Lords Sitting of 16 March 1875

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (No. 42).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (£882,661 8s. 11 d.)*
Second Reading—Pacific Islanders Protection* (33); Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment* (37).
Select Committee—Church Patronage * (12), nominated.
Committee—Report—Land Drainage Provisional Order * (30); Registry of Deeds Office (Ireland) * (25).
Third Reading—Increase of the Episcopate * (35).

PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 33.)
(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 33.)

  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, its object was to extend, and in some respects amend, the Bill which his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) introduced three years ago, and which was now an existing Act of Parliament—35 & 36 Vict. c. 19. The object of that Act was to repress those atrocities which had been too often committed in the so-called "labour trade" in the Pacific Islands, and to regulate that trade for the benefit of the islanders and colonists engaged in it. There could be no doubt that the Act had produced very beneficial results. His noble Friend might be congratulated on what it had effected. It had led to the condemnation of a certain number of ships in the Colonial Courts, and the mere fact of its being on the Statute Book had had a deterrent effect. Since that Act passed, Fiji had been annexed and English sovereignty established in the Fiji Islands. In consequence of that fact a clause was introduced in the Bill now before their Lordships to amend the definition of "Australian Colonies" in the principal Act, and the term "Australian Colonies" in the Act and in this Bill would mean and include the Colony of Fiji. The principal Amendment was that introduced by the 2nd clause of the Bill. The provisions of the principal Act covered only those ships which carried native labour from one point to another for a single passage, and did not authorize the carrying in a British vessel of native labourers for the purpose of carrying on the fishery or other occupation in connection with the vessels. It had, however, been found that ships engaged in the pearl fishery and another description of fishery, and therefore following a legitimate trade, employed Natives as seamen labourers, and were therefore entitled to protection. Ships not protected in that way were subject to penalties; and the object of Clause 2 was to afford it to those fishing vessels and bring them under the law. It therefore provided for the issue of a licence
  1858
  authorizing such vessel to carry native labourers for the purpose of carrying on their industry: and it also provided for the due registration of the native labourer so carried. Another evil now existed in regard to these vessels. Inasmuch as they were not under the protection afforded by the Act, and being consequently exposed to seizure and condemnation, they changed their flags and professed to belong to another nationality—by that means escaping the restrictions of the law altogether. This was an evil of a serious kind and had given rise to not unreasonable dissatisfaction. While this Bill would afford protection to vessels sailing under the British flag, engaged 'in carrying on a lawful trade in these waters it would not affect, to the extent that was desirable, those ships which were engaged in the slave trade; but he did not know that any Bill could be made completely effectual in that respect until there was an understanding among the European Powers to deal with that traffic in a summary manner. Under the Act it was provided that the offending ships only should be seized and condemned. In this Bill power was taken to condemn the cargoes also of such ships. Then with respect to jurisdiction for dealing with these cases. The Bill provided that the High Court of Admiralty and every Vice Admiralty Court should have jurisdiction to try and condemn or to order the release of any vessel detained under the Act, and gave the same powers as were now vested in Supreme Courts of the Australian Colonies as to the examination of witnesses and the collection of evidence. It was also provided by the Bill that the provisions of the Act and this Bill should apply to the Natives of Fiji in like manner as if they were Natives of islands in the Pacific Ocean not being in Her Majesty's dominions nor within the jurisdiction of any civilized Power. Such protection to the Natives of the Fiji Islands might be necessary for some years; but liberty was given to the Fijian Legislature to enact the Fiji Islands out of those provisions. These were the main objects of the present Bill. As time went on further amendments of the law would probably be found necessary. Everyone was aware of the evils of this labour traffic, when uncontrolled; and though it might be said that the removal of the

  1859
  Natives to where they would find civilization and employment was a blessing and not a curse; yet on the other hand, if unchecked, it was a disgrace and a curse to our civilization. What was required was not the suppression of the trade but its regulation. Such was the opinion of so high an authority as the late Bishop Patteson.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had heard with satisfaction that the experience of the Act which he had the honour to introduce three years ago had worked well. He had no objection to the Amendments proposed by the Bill of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies; for he could well understand that great embarrassments had arisen under his Act to vessels engaged in the pearl and other fisheries in those seas—at the same time he was sure his noble Friend would feel it his duty to ask the Admiralty to get the Commodore on the station to take care that the fishing vessels confined themselves to their legitimate occupation. He quite agreed with his noble Friend that the best policy was not to attempt to suppress the labour traffic, but to regulate it. Indeed, it could not be suppressed without the concurrence of the various civilized nations and the presence of a large squadron in the waters of the Pacific Islands. But, believing, as he did, that civilized man must ultimately prevail in Polynesia, he thought it was much better to prepare the way for his further intercourse with the Natives.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked, whether it was not desirable that the Sandwich Islands should be included in the Bill, since the Sandwich islanders resembled other Polynesians in appearance and language, and some of them might be found either in Fiji, or on board ships in those seas, and might require protection, but would not obtain it as the Sandwich Islands were outside the limits of the former Kidnapping Act; also, whether all enactments as to labour by the Fijian Legislature would not be reserved cases to be referred to the Secretary of State for his approval?
  THE EARL OF CABNARVONsaid, he did not understand the question of the noble Lord with reference to the Sandwich Islands:—there was no Schedule
  1860
  to the Bill. The case referred to by the noble Lord would be a reserved one, as the question would be a very serious one in reference to the entire subject.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  (NOS. 8–35.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Lyttelton.)
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid: As this is the last stage, practically, of the Bill, I am compelled to make some observations on it, which I would willingly postpone if there was any further opportunity to do so. And first of all, let me acknowledge the disinterested conduct of the noble Lord, the Mover of the Bill, in not taking the third reading last night, when he could have slipped it through without a chance of opposition or of criticism. I yield to no one in a sense of the virtuous disposition from which the Bill has sprung, or the continued toil which has advanced it through so many stages. And yet I hazard the opinion—which, indeed, alone induces me to trespass on the House—that unless it undergoes a transformation in one essential part, it ought not to find its way into the Statute Book. At the same time, I readily admit that looking to the high nature of the subject-matter, and recollecting that the question can be solved by no formula of party, we ought to act judicially upon it, and concede to the noble Lord all the points he has established by himself or by his Friends, as well as bear in mind the inconveniences—if any—which appear to counterbalance them. I concede to the noble Lord, that as things now stand, the toil of Prelates is excessive; that in some dioceses the necessary rareness of their visits to this or that locality, has added something to the Nonconformist power; that they are so pre-occupied at times as not to be able to give advice where it is needed: that Suffragans are not found an wholly adequate expedient for replacing them. Beyond that it ought perhaps to be admitted that a noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who speaks with great authority on everything which relates to the working classes or theology, gave no

  1861
  conclusive answer to the Bill, when he explained to us, that deeper and more urgent wants exist than any which the Bill professes to respond to. If the noble Mover can establish that his scheme applies to demonstrable evils a remedy which is not mischievous itself, it would be hard upon him to object that there are other, even greater evils, which he leaves unaltered by his project. Having made these remarks to divest of all factious colour my further view as to this Bill, and give myself a locus standi for adverting to it, I shall, with the permission of your Lordships, signalize a few of the inconveniences which, in its present form, the measure might occasion. The first and least important is, that the moment you legislate upon the basis that the toil and occupation of the Bishops are more pressing than they ought to be, you at once raise the question of whether or not it is desirable to summon them to Parliament, and so at certain times withdraw them from their dioceses. This question may, of course, be viewed in very different lights, and some would not at all regret its being presented. It is only necessary to remember that whether for good or not, the project of the noble Lord does forcibly attract it to the surface. The second inconvenience of the Bill, although not at all the gravest, is that it proposes to unite two classes of Episcopacy, one of ancient origin, the other of entirely modern growth; one having access to the Legislature, the other carefully excluded from it; while it is far from clear that the two elements would harmonize reciprocally. The next and greatest inconvenience is, that the new Order so created would rest upon the slender and precarious foundation of the voluntary principle. This point, although no doubt adverted to before, has scarcely had, in past debates, the prominence it seems to be entitled to. Under the Sovereign and Archbishops, the Bishops are allowed to be the highest grade in the Establishment. The whole spirit of the Bill, the whole animus of the noble Mover is to extol their practical, without at all attenuating what you may regard as their titular importance. And yet, while the noble Lord screws up to the highest pitch, the dignity and efficacy of the Order he desires to augment, he is content to build the added portion on the weak material which upholds the
  1862
  Nonconformist Bodies of the country. Such a course evidently gives to Mr. Miall and his party a vantage ground they ought not to be allowed, without a protest, to arrive at, as it may have a serious effect in weakening the defence of the Established Church against their efforts to subvert it. In any agitation they conduct they are not so logical, not perhaps even so scrupulous, as to be arrested by the nice distinctions which the noble Lord no doubt is ready to point out to them. Their language, just or not, will naturally be, that if individuals are prepared to support an added class of Prelates they have called into existence, the older class of Prelates, the archdeacons, and deans with the remainder of the clergy, are not in any want of the provision which law secures to them at present. My Lords, it will thus be seen that, although the Bill may lead to good, it purchases it by far too serious a danger. If it embarrasses—as it clearly does—the subsequent defence of the Establishment, it is exposed to all the range of argumentative artillery, of which the voluntary principle, has been so frequently the object. In the other House of Parliament, from the currents of opinion which prevail there, the question may be frequently debated. In this House, it cannot be so, because no party within its walls has espoused the policy to which the Bill would afterwards contribute. No wonder. The supporters of that policy request the world in our century not to advance but to retire; not to place religious creeds on a new footing, but to recall the system which prevailed in the first three centuries of Christianity, with how much anarchy, confusion, bloodshed, it is useless to remember; not to take a forward stop on the path of well-conceived reform, but, on the contrary, a backward plunge into the waters of reactionary violence. But I dismiss that topic altogether. The precise objection to the Bill is, that it makes an unnecessary, an insufficiently requited, and, on these two accounts, an unwise concession to the adversaries of the Established Church. I say, on these two accounts, because, if the concession was imposed, or the advantage was commensurate, no man of sense would urge objections to the project. My Lords, if any one took up the Bill, while uninformed as to authorship, and read it, he might suppose

  1863
  that it proceeded from some mind, it may be, powerful and learned, but little versed in the collisions and the struggles which enable men to realize the advantages they offer to opponents; or else from some mind very different, to which no labyrinth of dissimulation was unknown, no depth of subtlety untrodden, and which circuitously aimed at the divorce of the civil and religious power in the country. The conclusion which I draw is not at least a rash or a one-sided one. It is that the Bill ought to be read a third time, and even passed to-night as a tribute to the character and talents of the noble Lord, as a proof that the House is alive to the importance of the subject, as a link in the chain by which you may some day arrive at a final system for improving and augmenting the episcopacy; but as the whole subject virtually rests with the Prime Minister, that his Advisers—whom I see in front of me tonight—should not allow its specious colour and its laudable design to blind him to its manifest deficiencies. Deficiencies is too weak a term; but I adopted it on purpose, since it is better to understate than overstate positions to your Lordships. The duty of a House of Commons, fixed in its support of the Establishment, would seem to be either to create a fund, or to withhold its sanction from the measure. To that House, fortunately, both alternatives are open, while only one could be presented to your Lordships, and one which neither your convictions nor your sentiments would easily permit you to resort to.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he hardly knew whether he need answer the noble Lord's speech. His Bill had nothing to do with the "screwing up" or "screwing down"—as the noble Lord phrased it—of the dignity or position of the Bishops. He intended that the new Bishops under this Bill should be upon precise equality with the present Bishops. The noble Lord's other main point was that the new Bishoprics would have to be established by voluntary contributions—which he declared to be a weak and precarious ground; but did the noble Lord not know that the great majority of the endowments in this country were founded by voluntary benefactions, and that those voluntary benefactions had become permanent endowments? And so under this Bill, when sufficient means had been provided and paid to the
  1864
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they would make a permanent endowment for any new Bishop to be appointed.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly.
  On Question, That the Bill do pass?
  LORD COTTESLOEmoved an Amendment that—
  "Until Parliament shall otherwise provide the operation of this Act shall be limited to the erection of new bishoprics at the places following:
  Guildford or Southwark, Diocese of Winchester; Bodmin or Truro, Diocese of Exeter; Southwell or Nottingham, Diocese of Lincoln; Saint Albans, Diocese of Rochester; Liverpool, Diocese of Chester."
  The noble Lord said he was not hostile to the principle of the Bill, for he was satisfied, with the noble Lord, that the necessity for additional Bishops in some parts of the country was urgent: but as it stood the Bill was one for an indefinite extension of the Episcopate, and he thought it most unwise that it should be sent down to the other House in such a shape as would very seriously lessen its chance of passing. He therefore proposed to confine its operation to the five dioceses of Winchester, Exeter, Lincoln, Rochester, and Chester. He proposed, in effect, that there should be five new Bishoprics—of Liverpool, Guildford or Southwark, Bodmin or Truro, Saint Albans, and Southwell or Nottingham—if the people wished to have them. In that limited shape he believed the Bill would be more likely to pass through Parliament, for such a provision would supply the present necessities of the Church; and, further, the liberality and generosity of the people would be directed to definite ends. Their Lordships must not disguise from themselves the difficulty which any private Member had in passing any Bill through the other House at any time; and it was stated that for the present Session all the Wednesdays were already taken up as far forward as to the month of July. It might be that the Government would take this Bill in hand; but he thought they would be likely to look at it with more favour if it were in a more limited form. His own opinion was that it went unwisely beyond the necessities of the case, and he believed it was a good principle in legislation that the powers you asked for should not be larger than you required them to be. It had been stated that though

  1865
  a Bishopric was required in Cornwall money could not be found in that county for the endowment of a Bishopric. Well, probably that was so: but if it was, money for the purpose would be found elsewhere, and money would be found also for any such other endowments as might be shown to be necessary. In that view he proposed that the number of new Sees should be limited in the first instance—for if the public were told that the Bill was one for an indefinite extension of the Episcopate, that would be calculated to dry up the fountains of charity. The more advisable mode of procedure would be to deal with the cases, and with those only, in which there was an existing want. Should a similar want arise in other places hereafter it could be dealt with by a specific proposal. Such was the spirit of his Amendment. He named the places in which he believed the new Bishoprics were required; but if their Lordships wished to add to his list by the insertion of other places he had no objection to their doing so. The question was discussed in the Upper House of Convocation in 1865; but their report did not support the noble Lord in the length to which he now proposed to go—they suggested only that three new Sees should be created; and in 1869, when another Bill was before their Lordships, similar to the Bill now under consideration, the most rev. Prelate opposite (the Archbishop of Canterbury) said, that an indefinite increase of the Episcopate was not desirable. The most rev. Prelate further said that he should prefer to limit the increase to the number required. These observations applied just as much at this time as they did in 1869. He knew that his Amendment would be met with the argument that it was one for piecemeal legislation; but his rejoinder to that objection was that some of the best measures now on the Statute Book had been introduced piecemeal and in the shape of permissive legislation.
  Amendment moved accordingly.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment which seemed to him to proceed upon an entire misapprehension of the principle of the Bill. The now Bishops would not be a distinct class in any essential respect, and if they were not all to be placed on precisely the same footing they
  1866
  would only resemble in that respect the existing Bench. As to the danger of Sees being erected where they were not called for, he had only to say that if Government authorities, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, were not to be entrusted with the carrying out of the Bill, he had, of course, no case at all. His noble Friend (Lord Cottesloe) had referred him to a report of the Upper House of Convocation; but the Bill was entirely in accordance with the expressed opinion of that body in a later report. Then, as regarded the distribution of Sees, the Bill had nothing to do with any public fund—if it were so it would, no doubt, be the duty of Parliament to look round and consider the state of the whole country and decide where new Bishoprics were most wanted; but this Bill dealt with the private funds, and if the people of a particular district wanted a Bishop to themselves, and if the desire, on any right standard, was reasonable, what reason existed for putting off their application until the wants of certain other districts had been supplied? His noble Friend had spoken of the necessity of easing the Bill in its passage to the other House by his proposed limitation; but he (Lord Lyttelton) refused to believe that the House of Commons would be so unreasonable as not to consider the Bill fairly, seeing that it was so simple in its principle, and that it was capable of being amended in Committee. If, indeed, the other House should refuse to accept the principle of this Bill he should despair of passing such a measure at any future time. He had to complain of the treatment which the Bill had received, both from the Government and the Episcopal Bench. From the Prime Minister he had received verbal assurances of the Government support in both Houses, and the Bishops had given him their written assent to the Bill. Yet in that House not a favourable word had been spoken in its behalf on the part of the Government; and he understood that in the other House the Bill would receive the same half-hearted welcome. He would venture to predict that if it did not meet with a warmer support there than it had here there was small chance of its passing. Moreover, the Bill for the establishment of a new See at St. Albans had just been introduced into the House of Commons, although

  1867
  he understood from the Bishop of Rochester last year that it would not be pressed till the Episcopate Bill was out of the way. He had never heard of the Government Bill till last Friday—he believed it had been kept a profound secret until that day. By the passing of such a local and partial measure as that, the present Bill could not fail to be injured. The Bill would in any case probably have met with most formidable difficulties in the House of Commons; but, as matters now stood, it would go down to that House with every possible disadvantage. He would, however, beg their Lordships to let it go down to that House with its full power, so that a fair appeal might be made on the subject with which it dealt to every part of the country.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that he admired the noble Lord's great talents, and the earnestness in which he had taken up this subject; but the noble Lord must excuse him for saying that he did not admire the language which he had used towards the Government that evening. He had charged the Government with having promised to give the Bill their cordial support. Now he (the Duke of Richmond) did not know what took place in the tête-à-tête interview between the noble Lord and the Prime Minister, for he was not present; but he would state that the Government, as a Government, were not prepared to support the Bill, nor were they prepared to oppose it. But he was disposed to think they had done something more than not oppose it—because when the Bill was under consideration it was at the instance of the Government that some Amendments which were supposed to be very dangerous to the measure were withdrawn. Therefore if the Government had not given the Bill their cordial support they had prevented it from being rejected. The Government did not think it right to accept the responsibility of the measure; but, as he had stated, they did not oppose it. He, under these circumstances, ventured to protest against the strong language of the noble Lord in reference to the Bill which was now before the other House; because he contended that the Government were justified in dealing with the question of creating a new See in the manner in which they had done. This Bill of the noble Lord was not on all fours with the Bill of the Government, and yet the
  1868
  noble Lord had said that the Government had acted in a manner which was not befitting them on this occasion. Now, notwithstanding all the hard words which the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had used the Government would return good for evil, and advise the noble Lord (Lord Cottesloe) not to press his Amendment. He thought it would be unwise to mention the places set forth in the Amendment, because they had no evidence that those were the places which ought to be first dealt with before other parts of the country; and he saw no reason why if Lincoln, or Nottingham, or Bodmin were unwilling or unable to make up the fund necessary for founding their new Bishopric, the people of other parts of the country who were both able and willing should be precluded from providing themselves with new Bishops. For these reasons he must vote against the Amendment if pressed to a division.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he desired to refer to one observation of the noble Duke. This was a Bill which affected the Established Church. Now, he had heard with much astonishment the announcement of the doctrine that a proper course for the Government to take was to be so indifferent as to the number of the Bishops of the Established Church in this country, of which the Queen was the head, that it was a matter of no consequence to them whether they voted for a measure or against it. He was most surprised also to find that the noble Duke seemed to have been altogether unaware of the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill with reference to the See of St. Albans in the other House—at least, when this Bill was last under discussion no reference was made to it. On a former night, when he had put a Question to his noble Friend on the subject, he appeared to be as ignorant with regard to it as he was himself. He again protested against the doctrine that a Bill under which any number of Bishops might be added to the Episcopate was, so far as the Government was concerned, a perfectly immaterial question.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, his noble Friend (Earl Granville) appeared to infer that he was as ignorant of the other Bill as he was himself.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, his noble Friend appeared to be so.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he thought his noble Friend could hardly have expected him to give a positive statement as to a matter which appeared merely as a vague rumour that appeared to be about the House as to a Bill which was to be introduced into the other House. If, however, it was any satisfaction to him, he could assure him that the Bill which had been introduced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the other House had been more than once the subject of discussion in the Cabinet, and that he was perfectly aware of the provision which it contained. He should, he might add, have been very glad to give his noble Friend every information with regard to it had he only received due Notice that he would put a formal Question to him on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he knew nothing about the Bill brought in by the Secretary for the Home Department when he put his Question, beyond the fact that an announcement had been made in the other House with reference to the subject which their Lordships were the same evening engaged in discussing, and therefore could have given him no Notice of any Question concerning it. It was not strange, however, he thought, that it should have occurred to him that the noble Duke ought to have been informed as to the Bill proposed by the Government. He could not, under the circumstances, offer him any apology for having asked him the Question which he had put to him on the occasion to which he referred.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould not help thinking that it was rather an inconvenient course to adopt to run from the House of Commons, and to put a Question to a Member of their Lordships' House as to what had occurred there, without any Notice. Every Member of the Cabinet knew perfectly well what was contained in the Bill which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had introduced; but then it was not the custom to give explanations in their Lordships' House with respect to the Bills of which Notice had just been given "elsewhere." As to the Bill under discussion, the Government had not been silent. The Government were not responsible for it—had taken upon themselves no responsibility with regard to it; they had canvassed
  1870
  certain parts of it, and beyond that they took the course of not opposing it; which it was, he maintained, perfectly competent for them to do. He regretted that before the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had made any attack upon them for not having acted up to their professions, he did not communicate with them, so that they might have informed themselves with respect to the statements on which he relied.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, he was present the other evening' when this Bill was before the House. He understood the purport of the Question which had been put by his noble Friend near him, to have been whether the Bill under discussion having made certain progress through the House, another measure—of which up to that time their Lordships had not heard a word—bearing materially on the prospect of its passing was about to be introduced by the Government. To that Question no answer was given by the noble Duke, although the information could have been given, since the Bill was introduced in the other House by a Member of the Government. The noble Duke, however, gave them no information whatever. His noble Friend, he might add, had not of his own motion risen to make any remarks whatsoever on the subject. His noble Friend rose for the purpose of replying to a speech which had just been delivered by the noble Duke, and which it was impossible for him to have passed by in silence. His noble Friend asked whether it had come to this—that they were to deal with the Established Church of this country—a Church of which the Sovereign was the head—on the principle that the Ministers of the Crown had no opinion whatever on the subject; that they were to discuss a measure most materially affecting the interests of the Established Church until it came to its third reading, and then were to be told at last by the Leader of the Government in that House, that they acknowledged no responsibility as to the question whether it was wise to maintain the present number and status of the Bishops of that Church or whether it was wise to alter them? They had heard a great deal about those who were favourable to Establishments and those who were opposed to them, but he said that the Church of England was half disestablished

  1871
  already, if the House of Lords were to discuss a measure materially affecting its interests, and the responsible Ministers of the Crown were to have neither an opinion favourable nor an opinion adverse to that measure, and were to permit it to pass without any declaration of opinion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the noble Lord who had last spoken could not have been present during the debates that had occurred in the House on this Bill, or he would hardly have expressed himself as he had just done on the conduct which been pursued by the Government. The Government had never been neutral on the question of policy which that Bill involved. He had heard his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack state with distinctness that the Government were favourable—as most persons who were acquainted with the Church of England were favourable—to any measure that would be effective for the purpose of relieving the labours which lay upon its overworked Bishops; whether that Bill in its practical working was most likely to attain that object, whether its details were precisely those which the Government themselves, if they undertook to deal with the subject in a general way, would have adopted, was a matter on which it was not necessary for them to state, or even to form, their opinion until an exigency arose requiring that opinion to be laid before the world. The policy of the noble Lord's Bill—if any policy it had—was undoubtedly one to which the Government were favourable, if the time was suitable for carrying it into effect, and if the details of the machinery could be found by which the object of the measure could be accomplished. The objects of the Bill were no doubt good; but there were many difficulties in the way when they were dealing with a general Bill which might well make the Government pause before they undertook the responsibility of a general measure of this kind; and although they were perfectly willing to let the noble Lord—with whose wishes and endeavours to promote the welfare of the Church they had the heartiest sympathy—bring forward his Bill, they did not care themselves to accept the responsibility of a Bill of the practical working and general effect of which they had no certain opinion. For himself, he had always
  1872
  sincerely sympathized with the object which his noble Friend had in view; but he confessed that he did not regard his Bill as a very practical one, and he should be surprised if any great practical result came from it. If those opinions did not justify a Government in refraining from taking any strong practical part in the discussion of a Bill of that character, he hardly knew what rules could guide their conduct. Remarks had been made as to the precise amount of cordiality which the Government had shown towards the Bill. The noble Lord appeared to measure the goodwill and heartiness of those who were friendly to his object by the number of speeches they made, and his complaint was that all the Members of the Treasury Bench had not delivered speeches on the subject. He thought it very undesirable that the noble Lord's canon of cordiality should be followed in that House.
  LORD LYTTELTON: Not one of them spoke.
  THE MAQUESS OF SALISBURYasked how many speeches it required to show cordiality? He was afraid that some of his Colleagues who had the conduct of measures had reason to complain if the noble Lord's test of a cordial support was accepted. According to that standard, the Mutiny Bill and other Bills had received no very cordial support. The real test of cordiality was when a Bill was opposed. If divisions were taken on a Bill, then the question of supporting it arose; but when a Bill was quietly passing through the House, for the Members of the Government to be required to make gratuitous speeches to prove their cordial goodwill towards its promoter was not the course most calculated to facilitate the progress of business. For himself, if he should have the charge of any measure to which there was no sign of any opposition being offered, he should earnestly deprecate any speeches being made in its behalf that were couched in the tone adopted by the noble Lord himself (Lord Lyttelton) that evening. With regard to what had fallen 'from the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition in that House, no doubt they all had the means of knowing from the Votes that were laid on their Table what Bills had been brought in and Notices given in the other House of Parliament. But on mere rumour, and at a moment's

  1873
  notice, for the noble Earl to require his noble Friend to go into the witness-box and submit to be catechized on the exact provisions of another Bill, which might have some affinity to that Bill, was to set aside entirety the object for which the rule as to not taking unauthorized notice of what was proceeding in the other House had been laid down. The truth was, that the pretence that the two Bills interfered with each other was wholly unfounded, and there was no reason why both Bills should not be passed, or why, while their Lordships were discussing the present Bill, the Bill in the House of Commons should be mentioned at all. In conclusion, he could not help regretting that his noble Friend at the Table (Lord Lyttelton) had thought fit to accompany the final stage of that Bill with a speech of so much warmth that it certainly was not likely to aid in bringing about the consummation which he desired.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas not aware what precise amount of cordial support the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Lyttelton) had expected from the Government; but, judging from the speeches just made by the noble Duke and the noble Marquess opposite, it seemed to him that the noble Lord had hardly received any support from them at all. The noble Marquess had very fairly told them that the Bill was not very likely to be a practical measure, and the noble Duke said it was a matter on which the Government were indifferent.
  TUB DUKE OF RICHMONDdenied the accuracy of that statement.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought, when a Minister said he expressed no opinion for or against a Bill, that looked very like indifference. The noble Lord at the Table had referred to the viaticum given to his Bill. This seemed to him very appropriate, as the viaticum was only given in articulo mortis. Was it too much to ask that the Government should have some opinion on a subject of that kind? Was the Church of England at that moment in such a position that any Bill affecting its interests could be a matter of indifference to any one, whether he was a friend or a for of the Church? Was the question not one on which the Government were especially called upon, not only to form an opinion, but to announce and act on that opinion? No
  1874
  doubt, the noble Marquess was correct in saying there was a rule that they should not refer to what passed in the other House; but, surely, they had a right to complain that when their Lordships were discussing a measure for the creation of additional Bishops, which had reached its third reading, the Government did not let them know that they had themselves prepared another Bill relating to the same subject. The noble Duke knew perfectly well that the Government were about to introduce a Bill in the other House bearing on the same subject, but he did not say a word about it. And when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said it was not a habit in that House to put Questions without Notice, he would ask was it a habit for a Government to leave one branch of the Legislature in entire ignorance of a measure which it had introduced in "another place" on a matter germane to one which their Lordships were discussing? He did not think this ought to be treated as a personal matter; but still he thought his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) was quite justified in calling attention to the way in which a measure of such importance had been treated by the Government.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought the discussion most unprofitable. At the same time, he could not help saying that during the many years he he had sat in that House he had never heard any Member of it speak as the noble Lord at the corner of the Table (Lord Lyttelton) had done that evening. He had listened to strong language, he had heard emphatic contradictions addressed from one side of the House to the other; but never till the present occasion had he heard a private conversation with the Prime Minister repeated publicly in that House. Whatever might have passed between the Prime Minister and the noble Lord, the latter was wholly out of Order, having regard to the usages of their Lordships' House, in coming down here and accusing the Government of not having fulfilled a promise which the Prime Minister had privately given him. This was what the noble Lord had done, and he appeared unwilling to retract what he had said. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was in a position to say—indeed, he was authorized to say—that the noble Lord had entirely misunderstood what

  1875
  had passed in the conversation in question, and had consequently—of course, not wilfully—misrepresented the facts of the case. The truth of the matter was as followed:—After seeing the noble Lord the Prime Minister consulted his Cabinet as to the line Government ought to take, and the Cabinet determined that they would not oppose the measure of the noble Lord, but would give him a negative support. This might not be altogether intelligible to the noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies, who made many speeches—good speeches, too—and very seldom gave a silent vote. For his own part, however, he very often gave silent votes, and his conscience did not tell him he was to blame when he voted without having made a speech. In the present case, it had not been at all incumbent on the Government to take an active part in supporting the measure; at the same time Members of the Government had never said a word which could be regarded as uttered in opposition to it. They had sat quietly and listened to the arguments of the noble Lord, and had never cheered the arguments that were directed against the Bill. But if it was the duty of the Government on such an occasion to be eloquent and use all the rhetoric they could command, what he would ask was the natural duty of the Opposition? Were they to sit like dummies and have no opinion upon the matter under discussion? Had any Member of the late Government spoken from the front Opposition bench on the Bill of the noble Lord? If any of them had, he did not recollect it. Something had been said in the course of the present discussion by the noble Earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) with regard to a Bill which had been introduced in the House of Commons. The noble Viscount who afterwards spoke (Viscount Cardwell) explained that the remark in question had been a mere passing observation or allusion, and not an interrogatory. However that might be, he must altogether repudiate the idea that Her Majesty's Government were bound beforehand to inform that House of all the Bills which they were going to bring into the House of Commons. In what they had done they had kept strictly within the usages of Government and of the Legislature. As to the Bill of the noble Lord they had never shown
  1876
  hostility to it in any way, and it seemed to him the noble Lord had shown a most extraordinary ebullition of temper when he declared that the Government had been hostile to his Bill, and found fault with them on that ground.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that as one who was extremely favourable to the measure of the noble Lord, he regretted the discussion which had arisen, for he feared it would not assist the passing of the Bill. To his mind the introduction by the Government in the other House of the Bill for the formation of a diocese of St. Albans was not hostile, but rather favourable to the progress of that of the noble Lord. It was a direct admission on the part of the Government that an increase in the Episcopate was desirable, and the measure afforded some practical hints which might aid in making a general scheme effectively operative. In no respect did it conflict with the Bill of the noble Lord.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he thought the noble Lord might congratulate himself on the interest and excitement his Bill had created that evening. For himself, he could not conceive what the noble Lord had found fault with him for, unless it was that he had spoken twice in favour of the Bill. The noble Lord deemed it extremely improper that a measure of this kind should have been introduced without eliciting a very distinct expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government; and other noble Lords who sat opposite maintained strongly that there ought to have been on the part of Members of Her Majesty's Government a full discussion of the measure. But the noble Lord had had the Bill in his hands for several years; and, when on a former occasion, the noble Lord had introduced a Bill similar to the present, the Government of the day had acted in regard to it very much in the same way as the present Government had acted in regard to this Bill. It seemed to him the noble Lord was unreasonable, for not only did he require that there should be speeches in favour of his Bill, but he went the length of dictating that no other measure, however valuable it might be, should be introduced with reference to the object he had in view. If he remembered right what he had said on a former occasion, it was to the effect that while giving a full and cordial

  1877
  support to the Bill of the noble Lord he would yet have preferred, had it been in his power, to follow another course than that which had been adopted. The noble Lord spoke of a mine having been sprung under his feet; but it appeared he had been aware for a considerable time that a measure with regard to a new diocese of St. Albans was in contemplation, before, indeed, he himself (the Archbishop of Canterbury) knew of it. Speaking for the right rev. Bench in general, he could only say that they were very much obliged to the noble Lord for having introduced the Bill now before the House. They believed that some measure of the kind was absolutely necessary; they would be very sorry if from any mismanagement or misunderstanding, neither of the Bills passed; and they would be very glad if both of them became law.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
  LORD LYTTELTONdenied that his interview with the Prime Minister was private—it was an official and not a private interview. It was an interview which he had as having charge of the present measure. If he had known what was to have occurred, he would have written instead of having a personal interview. In the month of July last he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and asked him to bring the question formally before the Cabinet. In reply he was informed that although Her Majesty's Government were disposed favourably to the measure, it was not deemed expedient, at that time of the year, to give a definite opinion upon it. He had never supposed that they would pronounce an opinion upon it at that time; and he was much pleased with the answer, and thought that he was much indebted to the Government for having taken the question into consideration. What occurred subsequently was this—he saw the Prime Minister shortly after the first meeting of the Cabinet in November, and he was about to ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring the matter before the Cabinet, when, much to his gratification, the Prime Minister told him that he had already done so, and that they were prepared to support the measure. There were three courses open to the Government—they might have opposed the Bill, they might have supported it, or they might have made themselves
  1878
  responsible for it. He had never asked the Government to undertake the third course, and he had never hoped that they would do so; but he asserted that the words of the Prime Minister were, that he should have the declared support of the Government in both Houses in favour of his Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasserted that the noble Lord had entirely misapprehended the purport of what passed between himself and the Prime Minister.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Abp. Canterbury.

  V. Cardwell.

  Ld. Chancellor.

  Bp. Peterborough.

  Abp. York.

  L. Rayleigh.

  Ld. President.

  L. Rosebery.

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Selborne.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Coleridge.

  E. Nelson.

  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Six o'clock.