Lords Sitting of 17 March 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) (21). Select Committee—Seport—Infants* [No. 45]. Report—Infants* (14-46).
Withdrawn—Roman Catholic Disabilities (Advowsons, —c.) (18).

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES (ADVOWSONS, —c.) BILL.
(Viscount Barrington.)

(NO. 18.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was intended to remove a disability which had existed for a long time affecting Roman Catholics, and which was not removed by the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, who were owners of advowsons of the Church of England, and had a right to make next presentations. In his humble judgment Roman Catholics suffered from a de-privation of right which was most unfair and unjust, and quite contrary to all those principles of liberty which were recognized in 1829. All other classes of Dissenters, and even Jews and Mahom-medans, could present to livings, and Roman Catholics alone were excluded. To allow this distinction to remain any longer would be most invidious. The present system, which in the case of livings in the gift of Roman Catholics led to a chance election by members of the Universities, was particularly objectionable. The Bill provided that the person nominated by a Roman Catholic patron should be submitted to the Bishop for approval, and thus safeguarded the interests of the Church. If their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill he would be prepared to propose Amendments in Committee which he hoped would be satisfactory. As to the Amendment on the Paper, it appeared to him that it was intended to defeat his very small measure by a side wind, as he was not aware that it was proposed to bring in any general measure which would deal with
1408
the subject of Church patronage. All that he asked for was that even-handed justice should be meted out to all Her Majesty's subjects alike, and with that view he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, " That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Viscount Barrington.)
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE,in moving an Amendment of which he had given Notice, said it was short, and though it repealed parts of many Bills, its objects were simple—namely, to enable Roman Catholics who might have the patronage of livings in the Church of England to present to them. The reasons the noble Viscount (Viscount Barrington) gave to induce their Lordships to assent to his proposition were equally simple. All Dissenters, except Roman Catholics, having this patronage were permitted to present; why, then, were Roman Catholics excluded? There were several reasons. First, the whole system of Church patronage in the Church of England was anomalous, scandalous, and objectionable in the highest degree, and had been acknowledged by their Lordships' House to require amendment. When the Acts were passed preventing Roman Catholics from presenting to livings, they had the right of presenting to a large number of livings; while other Dissenters had few, and other Dissenters were not excluded on the principle, de minimis non curat Lex. He knew that many Roman Catholics possessing the right to present to livings had sold their rights. It was open to every Roman Catholic to do so; so that, so far as the value of property, they were in exactly the same position to realize as any other subject of Her Majesty. He might say for himself that he had accepted the principle of giving the same rights to Roman Catholics as to other subjects of the Queen; but not because they were Roman Catholics to give them extraordinary and exceptional privileges. If the noble Viscount would propose a Bill excluding all persons not members of the Church of England from presenting, he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) should be glad to support him; but as two wrongs did not make a right, if this Bill passed the evils of Church patronage would be increased, not diminished. That Roman Catholics had not the power of presenting was said to be a

1409
hardship. It was so, if it was a hardship for the Mahdi not to appoint officers in the British Army in Egypt. The Bill purported to remove Roman Catholic disabilities. Well, it seemed to him that the disability of Roman Catholics to appoint clergymen to livings in the English Church was a disability somewhat similar to that which the right rev. Bench of Bishops suffered from; for they could not attend the Councils of the Church of Borne, neither could the Pope bestow upon them dignities higher than any that the Crown could bestow on any of her subjects. The emptiness of the right rev. Bench might show how much they regretted these disabilities. But it seemed beyond dispute that Roman Catholics were, for many reasons, more objectionable as patrons of livings in England's Church than other Dissenters. The existence of the Church of England, the position of her clergymen, the possession of her vast possessions, began and continued on the ground that she repudiated the authority as well as the doctrines of the Church of Borne. In fact, the two Churches were hostile and antagonistic to one another. He had met some friends who disputed this. He need only refer them to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church. They might sympathize with the sophistry of the Prime Minister, who discovered that we were not at war in Egypt—but any person with common sense would agree with his (Lord Oranmore and Browne's) statement. Let him a minute claim their Lordships' attention to the view taken of the relations between the two Churches by Cardinal Manning. In addressing the third Provincial (Romish) Council of Westminster, Cardinal Manning said—
"This nineteenth century will make a great epoch in the history of the Church is good for us to he here in England. It is yours, right rev. Fathers, to subjugate and to subdue, to bend and to break the will of an Imperial race, the will which, as the will of Rome of old, rules our nations and people, invincible and inflexible … You have a great commission to fulfil, and great is the prize for which you strive. Surely a soldier's eye and a soldier's heart would choose by intuition this field of England for the warfare of faith. None ampler or nobler could be found. … It is the head of Protestantism, the centre of its movements, and the stronghold of its powers. Weakened in England, it is paralyzed, elsewhere; conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world; once overthrown here, all is but a war of detail. All the roads of the whole world
1410
meet in one point; and this point reached, the whole world lies open to the Church's will. England is the key of the whole position of modern error."
He made no complaint of this statement by the head of the Roman Catholic Church. It was as manly, as straightforward, as true to his Church, as it was aggressive against the Church of England. Would the members of that Church assist him? Now, one of the points most insisted on by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) and other speakers on the Patronage Bill, when it was before that House, was that patronage was a pious trust. How would a good and obedient Roman Catholic exercise that trust, but to subjugate, to subdue, and overthrow their Church? For what reason could a Roman Catholic desire to exercise this patronage, save to appoint a minister of his Church, having a dispensation to a living in the Church of England? It would be said that could not be; he must pledge himself to agreement with the Thirty-nine Articles. If that was the only difficulty, a dispensation would get over it; but it was not necessary, for there were many advowsons in the English Church called "donative," in which no induction by the Bishop and no declaration was necessary! Their Lordships would remember that, in the debate on the Patronage Bill in that House, the right rev. Prelate he had just referred to declared that the patronage, as exercised, made the Church of England stink in the nostrils of persons who, otherwise, would be within her fold. Would the passing of this Bill make it smell sweeter? The congregations were sick enough already at being bought and sold; but now they would appoint as spiritual guides for them those who were here in this land declaring a deadly crusade against all they valued as most holy and most dear. In his mind, there was no blot so great on the nobility and gentry of England as the way they had used their Church patronage, and their wealth and influence, to set the laws of the land at defiance. For more than 30 years, through patronage, they had done so, in the pulpit and through the Church schools—setting at defiance the honest convictions of the congregation, taking advantage of their poverty to oblige them either to have no churches or no

1411
schools, or to attend at services distasteful and illegal, and their children to receive education in tenets of another and hostile faith. The Liberation Society were friends to the Church, compared to those who had pursued that course; and now, by this Bill, they would impose another and a heavier burden. He would only ask their Lordships one more question. First, let him ask Roman Catholics was there one of them who would consent to Protestants appointing their spiritual guides? He would ask members of the Church of England, who was he who would accept a pastor appointed by a Roman Catholic? If both sides answered that they would not, they must both join in throwing out this Bill. Again, one more question. Liberals and Conservatives feared losing the Roman Catholic vote. It was unduly large; but, mistake not, the new Franchise Bill would bring into action a still larger Protestant vote. Beware lest they lose that! Remember precedents. The Irish Church was now representative—no patrons—this was the work of Liberals. The Scotch Church was representative—rest assured ere long so would be the English. He asked them to reject the Bill and accept his Motion.
Amendment moved,
To leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House deems it unnecessary to pass this Bill, awaiting a measure being introduced dealing with the whole matter of church patronage.")—(Me Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he could not pretend to follow the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment in all his arguments; but he believed that the course which the Amendment recommended was the right one to follow now. The question of the disposition of patronage in the Church of England required to be dealt with and adjusted as a whole; and he hoped that with the assistance of noble Lords he would be able to introduce a Bill which would be acceptable to their Lordships, and have some chance of passing the other House of Parliament—a Bill which would deal with all the rights of patronage, and provide a better system in respect of Roman Catholic patronage. He strongly deprecated the raising of small parts of a large question and introducing little Amendments, instead of
1412
dealing with the question in a comprehensive spirit. There had been no attempt to show that there was any real grievance, or that any persons entertained a sense of injury. If the Bill should be passed, it would place Roman Catholics in a remarkable position. He could not understand a Roman Catholic desiring to present to a living in the Church of England. If he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) were put into a similar position, and had to nominate to preferments in the Roman Catholic Church, he should be only too thankful to relieve himself of the duty, and should probably delegate it to a body of intelligent Roman Catholic laymen, just as at present a Roman Catholic patron could, and often did, delegate his power to members of the Church of England. The noble Viscount told them he had brought in the Bill entirely proprio motu, and on his own authority; and he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had not heard that Roman Catholic patrons desired the Bill; he therefore, saw no justification for it. He should entertain these objections to the Bill even if he were disposed to minimize the differences between the Church of England and that of Rome. But he was not by any means disposed to minimize those differences; they had left their mark on history, and were of a fundamental character. It was argued that the Bishops would have a check on the appointments, and though they would cheerfully discharge that responsibility if called upon to do so, yet it must be remembered that that responsibility stood greatly in need of definition. The Bill dealt with a large and historical matter; and he would ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Bill and wait for the larger measure, which would deal with the question of Church patronage generally, and make more clear the responsibility of the Bishops. If the Bill were not withdrawn he must support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he did not like to oppose his noble Friend; but he was extremely unwilling that the vote he was about to give should be misunderstood. He should be the last man to say one word against the privileges exercised by the Roman Catholics; he should wish that they had every privilege the same as other subjects of Her Majesty. But he looked at the

1413
subject from the point of view of the parishes of the Church of England, and not from the point of view of patronage. He thought it even possible that some of those belonging to the Roman Catholic Church would make a better choice of a minister than some Protestants would. But it was not a question between Roman Catholic and Protestant; it was a question of much wider scope. He would ask the House whether in any other Church in the world a state of things existed in which a Mahommedan or a Jew, or anybody else, would be able to appoint a minister to a Church of another faith? Was it possible that any other religious creed would allow a member of another faith to appoint ministers for them? Was that not in itself a monstrous and horrible thing? He would go further, and say it was not the intention of the English law. It was an accident of the time that gradually people had acquired landed property, and with it the presentation. But English legislation had not in any case committed itself to the course that persons who did not belong to the Church of England ought to appoint its ministers. And would it be tolerated that the Church of England should appoint ministers either of a tabernacle or a synagogue, or even a Roman Catholic place of worship? If they looked at it from that point of view it was really absurd. No doubt, abuses existed; but he was at a loss to understand why they were to take that very important step of legalizing what they would consider the abuse of appointing the ministers of one Church by the members of another faith. A clergyman of the Church of England had enormous powers in his hands. He could alter the whole conditions of the service. If there was a musical service he could sweep it away and substitute a simple one, or if there was a simple service he could abolish it and substitute a musical one. To a great extent, he was the educator of the young in the parish, and was supreme in many matters; and yet it was proposed to legalize the appointment of such an important person by a professor of another religion. It was impossible to rest such a change on the ground of fitness or justice. Then on what ground did it rest? Upon the rights of property? He must say they would be running foul of the whole current of
1414
modern public opinion if they stretched the rights of property to such an extent in regard to Church patronage. The whole question seemed to him to be one of the most delicate and difficult matters to deal with. But private patronage was a valuable inheritance, and one they ought to preserve. For himself, he believed the Church of England owed more to private patronage than to almost any other circumstances in her organization. But if they strained private right with regard to patronage too far, he was afraid they would soon make it so odious that the whole structure would break down. For his own part, he should be inclined to remedy present defects by giving power to the Bishop to refuse unsuitable persons. He trusted the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill with great thought and with a good object would consider the advice given him by the head of the English Church, who had just spoken, and would feel that it would be wise to withdraw it. Most of them would be extremely sorry to put themselves in a position of animosity to any projected reform in connection with Church patronage; but he, for one, could never consent to that proposal to strain the rights of property in a way which might be extremely prejudicial to the future reforms which they hoped to see carried out.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he should not have risen to speak in the debate had it not been for the remarks of the noble Lord, who had stated it as his opinion that the Bill would be availed of by Roman Catholics to undermine the Church of England.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he did not think he had used the word "undermine;" if he had used it it was unintentionally.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he could only repudiate the suggestion altogether. It would be the bounden duty of the gentlemen in whom the power would be vested to obtain the best man possible, and inquire into his antecedents. He had no property in this country, therefore he could speak freely; but if he took his own case he should consider it his duty to make the most strict and rigid inquiry; and if he were in the diocese of the most rev. Prelate who had addressed the House so admirably he should think it his duty to take the advice of the Archbishop on the sub-

1415
ject. Was it wiser and safer to distrust the Roman Catholics, who had the right of presentations, than to trust to their honour and their sense of duty? He thought it would be wiser to trust them.
A noble LORD: In this country?
LORD FITZGERALD: The noble Lord said, "In this country;" if he alluded to Ireland, such a thing did not exist in that country. They were to trust in this matter the Turk, Jew, and Atheist, but not the Papist. "What could be more important to a man than to have a proper clergyman presiding over his district? Therefore, it would be his object, interest, and duty to select the best man possible. He did not support this Bill from any desire to undermine or destroy the Church of England; he would rather see her strong and vigorous, and he thought that this Bill would tend in that direction.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that if a division took place upon this Bill he should vote without a moment's hesitation against the second reading. He wished to protest against the representations of the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken that the question before the House was whether Roman Catholic gentlemen in possession of the right of presentation would or would not act in an honourable way towards the Church of England. That was not the question. He had the utmost confidence in the sincerity of the noble and learned Lord, and believed that he would exercise patronage, if he had any, in the most conscientious way. Among his own Roman Catholic friends he knew many who had exercised their patronage in the most admirable manner; but that was not the question they had to consider. Much deeper questions were involved in this matter, for, as the noble Earl opposite had said, there was no subject connected with the Church of England more delicate than the right of private patronage. The great question to be considered, with regard to patronage was whether it should be treated as a public trust or as a mere right of property. Historically it was considered a public trust, and most men exercised it in the spirit of a public trust. But in the course of centuries it had, unfortunately, come to be regarded as a mere right of property. He agreed that there was no more painful subject connected with the management and
1416
existing condition of the Church of England than the sale of advowsons and next presentations, for that system presented the right of patronage distinctly in the light of a mere right of property, and not of a public trust. If any change in the law were made at all patronage should be changed from its position of a mere right of property to a public trust. The change proposed by this Bill was in an opposite direction, for it treated patronage still more than at present as a mere right of property. They were going to place patronage in the hands of men who, whatever their feelings of personal honour, were not well-fitted trustees for the exercise of such a privilege. He agreed with the most rev. Prelate that no man could be placed in a more painful position than to have to exercise the right of patronage over the spiritual interests of those with whom he did not agree. The mere idea of an absolute right of patronage in the spiritual concerns of the people of a whole parish was to him a most odious conception. In his own country they had abolished patronage. At one time he had the honour and the misfortune to hold the patronage of no less than 30 parishes; but then he was a member of the Church in which he held them. In spite of that he always felt that it was a most difficult and onerous duty which he had to perform, and he was painfully conscious of many failures in exercising the right. In Scotland they had a system which gave the congregation a veto upon the appointment of a non-popular minister. The congregation appointed a committee, and were considered as having a veto upon any appointment. There was no such system in England; and if they made patronage more an absolute right of property than ever, they would drive a nail into the coffin of the Church of England. It might be said that it was impossible to deal with patronage, because there were so many opponents of the Church in "another place" who would fight against any measure, however just, if it would tend to strengthen the Church. But, in his opinion, there was no more urgent reform needed in the Church of England than some measure to modify the right of patronage and the sale of advowsons, and whenever that reform took place it must be in the direction of making it more a public

1417
trust and less a matter of mere abstract property. He could conceive that under certain circumstances private patronage might be the best mode of appointing clergy—if it was in the hands of a gentleman owning large property in the parish, belonging to the Church, and taking an interest in the spiritual concern of the people of the parish. But there ought to be some check on the absolute power now exercised. The fact that advowsons were now sold and bought by persons who were not even members of the Church in which they appointed clergymen constituted a most painful state of things which would not long be tolerated. He opposed this Bill, not because he distrusted the personal honour of any person of the Roman Catholic faith, but because it was contrary to the public interest to alter the right of private patronage distinctly in a wrong direction.
EARL CAIRNSremarked that the issue raised by this Bill was part, and a small part only, of a very large question. They had been told by the most rev. Prelate that this whole question must before long come before Parliament for its consideration; and he had shown that it would be most unwise now, with the prospect of having to deal with the question as a whole, to come to any decision that night upon what was, after all, a very small fragment of a great question. There was another reason which made him unwilling to give a decision on that question at that time. This Bill presented the right of patronage in Church appointments in the most bald and naked form of a right of property. He trusted that his noble Friend would, by withdrawing the Bill, save the House the necessity of dividing upon it.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTONsaid, that after the discussion that had taken place, and especially after the assurance of the most rev. Prelate that in the proposed Bill dealing with Church Patronage the claims of the Roman Catholics would receive due consideration, he did not feel justified in putting their Lordships to the trouble of going to a division.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEwished, before the debate closed, to state that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) was mistaken in supposing that he attributed dishonest motives to
1418
Roman Catholics. He had as much faith in the honour and integrity of Roman Catholics as of other Members of the House.
Amendment, Original Motion, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.—(No. 21.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to regulate the powers of the Water Companies—to improve the system, but not to take the powers entirely away. The present state of the law was that a householder was assessed on the annual value of the premises, and he was also required to pay in advance the quarter's water rate. If he failed to pay that amount in advance, the Company had the absolute right to cut off his water supply without further question. Such was the present state of the law; but since it had become so the Valuation Act and other Acts had been passed, by which this annual value became a shifting one, and one which was difficult to decide. The first point raised in this Bill was the proposal in the 4th clause that every Company should send in to every owner becoming liable a claim or demand note containing a statement of the particulars. The object of this proposal was perfectly simple. It was to insure the consumer receiving a full and complete statement of the demand made upon him and the particulars of that demand. In making a proposal of this kind, he was not proposing any course that was in any way exceptional. It was the course followed by a parish when it collected parish rates, as well as by the Crown in collecting taxes. It was also what was done in every case where a private bill was presented to a customer, the amount and the particulars of that amount being stated. But there were even stronger reasons to advance in favour of this proposal. It appeared to him most important, not only that the consumers should know the charges made upon them, but also that they should know, when changes were proposed to be made in their assess-

1419
ment, what those changes were, and all the details of them. The present practice of most Companies was, when they were making a change in the assessment, to give no information whatsoever. He did not wish to go into details, but he would give one instance of the working of this practice. When he had raised a similar proposal before in that House, a friend of his, a Director of a Water Company, had said that he thought he was a little hard on the Companies, and that some of the cases he had quoted were hardly founded upon fact. He had replied that he would take his own case, and he applied to the Grand Junction Water Company for details of their charge. As soon as he had received the details, it appeared that the surveyor in his statement was charging him twice over. On asking for an explanation of this he had received the answer that they found he was perfectly correct, and that an error had been made; the excuse given being that the amount of work in the reassessment of the district had compelled them to employ new and untried hands. That was the result of the test case which he had taken up, and for which he could vouch. The Company had, afterwards, finding that they had been entirely wrong, sent him a new note altogether, and the result was that his premises were twice re-valued in six months. With regard to the right of the Companies to cut off the water supply, he was not proposing to take it away altogether; but by Clause 5 he proposed to make it necessary to obtain leave to do so from a magistrate or some Court of summary jurisdiction. It was necessary that some restriction should be placed upon the exercise of this power; because, in his opinion, it was one which was being improperly used for purposes which the Legislature had never contemplated when it gave the power. When the Waterworks Act, 1847, was passed the Legislature had never foreseen that this power would be used in cases of disputes. His great complaint was not so much that the Companies had exercised their power in enforcing payment of their bills, as that when disputes as to amount had arisen between them and consumers in many instances the Company had threatened the consumer with the entire removal of his water supply unless he consented to
1420
the demands which they made upon him. These instances could be multiplied to a large extent; but there was great difficulty in getting small consumers of water to come forward and give their names, as they were afraid of the Water Company. There was another danger which he would like to point out, which was that the Companies had used this power in some cases against tenants when they had disputes with the landlord. He would not have troubled their Lordships further if it had not been for a Paper which he had received that morning, and which he supposed had been circulated among their Lordships, bearing the names of Messrs. Baxter and Co., and other eminent firms of Parliamentary agents, and which he presumed was the statement of the case of the Water Companies in answer to this Bill. He would invite their Lordships' special attention to the contents of that Paper. It was there stated that this Bill would cause serious loss and inconvenience to the Companies, that it was un-called for, and that, if passed, it would be unjust. But this Bill only proposed that the Companies should render accounts in the ordinary form as a parish or the Crown did. With regard to the statement that the proposal had been brought in without any communication with the Water Companies, his experience of making an application to them was that they would offer opposition in every possible way, direct or indirect, in Parliament and out of Parliament. One of the Companies having appeared before Parliament for a Bill, he took the opportunity of endeavouring to introduce clauses into the Bill, and the Company objected to his proposal, saying that it was a mean and petty mode of legislating. Now that he had introduced the measure in a form in which even the Companies could not object to it, they said that if it was desired to alter the existing law the change should be undertaken by the Government of the day after careful inquiry, and that the matter should not be hastily dealt with by patchwork legislation. Under those circumstances, he asked their Lordships whether it would have been of much use for him to have appealed to the Water Companies if they were disposed to receive his proposals in that manner? The next allegation in the Paper to which he

1421
referred was that the restrictions now sought to be imposed had never before been suggested. But then Parliament had never supposed that that power would be used for settling disputes; it was a question of the payment of rates, and not of settling disputes. It was further alleged that the necessity of delivering demand notes and particulars to each consumer would involve serious trouble and inconvenience to the Companies. Of course it would; but it appeared never to have occurred to the Companies that the consumers had some rights in that matter, and that they incurred most serious inconvenience from the Companies giving them no information whatever. Then the Paper stated that Section 5 of the Bill would deprive the Companies of that which was practically, as respects a certain class of houses, their only mode of obtaining payment of the rates. That he took to be the real sting of the Bill, and to be the chief cause of the opposition of the Companies. They said that very seldom was the power of cutting off the water supply exercised, and never except after repeated applications for payment; that they issued over 50,000 notices of their intention to cut off the water unless the rates were paid, and that, with but few exceptions, the notice had the desired effect. The same plea might be urged in defence of the kourbash in Egypt—namely, that it was seldom actually used, the threat of its employment being sufficient to secure the payment of the taxes demanded, regardless of whether they were just or unjust. The Companies said they had 700,000 consumers, and they annually served those notices on nearly 8 per cent of that number, the notices not being very often pressed, because they generally had the desired effect. The kourbash in Egypt had the desired effect; but was it desirable to apply it? Now, he maintained that it was not desirable that when a dispute arose it should be settled summarily and at the arbitrary will of the Company. The Companies utterly ignored the fact that they had any duty towards the public; and it seemed that, in their opinion, the object of water supply legislation was simply to enable the Companies to extract from the consumers the amount of rates which they thought fit. He held that some legislation was absolutely necessary to protect the legi-
1422
timate interests of water consumers, and therefore he asked their Lordships now to read that Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD BRAMWELL,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, his experience of law-making was very little; but he thought there never was a case brought before a Legislative Body asking for an Act to be passed with so little ground or foundation as the present one. That was a proposal to interfere with all the Water Companies in the Metropolis and throughout the country. He did not know whether the noble Earl was aware that he had left out those water suppliers who were Corporate Bodies, and not private Companies.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he supposed, then, that Corporations were to possess those powers which private Companies were to be required to give up. The Bill was an interference with all the Water Companies in England and Wales, an interference with millions of capital, and that without any case being made out before their Lordships, except that which the noble Earl had told them of his own: particular knowledge and particular acquaintance. Was that reasonable? Was it right that the bargain that was made between the public and the Water Companies in the Acts which constituted them should be interfered with at all, or, at all events, without some better reason than any which the noble Earl had adduced? He knew that at that moment the Water Companies were not at all popular. They were considered proper objects of plunder and of ransom; and the reason for that, he supposed, was because they had been successful—at least, he knew of no other reason. There was a great outcry about the tyrannical conduct of the Companies; that was one of those cases in which he often thought it would be desirable if they could collect the voices of the silent. Everyone who supposed that he had a grievance against the Companies thought fit to make it heard, and cried—"Down with them;" but those who were contented, and had no complaint, held their tongues. Then, great reliance was placed on what was called the extortionate disposition

1423
shown by the Companies; and reference was made to the decision of their Lordships' House in Mr. Dobbs's case. What happened in that case? The Companies thought they had a right to charge on the gross value; their Lordships' House thought that they had not, but that they must charge on the net value only. Were the Companies entirely to blame? Three of the most distinguished Judges of the Court of Appeal agreed with the Companies, and their Lordships' House had reversed their decision; and if three of the greatest Judges held that view, were those unfortunate Companies to be severely blamed for sharing it? The noble Earl had quoted his own experience in that matter. Let him mention his. He had obtained the particulars of the Water Company's demand against him; and, finding that they had undercharged him in regard to several items, being honest to the extent of a few shillings a-year, he had paid what was due to them. He had presented to their Lordships a Petition signed by the Chairmen of eight Metropolitan Water Companies, and also Petitions from the Water Companies throughout England. The Metropolitan Companies had 700,000 customers; and, as stated by the noble Earl, they gave 50,000 notices of the cutting-off of the water supply in the year, because until they did so they could, not get paid; nor would the notice induce the payment; it was only when the workman came with his tools in his hand to cut off the water that the Company could get paid. And the result was that, for non-payment and otherwise, they cut off the water in only 1,400 instances. That was at the rate of but one case out of every 2,000 customers; and yet there was all that outcry against the Companies. The noble Earl talked of the kourbash, but the Companies did not use the kourbash; the threat of it was enough. If, by applying the mere threat of doing what you had a right to do, you induced people to do what they ought to do, it was a very good thing. What would be the consequence of taking away this convenient and summary remedy? The Company, before cutting off the water, would have to apply to a magistrate, who, if the customer still failed to pay, would make an order that the water should be cut off. Thus the Company would be put to considerable inconvenience, and the
1424
customer would incur heavy additional expense. As matters were now, if the Company exercised their power wrongly, they had to pay a penalty of £10. But, in fact, this penalty was never imposed. Why? Because the power was never wrongly exercised. The proposal of the noble Earl was most mischievous, both for the Company and the consumer, and was an unjust interference with rights conferred on the Company by the Legislature. It was not unreasonable that notice should be given by the Company of the amount and items of the claim. He thought it was given.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: They do not.
LORD BRAMWELL: Then one had only to write and ask. Then, with the proposed application to the magistrates, people would be sure to say they had had no notice of the claim. In "another place" a right hon. Friend of his said that he had strong views on property, and would have given Shylock his pound of flesh. Well, he had one strong view on property, that it should not be stolen. In the case of Shylock he would have decided with the fair Portia, on the ground that the Jew was attempting to infringe the law, which said, "Thou shalt not kill." It did not follow that, because you might not kill, you might steal. He asked their Lordships to discard any unworthy prejudices against Companies, which had their rights as well as individuals; and he hoped, therefore, that they would reject the Bill.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Bramwell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when he saw the Notice of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) he was full of curiosity to know what reasons his noble and learned Friend would assign for moving the rejection of the Bill. The principal clause of the Bill interfered with no rights or powers of the Companies. It only required that they should give information of the grounds of their demand to their consumers. The other clause, to some extent, no doubt, interfered with their power of cutting off the water. But the method of exercising that power was a matter for Committee, and not a ground for throwing out the Bill on the second

1425
reading. The case for the principle of the Bill appeared to him to be a perfectly? reasonable one. He was full of wonder when he heard the arguments of his noble and learned Friend, who went off into a speech on references made in "another place" to Shylock, and talked about stealing and the rights of property, and that on a Bill which contained nothing which could be construed as an attack on property. The Companies had obtained from Parliament the practical monopoly of the supply of one of the first necessaries of life on very favourable terms. The Metropolis and other large urban populations were wholly dependent on them. They supplied the water, not according to the amount used, but according to the valuation of the house supplied. The Bill did not take away any of their rights, or interfere with their property or the bargain which they had made with the State. All that the principal clause did was to require the Companies to let the consumer know what the valuation was, what real charges were, and upon what items of consumption they were based. In the only two cases they had heard of, in which particulars were detailed, it turned out that the Companies had made mistakes; and how could they know that no mistakes would be made again? The recent case of Dobbs, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, proved that those Companies had for many years been making their charges upon a false principle of valuation. As for the other clause, about which there might be some room for controversy, when they got into Committee, all that need now be said was, that when there were disputes concerning the liability, and when the consumer was not told the particulars of the charge made against him, using, or even the threat to use, the summary power of cutting off the water was a thing which perfectly justified some safeguard to protect the consumer against being so treated.
LORD TRUROsaid, he regarded the Bill, not as an interference with the "Water Companies, but as a measure for the protection of the public. It was intended to secure the public against the excessive charges which the Companies, perhaps inadvertently, but still illegally and unjustly, attempted to enforce. Therefore, he thought their Lordships were
1426
deeply indebted to the noble Earl who introduced the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he must confess he did not think that a case had been made out for rejecting the second reading of the Bill. The 4th clause was, in his judgment, a most reasonable one; but he hoped that, in agreeing to the second reading, he should not be supposed to assent to the 5th clause. That was a very stringent clause indeed, and if it were passed, he did not think the business of the "Water Companies could be carried on. At present the remedy of cutting off the water could not be regarded as satisfactory, inasmuch as there were sanitary objections to it, and it often happened that, in consequence of a change of tenancy, it hit the wrong person. He did not think Parliament was bound to continue a system which had sanitary evils, and was injurious to the health of the population, merely on account of a previous bargain having been made with the Companies by Parliament. If, however, Parliament removed the remedy of cutting off, it ought to provide the "Water Companies with some other remedy equally efficient. He asked the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill whether he could see any objection, when the Bill had passed the second reading, to refer it to a Select Committee, by whom this point might be considered?
THE EARL OF WEMYSShoped that the Bill would be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, so that the Committee might have an opportunity of stating their objections.
LORD BRAMWELLadmitted that it was not unreasonable that people should be supplied with particulars of the charges made by the Companies; and he was quite content that the Bill should be read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he disclaimed all desire to do any injustice to the Water Companies, and expressed his willingness to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, on the understanding, however, that no counsel should be heard before it. He was perfectly able to state certain portions of the case himself on one side, and he knew that the "Water Companies had among their Directors and officers persons perfectly able to bring the case of the "Water Companies before the Committee.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.

CENTRAL ASIA—ENGLAND AND RUSSIA —THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether an engagement has been concluded between the British and Russian Governments agreeing that the Afghan and Russian outposts shall not advance beyond their present positions; what is the date of such an agreement, if it exists; and for what length of time will it remain valid; and whether the Afghan Government is a party to it? If I understand correctly what the Prime Minister is reported to have said last night, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Afghan Government is not a party to the arrangement. The important point is, what is the length of time during which it will remain valid? If it remain permanently valid, England has abandoned the greater part of that for which she was contending; and I fancy that the language which has been used by the Government on former occasions will be at variance with such a result; but if it is not permanently valid, of course these remarks do not apply. There is another Question which I wish to ask, and it is, whether the agreement, or rather arrangement, as I believe I ought to call it, with the Russian Government is of an absolute and an unconditional character, or whether words have been introduced into it which will enable the Russian Government to depart from it if they should think proper to do so?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think that it will be better to read to your Lordships the telegram which has been received by the Government from Sir Edward Thornton in response to the inquiry which I made on Saturday. It is to this effect—
  "St. Petersburg, March 16, 1885.
  "The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs states that the Russian troops will not advance from the positions now occupied by them provided that the Afghan Forces do not advance or attack, or unless in the case of some extraordinary reason—such, for instance, as a disturbance in Penjdeh. He also states that the strictest orders have been sent to the Russian Commanders to avoid by every possible means
  1428
  a conflict or any incitement to a conflict, and that these orders will be repeated."
  With regard to the further Questions put by the noble Marquess, I have to say that as to the date of the agreement the noble Marquess has quoted correctly what was said yesterday by Mr. Gladstone; but Mr. Gladstone's statement was founded upon several telegrams, the last of which was dated the 5th of March, and this telegram is dated yesterday. The noble Marquess asks an important Question as to the length of time during which the agreement will remain valid. I think that the noble Marquess asked that Question under a misconception. This arrangement has nothing whatever to do with the final settlement of this most important question; and I trust that both Governments will be able to bring that question to a satisfactory conclusion. This is merely an arrangement at the present moment to prevent what there is very great risk of—namely, that by an unauthorized action on the part of the Afghan or of the Russian Forces a collision might arise which would embitter the whole subject and make it much more difficult to deal with. With regard to the communication of the arrangement to the Ameer, our instructions to Sir Peter Lumsden are to exercise all his influence to prevent the Afghans from making an attack on the Russians, and Sir Peter Lumsden is in constant communication with the Ameer and his officers who are on the spot.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand the noble Earl to say that the engagement into which the country has entered involves the acquiescence for an indefinite time of the presence of the Russian troops in the places where they now are?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: As I understand the matter, the answer is certainly "No!" It is a temporary arrangement to prevent a collision between the Russian and Afghan troops, in order that the negotiations may proceed. The agreement, therefore, does not involve our acquiescence in the presence of the Russian troops in the places where they now are for an indefinite time.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNwas understood to ask whether, when the Afghan Boundary Commission resumed their duties, the Russian Forces would retire

  1429
  towards Russia, and the Afghans towards Afghanistan, or whether both Forces would be drawn up in array opposite to each other?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think that it is only fair that I should tell the noble and gallant Lord that even if he gives Notice, I can only say that I do not think it desirable, during these difficult and delicate negotiations, to raise such a point by means of Questions.

EGYPT—ZEBEHR PASHA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY: My Lords, the action of Her Majesty's Government has imported some degree of strangeness into the subject of the Question which I have put on the Paper relating to Zebehr Pasha. They have always insisted that they have no control in Egypt, and they have always acted on the advice of the Khedive; and we all knew the way that Zebehr has been arrested in Egypt and put on board a British ship and taken away, without the form of a trial, to some place unknown. This suggests the inquiry whether Her Majesty's Government have departed from the position they had previously assumed, and have taken charge in Egypt, or whether we are to understand that the Egyptian Government have requisitioned our troops, and made use of our ships, and deported Zebehr without a trial, such as was considered necessary in the case of Arabi Pasha. These are the circumstances; but without expressing any opinion whatever as to the propriety of the arrest and deportation of Zebehr Pasha, I will simply ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether martial law now prevails in Alexandria; and in virtue of what law or custom the deportation of Zebehr Pasha has taken place; and, whether Zebehr Pasha was arrested by order of the English or the Egyptian authorities?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Viscount has stated no opinion as to the acts which have been done, and therefore I will simply answer his Question. I do not see that any object would be gained by going into the question of Egyptian law, nor am I aware of any new policy having been adopted; but we certainly hold that as long as the English Army is in Egypt we are bound to take
  1430
  such steps as military necessities require. Having received information from Lord Wolseley on the subject of Zebehr Pasha, we have, on our own responsibility, after communication with the Khedive, and as a matter of military necessity, arrested Zebehr Pasha and his two sons, and made the seizure of their papers.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)

  QUESTION.
  EARL STANHOPE: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to make any statement to the House as to the settlement of the Egyptian financial arrangements?
  EARL GRANVILLE: A Declaration embracing the whole agreement between the Powers has been signed this afternoon, and to-morrow Her Majesty's Government hope to sign the Financial Convention embraced in that Declaration.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will these Papers be laid upon the Table of the House with the Egyptian Papers?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; and as soon as possible.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.