Lords Sitting of 21 July 1876

MINUTES.
Select Committee—Intemperance, nominated.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Notices to Quit (Ireland) (165); Orphan and Deserted Children (Ireland)* (180); Queen Anne's Bounty* (141).
Committee—Bankers' Books Evidence * (159).
Third Reading—Merchant Shipping* (177);Elver Fishing* (164); Poor Law Amendment* (185); Medical Practitioners* (157); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Birmingham, &c.)* (111), and passed.

CONFESSION.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, who had given Notice to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of Report of the Committee of the Upper House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with regard to Confession agreed to in the Session of 1874,"
  said, he ought to apologize to their
  1682
  Lordships for bringing before them a subject not altogether agreeable to some Members of their Lordships' House, but he thought that as most of the Members of the Upper House of Convocation were Members also of their Lordships' House, that was a fitting place in which to bring the subject forward. The subject was not only a complicated one, but it was one of the greatest importance, the interest in which was augmenting every day, for it touched the question of habitual confession—a practice which had been condemned as contrary to the practice and teaching of the Church of England by the highest authority of the Church. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that he brought this question before the House in 1873, and his Motion was followed by considerable debate in the Upper House of Convocation. Considerable difficulty was expressed as to how the matter should be dealt with, but the purport of the debate was to condemn compulsory confession, and to show that habitual, compulsory, or sacramental confession was contrary to the practices of the Established Church. Notwithstanding this condemnation the practice had increased rather than diminished. As to the Public Worship Regulation Act, it did not give any greater facility in dealing with the practice than existed before the passing of that Act. He had himself attempted to introduce a clause into the Bill in reference to it, but failed. The consequence was that habitual confession was spreading, and there were now scattered over the country several thousand clergymen who practised it; and he might refer in proof of that statement to the Charges from the Bishops of several dioceses speaking of it and lamenting it. There were at that time notices in several churches of the diocese of London—one of which he had himself seen—to the effect that the church would be open for two hours three days a-week for the purpose of confession and absolution. It was perfectly vain for the Bishops to condemn these practices in their Charges, if they permitted the practices in their churches. They had all recently read in the public Press a very unfortunate case, and they all sympathized with the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto). He had recently been talking to a lady who said no doubt they all sympathized with the noble Earl,

  1683
  but there was not one family among the upper classes in life which had not to regret somes imilar case. It was a very significant fact that in a recent sermon the Bishop of Manchester said that although no one had a greater dread of the introduction of confession than himself, yet he had been unable to forbid it, as one of his most earnest and most gifted clergymen represented that he could use it to keep young men pure. It did not appear, however, that the existence of the Confessional kept the youth of France and Italy pure, and he contended that the right rev. Prelate, in publicly accepting habitual confession, had acted ultra vires, and done a grievous wrong to the National Church. As to the literature of confession, which consisted of works of very questionable morality—some indeed worthy of Holywell Street—they purported to be religious works, instructing the young how to examine themselves; but there was one point especially on which they constantly insisted—namely, that if a person felt inclined to confess, he ought not to allow himself to be influenced in a contrary direction by even his nearest and dearest friends. With regard to this evil, he might mention two typical cases. One was furnished by a letter which was written by a clergyman to a young lady, and which was to the following effect:—
  "My dear Child,—I tried to see you after evensong to tell you you should use your own judgment as to whether you should communicate without previous confession…. I should not say anything unkind; but it seems to me that if you leave off coming to a sacrament which our Lord has ordained for the forgiveness of sins done after baptism, you are running a great risk. I know no other way by which mortal sin committed after baptism is forgiven except by sacramental confession and absolution. If you are living and dying without again being absolved, it is only right you should see clearly the risk you are running."
  The same clergyman, he understood, had since forwarded to a young lady a small book, entitled Absolution, and How it is to be Obtained, containing questions for self-examination on the Seventh Commandment. The second case was described by a letter which had been addressed to him by a father—
  "About two months ago," his correspondent wrote, "I discovered that my daughter had for about 18 months been almost monthly confessing to a clergyman. She tells me that, when she first went there, she told him she was not of
  1684
  age, and that she had come to him unknown to either of her parents, and that if they knew of it they would be very angry."
  The letter went on to state that this clergyman's church was open every Friday from 3 to 5; that he sat in his surplice in a small room screened from the church, and that one went in at a time, knelt down beside him, and received absolution by his putting his hand on the head. Such was the result of this miserable system that a graduate of the University, a clergyman of the English Church, an English gentleman, being carried away by sacerdotal zeal, acted contrary to all rules of honour or good feeling, and deliberately encouraged filial disobedience and systematic deceit. That case was well known in the neighbourhood where it occurred. The clergy felt their cloth assailed, the laity asked whether their children were to be thus decoyed from them; but they knew that they were safe in the hands of the most rev. Prelate; they knew that he had stated that sacramental confession had no place in the Church of England; they knew he had promised to use all the power and influence of his high position and his high character to suppress it; and, therefore, they were assured that his Grace would publicly visit with the gravest censure one whose conduct was unbecoming a clergyman or a gentleman. He would say one word more. None of them were free from attacks so treacherous, but they were more dangerous in regard to the poor than the rich. The latter could avoid any church in which such practices were carried on; they could, if necessary, change their residence or remove their children from schools; but the poor in agricultural districts must go to one church, or stay away altogether, nor could they avoid, the abominable system when introduced into the schools. Had they not a right to expect that Parliament would protect them by seeing that the parish clergyman of the National Church conformed to the practice and teaching of that Church? That habitual confession was gaining daily a stronger hold on the English Church he had shown; he believed that confession was the corner stone of Sacerdotalism, and that no greater evil ever afflicted society. Nationally, it robbed men of self-reliance; in England it would divide class from class. Socially, it would destroy our

  1685
  English homes, by interposing a stranger between husband and wife, between father and child. Religiously, it would rob us of pure Christianity by creating many mediators instead of one. If a contagious disease threatened man or beast, Parliament interfered to protect them. He prayed now those who had the power to endeavour to stay the advance of that deadly moral malady. The noble Lord concluded by proposing his Motion.
  "Moved, "That there be laid before this House Copy of Report of the Committee of the Upper House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with regard to confession, agreed to in the Session of 1874."—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he did not understand that the noble Lord made any formal complaint against the right rev. Bench for the mode in which they had dealt with this question. On the contrary, by moving that the House should approach Her Majesty with a request that their formal decision on that subject should be printed and circulated for the benefit of their Lordships, he presumed that the noble Lord rather wished to declare that the formal utterances of the Bishops in the Convocation of the Southern Province were what they ought to be in this matter. He had to state that he offered no opposition whatever to the Address which the noble Lord had moved. He would be very glad that the Report of the United Bishops of the Upper House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury on that subject should be in their Lordships' hands if Her Majesty was pleased to accede to the Address, and order the Bishop's Judgment to be printed; and he believed the reading of that Report by the clergy would be likely to cure many of the evils of which the noble Lord had not unnaturally complained. The only point on which he understood the noble Lord to complain against any Member of the right rev. Bench was that he did not think they had been able in practice to carry into effect their deliberate and recorded opinion and judgment on that subject, as given in the year 1873. He was glad that the noble Lord had alluded to the correspondence which had passed between himself (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and a gentleman living
  1686
  at Croydon, because it gave him an opportunity of stating that case, as it was brought under his notice. That gentleman complained in his letter that his daughter had been induced to go to habitual confession by a clergyman, against her father's will and without his knowledge, and also, he might add, against the opinion expressed and laid down in that decision of the Upper House of Convocation. As soon as he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) received that letter he immediately communicated with the clergyman in question to hear what he had to state in his defence. He was not satisfied with what the clergyman said, and he expressed his dissatisfaction in what he considered very strong terms. The particular circumstances which the noble Lord had brought under his notice that evening were not reported to him in the letter which that gentleman addressed to him in the first instance, but in another letter to which, owing to his being absent from that part of his diocese and from pressing business, he had not yet been able to give the attention it deserved; and, the case being one in his diocese, he thought it better that he should inquire into it when public business allowed him to be present in that particular locality. Turning to the general remarks of the noble Lord, he hoped that the noble Lord had exaggerated the extent to which the evil of which he complained was carried. He could not believe that there was no family in the upper ranks of society which was not suffering under this evil: he was loth to believe that the evil was of that magnitude which the noble Lord had described—namely, that whereas the Bishops of the Church had pronounced a very distinct utterance on that subject, many of the clergy had thought themselves at liberty to ignore and set aside that decided and clear utterance of the rulers of the Church. No doubt there were instances in which what the noble Lord complained of did exist. It was true, no doubt, that there were instances when clergymen with more zeal than discretion were unwilling to be guided by those who were their authorized teachers. No doubt, also, the noble Lord had some ground of complaint if notices were placed on church doors inviting persons to do that which the Bishops had very distinctly said they ought not to do. But, of course, before such a violation

  1687
  of the laws of the Church as the putting up of those notices could be taken any cognizance of, there must be some formal complaint made; and he had no doubt that if such a formal complaint were made the Bishop of the diocese would immediately inquire into the matter and do his best to prevent a repetition of the evil. As to the utterances attributed to his right rev. Brother who was absent, knowing that his right rev. Brother was able to defend himself, and as, after all, the utterances in question were recorded in newspaper reports of the accuracy of which they could not be absolutely certain, he need not enter on that matter. However, the question to which the noble Lord had alluded was a very difficult and delicate one. As long as there were persons who were weak enough to think they would receive benefit from placing themselves more than the Church required or enjoined under the guidance and direction of a clergyman, whatever his sentiments might be, it was not unnatural that some mischief should arise to those who so acted. No doubt in this country a great number of Roman Catholics works which did not bear on the face of them any distinctive characteristics of that faith were circulated from house to house, and fell into the hands of young persons who were incapable of distinguishing the parts that were sound and those parts which were distinctly Roman Catholic in their teaching, and upon them they frequently had a mischievous effect. He was certain that if the noble Lord could so influence public opinion in this matter as to prevent booksellers from selling such works, and young persons from buying them, he would do much good by preventing literature of this kind, which had a deleterious effect, not only upon the faith but upon the manly character of those who put themselves under its guidance, from being circulated.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON (who was very little audible)said, that in the case referred to by the noble Lord, which occurred in 1874, he had written to the clergyman informing him of the charge that had been brought against him and calling on him to explain his conduct. He received in reply a letter from that clergyman admitting that he had misinterpreted the teaching of the Church of England on the subject, and promising obedience to his spiritual ruler. Since
  1688
  that time he had heard nothing more of that clergyman teaching the doctrine of confession; nor was he aware that the practice prevailed to any extent, until he was informed by some clergymen that young persons had stated to them that they had been confessed by a certain curate; but that they had been warned against doing so in future. So far as he himself was concerned he had never concealed his opinion, and he had in his Charges entered into the whole subject, and he had endeavoured to impress upon his clergy the observance of the doctrine of the Church of England. He did not think that cases of this kind, when they occurred, could be usefully dealt with in public—the best way of counteracting the evil was by fatherly advice and a prudent forbearance. Such offences could only be proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Courts on charges of teaching false doctrines, and he thought few things were more inexpedient than prosecution for false doctrine. No doubt, the Bishops could interfere in a summary way with curates who offended in this respect by revoking their licences; but if the incumbents themselves pursued an objectionable course and could not be interfered with except by judicial procedure, he could not with justice take away the licence of the curate who did the incumbent's bidding—that was to say, if the Bishop was unable to suspend an incumbent it was not right to suspend his curate by summary process. These things must be cured by patience.
  Motion agreed to.

FIJI.—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
VISCOUNT CANTERBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Why the "Correspondence respecting the colony of Fiji," presented by command on the 6th August, 1875, and the "Further Correspondence respecting the colony of Fiji" (in continuation of the above-mentioned correspondence), presented by command on the 17th February, 1876, had not been distributed, and complained that the Rules and Orders of Parliament had not been pursued, inasmuch as certain Returns had been made to Parliament in blank, and that consequently Parliament was ignorant of what had taken place in regard to the colony of Fiji. In fact, since the 20th October, 1874, the date of Sir Hercules

1689
Robinson's despatch, they had not had a scrap of information respecting that important colony. Three papers, and three alone, had been laid on the Table of the House. The first was the letter of instructions sent out by the Earl of Kimberley to certain Commissioners to report to him as to the best mode of dealing with Fiji, and that was dated 1873. The next was the Report of those Commissioners, and that was dated in April, 1874;and the last Paper was the Correspondence which had been transmitted by Sir Hercules Robinson to the Secretary of State in regard to the provisional arrangements which had been made for the administration of the government of the colony. When the Islands were first annexed it was asserted that the new colony would be self-supporting. His noble Friend below him (the Earl of Kimberley), when he held the Seals of the Colonial Office, distinctly refused, on behalf of the Imperial Government, to sanction any arrangement which would entail any liability on the Imperial Exchequer. But by the last information from Sir Hercules Robinson the revenue was barely sufficient to meet his own expenses. The noble Lord opposite had informed the House that the Governments of New Zealand and other Australasian colonies were willing to contribute a portion of the expenditure. But upon that question, as well as on all others connected with the financial and social condition and prospects of the Fiji Islands, their Lordships had no information whatever.
Moved That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or extracts of any other correspondence or documents explaining the present condition of the colony of Fiji.—(The Viscount Canterbury.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONregretted the delay which had occurred in the furnishing of the Papers referred to by the noble Viscount. It had arisen from unusual pressure on the Colonial Department all through the Session. The document would, however, be in the hands of their Lordships in the course of a few days. The noble Viscount had gone on to raise several questions of great importance, but of which he had given him (the Earl of Carnarvon) no Notice—had he done so he should have been able to give him fuller explanations than he had it at the moment in his
1690
power to furnish. On one point, however, he might remark that, without some assistance from the Imperial Treasury, it would have been impossible to form an effective administration in the newly-annexed colony, and he was therefore of opinion that the loan of £100,000 was one of the most economical transactions that could have been entered into. As to the disturbances which had recently occurred in the colony, he was happy to say that in a communication he had received a few days ago, Sir Arthur Gordon, the new Governor, stated that the disturbances were enterely at an end, that they had never assumed the appearance of a war, that perfect tranquillity prevailed throughout the Islands and that life and property were secure. Their Lordships would agree, he thought, that that was a great result to secure in the course of a few months. The great difficulty of the colony was, of course, finance. The original method of raising revenue in the islands was by means of a poll-tax. This was a very objection able tax, and had given rise to much discontent. It was now abolished, and Sir Arthur Gordon was having recourse to other less objectionable means, and the Government was proceeding in a most tranquil and satisfactory manner. He would, in conclusion, simply observe that all that had occurred in the colony during the last 12 months went, on the whole, to confirm the impression which he had originally formed. There were great difficulties to be encountered, but these difficulties were, he was happy to think, in a fair way of being surmounted, owing very much to the energy and judicious management of Sir Arthur Gordon, in whose administration, if there was one thing which more than another gave him confidence, it was the belief that he was determined, to the best of his ability, to hold the balance fairly between the White and the native population. Good government had, he might add, been established in the Colony, a satisfactory station had been secured there for our ships, and it was, he hoped, in fair process of gradual development. He thanked the noble Earl for giving him the opportunity of stating these facts, though he still thought they had a right to complain of unnecessary delay.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYagreed with his noble Friend that the pressure

1691
on the Colonial Office had been so great as to cause delay in the production of these Papers. But one reason why they should be produced, with the least possible delay, was that it was impossible to give notice of the line of observation which any noble Lord might deem it his duty to adopt in their absence. As to the outbreak which had occurred, no adequate information had, up to the present moment, been furnished; and very frequently, as in the case of New Zealand, war had resulted from quarrels arising out of the land question. But there was another reason, and a serious one, why they ought to have complete information upon this matter. Owing to his want of information he might fall into errors, but it appeared that a loan of £100,000 had been guaranteed upon the credit of the Imperial Government. He did not remember any Bill passing Parliament guaranteeing such a loan.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, this only showed the inconvenience of being obliged to speak on a subject without having all the information necessary to render their statements quite accurate. The "loan" to which the noble Earl referred was a Vote taken in the House of Commons last year for £100,000, of which £40,000 was spent last year, and it was intended to spread the £100,000 over three years. By the rules respecting grants of money this Vote did not come specially before their Lordships—but this was an Imperial, not a colonial matter.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was obliged for the information. The noble Earl was much better informed than he could be; but a Vote having been granted last year it was necessary to have information this year as to the manner in which the money had been expended, and whether a further Vote would have to be taken. One of the matters which he had at the time felt most anxious about was whether the Imperial Government would be committed to increased expenditure in the colonies by annexing these Islands. There was, he knew, such an intense desire to spend money anywhere and anyhow that it might be considered by the public as rather a handsome thing that they were establishing a colony in spending this money; but that did not exempt them from holding that the expenditure should be carefully scrutinized.
1692
One of the advantages, it was represented, that they were to gain from annexing these Islands was that they would stop a traffic which would become little better than a slave trade. On that point they were entitled to have information. They must not only consider Fiji, but the whole of the archipelago; and when they took Fiji they not merely undertook to deal with those Islands, but the islands surrounding Fiji; and he thought they had a right to complain that Parliament had not full and complete information on the whole subject.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was quite natural that the noble Earl should ask for information respecting Fiji, and he conveyed the idea that there was a strong wish for that information; but if that was so, neither in that nor in the other House of Parliament had there been any indications of a particular anxiety on the subject. He did not recollect a single Question there or "elsewhere" about it, and that did not look as if there was such a lively interest felt in the matter as the noble Earl seemed to imagine. At any rate, the reply of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, showed that he was quite as ready to give information as the noble Earl was desirous of obtaining it. With regard to the publication of the Papers, the delay had arisen partly from the pressure of other business, and partly, no doubt, from oversight, which never would have occurred if so much interest was felt in the topic as the noble Earl had thought fit to assume. As to the Vote of £100,000, that was discussed in the proper place, the other House of Parliament, and the Vote received the sanction of Parliament in the regular manner; there was, therefore, no wonder that the noble Earl did not recollect any Bill, since none had been required. The noble Earl had not, he was glad to see, laid any stress upon the alleged duty of the Government to make this colony of Fiji self-supporting. Everybody knew the circumstances under which they took over Fiji; they did not particularly desire to take it, but there was a large White population there, chiefly British, which they had to consider, and there was every reason to fear that great disorder might occur, and probably civil war, between the different races. These were some of the reasons which led to the step taken. It was fully dis-

1693
cussed; it came before the public in every possible form, and, notwithstanding the reluctance to take any step increasing the public expenditure, the course adopted was generally approved. As to the expenses, those who took an interest in colonial affairs, and who remembered the history of New Zealand and of South Africa would agree readily with him that no colony, of the value and extent of what he hoped Fiji would prove to be, had ever been acquired at so small an outlay of capital in the first instance. He believed that the Papers which were about to be presented would give a fair and accurate history of the progress of the colony during the last 12 months. It was fair for Parliament to ask for information, and he did not suppose there existed any reason for opposing the granting of information: but no proposal had been made here or "elsewhere," and it was rather unreasonable to complain of the Government not having complied with a wish which, so far as they knew, had never been expressed. If it was intended to raise a discussion upon the administration of the colonies in general it would be more convenient that the Notice should be put in such a form as to convey some idea that it was intended to take such a discussion. When Correspondence was moved for with the intention of raising a debate, it was usual to give an intimation to that effect; and under the circumstances he did not think the noble Lord could fairly expect the subject to be fully discussed.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, that it was only natural, in the absence of other information, that his noble Friend should have referred to the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies. There were many and great reasons why the annexation of Fiji should take place, and the question should not be left as it were floating about in uncertainty. Among other questions there were those of slavery and the Coolie traffic, which it was desirable to settle. He assured the noble Earl that neither he nor his noble Friend formerly at the head of the Colonial Office had any objection to make to the policy of annexing these Islands, but what they wanted to know was the actual state of the case. They were not desirous of acting with parsi-
1694
mony, or to complain that a few thousand pounds voted by the House of Commons had been spent on the colony for the purpose of doing what was necessary.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsuggested to the noble Viscount, whether, as the Papers would be shortly produced, he would not withdraw his Motion.
VISCOUNT CANTERBURYsaid, he would accede to the noble Earl's suggestion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NOTICES TO QUIT (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord O'Hagan.)
NOTICES TO QUIT (IRELAND) BILL.

  [NO 165.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD O'HAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the measure had passed the Commons without discussion or division. The object of the 1st clause was to extend to Ireland the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act which was passed for England last year, extending notices to quit a tenancy from year to year from six months to twelve months. The principle had been admitted by their Lordships, and he therefore supposed there would be no controversy with regard to that point. The rest of the Bill he believed was the result of representations made on the part of the proprietors rather than the tenants. The 2nd clause provided that no notice to quit other than what was now required by law should be necessary in the case of a tenancy at will. The 3rd clause enabled a landlord who wanted a particular portion of land for certain specified purposes to give notice to the tenant as to that particular portion, and did not require notice as to the whole; and reciprocally the tenant was enabled, on receipt of notice as to a part, to give notice that he accepted it as applicable to the whole holding. It might possibly happen in certain cases that the landlord might take such portions as to render the rest useless, or greatly deteriorate it, and the clause provided against that possible mischief to the tenant. The 4th clause was one of considerable importance, and he should be very sorry if anything occurred to prevent its being passed. Everybody who was acquainted with the relations of landlord and tenant

  1695
  in Ireland knew that if a tenant died intestate, and no administration was out, recovery of the land by the landlord was attended with great difficulty, because there was no machinery for servinga notice in the absence of a tenant. This clause proposed that it should be sufficient service if a notice was addressed
  "to the representative, and all persons claiming to represent the deceased, and left at his last place of dwelling, or posted in some conspicuous part of the holding, and sending another copy addressed to the townland in which the holding is situate."
  This Bill would settle the law equally for the benefit of landlord and tenant in this and other respects, and he hoped their Lordships would give it a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD INCHIQUINgenerally approved of the Bill, thinking it was highly important to settle the question of the determination of a tenancy in Ireland. He pointed out at the same time that if the Bill passed in its present form it would not quite assimilate the law with that of England; because it enacted a fixed time for the determination of the tenancy—namely, at the end of the year. He also thought that some further safeguard should be put into the Bill for the protection of the landlord. It was a very serious question the advisability of interfering with landlords in Ireland.
  LORD LIFFORDsaid, that instead of having 15 months' notice, as tenants had at present, the Bill proposed to give them another six months. He thought the measure, on the whole, would have a most mischievous effect on Ireland, and he therefore begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and to add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Lifford.)
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that the Land Act of 1870 had upon the whole worked well in, and been of great service to, Ireland, and he should support this Bill because it filled up some blanks which were left in that Act. It would, however, be quite impossible to make
  1696
  the systems of tenure of land in Ireland like those which were in existence in England.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this was a Bill the principle of which, so far as the second reading was concerned, was to assimilate the law of England and Ireland with regard to notices to quit. Many of the points of the Bill would obviously be the subject of discussion, and he was far from saying that it would not need alteration in Committee. But no Notice had been given of its rejection, and it was unusual to offer opposition without Notice to a Bill which had passed through the other House of Parliament without discussion. Under these circumstances, he hoped their Lordships would not assent to its rejection.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he did not believe in those dangers which some noble Lords thought would happen to Ireland if this Bill were passed into law; but whatever these supposed dangers were, the Bill could be amended in Committee if necessary.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.