Lords Sitting of 17 May 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Acknowledgment of Deeds by Married Women (Ireland)* (87).
Second Reading—Adulteration of Seeds Act (1869) Amendment * (79).
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue*.
Third Reading—Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment (60), and passed.

NOXIOUS VAPOURS COMMISSION— THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
LORD WINMARLEIGHasked the noble Lord the Chairman of the Commission appointed the year before last to inquire into the operation of the Noxious Vapours Act, when it was likely the Commission would report? The subject into which the Commission had been inquiring was one of great interest to his county and other parts of the country.
LORD ABERDAREsaid, he regretted the delay that had occurred. The Commission had taken a great deal of evidence in various parts of the country. He had been so occupied with other duties and cares, that he had not been able to give as much time as he could have wished to the preparation of the Report; but no time would now be lost in preparing it and presenting it to Parliament.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the Amendments in this Bill proposed to be moved in Committee by the Lord President occupied six pages of the Notice Paper. It was true that a number of those Amendments were merely verbal; but he thought it would be well to reprint the Bill, and give their Lordships time to look into them before the House was called upon to go into Committee on the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that, while anxious to have the Bill sent down to the other House in good time, he was also desirous of consulting the convenience of the noble Duke and the rest of their Lordships. He would postpone the Committee from Tuesday to Thursday if that would suit the noble Duke, and, in the meantime, would have printed Amendments relating to the Irish part of the case. Most of the Amendments already printed were merely verbal.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsuggested that their Lordships should go into Committee pro formâ on Tuesday, in order that the Bill, with Amendments, might be reprinted by Thursday.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would adopt that arrangement if it would meet the views of he noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he was satisfied with that arrangement.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONasked, whether, before Thursday, his noble Friend the Lord President would be able to produce the Correspondence with foreign countries on the subject of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, there would be no unnecessary delay in producing the Correspondence, but there had been very
126
little time to obtain the consent of the foreign Governments since the request for its production was made by his noble Friend.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMEND- MENT BILL—(No. 60.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)

THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
Bill read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
LORD PENZANCEsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment to meet the views of those who thought there was some objection to the mode in which, by his clause, it was proposed to recover maintenance money from husbands against whom magistrates pronounced judicial separation in consequence of their having assaulted their wives.
Amendment moved, in Clause 4, line 3, leave out from ("the board") to ("conviction") in line 5, both inclusive, and insert ("his wife"); line 7, leave out from ("the support") to ("her") in line 14, both inclusive, and insert—
("Her support, and the payment of any sum of money so ordered shall be enforcible and enforced against the husband in the same manner as the payment of money is enforced under an order of affiliation.")—(The Lord Penzance.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Amendment proposed by his noble and learned Friend was a great improvement, and met the difficulty which he pointed out when his noble and learned Friend introduced the clause.
Amendment agreed to; further Amendments made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND—THE PREACHERS IN ST. PAUL'S.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYinquired, Whether it was the fact that the Reverend Mr. Edwards, Vicar of Prestbury, who has been suspended from his ministrations by the Provincial Court of Canterbury, has been selected to preach in the Metropolitan Church of St. Paul's, London; and, if so, by whom so selected? It had been stated, in plain words, that a certain gentleman notorious for his

  127
  contempt of the law of this country had been invited to preach in the Metropolitan Church of St. Paul's. At the present time, that gentleman refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the highest Tribunal of the Church in the Province of Canterbury, and was under suspension for contumacy. Whatever might be the difficulty of getting certain gentlemen to submit to the judgment of the legally constituted authorities, it did seem strange that a clergyman under sentence for contumacy by the highest Tribunal in the Church should be selected to preach in the Cathedral of the Metropolis. Surely, the Church was not reduced so low, as to be obliged to invite such clergymen to preach in the cathedrals? Whether or not it was a fact that Mr. Edwards had been selected to preach at St. Paul's, he could not say. The statement had been circulated in the newspapers for some days, and, as he believed that St. Paul's was under the control of the Dean and Chapter, who enjoyed their high position by the laws of this country, he thought it strange they should have selected to preach in the Church under their charge a clergyman who had earnt his distinction by wilfully breaking and setting at nought those laws. Therefore, he thought it right to ask the right rev. Prelate, who presided over the Diocese of London, whether there was any truth in the report?
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he would give their Lordships the best explanation he could; but it must be borne in mind that it was only that morning that he saw the notice of this Question in the newspapers. In the middle of the day he received a note from the noble Earl; but it was quite impossible since to make such inquiries as to give him a definite answer. The appointment of preachers in St. Paul's stood thus. The morning preachers were appointed by the Bishop, and the afternoon preachers were the Canons in residence, who took the duty in turn. The evening preaching was a comparatively late institution. It commenced 11 or 12 years ago. For a few years, evening sermons were preached only in the first three months of the year. The preachers for those three months were appointed by the Bishop; but the evening preachers for the nine other months were now appointed by the Canons on some arrangement among themselves. The appointment
  128
  was supposed theoretically to be made by the whole Chapter. As soon as he saw in the newspapers the announcement referred to by the noble Earl, he wrote to Canon Lightfoot, the Canon in residence, to know if there was any truth in the statement? In reply, he stated that he had no knowledge at all of such a selection, nor could he obtain any information on the subject from any other member of the Chapter. Canon Light-foot added, that neither the Dean nor Canon Gregory was at home. Since the receipt of Canon Lightfoot's letter he had seen Bishop Claughton, the Archdeacon of London, and the Archdeacon had stated to him that neither he nor Canon Gregory knew anything about the matter, and that the Dean and Canon Liddon were absent. The letter of Canon Lightfoot went on to say that he had heard the rumour a few days ago, but attached no importance to it, and that a large proportion of the rumours relating to St. Paul's were without foundation. He could assure their Lordships that if he took the trouble of contradicting the rumours which he saw in the newspapers respecting himself, he would have very little time left for the work of his Diocese.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.