Lords Sitting of 19 June 1874

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland, appointed.
First Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Prayer Book (Rubrics) * (122); Canadian Stock (Stamp Duty on Transfers) * (124).
Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation * (88); County Courts* (117); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (106); Land Tax Commissioners Names * (102); Bar Admission Stamp* (105); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland)* (114); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (108).
Committee—Report—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (82); Four Courts Marshalsea (Dublin) * (107); Harbour of Colombo (Loan) * (101); Revenue Officers Disabilities* (94).
Report—Public Worship Regulation (96–123).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (92); Statute, Law Revision* (77), and passed.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OF ANIMALS—REGULATIONS FOR GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the Lord President, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons of last Session, that the regulations in Great Britain and Ireland with regard to contagious diseases of animals should be similar? He said, that last Session a Committee of the other House of Parliament was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. That Committee made some very important recommendations; among them, they recommended that cattle should be slaughtered at the place of importation. In pursuance of those recommendations the compulsory slaughter at the landing place of animals imported from foreign countries, affected with pleuro-pneumonia had been rigorously enforced, and the order issued by the Privy Council last year in respect of the foot-and-mouth disease had been withdrawn; but no steps had been taken to enforce such compulsory slaughter in Ireland, nor had the Irish Government taken steps to prevent the shipment of diseased or infected cattle for England. He believed one of the reasons for that was the difficulty arising from the want of proper machinery, such as existed in England and Scotland; and another was a defect in the Act providing for the payment of compensation in the case of animals slaughtered under the compulsory order. But he wished to point out that great inconvenience and danger resulted from having one set of regulations in this country, and another and a different set in Ireland. To allow animals to come into this country from Ireland, when the compulsory slaughter of diseased animals was not carried out in that country, while it was enforced here, was like letting water run out at one end of a cask, while it was poured in at the other. He did not mean to say that the number of diseased animals was proportionately greater in Ireland than in this country, but there must be disease among the cattle there, and he knew that thousands of Irish beasts came over to Norfolk every year. Now, as long as this importation was allowed from Ireland, it was impossible
132
that the disease should be stamped out in England. There was great difference of opinion as to whether compulsory slaughter was likely to stamp out the disease, but there was a concurrence of opinion that to be of any use, the regulation must be stringent and universal in its application. The experience of other countries showed that partial measures were of no use. As regarded the foot-and-mouth disease, the Committee of last year was of opinion that we had no means of stamping it out without the adoption of more stringent regulations than could well be put in force in the case of such a disease. His noble Friend the President of the Council had recently made an Order for certain regulations in respect of this disease; but he concurred with the Committee in thinking that such regulations would be of no use. He admitted the subject to be one of great practical difficulty, but he thought that something might be done to correct this anomaly at least. He begged to ask the Lord President whether it was the intention of the Government to take steps to carry into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons of last Session, that the regulations in Great Britain and Ireland with regard to contagious diseases of animals should be similar?
LORD DUNSANYsaid, he would remind the noble Earl who had just spoken that the circumstances of the two countries were different. Ireland was an exporting and not an importing country in respect of cattle; so that the same set of regulations were not applicable to both. He admitted that it was very desirable to adopt all possible measures to prevent the cattle disease from being brought into England, but the noble Earl pointed, he thought, to the wrong remedy. He had heard a noble Lord (Viscount Portman) who was a good authority on such matters say, that a number of cattle which had left Ireland in a healthy state were found to be diseased when they arrived in Dorsetshire. This was attributed to the treatment they had sustained on the journey. Sufficient attention was not paid to the cleansing of cattle trucks and the supplying of the animals with food and water while on their journey. Whatever regulations they made, they could never secure themselves against infecting

133
sound animals, unless proper measures were taken with respect to the mode of conveyance. He believed that cattle never were exported from Ireland in a diseased condition.
VISCOUNT PORTMANwas of opinion that a great deal might be effected by stringent regulations in the case of pleuro-pneumonia. But in the case of foot-and mouth disease, it was very important not to insist on any rigid rule, for there could be little doubt that disease was propagated by animals being put on board vessels and into railway trucks which had not been properly cleansed after they had been occupied by other animals which had perhaps left diseased saliva. Animals on their journey ought to have food and water; but frequently they were left without either. They were hurried into hot and tainted ships without water or food, taken into the markets already infected, often had no food, but were sent by rail in tainted trucks, and by the time they arrived at a farm were in a state of fever, which threw itself out in the shape of foot-and-mouth disease. Then it was necessary to manage them very carefully, and if the farmer was left to his discretion he could generally restore the health of the animals. It was right to prohibit the moving of diseased animals on any road The cattle plague had almost disappeared from those districts in which the system of stamping out and compensation had been adopted; but the farmers in his part of the country would have preferred being lot alone rather than that the recent regulations as to the foot-and-mouth disease should have been sent down to their part of the country.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he must differ from the noble Viscount. He believed the farmers in Wilts and Somerset would not have preferred to be left without these regulations. They desired to see the most stringent measures adopted. They wanted to be protected against persons who brought diseased cattle into the country.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEexpressed himself strongly in favour of the most stringent regulations in this case of the importation of Irish cattle, and in proof of the necessity said, he was informed that at this moment pleuro-pneumonia was raging among the cattle in the Phoenix Park, Dublin. He (the Earl of Airlie) had been told by the hon. Member
134
for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), who was a Member of the Committee appointed last year, that the restrictions as proposed were quite as much in the interest of the Irish as in that of the English agriculturist. His hon. Friend mentioned that it was not an uncommon thing for the purchaser of cattle from Ireland to give a conditional premium of £1 a-head if, within six months of landing, the cattle turned out to be free from disease. He was very glad that his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) had called the attention of the House to the want of uniformity between the regulations in England and Ireland. It was especially desirable that uniformity should exist in the interest of Scotland.
LORD EGERTON OF TATTONwas of opinion that in some districts of this country there had not been sufficiently stringent action on the part of the local authorities. Stringency was not enough—uniformity of action was indispensable.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he quite agreed with his noble Friend in one thing—namely, that this was a most difficult subject to touch. The opinions just expressed by noble Lords on both sides were as much at variance as any opinions could be on any subject. Then what had happened at the Privy Council Office since he came into office? The variety of opinions in their Lordships' House was a reflex of public opinion out-of-doors; for since he had been in office he had received one deputation who requested him to do away with all restrictions, and based the request on the ground that the country would not stand such interference with the supply of food to the people. The policy recommended by that deputation was that the disease should be allowed to take its course and the animals to take their chance. But no sooner had he civilly bowed out those gentlemen than another deputation presented itself, and the gentlemen composing it urged that it was the duty of the Privy Council to issue the most stringent regulations, as the supply of animal food to the large masses of the people depended on the stamping out of the disease, which could be effected only by such regulations. There had also been contrary utterances from different Societies, and at a meeting of a Society which ought to be an authority on such subjects—the Royal Agricultural Society of England—a motion for a

135
deputation to him with the view of urging the reimposition of a regulation which had been relaxed was carried by only the casting vote of the Chairman. With regard to Ireland, the power of issuing an order for compulsory slaughter was vested in the Lord-Lieutenant in Council; but one difficulty arose from the fact that in Ireland there was no "local authority," and it devolved upon the constabulary to carry out the Orders of the Irish Privy Council. The constabulary were obliged to employ Inspectors, who were not as numerous in Ireland as in this country. Again, up to almost the present time there was a difficulty in regard of compensation, which difficulty arose from a doubt as to the wording of the Act. He had this Session brought in a Bill which had passed through both Houses to enable the Irish Government to overcome that difficulty, and providing funds out of the National Exchequer for that purpose. He believed, therefore, that there was no necessity for further legislation to enable the Irish Government to make an order for compulsory slaughter and to compensate the owners of the animals. A deputation appointed by the Quarter Sessions of the West Riding of Yorkshire waited upon him yesterday to complain that compulsory slaughter put that Riding to a great deal of unnecessary expense. He could not say that he agreed with the views put forward by that deputation. On one point there might be a great improvement in Ireland. There should be a better inspection of cattle there; and in order to effect that object he had been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose concurrence in the appointment of additional Inspectors it was necessary for him to obtain. As to what his noble Friend (Viscount Portman) had said respecting the regulations in his part of the country, he must pair him with his noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath) who had followed him in the debate. He had done what appeared to him to be best under the circumstances. He regretted to say there had been an outbreak of the foot and mouth disease in parts of Scotland, and an Order was issued re-imposing the former Order in Council which gave the local authorities power, where they thought fit, to deal with that disease.
136
The Order did not impose compulsory regulations on every county, but it enabled the local authorities to deal with it when there was a considerable outbreak of the disease. It was true the Committee of last Session came to the conclusion that unless measures of a very stringent character, such as this country would not like to agree to, were adopted, it was better to have no regulations with respect to the foot and mouth disease. He had very generally followed that recommendation and had done as little as possible unless in cases in which he thought some action was absolutely necessary, and therefore in the case of Scotland he had lost no time in putting restrictive measures in operation. He was aware that there were two parties to be considered—the consumer and the producer—and he had no desire whatever to harass the latter.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS OF SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE RESUMED.
  Order of the Pay for resuming the adjourned debate on the Earl of ROSEBERY'S Motion—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present method of electing the Representative Peers for Scotland and Ireland, and to report whether any changes are desirable therein,"
  read.
  Debate resumed accordingly.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, his noble Friend Lord Granville, who was not now present, had suggested an Amendment of the Motion, which the noble Luke the President of the Council said he would consider. His noble Friend had come to the conclusion that the best Order of Reference would be that made to the Committee in 1869—namely, that the scope of the Committee should include the consideration of the laws relating to the Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland. So far as the law relating generally to the Peerage of those parts of the United Kingdom had a bearing—as it unavoidably must have—upon the Representative Peerage, it would, of course, be included in the inquiry; and it did not seem to be either necessary or expedient to go further.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that having, since the subject was brought before their Lordships on the 12th of June,

  137
  last, had an opportunity of considering these questions, he was willing to consent, on the part of the Government, that the scope of the inquiry should be extended a little beyond what was included in the noble Lord's Motion, and would therefore accept the Order of Reference of 1869, which was in these terms:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the state of the Representative Peerage in Scotland and Ireland and the laws relating thereto."
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to make a few observations upon the remarks that fell from the noble Earl when moving for this Committee. The noble Earl said that a Peer of Liberal politics had no chance of being returned as a Representative, and therefore suggested that the cumulative vote should be substituted for the present mode of election. He was, perhaps, not aware of the politics of the Peers of Scotland. Out of the 34 Peers without hereditary seats, including the 16 Representatives, 27 were Conservatives, three had no politics, and four were Liberals, one of those four being already a Representative. It would be therefore difficult to make out a grievance for the Liberal Peers of Scotland so far as representation was concerned. He thought he should not be out of place, as a Representative Peer for Scotland, in taking this opportunity of pointing out what was the impression not only of the Scotch Peers but of the people of Scotland generally with reference to the present position of the representation of the Scotch Peerage in their Lordships' House. The views not only of the Peers of Scotland, but of the people at large, were that the Union of the two countries had now become so real and so complete that the time had arrived when all Peers of Scotland had a claim to be relegated to their ancient Parliamentary rights and privileges, such as they had enjoyed in the ancient Parliament, and as had been exercised by most of them for centuries before the Act of Union. They desired, in short, the absorption of the whole of Scotch Peerages into the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It might be said that one great objection to so large a measure of absorption as this would be that the number of Members of their Lordships' House would be increased to an unmanageable
  138
  extent. But if that were really the great objection, they might absorb the Scotch Peerage gradually by taking in a part every year. What the people of Scotland wanted to see was not the immediate absorption, but that they might be in a position to look forward to some particular and definite time when they might conclude that the whole Peerage of Scotland would be absorbed into that of the United Kingdom. It might be said that at the present time the Scotch Peerage was being absorbed into that of England; and he admitted that such an absorption was going on, but it was going on in a most uncertain manner. Taking the last three or four decades, for instance, they would find that if they took the statistics of the absorption of the Peerage between the years 1830 and 1840, eight Peerages had been absorbed within that period—five of them in the single year 1831. Again, between 1840 and 1850, two Peerages only had been absorbed; and between 1850 and 1860 two others—and one of these Peers died without taking his seat; whereas between 1860 and 1870 one Peerage only had been absorbed. If the absorption of the Scotch Peers did not go on at a more rapid rate than that, it would take something like three or four centuries to absorb them all He must not omit to add, however, that between 1870 and 1874 four Scotch Peerages had been absorbed into the Peerage of England. There was another point on which the people of Scotland felt strongly, and that was that the Scotch Peers ought to sit and vote under their own titles, and not under the English titles; and yet the universal practice was that whenever a Scotch Peer was made a Peer of the United Kingdom, he could only sit in the House of Lords under his English title; and the result was that an illustrious name that had been in the history of his country for centuries, was completely eclipsed by some modern English title. As an instance of this, he would instance the case of the Duke of Argyll, who sat in the House of Lords under the title of Lord Sundridge. Yet the Duke in Scotland bore a name which had been illustrious and connected with the history of the country for centuries; it was under that name he was known throughout Scotland, and all the noble deeds done by the family had been done

  139
  under that name. Why, then, should it be that he must sit in that House as a simple Baron of the United Kingdom? He could not but think that the Government was somewhat hostile to allowing the Scotch noblemen their privileges. The noble Duke, being a Peer of Scotland, ought to sit in the House of Lords as a Peer of Scotland. If he himself were made a Peer of the United Kingdom, he should be obliged, when entering their Lordships' House, to sink 365 years of his family history, and take his seat as the junior Baron in the House. Suppose a distinguished Scotchman was sent abroad in the character of the Governor of a colony, or suppose he rendered distinguished, military services abroad, and when be returned homo his services were so recognized that both Houses of Parliament accorded him a unanimous vote of thanks. But the Crown was anxious to confer a more tangible mark of approbation. In the case of a Peer of the United Kingdom, there was but one mode in which this could be done—he would be raised to a higher grade in the Peerage; but the Peer of Scotland was rewarded by a British Peerage—in other words, he was raised to a position of equality with Peers 300 or 400 years his junior. No one felt the privilege of sitting in their Lordships' House more than did the Peers of Scotland, but still they were of opinion that they ought to be able to sit in that House under their Scotch titles. Then, with respect to the House of Commons, it had been suggested that he should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons. No one less than himself was disposed to underrate the privilege of sitting in that House; but the Peers of Scotland were created. Peers of Parliament, and as Peers of Parliament the House of Lords alone was the House in which they had a right to sit. Peers of Scotland were Peers of Great Britain, and unless a Bill was brought in to enable all Peers of Great Britain to sit in the House of Commons, they could not open that House to the Peers of Scotland. It was said that these arrangements had been settled by the conditions stated in the contract and Articles of Union; but he contended that the frequent changes of the other Articles of Union would quite justify their giving way upon this point. There were 25 Articles of Union, and from the 1st to
  140
  the 15th they might all be described as Articles equalizing various matters as between the two nations. But the 16th Article provided that the Mint should be retained—whereas the Mint had been abolished. The 19th said that the Court of Admiralty should be maintained; but that had been amalgamated with the Court of Session; and the same with the Exchequer Courts. The 22nd Article related to the placing of the Members in both Houses of Parliament—namely, 16 in the House of Lords, and 45 in the House of Commons; but the number in the House of Commons had been twice altered—so that every one of the Articles of Union had been changed. And, if they went by the Articles, they formed a stronger ground and a stronger argument for enabling the Scotch Peers to sit in their Lordships' House than any that could be brought. He assured their Lordships there was a considerable feeling of discontent in Scotland upon this subject, and he asked whether, if the Articles of Union were now being framed, the people of Scotland would be content with such a miserable fragmentary representation in that House as they possessed? Considering the closeness of the union of the two countries, and the fact that the Scotch Peers were as high in rank as the English Peers—considering also the very large number of creations since the union of the two countries, he asked whether it was just that they should remain in their present position? For a long period Scotch Peers had been suffering under disabilities and disqualifications, and there was a very strong feeling of dissatisfaction existing among them—a feeling far more dangerous to every political party than open and avowed hostility. If it had been the case with respect to English Peers, he was quite sure they would not be satisfied; and, on the principle of doing what they would be done by, he thought the claim of the general body of the Scotch Peerage to sit in that House ought to be recognized.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYregretted to hear the noble Lord say, that he considered Her Majesty's Government hostile to the feelings and claims of the Peers of Scotland. Nothing-could be further from the views of the Government, as they had proved by having willingly consented to the Committee moved for. He had listened

  141
  with great attention to the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie). No doubt, there was great anomaly in reference to the Peers of Scotland—some of them sitting in their Lordships' House, and others not; and there was also a great anomaly in the fact that no Scotch Peers could sit in the House of Commons, while that privilege was accorded to Irish Peers. There were, however, other anomalies which existed in the British Constitution; and, considering that the Government had not been in existence for more than three months, they were hardly responsible for the state of things which had existed for a century. He assured the House that the Government, far from having any hostile opinion whatever to the Peers of the two countries concerned, were most anxious to investigate the case and give it the very fullest consideration.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYaddressed to the House a few observations, which were inaudible.
  Motion agreed to.
  Original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn; and a Select Committee appointed to consider the state of the Representative Peerage of Scot-laud and Ireland, and the laws relating thereto.
  And on Thursday, June 25, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Privy Seal.

  L. Elphinstone.

  E. Doncaster.

  L. Ponsonby.

  E. Haddington.

  L. Inchiquin.

  E. Airlie.

  L. Rosebery.

  E. Lucan.

  L. Oxenfoord.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Monck.

  V. de Vesci.

  L. O'Hagan.

  V. Halifax.

  L. Carlingford.

  L. Saltoun.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL—(No. 96.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL—(No. 96.)

  REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS,
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 7 (Appointment, duties, and salary of Judge).
  Amendments made.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved, in page 3, line 5, after (" parish ") to insert—
  ("provided that such owner or tenant shall have his usual place of abode not further than three miles from such church.")
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYwas understood to object to any limitation of the right, being of opinion that in cases of incumbents acting illegally any person interested in a parish should have the power of bringing the question before the proper authorities.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved to insert as a separate sub-section, after ("England")—
  ("When so ever a vacancy shall occur in the office of official principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury the judge shall become ex officio such official principal, and all proceedings thereafter taken before the judge in relation to matters arising within the Province of Canterbury shall be deemed to be taken in the Arches Court of Canterbury; and when so ever a vacancy shall occur in the office of official principal or auditor of the Chancery Court of York the judge shall become ex officio such official principal or auditor, and all proceedings thereafter taken before the judge in relation to matters arising within the Province of York shall be deemed to be taken in the Chancery Court of York; and when so ever a vacancy shall occur in the office of Master of the Faculties to the Archbishop of Canterbury, such judge shall become ex officio such Master of the Faculties.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL NELSONmoved to insert after the sub-section now agreed to—
  ("No judge shall be appointed under this Act until a vacancy occurs in the judgeship of the Court of Arches, and until such vacancy the judge of the Court of Arches shall act as the judge under this Act for the province of Canterbury", and the official principal of the provincial Court of York shall act as such judge in the province of York.")
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKpointed out that this Amendment would, if agreed to, entirely annul a clause already sanctioned, which gave power to the two Archbishops to appoint a Judge of the New Court within six months.
  LORD SELBORNEcalled attention to the amount of salary proposed to be given to the Judge of the New Court, and intimated an opinion that the House of Commons would very probably consider that the ecclesiastical funds in the hands of the Commissioners were public property, and that the Court being instituted for ecclesiastical purposes, the Judges' salary should be paid from those funds.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the clause provided that the salary of the new Judge should be £4,000; but he thought the proposition now made ought to be regarded as provisional only.

  143
  Their object ought to be to provide such a salary as should secure the services of the ablest man; but, on the other hand, it ought not to be larger than the exigencies of the service to be performed. He thought £4,000 too large, and that it would be better to begin with naming £3,000.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he agreed in the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that £3,000 was the sum which he put into all the Bills which he had introduced on the same subject.
  LORD HATHERLEYfelt confident that £3,000 would be sufficient. A larger sum might cause the shipwreck of the Bill in "another place."
  Motion negatived.
  Amendment moved to insert—
  ("Any salary or emoluments which such judge shall he entitled to receive from the said office, other than the office of judge under this Act, shall he paid over by him to the Ecclessiastical Commissioners for England, and all fees payable in respect of proceedings before the said judge under this Act shall also be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall pay to the said judge by equal quarterly payments such salary as shall be assigned by the Queen, by Order in Council, not exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds per annum.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Representation by Archdeacon, rural dean, churchwarden, or parishioners).
  EARL NELSONmoved to add a Proviso—
  ("And that after the 1st of January, 1877, no proceeding shall be begun under this Act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of the church, or any decoration introduced into the church which has not been made or introduced within the last preceding two years.")
  His object was to prevent an incumbent being proceeded against for anything which might have been done by his predecessor. If anything had been in a church for two years, people would have become used to it, no offence was felt, and there might be as much objection to its removal as there might have been in the first instance to its introduction; and when people had become accustomed to things they ceased to have any meaning, and therefore it was not worth while disturbing the peace of a parish by interfering with them.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the Amendment would make that which was unlawful in itself lawful by prescription.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it did not follow that there should be an unlimited time allowed for the commencement of proceedings. In some cases the removal of ornaments to which the people had become accustomed would cause heart-burnings in the parish. He thought some limit should be enacted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, a distinction should be made between the fabric of a church and the ornaments used in a church. The fabrics could not be altered without much expense, but ornaments were illegal, and could be easily removed at any time.
  After a short discussion, in which the Marquess of BATH and Lord SELBORNE took part,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORapproved the object of the Amendment, but suggested that the matters or things which might be the subject of proceedings should have been introduced within the preceding five years.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Then Amendment made—
  "Provided that no proceedings shall be taken under this Act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of the church completed five years before the passing of this Act."
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDproposed to add Proviso to Clause 8—
  ("Provided always that in the case of the complaint being made by the churchwardens or any three parishioners before representing the same to the Bishop they shall duly summon a vestry of the said parish, and submit the cause of complaint to the said vestry, and according as the said vestry by its majority shall decide, they shall forward to or withhold the said complaint from the Bishop, the names of the voters and how they voted being recorded in the minute sent to the Bishop.")
  He considered that this provision would be a great safeguard. The vestry would act as a sieve through which the complaint would be strained—the wheat would be kept, and the chaff swept away.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONtrusted that the noble Duke would, at all events, except the diocese of London from the operation of the Amendment. There were a great number of the churches in London that had no connection with any vestry. For instance, in the parish of

  145
  St. Pancras, there was but one vestry and 28 churches, and in Marylebone there were 26 churches. The fact was, the vestries of those places had no more to do with some of the churches than any other vestry in England. He could not see how such a procedure as that proposed by the noble Duke could be considered as likely to promote harmony in a parish.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHalso recommended the noble Duke not to press the Amendment, while he was at the same time of opinion that some such safeguards as his noble Friend contemplated would be required. The pretext for this Bill was that the feelings of the congregation were not respected; but by the Bill the feelings of the congregation were entirely ignored. The only person to whom the incumbent would have to look for protection would be the Bishop; and who would be opposed to him? Not the congregation, but some two or three persons who would be set in motion by a Church Association.
  LORD DYNEVORdefended the Church Association from the attack of the noble Marquess. He was a member of the Church Association, and the reason was because the Bishops had, over and over again, declared it impossible for them to keep some of their clergy in order. He knew a large city in which practices were carried on which the Bishop was most anxious to put a stop, but could not, and the Bishop told him so. One Prelate informed him that he was £3,600 out of pocket by a case he had taken up. Under these circumstances, people were justified in uniting and forming an association. There were many clergymen who avowed that their object was to substitute the Mass for the Communion of the Church of England.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made.
  LORD COTTESLOE, moved, in line 6, after (" Parties") to insert—
  ("Provided always, that in any case in which the person complained of, and also the person or persons making the representation, state their willingness to submit to the direction of the bishop without appeal, the bishop shall, before proceeding to hear the case, give notice in a form as contained in Schedule (D.) to this Act; and if after the issue of such notice the archdeacon, rural dean, churchwarden, or three parishioners as aforesaid shall be of opinion that he or they have just reason to object to the re-presentation
  146
  made to the bishop, he or they may, either personally or in writing, make such statement to the bishop as they may think necessary in relation to the facts of the case as laid before the bishop, and as regards the wishes and opinion of the parishioners generally on the subject matter of the representation.")
  The Marquess of BATH and the Archbishop of YORK opposed the Proviso.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL NELSONmoved an Amendment in sub-section (b), line 9—
  "That the Judge shall order the complainant to give security for costs in such an amount as he may deem expedient, and until such security be given the proceedings shall be stayed."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved, in sub-section G, to strike out—
  "The Bishop on receiving the Report of the Judge shall proceed to give judgment in accordance with the Report, &c,"
  and insert instead—
  "The Bishop on receiving the judgment from the Judge shall issue such monition (if any) and make such order as to costs as the judgment may require."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked that the Amendment would make the judgment not that of the Bishop, as had heretofore been intended, but that of the Judge.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKpointed out that, by the alteration proposed, while the Judge would give the judgment, the Bishop would have to issue the monition. The Bishop would not, therefore, be placed in the undesirable position of being the mere mouthpiece of the Judge.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved, in line 4, leave out ("and report"), and leave out from the third ("and") to the end of the sub-section, and insert—
  ("Determine the question or questions arising thereon, and any judgment pronounced by the bishop shall be in conformity with such determination.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  In line 6, leave out from ("the") to the end of the sub-section, and insert—
  ("judgment from the judge, shall issue such monition (if any), and make such order as to costs as the judgment shall require.")
  Clause 11 (No fresh evidence to be admitted on appeal), agreed to.
  EARL NELSONmoved, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause—
  "In proceedings under this Act the costs shall abide the final judgment, except otherwise directed by the Court which pronounces judgment; and such costs shall be taxed and levied in the mode prescribed.
  "If it appear that any plaintiff has made any groundless or frivolous claim or complaint, or that any defendant has set up any groundless or frivolous defence, the Court may order such plaintiff or defendant to pay, as between attorney and client, the whole or any part of the costs occasioned by making such groundless or frivolous claim or complaint, or setting up such groundless or frivolous defence (as the case may be); and such costs shall he taxed in the mode prescribed."
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Inhibition of Incumbent.)
  EARL NELSONmoved after "judgment" to insert "unless it be the subject of appeal."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that there might be a long interval during which the appeal was going on, and a provision to enforce the monition while the appeal was in progress might be of great importance. He did not see why the Judge should be put in a different position from the Judges of other Courts.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL NELSONmoved, in page 7, line 5, after ("void") to insert—
  ("Unless the Bishop shall, for some special reason stated by him in writing, postpone for a period, not exceeding three months, the date at which, unless such inhibition he relaxed, such benefices or other ecclesiastical preferment shall become void as aforesaid.")
  In line 22, after (" preferment ") insert—
  ("Any question as to whether a judgment or monition given or issued after proceedings before the judge has or has not been obeyed shall be determined by the judge, and any proceedings to enforce obedience to such judgment or monition shall be taken by order of the judge.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYproposed after Clause 15 to add the following clause—
  "Whenever the visitor of any cathedral church shall during his visitation, thereof have any doubt as to the law affecting any of the matters which could under this Act have been made the subject of a representation to the
  148
  bishop if such cathedral church had been a parish church, the visitor shall have power to state any question of law in a special case for the consideration of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ecclesiastical Causes, and such Court shall have power to hear and determine the same; and any judgment, ordinance, or monition of the said visitor shall be in conformity with such determination; and there shall be no appeal from such judgment, ordinance or monition upon any question so determined by the said Court. Notwithstanding any restriction by statute or custom of the periods at which the visitor of any cathedral church shall have power to visit the said cathedral church, it shall be lawful for him to hold a visitation whenever it shall appear to him expedient to do so. An appeal (except as hereinbefore excepted) shall lie direct from any judgment, ordination, or monition of the said visitor pronounced, made, or issued under this section to Her Majesty in Council, and Her Majesty in Council may refer the same to Her Majesty's Imperial Court of Appeal as constituted by the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873–1874. Nothing in, this Act contained shall make it lawful for the visitor to direct that a Faculty from the ordinary shall be applied for in any case in which before the passing of this Act such direction could not lawfully have been given; but it shall be lawful for the visitor in any judgment, ordinance, or monition issued as aforesaid, to give directions as to the fabric of such cathedral church, or to the ornaments, furniture, or decorations thereof. No direction shall be given under this section in regard to any alteration in or addition to the fabric of any cathedral church which has been completed five years before the passing of this Act."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobjected to bring cathedrals under the Bill. He thought it should be confined to parish churches, and the grievances of the congregations arising from unlawful practices carried on in them. The same grievances could not arise in respect of cathedrals, in which the laity had no interest. He was afraid that when the Bill got down to "another place" it should be seen that all members of the Church, and all holding office in it, were brought under the operation of the Bill—except the Bishops—it would be asked—Who introduced the Bill? The Bishops. He did not think that would give the House of Commons a very exalted idea of the mode in which the Bill had been proposed and passed through Parliament. There was no reason for bringing the Deans and Canons under the Bill, which did not equally apply to Bishops. It would be gross partiality to extend the Bill to cathedrals and not to include the Bishops.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that they were often told that the cathedrals

  149
  were the parish churches, and intended to be the model churches of the dioceses, and if Deans and Canons broke the law there ought to be a remedy. All persons were deeply concerned in the worship performed in the cathedrals, and it ought to be such worship that all could take part in. It would be a most dangerous thing to except the Deans from the operation of the Bill, and thus allow them to carry out any fancies they might indulge in. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) would put the cathedrals in an exceptional position, in which they ought not to stand. It was never to be forgotten, that the main purpose of churches was for the laity, and not for the clergy, who minister in them.
  LORD LYTTELTONconsidered that the laity of the whole diocese were deeply interested in what took place in their cathedral, and therefore the clause ought to be supported.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEwas very glad that cathedrals, if not excepted altogether from the Bill, were, at all events, not to be dealt with as parish churches. He considered the clause proposed to be unobjectionable, as it merely explained and defined the existing law and made it clear that a Bishop had a right to visit his own cathedral, and that his doing so could not be regarded as an intrusion.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that some Bishops were not visitors of their own cathedrals, but "ordinaries" only, and he supposed that in these cases they would have no power to exercise over the cathedral clergy the duties proposed by this Bill. It was no concern of his to defend a Bill the policy of which was virtually Lord Shaftesbury's, or the policy of the Bill at all; but it was gratuitous to assume, as the noble Marquess had done, that the object of the Bishops was to obtain for themselves an amount of power over all other persons for their own honour and glory. The noble Marquess might give the Bishops credit for something higher than that. The Bishops were charged with the maintenance of the law by Church and State alike; in order to discharge their duty they were bound to see whore their power failed; and they might properly ask for more power if it were necessary for them to possess it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPtrusted their Lordships would not agree to the clause. The independent status of the cathedrals during the last century and a half had done much to produce a higher standard of public worship, and he hoped they would not be deprived of that independent status.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLcontended that these clauses gave no more power to the Bishops than they already possessed, but they made the law more clear and definite.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBYtook exception to the words "notwithstanding any restriction by statute," &c., as increasing the power of Bishops.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYconsented to omit the word "statute," and so limit the reference to restriction by custom.
  Amendment made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DEVONmoved after Clause 16, to insert the following clause:—
  "And whereas, with regard to the mode of performing public worship in the Church of England it is desirable to diminish as far as possible occasions and causes of litigation: Be it enacted, that no proceedings shall be taken under the provisions of this Act in reference to any acts or omissions in the performance of public, worship which shall have been canonically declared by the synods or convocations of this realm, acting under the licence of the Crown, to be permissible, if such declaration has been confirmed by the authority of Parliament."
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on the first night of the debate on this Bill, suggested that it would be expedient that there should be an area within which certain variations in the mode of performing the services of the Church should be permitted. He entirely concurred in that view. Assuming that course to be desirable, the question, however, was, who were to decide the limits of variation and the matters upon which liberty of action was to be allowed? The Bishop of Peterborough gave notice that he would propose that Parliament should decide; but the right rev. Prelate, in the exercise of a wise discretion, thought it better afterwards not to proceed as he had at first intended. That being so, the question remained, who were to decide? It seemed to him, both from precedent and

  151
  principle, that the proper parties to decide were, in the first place, subject to the subsequent confirmation of Parliament, the Convocations or Synods of the Church acting under licence from the Crown. He very much rejoiced to have heard from the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) that it was his intention to apply to the Crown for permission for Convocation to enter upon this subject, and he hoped the Government would see themselves justified in advising the Crown to accede to the proposal.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Devon) proposed to call into operation a very considerable machinery, which it might be desirable to set in motion, but which he certainly attempted in a very undesirable way. The noble Earl proposed that Convocations or Synods of the Church should have power to revise and review the whole Prayer Book—not for the purpose of amending the rubrics but for the purpose of picking certain parts of them which it would be permissible for the clergy not to obey. Such a mode of legislation was pessimi exempli, and was out of harmony with the entire object of the Bill, which was to protect the laity and parish congregations from that extreme liberty which from various circumstances during the last 30 or 40 years had prevailed. But this Amendment would give still greater liberty to incumbents to make alterations at their own will, and really amounted to unlimited licence in the mode of conducting public worship. The proper way to deal with this matter was not to legalize acts contrary to law, but to amend the rubrics. Their Lordships had been good enough to-night to give a first reading to a Bill which he had laid upon the Table, the object of which was to give the Queen in Council power to give effect to schemes which had been proposed by Convocation, those schemes having been laid before Parliament and not objected to. If that Bill passed, such alterations would be made as Parliament might think desirable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the clause proposed by the noble Earl was one which could not possibly be introduced into the Bill. But he desired to say a few words in reference to the statement of the noble Earl as to the Bill he had introduced to give power
  152
  to Convocation to propose alterations in the rubrics. After the Ritual Commission, as it was called, had made its fourth Report, the most rev. Primate who presided over the province of Canterbury applied to the Crown, in 1871 or 1872, for "Letters of Business" to authorize them to consider the subject matters of that Report. The Letters were issued, and Convocation was actively engaged under them when the Dissolution of Parliament occurred. Application had recently been made for a renewal of those Letters of Business, and Her Majesty's Government had, as a matter of course, agreed to renew or continue them. This would have been done sooner if the application had been made at an earlier period. Convocation, therefore, now had the power of considering whether any alterations of the rubrics should be made.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexpressed his gratification at the announcement just made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but he wished to say that he lost no time in making application to Her Majesty's Government for the renewal of the Letters of Business. He was not one of those who thought that Parliament was not a proper assemblage to determine ecclesiastical questions, such as they had been lately considering. Parliament had always legislated for the Church of England. It had, indeed, been alleged that the extraordinary changes made in its constitution in recent times rendered it incapable of performing the duties which it satisfactorily performed when it passed the Uniformity Acts. But it should be borne in mind that, when those Acts were passed, members of the Roman Catholic Church sat in the House of Lords, while Nonconformists occupied seats in the House of Commons. Moreover, it should be remembered that just prior to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts members of nonconforming bodies sat in the other House of Parliament. Therefore, although changes had taken place in the constitution of the other House during the past 40 or 50 years, he did not see any force in the argument that he had departed from the constitutional course in asking that Parliament should deal with the matters contained in this Bill. Still there had always been a great desire to know the opinions of the clergy before

  153
  Parliament legislated on these subjects, and he was glad to learn that the rubrics would soon be re-considered, not under the excitement produced by this innocent Bill—as he deemed it—but calmly and leisurely as the necessities of the case required. The Bill had given their Lordships much trouble; but he submitted that the Bishops had acted under a distinct perception of their duty in bringing it forward. When the present excitement had disappeared, people would find that it was a measure not to alter the law of the Church of England, but simply a Bill to enable that law to be administered more speedily and more efficiently.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved, after Clause 17, to insert the following clause—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall he construed to extend to the following places:—The chapels of the colleges and halls in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham; the University Church of any of the said Universities when used by such University; any chapel coming under the provisions of section 31 of the Public Schools Act. 1868, or under the provisions of section 53 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869; any chapel coining under the provisions of the Private Chapels Act, 1871."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed to amend the clause by extending the exemption to the chapels of Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn and to the Temple Church.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 123.)

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN" USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Then it was moved that all matters relating to the Library of the House, and to the papers and documents delivered for the use of the Peers, shall be considered within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  PRAYER BOOK (RUBBRICS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the revision and amendment of the Rubrics contained in the Book of Common Prayer—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of LONDON: read 1a (No. 122.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.