Lords Sitting of 7 May 1883

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—House of Lords (Construction and Accommodation), Earl Cadogan in place of Earl Stanhope.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Rending—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Broughty Ferry Paving)* (55).
Second Reading—Glebe Loans (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (35); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (27).
Committee—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Limerick Waterworks)* (3); Pluralities Acts Amendment (42).
Third Reading—Isle of Man (Harbours)* (50); Court of Chancery of Lancaster* (43), and passed,

PARLIAMENT—PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.—RESOLUTION.
LORD BALFOUR, in rising to call attention to the usage of Parlia-
2
ment, whereby proceedings on Bills have not continuance after a Prorogation; and to move—
"That in the opinion of this House it is expedient to make such provision, by legislation or otherwise, as will enable either House of Parliament, if it shall think fit, at any stage of its proceedings upon any Bill which shall have been passed by the other House of Parliament, to adjourn further proceedings upon such Bill to such day, as shall for that purpose be then named, in the first or second week of the next succeeding Session of Parliament,"
said, that perhaps some apology was due from him to the House for bringing this very important subject under its notice. The question was not altogether a new one to their Lordships, because on two former occasions it had been brough tunder the notice of the House by those whose opinions were not the least valued among their Lordships. The circumstances in which this House was placed, and the inconvenience to which the present system led, must be well

3
known to many of their Lordships. Some time ago he thought of preparing statistics to prove to their Lordships the great number of Bills that came up from the other House at a late period of the Session to pass through all the stages of this House; but it was not necessary to prove these facts in detail, because they must be familiar to anyone who took any interest in the Business of this House. As matters now stood, during the first four or five months of the Session, there was little or no Business for the House of Lords to transact. They sometimes heard of "the masterly inactivity;" but he ventured to say that the position of the House was one of compulsory inactivity, at any rate during the first three or four months of the Session; while, during the last four or five weeks, numerous Bills of the first importance were sent up from the House of Commons. These required the most careful consideration; but they were hurried through the House in a way that rendered it necessary, at a very early date, to bring in Bills to amend them. In illustration of his contention, he would refer to the course which had been pursued last Session with regard to the Bills of Exchange Bill, which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament early last Session. That measure was one of the first importance, as it proposed to codify a large portion of the Mercantile Law, which dealt with cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, and similar commercial matters. That Bill had been considered for some time by a Select Committee, which included a large proportion of the legal talent of the House of Commons and Members representing the principal commercial centres of the Kingdom. The Bill, which contained 100 clauses, was sent up to that House pretty well on in the month of July, when it was referred to a Select Committee of the House. That Committee had sat day by day, inclusive of Saturdays; but notwithstanding all its efforts it was unable, until the 10th of August, to make its Report, which recommended 100 Amendments to be made in the measure. Inasmuch as Parliament rose on the 16th or 17th of August, the Standing Orders of the House had to be suspended, in order that the Bill should be passed through all its stages before the Prorogation. The result, therefore, of such a system as was now
4
in force was, that the House had either to pass a Bill in a hurry, or else by refusing to pass it they sacrificed all the labours of the Session of the other House with regard to it. That was a dilemma in which this House ought not to be placed. During the present Session, which had already lasted four months, their Lordships had only passed three Bills—namely, the Payment of Wages in Public-houses Bill, the Medical Act Amendment Bill, and the Contempts of Court Bill. In his opinion, the time of the House would have been much more usefully occupied during that time if they had been engaged in considering several of the Bills which had passed the other House during the last Session, and had been hurried through their stages in this House at its close. Various remedies had been devised for this state of things. The Government had been asked whether they would not originate more Bills in the House of Lords; and he thought one real reason why they did not do so was the great jealousy of the House of Commons in regard to its privileges with reference to Money Bills and Bills referring to taxation. He admitted also that the Government might be justified in refusing to introduce many measures of importance in that House—in the first place, on account of their fear of the action of the Conservative majority among their Lordships. It was obvious that it was very undesirable, whether Bills were originated in that House or the other, that their Lordships' House should not have sufficient time to consider them, considering that their House was held responsible by the country for the efficiency and quality of the legislation which was passed. He believed that his proposal would go far to remedy the evil to which he had called attention. The complaint with regard to that evil was no new one, because in 1848 the late Lord Derby had introduced a Bill dealing with it, the Preamble of which was as follows:—
"Whereas, by reason of the great increase of public business, it is expedient that additional facilities should be afforded for the transaction of the same, and the securing of sufficient time for the due consideration for the Bills submitted."
He thought that anyone who knew the state of affairs in the other House would know that the lamentable facility of speech and the pressure of Business were

5
the real reasons why Bills did not come up to their Lordships' House until a late period of the Session. The Bill to which he had referred passed through that House and went down to the Commons, where it was referred to a Select Committee; but as they did not report till the 11th of August it was not proceeded with further. Again, in 1869, the noble Marquess sitting near him (the Marquess of Salisbury) had introduced another which was read in this House a second time, and was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That Joint Committee, in their Report, expressly admitted the existence of the evil complained of, and, while condemning the particular remedy for it that was proposed by the Bill, approved the suggestion that some remedy should be devised to meet it. In the body of the Report of that Committee there was no reason given why a Bill of that year should not be proceeded with in the next Session at the stage at which it was dropped, nor was there any general opposition to the proposal as a matter of principle; but it was simply because there was no time that Session to consider it that the proposal did not meet with favour. He should be very glad indeed if the result of the Motion he was making should be to have some substantial objection stated to the plan, in order that they might have an opportunity of considering, and, if possible, of answering it. He had spoken in his Motion of the "usage of Parliament" in this matter, because he found that expression in the Preamble of the Bill brought in in 1869; but he was unable to say when this usage came into force. Like many other parts of the constitution of Parliament, it was very difficult to account for. Probably it arose as a matter of convenience, in much the same way as the taking of the various stages of different Bills; and now these various stages had become as stereotyped as part of their Forms, and were regulated by the Standing Orders. But was there any sense in the practice as it at present existed? He asked why all the work which had to be done in getting a Bill through Parliament should require to be gone through a second time simply because it was not finished in the period allotted to one Session? Why should all the opposition have to be encountered again, all the work of Select Committees, and all the business
6
connected with deputations and other things—why should all that be done a second time if a Bill was dropped simply for want of time? On a former occasion it was contended that the improvement he advocated should be effected by legislation, and the noble Earl on the Woolsack (the Earl of Redesdale) said that he strongly objected to making Standing Orders matter of legislation; but, however effective that might be as an argument against a Bill, it was no argument against the Motion. It was no concern of his whether this improvement was effected by legislation or by Standing Orders. On the whole, he thought that if it could be done by Standing Orders it would be the simpler and readier means of effecting the alteration. The noble Earl had also objected that such a change would lead to rash and hasty legislation, and he hoped the noble Lord would explain more fully how it would do so, because, in his opinion, it was much more likely to mature and improve the quality of the legislation which passed through that House; while, on the other hand, it would give their Lordships' House fit employment for the early period of the Session. Another objection to the proposal was that it would help people who came to Parliament with crotchets—that those who came with measures which they pressed on by all kinds of agitation would, have greater advantages than they had now. But what he would point out in answer to that was that no Bill which passed the other House of Parliament was shut out from receiving the judgment of their Lordships' House—they still had to express their opinion upon those measures. He did not claim for this proposal that it would result in an increased amount of legislation, but that it would result in that legislation being better considered and matured. It was urged, again, that if the proposal were adopted it would be an interference with the Prerogative of the Crown. No doubt there was a power vested in the Crown to defeat any proposed legislation by proroguing Parliament before that legislation was passed in all its stages; but was that a power which was likely to be exercised? If, however, it was necessary to prevent any infraction of the Prerogative of the Crown it could be done by enacting that, by Standing Order, or by legislation, the consent of the Crown should be re-

7
quired either before the adjournment to the next Session of the proceedings on a Bill or before they could be resumed. If the principle of the Resolution were approved, he would willingly leave in their Lordships' hands the question whether they should proceed by legislation, or by amendment of the Standing Orders, or by the appointment of a Select Committee to consider how best the proposal could be carried out. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House it is expedient to make such provision, by legislation or otherwise, as will enable either House of Parliament, if it shall think fit, at any stage of its proceedings upon any Bill which shall have been passed by the other House of Parliament, to adjourn further proceedings upon such Bill to such day as shall for that purpose he then named, in the first or second week of the next succeeding Session of Parliament."—(The Lord Balfour.)
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that as the noble Lord had referred to him and the opinions which he expressed on a former occasion, he would now state that he did not think that the alteration proposed was necessary. At any rate, that House was not called upon to take the initiative. No doubt they had the power to act in the way which the noble Lord had stated, but it was also in the power of any noble Lord to bring in early in the Session any Bill which had not passed in the previous Session and to send it down quickly to the other House. He thought that there were many great objections to the proposal of the noble Lord. For instance, supposing that a Bill making great alterations, such as a Reform Bill, came before them, it would be very undesirable to have it hanging about for the rest of the year for that House to determine, and then sent back as an amended Bill only to the other House. He did not see that they would gain anything by taking such a course, and thought that it would be far more desirable to allow the existing practice to continue.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, it seemed to him that the House would be placed in the most unfortunate position if they adopted the proposal, as they would be always under pressure to go on with those Bills which required the greatest consideration, and would be free only to suspend those of minor
8
importance. It seemed to him that such Bills as the noble Lord on the Woolsack had mentioned were not the only Bills that might be referred to. Suppose a Corrupt Practices Bill was passed in the Lower House, it was most undesirable that the House of Lords should suspend its action upon a Bill of that character, the requirement for which would be urgent. The Motion was of an extravagant kind, and its adoption might involve interference with the Prerogative of the Crown by making a Dissolution of Parliament inconvenient, if not impossible. He would not enter into the terms of his noble Friend's Motion, which spoke of the adjournment of the proceedings to a special day. Such an arrangement would be impossible——
LORD BALFOURsaid, he did not propose an adjournment of the House, but an adjournment of that particular Bill.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he understood, on reading the Motion on the Paper, that it was assumed that a Bill would be adjourned to a particular day. It really seemed to him that without the assent of both Houses of the Legislature to some course satisfactory to each, it would be most unwise to pledge themselves to any abstract Resolution on this question; in fact, it was obvious that the matter could not be dealt with without legislation. Without it their Standing Orders would have to be recognized by the House of Commons, since they would affect the proceedings of the Lower House. Discussion on more than one occasion was not necessarily disadvantageous, and in regard to complaints that 30 or 40 hours were sometimes more than once occupied in the discussion of a particular Bill, Mr. Bright had said that his experience was that by such deliberation the seed was gradually matured and became useful fruit. Again and again Bills had been introduced and had failed to pass, and in each succeeding Session they became better Bills and more suitable to the interests of the public. He hoped, under these circumstances, the House would not assent to the Motion.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Lord had stated fully and clearly the arguments in favour of the Motion he had made; at the same time, he was bound to say that he could not see what rejoinder could be made to the two

9
answers of the noble Lords who had just spoken. He did not intend to speak then with authority as representing the Government, because he could not say that the Government had considered this particular remedy for the evil complained of. They did not think it was so serious an evil as to call for an immediate remedy, and he doubted whether the adoption of the proposal of the noble Lord would accelerate legislation. He was the more confirmed in that view because he remembered that when a great authority, the late Lord Derby, made a similar suggestion, not only was it opposed by the Government of the day, of which he (Earl Granville) was a Member, but it did not meet with any general acquiescence on the part of their Lordships' House. For these reasons he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion to a division.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down made one speech on this question in 1869, and another just now, and he confessed that he preferred the speech of 1869. On that occasion the noble Earl said that, following the example of Lord Lansdowne, he should vote, as he had always voted, for this particular principle; but now it appeared that for some reason or other a change had come over the sentiments of the noble Earl. For himself, he was formerly of the opinion held by the late Lord Derby, that some change was necessary in order to facilitate and improve the proceedings of the House; and if he did not venture to express the same opinion so confidently now, it was rather because he did not see any sufficient agreement in that House, and still less in the other, to make such a remedy at all practicable. He was wholly unable to agree with the noble Earl that there was no evil to correct, for it appeared to him that the evil was one that must concern all who took an interest in the position and character of their Lordships' House. What happened was this—that during five months out of six during which the Session lasted their Lordships' House, practically, had no Business at all to transact; no measure was brought before them. But towards the end of the six months, when the month of August came, and when certain circumstances to which he need not then particularly allude were apt to thin the Benches of
10
the House, there came, as with a rush, the whole of the legislation which the House of Commons had contrived to get through during the Session, and it was then passed, through their Lordship's House with scarcely a semblance of consideration. He did not blame the Government for that state of things; but it was undoubtedly the fact that measures which occupied the other House during many nights, which required anxious consideration, and which had been discussed in every part of the country with great animation, wore very often, from mere lack of time, passed over without anything more than a perfunctory debate, and without that inquiry, by means of Select Committees and otherwise, for which their Lordships' House was so eminently qualified. He would not admit that the present state of things was satisfactory; but whether the precise remedies proposed by his noble Friend were the fittest, he admitted was a question removed from the region of practical discussion by the well-known disinclination of the House of Commons to entertain it. On the former occasion to which he had referred, it had passed their Lordships' House without a division; but they had found in the Committee of the House of Commons the strongest objection; and that had been recently renewed. A Gentleman on the Conservative side of the House of Commons (Mr. E. Clarke) had made a Motion in that House on this subject, and he had received no support, or no considerable support, from his political Friends or from his political Opponents. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought that both Parties in the House of Commons were averse to any such change in their procedure. The Conservatives held an opinion which might be summarized by the view that there had been too much legislation, and that it would be increased by such an arrangement. He was not a great enthusiast himself for too much legislation, and he did not lament the fate of those crotchety Bills which the present practice had had the effect of stifling. It was very desirable that they should be put a stop to; but he did not feel altogether satisfied as to the mode in which to get rid of them. But the Liberals, he thought, had an equal objection to any such change, and their view was that the present state of things practically disarmed the House

11
of Lords. If measures were sent up in May or June or July, there would be a sufficient number of Peers in the House and sufficient time remaining to enable them to give that careful consideration to the Bills which might make them genuinely the product of the wisdom of both Houses. As matters were, by the dispersion of Members of the House, and still more by the shortness of time, their Lordships' House was practically ousted from any effectual share in a great part of the legislation; and as the Liberals in general had not a full confidence in the entire sympathy of their Lordships' House on all possible subjects, he thought they were glad to see the House partially disarmed. The existence of these two feelings made him strongly recommend his noble Friend to withdraw his Motion, because in the present state of things there was no chance of success; and he frankly admitted that experience rather led one to look to another remedy, if remedy ever should be found for this evil. A Motion associated with the name of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) used to be made many years ago, that the House should not proceed to read a Bill a second time after a fixed date. The real remedy could only be adopted when the opinion of the House was thoroughly in unison with such a proposal. That it was not so in unison at present was proved by the fact that that Motion, adopted in deference to the noble Earl's authority in the House, was so eaten out by frequently recurring exceptions that it was found necessary to abandon it. He hoped that as the time went on the House would feel more deeply how little consonant with its dignity and power the present state of things was; and when that feeling should have thoroughly pervaded it, he had no fear that any jealousy on the part of the other House of Parliament would prevent its taking a full and effective share in legislation. If it did not take that share now, he was compelled to think that it was very much because Members of the House did not think it necessary that it should be claimed.
LORD BALFOURsaid, there was in this country a growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the failure of Parliament to meet the demands of the people
12
for legislation. He felt that, considering the words of the late Lord Derby, he had been fully justified in placing the Motion upon the Table in its present form. After what had been said, however, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NAVY—H.M.S. "HECLA"—THE SUEZ CANAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask, Whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to construct any vessel or vessels expressly for the purposes to which H.M.S. "Hecla" had been converted; and whether, in the construction of vessels of war, the proposed draught of water, with reference to the depth of the Suez Canal, was an element of consideration? said, the Hecla was quite different from any other vessel in the Service, and had been purchased from the Merchant Navy by Mr. Smith, and therefore the present Board of Admiralty were not responsible for her. She was fitted up as a torpedo defence vessel, and was intended originally as an experiment, to be followed up by vessels of the same class if she were successful. He condemned the practice of purchasing merchant vessels for the Navy, as he believed that practice to be expensive and inexpedient in the long run; and he had received information that the Hecla was not quite what she had been intended to be. Before putting the Question, he should like to ask the noble Earl, who he believed was responsible for The Navy List, whether it would not be possible to introduce a little more information into it; and also whether he considered that the one naval attaché was sufficient, when other Powers sent an attaché to every country in the world? The Russian Government had sent a naval attaché to this country for the purpose of ascertaining [the method of construction which prevailed in our Dockyards, and they actually had obtained possession of certain information which this country desired to conceal from them. Then, again, the draught of water of our large iron-clads was a matter of the utmost importance in connection with the depth of the Suez Canal. The Canal had a depth of only 24 feet 8 inches. One foreign Power had 11 iron-

  13
  clads of the first class capable of passing through the Suez Canal, and seven or eight others were being built. This he regarded as a standing danger to our commerce in the absence of lighter draught vessels of the same magnitude in our Navy. It was quite possible, in the event of war, that sudden attacks might be made upon our commerce, and if they were they ought to be in a position at once to send powerful vessels through the Canal. He would now, in conclusion, ask the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks me whether, in the construction of vessels of war, their draught of water is an important consideration in reference to the Suez Canal? It is, of course, an element of consideration; but in the case of first class iron-clads, it is not possible to construct them with a draught sufficiently light to enable them to pass through the Suez Canal. In the late operations in Egypt we had several vessels in the Canal; and since that time two iron-clad ships of considerable power—the Ajax and Agamemnon—have been greatly advanced, and they, as well as two others now in course of construction, will be able to pass through it. I may say that its depth is not 24 feet 8 inches, but something over 20 feet; 24 feet 8 inches is the limit of draught permitted by the Canal regulations to vessels which enter it. The noble Viscount has referred to the Hecla. We do not think it advisable to spend more money in constructing a class of vessels which can readily be bought at any time. With regard to the question of additional naval attachés, I may say that at present we have only one, and not two, as the noble Viscount imagines, and we think for our present purposes one is sufficient; he is at present stationed in France. The fact is, the reason why foreign nations send attachés into this country is because they think they have much to learn from us. We do not deny that we may have something to learn from them; but we do not think we can obtain from them as much information as they can from us, and therefore we do not think it necessary to station a naval attaché constantly at any foreign Court. We send one to any place where there is reason to expect a particular advantage. With respect to the free admission of foreign attachés into
  14
  our Dockyards, the fact is, it is impossible, in the case of great ships and great guns, to keep anything secret, so we consider that the best plan is frankly to show whatever we have to show in the way of shipbuilding. There is no difficulty placed in the way of our naval attaché's visiting the Dockyards and ships of foreign nations, and this country is bound to act in a reciprocal spirit. As to the proposal to give additional information respecting Her Majesty's ships in the Navy List, that list has a tendency to get more and more bulky, and the noble Viscount will, I am confident, find the information he requires in other official documents which have peen published.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SEC. 17—ANNUAL DRAINAGE INSTALMENTS.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in rising to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to a letter which recently appeared in the Dublin "Daily Express," signed by Mr. Thomas W. Webber, showing the unjust effect of the Arrears Act on those landlords who were liable to the payment of annual drainage instalments; and whether the Treasury would consider the expediency and justice of remitting such instalments proportionate to the amount of arrears of rent cancelled? said, he had put the same Question to the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council last week, and was then told that further Notice of it would have to be given. He now ventured to put the Question again. The case he referred to was one of the greatest hardship. The statement by Mr. Webber showed that he was agent to a gentleman who had laid out a very large sum of money upon what their Lordships' House and various Governments had always encouraged in Ireland, the improvement of tenants' holdings. The total amount borrowed from the Public Works Department since the year 1863 for that purpose was £19,9931 s. 6d., of which £8,69515 s. 10 d. was laid out on farm buildings and cottages, and £11,297 15 s. 7d. upon drainage. That money bore interest at the rate of 6 per cent, amounting to £1,168 a-year; but as soon as the Arrears Act had passed a sum of £1,248 was at

  15
  once wiped off. Of course, he looked to his rents to pay the interest; but the Government, while they deprived him, on the one hand, of the means of paying it, served him with writs with the other for the amount of interest due upon this loan. He could hardly believe there could be such a case of injustice, or that the report he had seen was true, so he brought it under the notice of his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford). Since that time an answer had been given in the House of Commons which was most unsatisfactory. The answer was that the public charges referred to were not public charges under Section 17 of the Arrears Act. When the Bill was passing through the House they understood that the 17th section covered these cases. That section applied to "quit rent, tithe rent, and other charges."
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Such other charges.
  THE MAEQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he thought that the words were intended to cover the case he put. It seemed, however, that such charges were not to be covered, and while the rent had been wiped off by the Government, the unfortunate landlord had to pay at the same rate. The practice of the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland had been to wipe off any increase in rent made under any circumstances during the last 10 or 15 years, so that the landlord who had spent money in improving his property, and put on an increase of rent to recoup himself, had it all wiped away by the Commissioners. He thought it a hardship upon those landlords who had laid out the money in the interests of their tenants that they should be compelled to pay burdens which the tenant was relieved from. He hoped the noble Lord would give them some information, as great interest was taken in these matters.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that before an answer was given he should like to ask the Lord President if the instalments of tithe rent charge payable by landowners in Ireland who might have commuted the charges on their estates under the Irish Church Act, 1869, would be treated as ordinary payments of tithe rent charge in connection with the section of the Arrears Act of 1882 which entitled landowners to a re-
  16
  mission proportionate to the amount of arrears cancelled? He put this Question because it dealt with a kindred subject. There was the slight difference that the question to which his noble Friend referred dealt with the loans for improving the land and dwellings, while the charge to which he referred was the tithe rent charge commuted, and which had now become simply a public tax. He thought the case of those landlords who had not commuted their tithe rent charges should not be different from those who had done so.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that both Questions should, strictly speaking, have been answered by his noble Friend who represented the Treasury; but he had communicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and was glad to be able to answer them himself. He must remind the noble Marquess and the noble Earl of what the provisions in the Arrears Act on these matters were, because the answers to both Questions depended upon the actual wording of those provisions. The section of the Act quoted by the noble Marquess named the public charges which might be remitted under the Act in the proportion of the arrears wiped out, and those public charges consisted of tithe rent charge, income tax, and quit rent, or any of such charges—that was, any one of the charges thus enumerated. The words of the Act could have no other meaning. That was the sense in which the Treasury read the section, and it was the obvious meaning. The Treasury had no power, therefore, to remit any other charges than those mentioned. The answer to the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) was that the payments referred to by him were not tithe rent charges, but instalments of the charges into which tithe rent charges had been commuted under the Church Act. As to the loans for drainage referred to by the noble Marquess, they also clearly did not come under the terms of the Act, and no remission could, therefore, be allowed; but he (Lord Carlingford) was assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that so far as the time of repayment was concerned, no hardship would be inflicted upon landlords, nor undue pressure be brought to bear, in cases where

  17
  arrears were still unpaid, or where grants under the Act of last year had been delayed.

PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 42.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked for some explanation of the necessity for the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that experience had shown that change was necessary in many cases. It was found that there were benefices which it was unquestionably better should be held in plurality, but which could not be so held under the present Acts. These Acts included churches within three miles of each other, the value of one of the benefices not exceeding £100. The Bill proposed to extend the distance to five miles, and to allow one of the benefices to be of the annual value of £200. As things now stood, benefices were frequently vacant for years, because no one could be got to take them. Another reason for this Bill was the impossibility of getting curates at £80 per year, as in former times.
  House in Committee (according to order); an amendment made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.