Lords Sitting of 11 April 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. (No. 73.)
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bills of Exchange (Acceptance)* (71); Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment* (72); Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) (75).
Committee—Report—Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) (56).
Report—Education (Scotland)* (69).

ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 56).
(The Lord President.)
ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 56).

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he regretted that he was not able to be

  1073
  present when the Bill was read the second time, as he had desired to offer some remarks upon the duties cast upon the Governing Bodies. As it now stood, it appeared to him quite possible that the wishes of the Governing Bodies might be set aside by the action of the Commissioners. The Bill provided that if the Commissioners approved of the proposition of a Governing Body, and that proposition subsequently received the approval of the Secretary of State, the application would be granted. But it was not at all impossible that in any given case the Commissioners might take an entirely different view from the Governing Body—they might make alterations such as they deemed fit; and as there was no power given to the Governing Body to the Secretary, the whole power passed, in fact, to the Commissioners. That being so, it was his intention, in Committee, to move the addition to Clause 8 of a few words taken from the Act of 1869, the effect of which would be that in cases in which the Commissioners did not approve the Petition of the Governing Body, and desired to substitute something else, it should still be open to the Governing Body to persist in their application.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation of terms).
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that on the second reading he had suggested that, instead of the Home Office having the control of these matters, it would be better that they should be under the Scotch Education Department. He could only now repeat that suggestion.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had, as he had promised, considered the matter, and that he could not accept his noble Friend's proposal. He would remind his noble Friend that the Lord Advocate had always had a very close connection with these institutions, since it was his duty to see to the protection of these endowments by making application to the Courts of Law. It was not desirable, therefore, to take the powers under this Bill out of the hands of the Secretary of State or of the Lord Advocate; because they had to deal, to a great extent, with charities other than educational. The Provisional Orders to be
  1074
  issued under the Bill would be issued by warrants of the Secretary of State in the same way that Provisional Orders in connection with other matters connected with Scotland were issued—namely, by the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Governing Body may resolve to apply for Provisional Order).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that during the discussion on the second reading, he had offered some remarks on the permissive character of the Bill, and had suggested that it should be made compulsory. He would ask if the noble Duke had taken his suggestion into consideration?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that after the debate on the second reading, he had taken the proposals made during the discussion—including that of the noble Duke—into consideration; and, after consulting with his Colleagues, and especially with the Secretary of State, the conclusion at which they had arrived was that, on the whole, it was not desirable in this Bill to introduce any compulsory powers. They believed that there were a great number of the endowed schools and hospitals in Scotland—perhaps not all, but a great majority—which were prepared to avail themselves of the provisions of this measure—and they thought they should be wanting in respect to those bodies, and should be showing a want of confidence in them, if they assumed that they did not desire to reform their institutions by availing themselves of the powers provided under the Bill. He believed that they would avail themselves of those powers, and that from time to time schemes would be submitted by them for the approval of the Secretary of State. Her Majesty's Government did not propose, therefore, in the first instance, to resort to compulsory powers; but if, after a certain period of time had elapsed, they found that the institutions had not availed themselves of the powers of the Bill, then they should think it necessary to bring forward a compulsory measure, and one, too, of a much more stringent character than that now before them.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not wish to press the matter on the Government, when they were unwilling to

  1075
  adopt it; but he must express his regret that the noble Duke did not see his way to adopt the compulsory system in this Bill, to the extent, at all events, that it was adopted in the English Act. He did not think that his noble Friend was quite consistent in the conclusion he had come to, remembering the very extensive power the English Acts gave to the Commissioners of Endowed Schools, and also to the Commissioners of Oxford and Cambridge, in witholding these powers from the Commissioners under the present Bill. Their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that, in regard to the schemes furnished for the Endowed Schools in England, and with regard to the Universities, there was reserved the power of objecting. He did not know why the same rules should not be applied to the Endowed Schools in Scotland as were applied to the Endowed Schools in England. Moreover, the noble Duke was not quite consistent in his view of this measure in itself. Inasmuch as he had distinctly told their Lordships, that although the Bill was of a permissive character, the Governing Bodies would be hereafter subjected to much more compulsion than they would be by this Bill if they did not choose to come forward and avail themselves of it by forwarding schemes.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Provisional Order to be laid before Parliament).
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY THE EARL OF GALLOWAY moved the Amendment to which he referred in his observations upon going into Committee on the Bill—namely, to insert the words "on the application of the Governing Body."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it would have been more convenient if the noble Earl had given their Lordships Notice of the Amendment he intended to propose. He regretted that he was not able to see his way to accept the Amendment, simply for the reason that it would render the Bill of no avail. It would give the Governing Bodies of the institutions proposed to be reformed under this Bill the power of putting a direct veto upon the issuing of any scheme. That was to say, if they were not satisfied or pleased with any scheme for which a Provisional Order had been issued, they would have the power of stopping the measures.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he did not doubt that the Governing Bodies would avail themselves freely of the facilities afforded by the Bill for reforming themselves. But, nevertheless, he thought it right to say, that when modifications and amendments had been made in the schemes which they had submitted, it would be only right and proper that the Governing Bodies should have an opportunity of seeing the alterations which had been made, and of considering their effect and extent, and that he thought was the object which the noble Earl had in view in his Amendment. But he did not think the Governing Bodies should have a veto on the schemes that had been so altered and revised by the Commissioners.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he had prepared a clause which would meet the objections his noble Friends had pointed out; but he thought it would be better to bring it forward on Report. After Clause 7, line 15, after ("order"), he proposed to insert, as a separate paragraph, these words—
  ("Provided also, that if the provisional order shall contain provisions different from those prayed for by the governing body, or shall omit provisions prayed for by them, the Secretary of State shall before signing the order cause a copy of it to be sent to the governing body, who may, if they think fit, state in writing to the Secretary of State any objections or suggestions respecting such order within one month after the copy thereof was sent to the governing body; and the Secretary of State shall, if he think fit, remit to the Commissioners to report on such objections and suggestions, and shall consider the same together with the report of the Commissioners.")
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, said, that after the noble Duke's statement, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Commissioners to be appointed).
  THE EARL OF ELGINhoped the noble Duke would not regard his Amendment as hostile to the Bill, although he deeply regretted the announcement made this evening that the Government had determined to maintain its permissive character. He proposed to strike out of the

  1077
  clause the denominations from which certain of the Commissioners were to be selected—because, in the first place, it limited the responsibility of the Government; and, secondly, it limited the choice of the Commissioners in a very mischievous manner. He would point out, that it could hardly be expected that a Professor of Aberdeen or Convener of a northern county could regularly attend meetings in Edinburgh; and, therefore, he was afraid they would have either a Commission representing not those denominations throughout the country, but that part of them residing within reach of Edinburgh, or else a Commission with two or three Members doing the work, under the liability of having their decisions overruled by their semi-official Colleagues at any moment. Then the noble Duke said that the Members of this Representative Body were not to be elected, but nominated by the Government; and, if so, he could not see why the usual course had not been followed—a Commission named on the responsibility of the Government, and their appointment defended, if need be, on the ground of their representative character. He was afraid the Commission, as proposed, would not give satisfaction even to those bodies in whose interest it was supposed to be devised, for he observed that already one of them had declared it one-sided; and he could not help thinking that if it were necessary to represent the several Governing Bodies—and he thought every consideration ought to be paid to local claims—it would be better to treat them in some such way as the Colleges were treated in the University Bill, by giving them a voice in their own reform, but not to imperil the permanent strength of the Commission. For these reasons, he would move the Amendments reducing the number of Commissioners from eight to five, and abolishing the qualifications imposed by the clause.
  Amendments moved, in line 11, to leave out from ("exceed") to end of paragraph, and insert ("five"); and, in line 21, to leave out ("Chairman and the three first-named.")—(The Earl of Elgin.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he very much doubted whether the proposal set forth in the Amendment of the noble Earl would
  1078
  give them a more efficient Commission than the method proposed by the Government. He did not concur with the view of the noble Earl, that the Commission proposed by the Government would represent merely a limited part of Scotland. Instead of taking in merely a limited area of the country, they intended to take in the whole of Scotland; and he believed they did so, and that they would secure the representation of every interest in Scotland by means of the selection of the Commissioners. Nor did he think the position could be maintained that the Commission so selected would be a one-sided body? He asked their Lordships to consider the constitutions of the bodies from whom they proposed to select the Commissioners, and he thought they would come to the conclusion that a fairer selection could not have been made. Upon the Commission there would be a Principal or a Professor of one of the Scottish Universities; there would be a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland; one would be the Sheriff of a county in Scotland, one would be the Lord Provost or Provost of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, or Dundee, and one the Convener of the Commissioners of Supply of a county in Scotland. This machinery of selection would give them a body who would fairly represent every interest in Scotland, and he thought he might fairly claim that such a body would possess the confidence of Scotland in a measure above that likely to be bestowed upon one nominated by any Government. Recognizing the spirit in which the Amendment was proposed, he was sorry he could not accept it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was exceedingly sorry that the noble Duke did not accept the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Elgin), which was one conceived in a spirit of confidence in the Government. The object of the noble Earl was to leave the Government perfectly free in their choice. What did the noble Duke complain of? Was it that too great confidence was shown in the Government by some of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House? That was a ground of complaint which they did not often hear from Ministers in this country. If he might be allowed to read the clause as it would stand with the alteration proposed by the noble Earl, the House

  1079
  would be able to judge whether it would be calculated to give more strength to the position of Her Majesty's Government than could be had with the restricted choice they assigned themselves on the clause as it now stood. The clause, the Amendment being agreed to, would read thus—
  "For the purposes of this Act it shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, to appoint Commissioners to hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure, but the number of such Commissioners shall not at any one time exceed five."
  Supposing the Amendment now before the House to be agreed to, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent the noble Duke appointing the very officials to whom he wished to commit himself without choice. It should be remembered that the bodies to be affected by this Bill were very powerful and very independent, and it did not seem to him in the interest of the contemplated reform that the Commission to whom it was to be entrusted in so large a manner should be as free and as powerful.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that upon neither side of the House did there seem to be any inclination to support the view of the noble Duke. It did appear to him that the Commission, which was meant to be executive, was for that end constituted in a very inconvenient and unusual manner. Under the Amendment, the noble Duke could nominate the whole of the Commission upon his own responsibility—which in his (the Marquess of Ripon's) judgment, was much better than restricting his choice. If the Amendment were adopted, he could put upon the Board representatives of such interests as he chose. It was most desirable that the choice of the Government should not be confined to any particular bodies. Under the 11th clause, the Commissioners would submit for the consideration of the Scotch Education Department the conditions according to which, in their opinion, the Parliamentary Grant for Public Education in Scotland might be most advantageously distributed for the purpose of promoting education in the higher branches of knowledge in public and State-aided schools. He confessed, with the utmost possible respect for the officials named in the clause, that he did
  1080
  not think the persons chosen from among them were the best persons to make recommendations with respect to the disposition of the Parliamentary Grant. Under all the circumstances, he thought it would be found most inconvenient if the clause were allowed to pass in its present form. If necessary, he thought the House should divide upon the question.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLreally hoped his noble Friend the noble Duke opposite would not object to a Vote of Unlimited Confidence in the Government. After the formation of the late Government, he had charge of the Bill regarding the India Council; and, in the Conservative spirit for which that Government was so remarkable, it was proposed to keep part of the body self-elected, as it formerly had been. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) proposed a clause to the effect that the whole power of electing the India Councils should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, and upon a division the Government was beaten. He (the Duke of Argyll) accepted the power then put into his hands with a good grace, and he hoped his noble Friend opposite would in the same way receive the power it was now proposed to put into his hands. The clause was intended to give a sort of public security that the Government should appoint fit and proper men for this great duty. Now, was it really true that they would secure fit men by enacting that the Government would be bound to appoint a man who was a Sheriff? He knew many Sheriffs of counties in Scotland who were ignorant of the matters dealt with by the Bill, because they had never given their minds to them. They were able enough men as regarded their own duties, but there was nothing in them which would qualify them to discharge the functions which this clause would confer upon them in case of their selection by the Government. With respect to the provision for choosing one of the Provosts of the great cities in Scotland, there was one remark to be made—that they had very little time or attention left to bestow upon matters outside their own onerous duties. A like remark applied to the other officers named, and he strongly urged that the better plan would be to throw the whole responsibility upon the Government. The qualifica

  1081
  tions laid down in the Bill were really no qualifications at all.
  LORD GORDONsaid, he was delighted at the unrestricted confidence shown in the Government; but they should remember that the Government had given much attention to the matter, and selected for Members of the Commission the persons who they thought would best represent public opinion in Scotland. With the exception of the noble Duke who had just sat down (the Duke of Argyll), no one urged any objection to the fitness of the official persons referred to in the clause. The noble Duke complained that the Sheriffs of counties were not fit persons for this duty; but did he forget that, under the Act of 1869, the Sheriffs of counties were the only persons who were to make the inquiries?—and that, therefore, when the Government took the Sheriffs of counties as a class from which to choose these Commissioners, they were simply following the example of the late Government? The officials named, he thought, represented very fairly the interests of the towns and counties. The towns were very much interested in this, by large charities being situated in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other towns.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, the proposition of the Government would not be acceptable to the Governing Bodies in Scotland.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, between the present time and the third reading, he would consider whether, without damaging the measure as a whole, some change might be made in the clause to meet the view of his noble Friends. If so, he would introduce some alteration upon that stage, which he hoped to take tomorrow evening.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION—MR. CHARLES ARMSTRONG.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICHasked the First Ecclesiastical Commissioner
  1082
  (the Earl of Chichester), Why Mr. Charles Armstrong has not been allowed to continue in the occupation of his farm at Godmanchester, in the county of Huntingdon, lately purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? As he was informed, Mr. Armstrong had occupied the farm for 20 years, and during that period had spent a great deal of money in improving it. When he heard it was about to be sold to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he applied to their agent, who told him that he thought he might be allowed to continue in possession of the farm; but immediately afterwards—he believed on the same day—wrote to him, informing him that he would not be continued as tenant. Subsequently, it was handed over to another tenant, who, he believed, had six farms already. He considered that this was an extremely hard case, because it was admitted upon all hands that Mr. Armstrong was an excellent farmer, and had greatly improved the land. He also pointed out that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had acquired an enormous amount of land, yielding a revenue of £1,000,000 a-year, and that the cost of management was something about £60,000. He considered that they had acted in something like a tyrannical manner in this instance; and he was not alone in that opinion, Mr. Armstrong being much esteemed by all his neighbours.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, that he had nothing whatever to say against the character of Mr. Armstrong, the tenant, either as a gentleman or a farmer; and the fact that the noble Earl had taken an interest in the case, and that he had also received a letter from the Duke of Manchester on his behalf, was a sufficient testimony of the high position he held in the esteem of his neighbours. The Question of the noble Earl was—why Mr. Armstrong was not continued in his tenancy? and the answer he (the Earl of Chichester) had to give was, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been advised, and they had adopted the advice, to make a different arrangement in regard to this property and the property adjoining, which could not have been carried out had Mr. Armstrong's lease been renewed. But he must also mention the fact that Mr. Armstrong was under notice to quit when the property was

  1083
  offered for sale, and the Commissioners would not have been advised to make the purchase if it had not been known that the tenant was going to leave. It was on that ground that the Commissioners had entered upon the contract. The noble Earl might have led the House to suppose that Mr. Armstrong had been encouraged by the sub-agent, Mr. Smith, to entertain the idea that he would be continued in his occupation; but what happened was, that shortly before the sale, Mr. Armstrong asked the sub-agent the question whether he would be allowed to remain, and the sub-agent said that he thought it might be so. But, on seeing his principal, he found that that could not be allowed, and within 24 hours the sub-agent sent a special messenger to correct his mistake, and to say that he had no authority for saying what he had said the day before. The noble Earl alluded to the extent of the land owned by the Commissioners; but their Lordships were aware that this was a necessity of their office. He might, however, state that they had sold more land than they had bought, and that there was no complaint against them of being what was termed in the Colonies "land sharks," which appeared to be the character attached to them by the noble Earl in this particular neighbourhood. He would also remind their Lordships that the amount of land they had acquired was not yet sufficient for the purpose of complying with the Act of Parliament, which compelled them to provide permanent endowments for Ecclesiastical Corporations. The noble Earl concluded by handing in the Correspondence which had taken place upon the subject.
  On the Motion of the noble Earl, the Correspondence was laid before the House, and ordered to be printed, (No. 74.)

RAILWAY RETURNS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL.
(The Lord Henniker.)

BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
LORD HENNIKERsaid, their Lordships would, perhaps, recollect that in the discussion which took place on a Motion of his noble Friend (Earl De La Warr), a short time ago, as to continuous
1084
brakes, he (Lord Henniker) stated that Her Majesty's Government thought it might be advisable to introduce a measure which, as far as continuous brakes were concerned, would follow the precedent of 1873, when a short Act was passed to obtain certain information from the Railway Companies with reference to the interlocking of points, and the working of the block system. The Bill which he was about to present was intended to carry out this suggestion. The Act of 1873 was introduced, as he might remind their Lordships, in consequence of a recommendation of a Select Committee presided over by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset). It was quite unnecessary for him to detain their Lordships for more than a very few minutes in introducing the Bill, which was a very short one, consisting of only two—or, practically of only one, clause. It provided simply that certain Returns respecting continuous brakes should be made by the Railway Companies to the Board of Trade, in the same way as they now made Returns as to the interlocking of points. The provisions of the Bill were, that every Railway Company should, twice in every year, make to the Board of Trade Returns respecting the use of continuous brakes in the passenger trains running on the railways worked by such Company. These Returns were to be made on the 31st of December and 30th of June in each year, or on such other days fixed, as might be, from time to time by the Board. The Returns were to comply with the requirements of the Board of Trade, and were set out, so far as this Act was concerned, in a Schedule. It was thereby required that these particulars should be given—(1.) The name of the Railway Company. (2.) Name and description of the brake adopted by them and in use on their passenger trains. (3.) Whether the brakes were instantaneous in action, capable of being applied by the engine driver or guards; whether they were self-acting; whether they could be applied to every vehicle of the train, and whether they were used in daily working—a most important point—and (4) whether the materials used were of a proper kind, of a durable character, easily maintained and kept in order; information was to be given as to all the engines and vehicles employed by the Companies in their

1085
passenger traffic. (5.) They were required to state the amount of their stock used for passenger traffic not fitted with continuous brakes, and the amount of such stock which had been fitted during the six months. They were required, also, to furnish Returns, showing whether the continuous brakes in use on their lines had failed from any cause when required to be brought into action; and (6) Returns showing every case where continuous brakes had not been used. These were all the provisions of the Bill. From the experience of the working of the Act of 1873, which required Returns to be made as to the block and interlocking system, there was, he trusted, some reason to hope that in the matter of continuous brakes the publicity that would be given, and the attention that would be drawn to the question, would cause the Companies to pay no less attention to the necessity of providing continuous brakes than they had to adopting the interlocking and block systems. It would be interesting to mention, that in the year 1873, 10 of the principal Companies, with a mileage of 7,918 miles, had from 29 to 40 per cent of their points interlocked. In 1876 the same Companies, with a mileage of 8,809, had 75 per cent of their points interlocked; and in some cases—such as the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway—they had completed the interlocking system over the whole of their lines. He would not trouble their Lordships with any figures as to the block system; it was sufficient for him to state that they were as satisfactory as those he had quoted as to the interlocking system. No doubt, considerable expense had been incurred by the Railway Companies by the adoption of the block and interlocking systems; but it was most satisfactory to know that the number of train accidents had decreased. This was the case not only in a relative sense to the large increase of traffic, but it was an actual decrease when compared with the figures of 1873. In 1873 there were 251 train accidents, and the number of passengers conveyed—exclusive of season-ticket holders—was 455,320,188; in 1877 there were 182 train accidents; and, although the number of passengers could not yet be given for 1877, there was no reason to suppose the number had fallen off from 1876, when there
1086
were 538,287,295. He thought these figures would show the advantage of obtaining Returns of this kind. The publicity they gave was an incentive to the Railway Companies to adopt those mechanical contrivances which tended to secure the safety of the travelling public. They allowed, too, an opinion to be formed as to the advantages which would arise as the adoption of these contrivances became more general over the Railways of the United Kingdom.
Bill to provide for Returns respecting Continuous Brakes in use on Passenger Trains on Railways—Presented (The Lord Henniker.)
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he could not imagine that there would be any objection on the part of the Railway Companies to make such Returns as the Bill required. If, at the present time, the Companies were not so unanimous as the Board of Trade might wish them to be as to what was the best form of brake, it was simply because of the number of continuous brakes which were now actually employed, and because of an unwillingness to surrender what was believed to be effectual machinery for that which might not produce equally good results. It was wrong to suppose there was any unwillingness on the part of the Companies to report these matters to the Board of Trade, and he believed the object might have been secured without a Bill under the orders which the Board of Trade was now empowered to issue. It would be admitted that, with a few casual exceptions, the requisitions of the Board of Trade had hitherto been readily complied with.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Returns contemplated by the Bill would have the effect of keeping his noble Friend (Lord Houghton), and other Railway potentates, continually under the eye of the public, and would enable their Lordships and the public to judge whether the Companies introduced this necessary means of safety with sufficient rapidity, or whether it might not be necessary—he hoped it would not be—to apply some direct measure of coercion.
Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 75.)

UNION OF PARISHES (METROPOLIS)— DESTRUCTION OF CITY CHURCHES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HOUGHTONasked, Whether the Lord Bishop of London has issued any Commission, to report on the union of parishes in the City of London which involve the destruction of any of the City churches? In consequence of the diminution of the resident population within the City, those churches were not now so frequented as they had been; while, on the other hand, those who most frequented the City, came there on the week days only, and had their residences in the West End or in the Suburbs. Therefore, it had been thought advisable that some arrangements should be made by which certain parishes in the City might be united in such a way as to require fewer places of worship than there were at present. He did not deny the expediency of new Ecclesiastical arrangements to meet the altered state of things; but, as there were natural apprehensions that they might, perhaps, lead to the destruction of churches that were cherished for their architectural merits or historic associations, he wished for information upon the subject.
  THE BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that he had pleasure in giving the information. There were in existence five Commissions with reference to the union of parishes within the City, which had been issued by the Bishop of London under the Union of Benefices Act; four had reported, and one had done its work. The details of those which were stiill pending were as follows:—For the union of the rectory of St. Vedast, Foster Lane, with St. Michael-le-Querne; and for the union of the rectory of St. Matthew, Friday Street, with St. Peter, Cheap. The scheme would involve the removal of the church of St. Matthew, Friday Street. For the union of the rectory of St. Benet, Paul's Wharf, with St. Peter, Paul's Wharf; and the rectory of St. Nicholas, Cole Abbey, with St. Nicholas Olave; and St. Mary, Somerset, with St. Mary, Mounthaw. This scheme did not involve the removal of any church. But the disused church of St. Benet would be given over to the Committee of the Welsh Congregation in London for Divine Service in the Welsh language according to the use of the Church of
  1088
  England. For the union of the rectory of St. Margaret Pattens with St. Gabriel, Fenchurch; the rectory of St. Mary-at-Hill with St. Andrew, Hubbard; and the rectory of St. George, Botolph Lane with St. Botolph, Billingsgate. This scheme involved the removal of the churches of St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Margaret Pattens. There was no prospect of this being carried out, as the patron had not consented. For the union of the rectory of St. Helen, Bishops-gate, with St. Martin Outwich, and the rectory of St. Ethelburga, no Report had yet been made under this Commission. For the union of the rectory of St. James, Garlickhithe, and St. Michael, Queenhithe, with Holy Trinity the Less, and the rectory of St. Mildred, Bread Street, with St. Margaret Moses. This union scheme would involve the removal of the church of St. Mildred, Bread Street. This scheme was recommended, but the course was prevented by the objection of a patron, who presented every fourth turn.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.