerous letters he had received, he would appeal to the Episcopal Bench whether in every diocese there were not parishes with large populations, anxious to subscribe the means for extending and improving their religious organization, and to provide everything requisite for their spiritual wants, but where all religious action was practically stopped by the age, indolence, or wilful negligence of the incumbents, to whom the law gave a veto on any kind of reform, however earnestly desired by the parishioners and the Bishop. A right rev. Prelate not present had in his recent charge described such parishes as the disgrace of the diocese and the despair of the Bishop, the clergymen neither doing their duty nor allowing others to do it, and straining to the uttermost the rights given them by the parochial system to protect them in, not from, their work. But a parish was not made for the incumbent, and though he had a freehold in the estate of his parish, he had no freehold in the souls of his parishioners. Only a measure like this would touch the evil. It had been said that this measure would produce strife and division in parishes. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) doubted whether it was likely to be put in force in any parish in circumstances which might lead to strife and discord; but if it should be so, he should prefer some measure of these to the stagnation now prevailing in such parishes. It might be thought too, that the Bill gave too arbitrary a power to the Bishops. But if we had Bishops invested with large spiritual and secular powers, it must be

1381
assumed that they would not abuse their trust. They acted, moreover, in the full light of public opinion, with a degree of responsibility scarcely resting on any layman, and it was a chimera to suppose that they would gratuitously promote parochial strife, the results of which would inevitably re-act on themselves. Their decision would have to be given in writing, the incumbent would have every facility of objecting, and the whole transaction would be as public as possible; while, should an unworthy person be unfortunately licensed, the licence was revocable by the Bishop. He would have nothing to do with the Bill were it likely to tell for one party in the Church and against another; but its effect, if any, must be equal on both parties, who would be equally able to take advantage of it; and it was more fit to meet the difficulties he had described than difficulties arising from differences of opinion. At present, as long as an incumbent complied with the bare requirements of the law, no action could be taken, though the Church might find dissent grow and infidelity increase—every other sect being free to open places of worship, and the Church alone being chained up and barred, however much the parishioners and the Bishop desired to remedy the evil. No measure of this kind could be free from objections, but they were far outweighed by its advantages; and in nine cases out of ten the freedom and power given by the Bill to the laity and diocesan would operate as a sufficient stimulus to induce a negligent or obstinate clergyman to meet the requirements of the parish. No one was more familiar with the evil than the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and he would entreat him to propose a remedy, if he had one, but not to adopt towards the Bill a non possumus policy. The noble Earl, who had lightened many burdens, should not take the responsibility of stopping a measure which could produce only an infinitesimal degree of mischief, and of thereby leaving parishes in a state of paralysis and bondage, with the life-giving influences of religion checked.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Carnarvon).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that the Bill be read a
1382
second time that day three months—said, that the magnitude of the subject did not seem to be altogether appreciated by the noble Earl who had taken charge of the Bill. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had been appealed to not to impede the progress of true religion and shut out the light from the dark recesses of large populations. Now, so far from doing that, he would open the doors much wider than the noble Earl was prepared to do; he was prepared for a large and extensive scheme for letting in the light as far as possible on the whole mass of the population. The public hitherto had been silent on the Bill, but the clergy, in private communications, had not been entirely indifferent to it. One of the first men in the Church, Mr. Miller, of Greenwich, had described it as a revolutionary measure; and a letter he had just received from another incumbent denounced it as the culminating point of Episcopal aggression. The Bill was vicious in principle; and while he admitted that something ought to be done, it would be a remedy far worse than the disease, impairing, without any compensating advantage, the integrity and independence of the parochial system, and bringing great discredit on the Establishment itself. It was quietly introduced into the House of Commons, and passed through Committee in the small hours with one or two Amendments, but without a single speech throwing any light on its object and purpose. No public man besides the noble Earl had come forward as an advocate of it, and only two other authorities had been found in its favour — one, a pamphlet endorsed by Mr. Salt, the introducer of the Bill, but written, he believed, by a friend of his; the other, in a letter by an admirable and excellent man, Mr. Ryle, rector of Stradbroke. All those authorities urged the necessity of affording the people the largest means of enjoying the religious worship of the Established Church, and, the removal of many obstacles thereto, especially an abatement of the power of incumbents in obstructing all improvement by a rigid enforcement of the parochial system. Now, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) concurred in the whole of that, and was prepared to go much further than the noble Earl in supporting a wide and deep reform, bringing the Church more into

1383
harmony with the existing wants and feelings of the people, and even bringing its government under better supervision and control. Mr. Ryle, originally a stanch supporter of the Bill, writing last April to The Record, admitted that it was not faultless, and was open to serious objections, even going so far as to say—
"It interferes rudely with the parochial system of the Church of England. It affects the position of incumbents. It risks the introduction of divisions, strife, and party spirit into parishes. It places a dangerous amount of arbitrary power in the hands of Bishops. All these are undeniable evils."
Deeming the evil so great that he was prepared nevertheless to support the Bill, how would Mr. Ryle remedy that evil? These were his words, and they were well worthy of the attention of those who supported the Bill—
"We must break the bonds which black tape has too long placed on us, and cast them aside. We must take the bull by the horns, and supplement the ministry of inefficient incumbents by an organized system of Evangelical aggression, and that without waiting for any man's leave. Parishes must no longer be regarded as ecclesiastical preserves, within which no Churchman can fire a spiritual shot or do anything without the licence of the incumbent. This wretched notion must go down before a new order of things."
Now, if that system of aggression were good for the Evangelical party, as it was called, it was equally good for the Ritualist and the Broad Churchman; all must be allowed to make their several attacks and form their several congregations as the Bishops, with their several tastes, might give them leave. That that—which he could not contemplate without dismay—was no mere theory, was shown by a letter written by a clergyman of considerable note, Mr. Portal, of Beauclere, Newbury, a neighbour of the noble Earl, in which he advocated a wider latitude and provision for at least three distinct schools of teaching within the Establishment. After arguing the question at some length, he said—
"We have now our three recognized parties; and I believe it will be infinitely conducive to peace and to religious liberty when each of these parties is allowed to have its own preachers and its own worship."
Could their Lordships think that desirable? Even Mr. Ryle, whose first letter was written before fully ascertaining the contents of the Bill, had written another, in which he said—
1384
"One crying want of this day is liberty for Churchmen to provide additional places for worship, without being obliged to wait for the sanction either of the incumbent or the Bishop. This ought to be the main principle of Mr. Salt's Bill. If the present Bill, now before the House of Lords, cannot be amended so as to provide this liberty, by all means let it be thrown out. It would not be worth having, and might do more harm than good."
The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had spoken of the freedom enjoyed by other bodies as compared with the Church of England. Now, if he became a Unitarian or a Jew, he might have all the liberty he desired; but while a member of the Church of England he must surrender some portion of his liberty in return for the great privileges attached to an Established Church. As to proprietary chapels, they were by no means a parallel case, for the proprietor usually appointed the clergyman, while the incumbent's consent was necessary; whereas the Bill empowered the Bishop to nominate a clergyman in spite of the incumbent's objection. Now, in his Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had guarded against proceedings being improperly instituted against a clergyman by restricting the power of instituting a suit to three members of the Church, and by rendering them liable to costs as between attorney and client; but this Bill allowed 25 parishioners to set the Bishop in motion, without requiring them to be members of the Church, ratepayers, males, or even adults. In some parishes there were men whose object was to vex and worry the incumbent, and they would be able to take action under the Bill with that motive. As to the power to be conferred on Bishops—he wished to say, directly or indirectly, nothing which could be offensive to the Episcopal Bench, but Bishops were men of like passions and infirmities with laymen, and however satisfied one might be with the present occupants of the Bench, he could not be sure who would come after them. The operation of the Bill would resemble a system of terrorism, and many incumbents would never feel safe against being cited by 25 parishioners to give an account of their actions. Its operation was limited, indeed, to parishes with not less than 1,000 inhabitants; but the greatest amount of necessity, neglect, and ignorance existed in smaller parishes, and he could see no reason for a restric-

1385
tion which greatly weakened the case in favour of the Bill. As to the commission of inquiry which the Bishop, at his own option, or at the request of the incumbent or 10 parishioners, might appoint three out of its five members would be actually in the nomination of the Bishop, and experienced persons had told him that such a commission could not be discharged for less than £100. Even if the cost was only £50, it would be a serious matter for incumbents with small incomes. If the majority of the commissioners reported favourably, the Bishop might nominate a clergyman without the slightest regard for the feelings of the great bulk of the parishioners. He could conceive nothing more likely to drive people into Dissent. People had taken the parochial system with all its defects as inherited from their forefathers; but if, in addition to having an incumbent put upon them, another man could be put in by 25 parishioners, he believed many would declare the Established Church a nuisance, and would prefer other denominations. Then, again, the Bill required copies of the notice to be given by the Bishop to the incumbent, to be posted in all Church of England places of worship in the parish—thus making the whole proceeding public. That notice, moreover, was to specify the name and residence of the clergyman whom it was proposed to licence—clearly implying that the parishioners were to express their opinion of his doctrine, and whether he was Ritualistic, or Neological, or Evangelical. The question would be talked of in the workshops and gin-palaces, and much of the spirit and feeling attending the election of clergymen in certain parishes by popular election would be excited. The man appointed would be shut out from any parochial duties, subject to the revocation of his licence by the Bishop in a more summary way than any curate was liable to, and while the Bill did not touch the incumbent's endowment and disallowed pew-rents, it made no mention of Easter offerings, free gifts, and collections, all of which might be had recourse to; so that if the licence were planted, as would often be the case, in the richest part of the parish, they would gradually be absorbed, leaving the incumbent to his endowment only. Moreover, the last Proviso afforded a means
1386
whereby the Bishop might assign the new clergyman a source of income. It provided also—
"That the money given at the offertory and the alms collected at any public service held under this Act shall be disposed of as the incumbent and churchwardens may determine, unless the Ordinary shall otherwise direct."
Now, that was a Proviso which absolutely gave the Bishop the power to override the rubric, which said that—
"After Divine service is ended the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of for such pious and charitable uses as the ministers and the churchwardens shall think fit, wherein if they disagree it shall be disposed of as the Ordinary shall appoint."
Under the existing rubric, therefore, the Ordinary could not dispose of the money, unless the incumbent and the churchwardens disagreed; but under the Bill there would be no question of disagreements, and the Bishop might step in and direct the money to be disposed of entirely as he pleased, and the whole of it would, of course, go to maintain the new clergyman. In that way—and he was sorry to make the remark—a very large portion of patronage would in a short time pass into the hands of the Bishop. A clergyman, indeed, had written to him, entering into details as to an appointment which had been already made in the richest part of his parish, which was a very small one; and if the present Bill were to pass, a very large portion of his receipts would fall to nothing, and he would have to live on his own miserable endowment. He would pass over those objections to the measure, and would be prepared to give up all patronage, if necessary, if it stood in the way of the spiritual welfare of the people. He would, however, give it up only on the condition that it should not pass from lay into ecclesiastical hands. It was evident, he might add, that under the operation of the Bill the incumbent of a parish and the other clergyman who might be appointed would be likely to engage in a most strenuous rivalry. The one would be desirous of keeping his church full, while the other would have the same object in view with regard to his own place of worship; the one would strive to get the offerings, the other to keep them from him. That was a state of things which their Lordships could not, he thought, contemplate without regret. He recollected

1387
well the energy with which a noble Marquess declaimed as to the supposed consequences in that respect of a Bill which he had introduced, enabling three men in a parish to "promote the Judge's office;" but the results in the present instance had been ten times worse, because instead of a single movement, there would be one which might be constantly renewed. Sunday after Sunday there would be such scenes as a Ritualistic clergyman and an Evangelical incumbent denouncing one another and hurling against one another the thunderbolts of theology. There would, in fact, be perpetual disputes, and perpetual rivalry. That being so, if Mr. Mackonochie—whose name he mentioned merely as a representative of extreme opinions as a High Churchman—had the care of souls in a certain parish, and that he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who was supposed to be an extravagantly Low Churchman had the power of appointing Dr. M`Neil to act with him—he should do no such thing, because he should think it horrible to give occasion for disputes, and the exchange of hard words from Sunday to Sunday. He objected to anything of the kind on principle, and because such proceedings were calculated to drive many people into infidelity, and to induce them to ask whether there was any such thing as truth at all. He now came to that part of the Bill which gave the incumbent the right of appeal to the Archbishop of the Province; and that led him to the subject of the expense connected with proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Knowing them to be enormous he had written to Archdeacon Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton, to ask him what was the cost of an appeal to the Archbishop—as he himself had made an appeal, and had been awfully punished in consequence. The reply of the Archdeacon was as follows:—
"East Brent, High-bridge, Jan. 11, 1873. "Dear Lord Shaftesbury,—The first step in the matter of expense was the requirement of £100 guarantee on account of each of my two curates. This guarantee I gave. When the judgment of the Appeal Court was given in our favour, we were made to pay our own costs. My bill of costs was £509 11 s. 5d. Other necessary expenses connected with the appeal brought up the amount to nearly £600. Besides this, a demand was made upon me for costs in my priest curate's case up to the time of withdrawal of his appeal."
[His appeal was withdrawn upon the ground of a technical difficulty created
1388
by the Bishop having allowed his licence to lapse].
"I refused to pay the amount so demanded and have heard no more about it. I was also asked to pay £46 to the Archbishop's secretary for his attendance upon the Archbishop in Appeal Court. This I also refused to pay, and it was allowed that there was no legal claim for it. Upon the whole I have paid some £600, and, if I had paid all I was asked to pay, it would have been some £800. Upon the above statement, which I place unreservedly in your hands, it does certainly appear that to give curates such power of appeal as this is a simple mockery."
He was sure their Lordships would concur in that view. No doubt, the whole system of Ecclesiastical fees demanded revision; they were oppressive in the extreme—and here was a pretty hope of redress, to be held out to a clergyman seeking justice. Such were the contents and purport of the Bill to which their Lordships were invited to give a second reading. They would admit, he was sure, that they were worthy of grave consideration. The integrity and independence of the parochial system were threatened, and without any adequate compensation; and yet the parochial system was in the present day the only practical argument for the maintenance of our Established Church. That something should be done to limit the obstructive power of incumbents he did not deny. But they must resist an effort to place it exclusively in the hands of the Bishops, to the vast extension of their Episcopal power, and to the increase of their ecclesiastical patronage. To accomplish its end, that Bill would put one or more preaching-houses in every district approved by the Bishop. Each clergyman so named, as well as the invaded incumbent, must be in perpetual rivalry with each other to win or to retain the greatest number of attendants at their respective places of worship, the greatest amount of Easter offerings, free gifts, and the like; and, in their zeal, to canvass for the rich, not unfrequently forgetting the poor. And yet how would that satisfy the people? Assume for the sake of argument, that it would give them more places of worship. Would it give them such a minister as they desired? Because, if it did not, the multiplication of places of worship would be of no avail. It was not so much the want of room as want of inclination that kept many away from our churches. They might see, at that moment, in London, churches in the

1389
midst of a dense population, not filled to the extent of one-third, because the minister and his services were altogether unattractive to them. Moreover, no sufficient reason had been assigned for the omission of the smaller population in the rural districts—generally the most necessitous, the most ignorant, and the most neglected. The minister oftentimes reigned paramount among them, with no resident country gentleman, away from public opinion, and not pressed by any of the sense of danger which arose from the presence of large masses. There were greater mischiefs to be apprehended from our rural districts than many people were aware of. It had been said that anyone who opposed this Bill must be prepared to propose a better. Was the assertion just? Was anyone bound to find a substitute for the proposition he rejected? Was it the dictate of common sense or the rule of ordinary life? But, so far as he was concerned, though there were none that he would offer as alternatives, there were some that he would rather accept than that Bill—all bad, but each preferable to the measure before them. He would like a Bill for a larger extension of district churches; he would even accept one for an increase of proprietary chapels; nor would he resist a Bill to restrain the rights of incumbents, and give to any ordained minister of the Church power to obey the call of a majority of dissatisfied parishioners, who, regardless of Bishop, rector, and patron, might form a congregation of their own choice—bad enough, he admitted—as approaching to the Congregational system, but yet better than ecclesiastical disorder under the sanction of authority. But the present Bill he must unhesitatingly oppose, for, in addition to its other evils, it was, as Mr. Miall said in The Nonconformist paper, the first step towards the disestablishment of the Church of England.
An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Shaftesbury) appeared to think that the Bill originated with the Bishops, and that they looked upon it with great favour because it so largely increased their power. Now, the Bill
1390
did not originate from the Episcopal Bench. Two years ago a similar Bill was proposed in the other House of Parliament, he believed, by the same hon. Gentleman who proposed this measure, which now came up to their Lordships; and as the Bishops supposed that the clergy had not had then sufficient time to consider the whole subject, and as the Bill appeared somewhat rudely to interfere with the parochial system, most of his right rev. Brethren opposed it, and it was rejected. In the two years that had since elapsed, the Mover of the Bill in the other House had taken counsel in all directions respecting his measure. It had been before the clergy and the laity now for nearly two years; and he was bound to say, so far as his information went, that no strong feeling of opposition had been manifested against it in the ordinary way of petitioning either branch of the Legislature. Therefore his right rev. Brethren and he felt themselves in a somewhat different position from that which they occupied two years ago. They were led to suppose that those evils which the noble Earl contemplated as likely to arise from that measure, could not have presented themselves to the great body of the members of the Church of England, otherwise they would have heard of their alarm. The Episcopal Bench therefore had to consider whether, a measure being proposed by a layman and supported principally by lay authority, and having passed the other House, and being introduced by a layman into their Lordships' House, ought by them to be opposed or supported. He confessed that, regarding the measure as a very difficult one, believing that it was capable of a great deal of amendment, and that much might be said against it—as the noble Earl had abundantly proved—he still thought that its defects were greatly surpassed -by its merits, and that more was to be said in its favour; and therefore he was prepared to vote for its second reaching. But neither he, nor any of his right rev. Brethren separately, nor the whole Bench collectively, desired to be held responsible for the introduction of the measure; consequently, when the Bill was called a measure of Episcopal aggression, it must be understood that it was not an aggression which the Bishops on their own motion had made on the rights of the laity or clergy. It was

1391
quite possible that the measure might be of such a nature as greatly to increase their power, and he was glad if there was such confidence felt in the Bishops that lay members of the Church desired —if they did. desire—to place so much power in their hands; and he did not believe it would be possible to construct any measure for the improvement of the Church in which Members of the Episcopal Bench could be omitted from consideration, and not allowed that due degree of influence which their very office implied. The noble Earl appeared to think the Bill gave the Bishops the power of nominating clergymen in a parish; but, as he read it, it gave no such power. The persons who were to nominate the clergymen were the laity of the parish. A certain number of laymen, perhaps too few—though that could be set right in Committee—requested that a certain clergyman should be licensed, and the Bishop had nothing to do with the matter, except either to licence or not to licence him. The power of the Bishops, therfore, would not be so largely increased as the noble Earl had imagined. He gathered from the noble Earl's speech that this was in no way a party question—in the sense of theological party. The noble Earl quoted a venerable Archdeacon, with whom he appeared to be in correspondence, and also the authority of Mr. Ryle; so that there seemed really to be a division of opinion on that matter, altogether irrespective of party; and he inferred from this that the measure, be it good or bad, was perfectly impartial, offering no more power to one party than to another. Before he proceeded to consider the objections of the noble Earl, he desired to call attention to one or two ways in which, according to the ancient constitution of the Church of England, the parochial system had in past times been somewhat interfered with. It was a common mistake to suppose that a parish could not be subdivided without the consent of the incumbent. Acts which bore the name of a noble Duke opposite and of Sir Robert Peel, gave power for the sub-division of parishes, and therefore interfered with the rights of those who were at the head of the old parishes. In his administration of the diocese of London, he too often found that when it was proposed to sub-divide a parish the incumbent was dead against
1392
it. Then the power of the Ecclesiastical Commission and the Bishop of the diocese were put in force, and the parish was sub-divided, and the clergyman who before had been endeavouring to force his way into the parish himself became an incumbent. But in London the population increased very rapidly, and the clergyman who had forced. his way into the parish of the original incumbent soon found some other clergyman equally anxious to force his way into his parish; and however eager he had been to obtain access to the parish of the old incumbent, he was almost certain to resist strenuously the attempt of the new-comer. They might, therefore, go too far in preserving the rights of incumbents. No doubt, they had rights, and these rights ought to be respected; but he considered their right as of no importance at all, if they in any way interfered with the spiritual benefit of the people placed under their charge. Moreover, from the days of the Commonwealth, if not before, there had been lecturers in most of the large parishes; and though the incumbent might have power to protest against the appointment of the lecturer, in point of law, he was quite certain that some pressure, gentle or otherwise, would be brought to bear to secure the appointment; and. the lecturer, once appointed, he was not aware that a new incumbent coming into office could remove the lecturer otherwise than by undertaking all the duties himself, and even then there would be great difficulty in preventing the lecturer from performing the duties for which he was appointed. Then there were proprietary chapels, with many of which they were familiar, in London. In London, indeed, in the days of his predecessor, Bishop Porteus, he believed the only real extension of the Church of England to the wants of the congregation came from the introduction of these proprietary chapels, which were not very easily distinguishable from the sort of chapel proposed to be erected by this Bill. It was true that the consent of the incumbent, willing or unwilling, given freely or under pressure, was required before a clergyman could obtain possession of one of these proprietary chapels; but, once there, it was impossible for the incumbent to remove him, and he remained irremoveable in

1393
spite of the incumbent, exercising his office according to a system which, whether it belonged to the original Constitution of the Church or not, was at least a hundred years old. Therefore, there was not so much novelty as at first appeared in the proposal of the noble Earl who had introduced this Bill. Moreover, in the overgrown parishes of London, it was considered most desirable to introduce missionary clergymen to exercise their office among the poor. Those persons were selected for the express purpose of ministering to the poor, and they were persons, generally, who had a certain capacity for addressing the labouring classes. It was very true that the incumbent might at any time refuse permission to any of these persons to officiate in his parish; but, as a matter of fact, incumbents were in one way or another induced to allow these somewhat irregular agencies, and the missionary clergy were reckoned, as he heard that day at a meeting of the Bishop of London's Fund, one of the most valuable agencies at present in existence for the evangelization of a large class of our fellow-countrymen. Therefore, though this measure might go a little further, it was still travelling in the course in which legislation and custom had been travelling of late years—relaxing the parochial system in order to meet the exigences which arose by an increasing population, or by an increased sense of responsibility to that population.. He should be quite ready to agree that the measure should go to a Select Committee, or that it should be examined in detail in a Committee of the Whole House and every provision dealt with upon its merits; but he must allude to a few more of the points raised by the noble Earl. Seeing the need for an extension of the evangelizing agency of the Church, he was not prepared to reject the measure. He was surprised that the noble Earl should be so afraid of the name of the clergyman being submitted to the parishioners. The noble Earl seemed to think that nothing but evil could possibly arise from such a system, but, with some little inconsistency, he suggested at the end of his speech, that the laity should be the persons to pronounce judgment upon the qualifications of their minister. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) saw no objection to the laity having a voice
1394
in the appointment of the clergyman, or to the names being placed on the church door, in order to give them publicity; and he could imagine an incumbent who had not done a great deal in past times, being stirred to a sense of duty by the knowledge, that there was a chance of his parishioners nominating some person whom the Bishop would licence to perform certain functions which he had failed to perform. He should certainly object to the Bishop appointing three members of the Commission, and he saw nothing in the Bill to throw the expenses on the clergyman of the parish; but if any, those expenses would be very small indeed. His belief was with regard to fees, that the fees complained of by the noble Earl were not ecclesiastical, but were those payable to certain members of the legal profession who were called upon to address the Archbishops and Bishops on these occasions. He knew that in the case of Appeal to which the noble Earl alluded, two gentlemen of the long robe addressed him (the Archbishop of Canterbury) in a long oration, and a very considerable portion of the sum of £600, of which mention had been made, went no doubt into the pockets of those gentlemen. In conclusion, he must say that he had found this a matter somewhat difficult to decide, but upon the whole, he thought that the Bill ought to be carried. He had no fear that its effect would be to abate the zeal of Churchmen for the erection of new churches, for in the diocese of London it was found that the construction of these temporary chapels almost always led to the erection of a permanent church afterwards. The noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill feared that the destruction of the Church would follow, because the Bill adapted itself to the wants of the times in the manner proposed. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) did not share in that fear, and the noble Earl's remarks, in which he quoted Mr. Miall, reminded him of a recent discussion in that House, and which had been echoed back from Scotland, in which it appeared that the seceding bodies in Scotland expressed an apprehension that any extension of the Established Church in Scotland would lead to its destruction. He thought that, on the contrary, its extension would strengthen it, and do some damage to those who had suddenly

1395
awakened to a sense of its value. The clergyman of a parish claimed a monopoly, but it must be admitted that this was sometimes a monopoly of eccentricity or of neglect upon which it was desirable some check should be placed, and because the Bill imposed such a check, he had determined, after very considerable hesitation, to support the second reading.
THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, that there was no difficulty in getting good congregations in Wales when the Church of England had an opportunity of putting itself before the people; and from a long practical experience, he could testify as to the necessity that existed for giving such facilities as were requisite for the purpose. Notwithstanding all the exertions of both Protestants and Dissenters, there was still a great amount of practical irreligion and ungodliness which required all the earnestness and zeal of Christians to contend against; more especially, when it was considered that under the existing system, it was impossible for members of the Church to do all they might do. The present jealousy of Episcopal power, of archidiaconal influence, and of the clergy generally, was utterly unworthy of many of those who entertained it, and he trusted that their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill, in order that greater facilities of religious worship might be provided for the Church in Wales.
LORD DYNEVORspoke from experience as a minister of the Church of 45 years' standing, and declared his conviction that the Bill would do more harm than good. He thought that in very large parishes the incumbent ought not to have a veto; but he believed that the effect of passing such a measure as that proposed by this Bill would be to create strife in every parish, and that it would prove an impediment to religion more than anything else. It would create a Cave of Adullam in every parish, and have effects similar to those which occurred in Ireland on the appointment of coadjutor priests by the Roman Catholic Bishops.
On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 52; Not Contents, 68; majority, 16. Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, Archp.

Carlisle, Bp.

York, Archp.

Chichester, Bp.

Ely, Bp.

Cleveland, D.

Gloucester and Bristol,

Northumberland, D.

Bp.

Saint Albans, D.

Hereford, Bp.

Llandaff, Bp.

Bath, M. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Exeter, M.

Oxford, Bp.

Ripon, M.

Rochester, Bp.

Winchester, Bp.

Amherst, E.

Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

Blachford, L.

Granville, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and

Grey, E.

Orrery.)

Kimberley, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

Nelson, E.

Foley, L.

Powis, E.

Gwydir, L.

Spencer, E.

Hanmer, L.

Stanhope, E.

Hylton, L.

Strathmore and King-

Lawrence, L.

horn, E.

Lisgar, L.

Lovel and Holland, L.

De Vesci, V.

(E. Egmont.)

Halifax, V.

Lyttelton, L.

Hardinge, V.

Mostyn, L.

Lifford, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-

Sidmouth, V.

borough.)

Strathallan, V.

Ravensworth, L.

Sydney, V.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Buckingham and Chan-

Hereford, V.

dos, D.

Portman, V.

Marlborough, D.

Richmond, D.

Bagot, L.

Bateman, L.

Blayney, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Aber-

Brodrick, L. (V. Midle-

corn.)

ton.)

Bute, M.

Buckhurst, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Cairns, L.

Winchester, M.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carys-

fort.)

Bantry, E.

Congleton, L.

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

Crofton, L.

Belmore, E.

De Mauley, L.

Chichester, E.

Denman, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Dinevor, L.

Derby, E.

Dunsany, L.

Devon, E.

Ettrick, L. (L. Napier)

Fortescue, E.

Gifford, L.

Harrowby, E.

Hatherley, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Hawke, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Malmersbury, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Head-

Morton, E.

fort.)

Shaftesbury, E [Teller.]

Kesteven, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Meredyth, L. (L. Ath-

Wicklow, E.

lumney.)

Monson, L.

Oranmore and Browne,

Canterbury, V.

L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clan-

Onnonde, L. (M. Or-

carty.)

monde.)

Doneraile, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Eversley, V.

Plunket, L.

Hawarden, V.

Poltimore, L.

1397

Raglan, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Sheffield, L. (E. Shef-

Templemore, L.

field.)

Tredegar, L.

Sherborne, L.

Vernon, L.

Sondes, L.

Vivian, L.

REGISTER FOR PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTORS BILL.
(The Lord. Privy Seal).

(NO. 133.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he had supposed that, considering that the Bill related solely to the constitution of the other House, and that it had been introduced and fully discussed there, it would not have been necessary for him to say more than a few words in asking their Lordships to give it the second reading. But the Notice which had been placed upon the Paper by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) made it necessary to go into the details of the measure at greater length than he had proposed. As to the principle of the Bill, no opposition whatever had been raised in the other House. So far both sides were in accord. Why, therefore, the noble and learned Lord should now move its rejection was more than he could understand. If indeed, the noble and learned Lord objected to certain of the clauses, and had given Notice that they should be omitted in Committee, or if he thought that some of the details could be advantageously altered, or that some new propositions could be advantageously added, that could have been easily understood; the noble and learned Lord's objections and wishes could have been considered and, where needful, concessions might have been made; but the noble and learned Lord's proposition to reject the Bill altogether was not, under the circumstances, easily intelligible. The primary object of the Bill was to provide for a single register of Parliamentary and municipal votes; and a second object was the prevention of frivolous objections, and for providing a simpler form of appeal against the decisions of the Revising Barrister that at present existed. For the first of these purposes the Bill provided that where a municipal borough is wholly or partly coincident with a Parliamentary borough, the electors of such Parliamentary borough and the
1398
burgesses of such municipal borough shall be comprised in one register of electors. For this purpose the registration of burgesses was assimilated to the registration of Parliamentary electors, and all the provisions of the Parliamentary Electors Registration Acts were, so far as circumstances would admit, made applicable to the former. As the dates fixed by the present law for qualifications, claims, revision, and so on, in respect of the municipal and Parliamentary franchises were generally dissimilar, it was provided by the 3rd clause that all dates now provided by the Acts relating either to Parliamentary or municipal elections should be altered, and that the dates applicable to the several subjects should be the same for both. The first Schedule appended to the Act set forth in a tabular form the present and the substituted dates. The 5th clause contained a complete scheme for the registration of lodgers. The second section of the Bill was directed to the prevention of frivolous objections. It was enacted that every notice of objection, to be valid, must state specifically the ground or grounds of objection. Each ground of objection was to be treated by the Revising Barrister as a separate objection, and he was directed to award costs to the amount of at least 2s. 6d. on each several objection that might fail, notwithstanding that the claim might be struck out upon some other ground. Where a person who is actually on the list of voters is objected to, and the voter is retained on the list, the Revising Barrister is to order costs to be paid to the person objected to. He thought these penalties would be sufficient to protect persons from the annoyance of frivolous objections. They would probably prevent unscrupulous agents from giving notices of objection on the calculation that the persons objected to might not think it worth while to attend to maintain their claims. The length to which this vexatious practice was sometimes carried might be shown from the fact that in the last registration for Oldham 11,000 objections were made when the total number of electors was about 14,000. The Bill also contained a variety of provisions relating to the Revising Barristers' Courts and the procedure by and before that officer. The only clauses with which he should trouble their Lordships were those

1399
which provided an appeal from the decision of the Revising Barrister, and directed that there should be an evening sitting for the purpose of revising. In the first case it was provided that the Revising Barrister might be compelled by the person aggrieved to state a case for the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, and in the latter it was provided that every barrister appointed to revise the list for any Parliamentary or Municipal borough containing a population exceeding 10,000 shall hold at least one evening sitting of his Court in such borough, for the convenience of those persons who by reason of the nature of their employment, or otherwise, are unable to attend the Court during the day. He thought this provision would confer a great boon upon the poorer classes of voters. These were the principal provisions of this important measure as it was sent up to their Lordships from the other House, after having undergone careful consideration and much alteration in Committee. The Bill could not, he thought, be looked upon with any considerations of party whatever. It had been introduced simply to facilitate the exercise of the franchise by those upon whom it had been recently conferred by the Legislature, and, so far as he could see, must be beneficial to both parties alike. The Act of 1867 had made the Parliamentary and Municipal franchise in boroughs identical, and it was a pure waste of time and expense to have two registrations of the same qualification of the same person. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would not withhold their assent to the Bill which had been sent up to them by the other House of Parliament. He might add that the Bill was not to extend to Scotland and Ireland.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal).
LORD CAIRNSsaid, the noble Viscount (the Lord Privy Seal) was unable to see on what grounds any opposition would be offered to the second reading of the Bill; and, having heard the objections which had occurred to the noble Viscount as being the only objections that could be raised to it, he (Lord Cairns) perhaps must not be surprised at his surprise. He knew so well the candour of the noble Viscount that, when he ventured to state some of the
1400
objections which had not yet occurred to his noble Friend's mind, he did not altogether despair that he would be disposed to agree that under the guise of a very simple character the Bill, when it came to be understood, embraced changes of very great gravity and very great danger. Before dealing with the objects of the Bill as stated by the noble Viscount, he solicited particular attention to the manner in which as a piece of legislation it proposed to deal with the registration law of the country. There were at present some 10 or 12 statutes — doubtless of a complicated character—provided for the borough and county registration of England; but those statutes had by degrees come to be so well understood that during last year there were scarcely any appeals, and perhaps he might say no appeal involving any question of importance. They abounded in minute details of dates, times, and periods at which and during which certain steps must be taken in boroughs and counties, and with those dates all the official bodies and individuals in the boroughs and counties were now perfectly well acquainted. He did not know whether their Lordships were disposed to attend to what might be termed "a Chinese puzzle;" but he could direct attention to a number of Chinese puzzles of a most intricate kind which might rise out of the Bill. The first Schedule gave about 20 or 30 dates in one column, and about 20 or 30 other dates in another column; the dates in the later column being the dates to be substituted for the dates in the earlier column. He demurred to the idea that it was the business, the duty, or the privilege of Parliament to set Chinese puzzles for the people of this country, and for the Judges who had to decide what the law of the country was. Their Lordships were supposed to have a little more leisure than the other House of Parliament, And that they could therefore supervise the legislation of the other House, and see that it was expressed in a proper manner; and that that was necessary in this case he could show, for of all the Bills brought up from the other House, or, indeed, presented to Parliament for consideration within his experience, that was the worst. In fact, he never before saw anything like the way in which the Bill proposed to deal with the whole series of Acts of Parliament, sprinkling

1401
new dates over old ones, and introducing new names to be substituted for others. The 5th section provided that every person claiming to be a Parliamentary elector for any borough in respect of the occupation of lodgings shall send his claim to the overseers "after the day substituted by this Act for the last day of July, and on or before the day substituted by this Act for the twenty-fifth day of August;" so that the intended claimant must study his almanac carefully to see to what the dates referred. Part of the Bill was to come into operation immediately after it passed, and the residue was not to take effect till January 1874. Would their Lordships desire to have a metaphysical puzzle? If they did, they had only to look at the 44th section, which specified certain clauses that were to come into operation on the passing of the Act, and the remainder of the Bill, which included that very section, was not to come into operation till the 2nd of January, 1874. The section, which was to make the other sections come into operation immediately, was not itself to come into operation till January, 1874. The repealing clause, too, which was to repeal existing provisions as to registration, was not to take effect till next year, and therefore, if they passed the Bill, there would be two sets of provisions as to registration in force at the same time. The Bill was positively disgraceful in point of drawing; and it was useless to go into Committee upon it; for it could not be amended so as to provide a Code of Municipal and Parliamentary Registration Law. The Select Committee of the House of Commons, though they differed on ninny points, united in the recommendation that a Consolidation Bill should be introduced without delay, dealing with the borough registration. This Bill, however, was not to affect the list of voters for this year, either Parliamentary or municipal. It could not affect any municipal list except that which came into operation in November, 1874; and it could not affect any list of Parliamentary voters, which would come into operation till after, in all probability, there had been a new Election. The objects of the Bill as described by the noble Viscount were to have one list of voters both for Parliamentary boroughs and municipal boroughs; to provide a practical appeal, which there had not been hitherto, against improper
1402
rejection of claims; to make provision with regard to frivolous objections against the claims of voters. That was what the Bill aimed at, and what it failed to secure. The noble Viscount said it was desirable there should be only one register and one revision of Parliamentary and municipal voters, and all that he stated about the saving of expense was connected with that revision. What the Bill aimed at in regard to the saving of expense it signally failed in effecting, and he hoped to convince the noble Viscount himself that it was impossible to have one list for Parliamentary and municipal electors. The Bill, in fact, admitted upon the face of it, that there could not be one list. Iii sub-section 4 of Clause 4 it was provided that—
"Where a Parliamentary borough is wholly or partly coincident with a municipal borough, the list, for the purpose of claims and objections, and (if and so far as the revising barrister so directs) for the purpose of the revision thereof, shall he deemed to be composed of two separate lists, of which one (omitting part B. of the first column and everything exclusively relating thereto) relates only to Parliamentary electors, and the other (omitting part A. of the first column and everything exclusively relating thereto) relates only to burgesses."
Thus having gone through the operation of printing upon one and the same paper a list of the burgesses and the Parliamentary electors, it was necessary to declare that this was to be read not as one, but as two lists. If their Lordships would look at this list in the Schedule, they would find that any man in the country might be misled, and that there would be people coming forward to vote at Parliamentary elections because their names were in this list, whereas they were only entitled to vote at municipal elections. And the saving of expense would be effected by burdening these districts with the expense of preparing and printing this double list when they only wanted one list. he now came to the question of revision. The obscurity with which this Bill was drawn was so great that it had almost passed the House of Commons before its effect upon the counties of England came to be known, and the counties were now only awaking to that knowledge. He could state from communications addressed to Himself—and other noble Lords had received similar representations — that the effect of the Bill was regarded in the counties with positive alarm.

1403
Their Lordships would remember that the measure was not brought forward for the purpose of giving to the counties any advantage whatever, or of saving the counties a single shilling; yet it overthrew the whole system of county registration in England for the purpose of conferring some supposed advantage upon the boroughs. The present Parliamentary revision in counties was fixed at the most convenient period—namely, between the 20th of September and the last day of October. The harvest was then over, the agricultural classes had a little leisure, and when the revision was concluded, there was a period of two months between the 31st of October and the 1st of January, when the county list came into operation. In 1867, it was found that one month was insufficient, and arrangements were made to give two months for this purpose. But in order to get the Revising Barristers to work earlier and to have the list out in time for the municipal elections in November, this Bill proposed that the dates should be altered. The county revision was now to be carried on between the 9th of August and the 20th of September. In the northern counties this was the period of the harvest; many of the circuits were settled for this period, and the Revising Barristers were engaged; so that for no purpose or advantage connected with counties, and for the mere object of getting out certain burgess lists with which the counties had nothing to do, the Bill proposed to subvert and overturn all the county arrangements, and to throw the county revision to a period when the claimants could not attend, when the legal profession could not attend, and when it was doubtful whether the Revising Barristers could be present. The Bill also shortened the period during which the clerks of the peace were to deliver the register. At present, the register was to be delivered between the 30th of November and the 31st of December. Under the Bill the 21st of October was to be the date of delivery of the register. He had received a communication from the clerk of the peace of a county in which there were 17,000 voters who assured him that it would be utterly impossible for him to see to the printing and revision of the lists for which he was responsible, and to have the register in operation by the 22nd October. That,
1404
however, was the whole principle of the Bill. He believed that that had only been known lately in the counties, where it was expected that the Bill would be withdrawn when these defects were pointed out, and that a Consolidation Bill would be brought in. It was now found that the authors of the measure refused to make these alterations, and it was felt that the rejection of the Bill was absolutely necessary. The next object was to improve the right of appeal; but the appeal provided under the Bill was the purest mockery. The appeals from the revision under this Bill were to the Court of Common Pleas. The revision was to be carried out between the 9th of August and the 20th of September. The Court of Common Pleas sat on the 2nd of November; but the municipal elections were held on the 1st of November, so that all the voters who ought not to have been on the list would have voted, and all those who ought to have been on the register would lose their votes before the Court of Common Pleas could be appealed to, and next year another list would be made out. And that was the appeal provided by the present Bill. The next object of the Bill was to do away with frivolous objections. Well, they were bad things, but frivolous claims were just as bad, and he should say that that was really a Bill to turn frivolous claims into votes, and its machinery might be worked with unerring precision to accomplish this object. The effect of the Bill was, in the first place, to make the overseers of the poor the absolute masters of the registration of voters; secondly, to throw every possible obstacle in the way of making objections to bad claims; and, thirdly, to give every possible facility to the making of bad claims. Now, when an objection was made to a claim, the objector could be examined as to the validity of it, and if it turned out that the objection was frivolous, the Revising Barrister had full power to mulct the objector in costs. It did not, in the long run, suit the purpose of a political agent to make what were called frivolous objections, which were very irritating to the men objected to; and, besides being an impolitic course, it was a costly one. And on that point he should like to quote a Report of a Committee of the other House. They said that, as the Revising Barrister could not refuse to place on the

1405
register a claimant to whom there was no objection, and as unqualified persons came on with undue facility—an evil which would prevail more largely but for the existence of party registration societies, by whom the register was purified and a check placed upon unqualified claims—they deprecated the very change proposed by this Bill—the throwing of the onus probandi on the objector; the Committee, therefore, were unwilling to cast unnecessary obstacles in the way of objectors, or to make the law more stringent and severe than it was in the matter of costs. Their Lordships, therefore, would not be led away by the term "frivolous objections." It was essential to the purification of the register that there should be proper facilities for the making of objections. It was proposed by the Bill that an objector, even if the claimant did not appear, should give primaâ facie evidence of the validity of the objection—that was, evidence which would be conclusive if it were not met on the other side. Why, in many cases such evidence could be obtained only from the mouth of the claimant himself, and the objector could not state what he had simply heard or had reason to believe. Under such a requirement many would remain on the register who had no right to be there. It seemed as if the object of that part of the Bill was really to facilitate improper claims. Previously it was required that the successive occupations in one borough which constituted the qualification should be stated, but now only the last was to be named, and therefore it would be impossible for objectors to make the necessary investigations beforehand. Under the Bill objections might be made without primaâ facie evidence, without cost, without risk or liability, by the overseers, who, where politics ran high, were chosen as party men, and even if not now, certainly would be under the operation of this Bill, because the overseer would be master of the situation and proprietor of the register. But where objections were made by persons "other than the overseer," primaâ facie proof was to be required. He was told that in some cases now party objections were made through overseers; but, at present, the other side had equal liberty of objection. This Bill would alter the footing of one party in each place, and so make at
1406
each place the appointment of the overseer a party question. The Select Committee of the other House refused to entrust overseers with this duty and recommended the creation of a new officer for the purpose. An expiring Parliament ought not to make a fundamental change of the kind proposed by this Bill—a change, too, which could not come into operation before, to a moral certainty, we should have a new Parliament. An expiring Parliament would have been more usefully occupied in consolidating the law rather than in making fundamental changes in it, and discounting the proposals which must come before the new Parliament. He was anxious to facilitate tilt registration of lodgers as enfranchised by the Bill of 1867, but a clause of this Bill subverted the conditions on which the lodger franchise was granted. By the Bill of 1867 this franchise was carefully guarded by different considerations connected with the character of the house, of the tenure of the lodger, and the relations which existed between landlord and tenant, and it was further insisted that the claim of the lodger should be renewed every year. Those were the conditions on which it was deemed wise and safe to establish the lodger franchise. Curiously enough, this subverting clause was not in the Bill as originally introduced by the Government, and it had nothing whatever to do with the main object of the measure, which was to assimilate Parliamentary and Municipal elections. A very respectable Gentleman—Mr. Rathbone, the hon. Member for Liverpool — brought in a Bill containing this clause about lodgers, and the Government accepted it and introduced it into their own Bill. He had heard it said—he knew not with how much truth—that a great political effect would be produced in the borough of Liverpool by any measure which would place 2,000 more lodgers on the list, without a narrow scrutiny as to their right to be there. In regard to lodgers, objectors were required by the present Bill to give primaâ facie evidence of the ground of their objections, but that it would be almost always impossible to do in the case of lodgers. Again, the 5th clause of the Bill provided that the overseers should—
"Enter the particulars of each lodger claim in a separate list, with the claimants in alpha-

1407
betical order, and should add objected to 'against any claimant whom they might have reasonable cause to believe to be not entitled to be registered."
Now it was clear that an overseer, with a strong political bias, might object to a great many claimants, and if they did not appeal against the overseer's objection they would, as a matter of course, be struck off the list. In that way, the overseers might weed the lodger-roll from one end to the other; and it would be comparatively easy to succeed in doing this, because many of the lodgers were persons whom it was difficult to get to appear in Court. Besides, he would remark that these provisions as to the lodger franchise could not take effect except in reference to the list, which was not to come into force until the end of the year 1874; and he maintained that a change of such vast importance ought to be made in a new, and not in a moribund Parliament. He would suggest that the measure should be withdrawn, and that the Government should introduce a Consolidation Bill. As it now stood, he must repeat that it seemed to him to have three objects:—First, to make the overseers of the poor absolute masters of the registration of the country; second, to place every possible obstacle in the way of making objections to bad claims; and thirdly, to give every possible facility for turning bad claims into votes. For those reasons he should ask their Lordships to reject it.
An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months").—(The Lord Cairns.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX,who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the House might strike out in Committee the clause relating to lodgers, so that could by no means be such a valid objection to the progress of the Bill as the speech of the noble and learned Lord implied. As to the objection against the alterations proposed in dates, the Schedules provided generally that the dates for the various proceedings in reference to registration and other things should be two months earlier than at present, and there was no "Chinese puzzle" in such a process of substitution. As to the objection on the score that only one part of the Bill would come into operation this year and the other part not till next
1408
year, it was impossible to carry out a Bill of this description otherwise.
On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided: — Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 62: Majority, 36.
Resolved, in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

CONTENTS.

Selborne, L. (L. Chan-

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and

cellor.)

Orrery.) [Teller.]

York, Archp.

Calthorpe, L.

Camoys, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Foley, L.

Gwydir, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hanmer, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hatherley, L.

Ripon, M.

Kenmare, L. (E. Ken-

mare.)

Camperdown, E.

Methuen, L.

Chichester, E.

Monson, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Kimberley, E.

Poltimore, L. [Teller.]

Sundridge, L. (D. Ar-

Canterbury, V.

gyll.)

Halifax, V.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Buckingham and Chan

Brodrick, L. (V. Midle-

dos, D.

ton.)

Leeds, D.

Bateman, L.

Northumberland, D.

Blayney, L.

Richmond, D.

Cairns, L.

Colonsay, L.

Bath, M.

Colville of Culross, L.

Bute, M.

Conyers, L.

Exeter, M.

Crofton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Denman, L.

Winchester, M.

De Saumarez, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Abergavenny, E.

Gifford, L.

Amherst, E.

Hartismere, L.(L. Hen-

Bantry, E.

niker.)

Beauchamp, E.

Hawke, L.

Belmore, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Hylton, L.

Derby, E.

Kesteven, L.

Feversham, E.

Ormonde, L. (M. Or-

Lanesborough, E.

monde.)

Lauderdale, E.

Plunket, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Raglan, L.

Powis, E.

Ravensworth, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Redesdale, L.

Strabroke, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

[Teller.]

De Vesci, V.

Sondes, L.

Doneraile, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hardinge, V.

Templemore, L.

Hawarden, V.[Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Hereford, V.

Tredegar, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Ventry, L.

Strathallan, V.

Vivian, L.

Templetown, V.

Wigan, L.(E. Crawford

and Balcarres.)

ADMISSION TO BENEFICES AND CHURCHWARDENSHIPS, &c., BILL.
>(The Lord Archbishop of York.)

(NO. 153). COMMITTEE.
House in Committee according to Order.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to with Amendments,
Clause 3 (Salaries of Archdeaconries may be raised to £200 per annum.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK,in moving that the clause be agreed to, said, it was not intended to create any new charge on the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in moving to strike out the clause, said, he objected to these salaries being taken from that common fund which was intended solely to meet the spiritual necessities of the people. What was the sum already raised in various ways for the purposes of the archdeacons? According to a Return which he had, the archdeaconries received £11,800 a-year, of which about 13, 800 was for themselves, about £5,000 was for registries, £800 for officials, and £1,600 for apparitors. If that large sum of £11,800 per annum were better distributed, it would be sufficient for the archdeacons and for other purposes. The £5,000 a-year for registers was nearly all taken in fees from the parochial clergy. The clergy complained of the pressure of those fees, and that clause in the Bill took from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to that extent the power of reducing them.
Moved, to leave out Clause 3,—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the Bill had now arrived at a satisfactory point, and he trusted the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that he would not carry his Amendment to a division against the feeling of the House; but he begged solemnly to protest against the clause, and the payment from such a source. He was afraid it might be drawn into a precedent for the payment of additional bishoprics from the same fund.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Report of the said Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 176.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 174.)

CROWN PRIVATE ESTATES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to explain and amend the Crown Private Estates Act, 1862—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read la. (No. 175.)
House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.