Lords Sitting of 13 May 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (99); National Debt* (100).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Church Patronage (63).
Committee — Report — Drowned Persons (Discovery and Interment)* (77); Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment* (78).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Police Stations* (87), and passed.
PRVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Public Health Act)* (83).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Commons* (71), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not see in his place the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Durham) who had charge of the Durham Sunday Closing Bill; but he would venture to urge whether, in putting down for to-day the Committee on a Bill the second reading of which was taken on Tuesday last, the right rev. Prelate had not gone beyond the Order of the House? The proposal to take the Committee stage that day hardly gave sufficient time to their Lordships to put down Amendments, or to consult with those persons in the country who might be interested in the measure and ought to have time to make suggestions as to modifications, and who must have been surprised at their Lordships' decision on Tuesday. He would suggest that if the Committee stage on the Bill were put down for that day week, it would be more in accordance with the ordinary practice. There was another Bill to which he wished to refer, and that was the Crofters Bill, which was put down for second reading on Monday. That Bill was one containing principles of a somewhat novel character, full of detail and of unusual complication. He did not wish to express any opinion either hostile or in favour of the Bill; but he thought it was rather making an undue demand on the rapidity with which their Lordships could proceed with the Bill, and make themselves acquainted with, its provisions, to ask them to read it a second time on Monday. He did not see the Secretary for Scotland in his place, but he should suggest that the time for the consideration of the measure should be extended from Monday to Monday week. He was sure that this arrangement would be much more satisfactory to the people of Scotland. He had not taken upon himself to make these few observations without communicating with some of those Peers who understood the subject.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, be heartily agreed with what had fallen from the noble Marquess with respect to the Crofters Bill, which was a measure new in principle and details. He
  878
  hoped the noble Earl the Secretary for Scotland (the Earl of Dalhousie) would agree to defer the second reading of the Crofters Bill till Monday week. With respect to the Durham Sunday Closing Bill, he hoped the right rev. Prelate would defer to the wish of the noble Marquess. If the Bill came on that evening no opportunity would have been given for putting Amendments on the Paper; and he hoped that two Amendments would be put down, one exempting the City of Durham, and the other limiting the time. He would ask their Lordships to reject the Bill on the third reading. Another reason why the Bill should be postponed was that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack implied that a great number of the signatures to the Petition, containing 60,000 of the inhabitants of the county of Durham, which was presented by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), were not really valid; that it was a bogus Petition, or contained sham signatures. He himself had been informed that the Petitions in favour of the measure had been largely signed by school children. That was an important matter, and he thought that the signatures to that and to the other Petitions ought to be inquired into by the Examiners of the House before the Bill was proceeded with.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he could have no possible objection to the Petitions being examined into. The noble Earl who had just spoken had misunderstood him if he thought that he had asserted that the Petition presented by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) who moved the rejection of the Bill was a bogus Petition. All he said was that he never attached great weight to Petitions signed by individuals, whether on the one side or the other.
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAM (Dr. LIGHTFOOT)said, that he had consulted the Clerk of the House before fixing the day, and had no desire to proceed with undue haste. He was quite willing to postpone the Committee stage of his Bill to a future day if there were a feeling in that direction, though he could not at that moment name the day.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked the Lord Chancellor whether there was any objection to the Petitions he had alluded to being examined into by the officers of the House?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was afraid he was as yet hardly in a position to say what was the usual practice of the House in such cases.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, he thought the noble Earl ought to give Notice of his intention to move that the Petitions be examined into.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would do so, and gave Notice that he would to-morrow move that the Petitions in reference to the Durham Sunday Closing Bill should be referred to the officers of the House for examination into the signatures.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he would put down the second reading of the Crofters Bill for Thursday next, subject to alterations.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in assenting, said, that he was anxious the second reading should be taken when the Scottish Peers were in their places.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 63.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON), in moving the second reading of this Bill, said: I have first, my Lords, to remove the misapprehension that the Bill will injure private patronage. It is in no sense a Bill to destroy private patronage, or to condemn or ignore what have been recognized for centuries past as rights of property. The system of private patronage, my Lords, creates much interest of the best kind. It has done much to preserve good relations between the laity and the clergy, and has, besides, been well exercised, and is being increasingly well exercised. Private patrons have been most liberal donors towards the foundation of new parishes and new districts; since the foundation of the Ecclesiastical Commission they have made over to the Commissioners no less a sum than £2,500,000. There is no wish on our part, my Lords, to increase the patronage in the hands of the Bishops, although, on the other hand, I do wish it were possible for others besides the Bishops to take substantial interest in curates, who have worked for a long time in difficult positions. There is not scope enough for the reward of other merits, if it is left to the Bishops only
880
to recompense long service. Then, my Lords, this Bill does not pronounce any opinion at all upon the principle of the sale of advowsons. It is enough, perhaps, to say here that the sale of advowsons is no part of the original principle or intent of the endowment of our Church. At the same time, the practice began very early in its history. The way in which the practice proceeded was that, first of all, advowsons went with the land. They then came to be sold with the land, and afterwards they were sold in gross or separately from the land; and, lastly, it became the practice to sell next presentations. The object of advowsons was, of course, the spiritual good of the people. On the other hand, the State and the Church of England have long sanctioned the sale of advowsons; and we have to consider that it was on the faith of both the State and the Church that private persons have invested their all in the sale of advowsons. There are, in fact, instances in which the whole property of minors and other persons has been invested in the purchase of advowsons, and people have bought without any consciousness of evil. Consequently, it is no tabula rasa which is before us; it is not possible for us to wipe out the sale of advowsons, since it would involve suffering and ruin to a great number of innocent families. Strong arguments have been used on both sides, and it has been proposed to remedy the mischief by allowing one more sale and no more; but the inadequacy of that proposal may be at once perceived, for it would of course follow that there would be an immediate reduction in the value of advowsons, so that this would be but a partial concession to justice; while the advowsons, if made unsaleable, would in the changes of fortune descend in lapse of time to impoverished persons, who would have lost interest both in the places and in the Church itself. Now, my Lords. I will state the objects of the Bill. First of all, its object is to stop an iniquitous traffic which is being carried on, of dealing with the advowsons of the Church as mere investments on which to make money. To that practice the Bill seeks to put an end. Let no one think that the traffic is a fair traffic. It cannot be fair, my Lords, that that which is disadvantageous to the people should be advantageous to the purchaser. For instance,

881
there has been given in evidence a letter from a solicitor offering a living for sale, the population of which is 1,500, and it is mentioned as an advantage that there was only a small congregation. It is most unfair that the income of benefices should be augmented by subscriptions obtained from good people and from Queen Anne's Bounty, and that the advowson should then be sold at a considerably advanced price. Shocking cases of abuse under the existing law have been disclosed in evidence. In one case a returned convict who had been in Holy Orders personated clergymen in various places, passed himself off as the patron of livings, and by lending money to clergymen got them into his power and forced them to move from place to place, to the great detriment of their flocks and their own exceeding misery. We read the other day in the newspapers that St. Catherine's Church, Liverpool, was put up for sale, and was the subject of lively competition between the Ritualistic Party and the Low Church Party, and that finally it was knocked down at a high price to the former. An agent largely concerned in the sale of advowsons has admitted that three-fourths of his transactions are for immediate possession, which is against the law, and that, strictly speaking, nearly all were illegal. Cruel wrong has been inflicted again and again by putting in possession of a church an aged clergyman who is unable from age or infirmity to do his duty. When cases such as these are borne in mind, it cannot seem wonderful that a great cry should arise against the practice popularly known as the sale of souls. The conscience of the people is touched, and will not be quieted by the assurance that nothing is sold but the life-title to a certain house and ground. Nevertheless, condemnable as these practices are, wrong as it is that they should be possible or real, it is a mistake to believe that they represent a normal or even a prevalent state of things. The facts are bad, and must be rendered impossible; but they are comparatively few out of the whole mass of facts. Although it has been said in some quarters that one-third of the livings in private patronage change hands not un-frequently, the representative of Queen Anne's Bounty and others well competent to judge do not believe that
882
this, or anything like this, is true. It must not be forgotten, either, that private patronage does not represent half the patronage in England. The Bill has reference only to those livings which are floating about, and the aim of its promoters is to get them into good private patronage, or into public patronage vested in a Board consisting half of laymen. It is obvious that compensation should be provided for those who, under sanction of Church and State, hold these properties before they are dispossessed of them. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has determined that sales cannot be stopped peremptorily, and their view has been adopted in the Bill now before the other House; and before going further I beg to be allowed to say, my Lords, how highly I appreciate the tone of the Movers of that Bill, and the honourable spirit in which they declare their readiness, whatever other opinions they entertain, to promote the reform and redress of any abuse which we may wish to remove from the Church. The same Committee has suggested that Queen Anne's Bounty should be the medium in sales, and that it should compulsorily buy, borrowing the money, if need be, and repaying it in the course of years out of the livings themselves. The Committee says that the money should be repaid in not less than 20 years. This, I beg leave to say in passing, is not the suggestion of the Bishops. It is as well to point this out, because Bishops have been said not to be good financiers, and they do not wish to be held responsible for this suggestion. We obtained the opinion of the Lower House of Convocation, of the House of Laymen, and of a third important Body, the Central Council of Diocesan Conferences, upon the proposal of the Committee of the House of Commons, and not one of them would listen to it. There seem, in truth, to be fatal objections to it. If the money were lent by Queen Anne's Bounty, even for 30 years, at 3½ per cent, the sum which would have to be paid annually out of the benefice on every £1,000 of the price paid would amount to over £54. Thus a living of £200 a-year, if sold at five years' purchase, would be reduced for 30 years to £145. If the money were lent for 50 years, the annual payment on every £1,000 would

883
be £42, and the living would be reduced annually to £157. But what would happen if the vicarage or rectory had to be restored during the years of repayment, or if a pension had to be paid to an incumbent compelled to resign through age or illness? Why, further loans must be contracted, and the value of the living might very probably be reduced to nothing. But there is a much graver objection to the proposal of the Committee; consciences would receive worse wounds than at present; they would be offended, as by a kind of sacrilege, by the giving to a patron out of the spiritual provision for the parish what never was his. Then, as to the effect on Queen Anne's Bounty itself, I fear that the expenditure from which it could not escape might cripple all its operations. No one can estimate the number of livings which would be offered to Queen Anne's Bounty; and those which were offered would probably be offered at once. Therefore, this process would certainly cripple livings, and probably cripple the operations of Queen Anne's Bounty; and it is proposed at a time when your Lordships and the other House have already passed an Act to extend the usual period of 30 years for repayment of mortgages, because the clergy, owing to the great agricultural depression, are not able to meet the present demands upon them. The scheme, therefore, as a financial scheme would not work, and if it did it would cause more wounds to consciences than there are at present. Now, of all schemes, including this impossible one, the aim was to get rid of improper buyers. It is admitted that there are proper buyers. Let us see who could be included in that category. The Bill provides that there should be a right of pre-emption when a living is sold to persons who can show that they have a sufficient interest in the welfare of the parish. I would not wish to confine it to landowners; I should desire to extend it to others. For instance, we are familiar with great manufacturers, whose works are on the outskirts of towns, who are deeply interested in the well-being of the district, and who have shown that interest by building and endowing churches and chapels for their workpeople, among other practical ways. The right of pre-emption, it seems to me, should go to those who can show that they
884
have a sufficient interest in the parish. Secondly, proper buyers of patronage would be public patrons, such as exist in large numbers, whether individuals, or bodies, or trusts, to the great benefit of the livings and people. Thirdly, it has been felt by the most zealous and earnest Churchmen—and there has been a consensus of those three important representative bodies of lay Churchmen—that the living should be sold to any purchaser approved by the Bishop. Now, I cannot assent to that as being a wise proposal, or one which would work practically, for I think, in the first instance, it would not be desirable that a Bishop should be personally mixed up in these transactions. It would be an invidious thing for him alone to bar purchases. Then, again, I shall not be supposed to be speaking against my cloth if I say that I think the proposal is too clerical. It is not the object of the Bill to diminish, but to extend, lay influence in the administration of the Church's affairs. I should object greatly to this Bill being made an occasion to increase clerical influence. Therefore, I think the Bishop is not the proper person to approve every transaction of this kind; but the idea that it should be approved by some local or diocesan authority seems to me a very good one. I should say, instead of any purchaser approved by the Bishop, any purchaser approved by a competent and strong Council. I believe we can form a Council easily. The purchaser should, however, be approved by the Bishop in Council, so as not to take away the Bishop's responsibility. There are other duties for which such a Council is really wanted, and I know no better way in which the laity could help in the administration of their Church. I propose, therefore, that in every diocese we should form a Council, to be composed half of laymen and half of clergymen. The Councils should not be all of the same size, but proportioned to dioceses. The clergy should be appointed as they have been for similar purposes in other recent Acts of Parliament. The laity, it is suggested, should be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and Churchwardens of the diocese or sections of the diocese. In the Bill this Council stands first, not because it is the central object, or in any sense

885
the backbone of the Bill, for it is not, but for drafting reasons. This Council should receive and hold advowsons, or funds contributed to the purchase of livings, or of the interest in livings. There is a general belief that if such a Body did exist funds would come in; but, quite apart from its holding any advowson whatever, or being able to purchase any advowson, what I desire is that it should be able to acquaint itself with the circumstances of any proposed transfer, and approve or disapprove of it. At the present moment exchanges are negotiated as well as sales; but an important witness before the Commission declared that exchange was a mere cloak for the worst transactions that agents engage in. We want to put a stop to all this by fixing the eye of a competent and responsible Body upon it. By this Bill, then, the right for pre-emption would be given to every person of sufficient interest in the parish; next, it would be capable of being given to the Council itself, if the Council thought fit to purchase it, and then to any other purchaser in the manner described. In the case of the Council having any advowson, the patronage should be exercised, not by itself as a Central Council, but by a more local body, consisting of persons belonging to the neighbourhood. It may be expected that a Local Board of this kind, with some members of the Central Council in it, to administer such patronage, would work well, and it seems a simple and practicable way of guarding against improper and scandalous transfers. At all events, I think this remedy should be tried before stronger ones. If it answers its purpose, the milder the remedy the better. If it is not sufficient no step would have to be retraced. It is an advance towards a better state of things, which could be developed. I now pass to the other precautions contained in the Bill. They are simple, and do not refer to a large proportion of cases; but they are intended to meet some great evils. The Bill provides that when a patron wants to sell an advowson the sale must be an out-and-out one, not merely of one presentation, but of all the rights which the patron possesses in the advowson. Let the purchaser take upon him all the responsibility that belongs to a patron. It is surely a repulsive thing that a man who had a great public and spiritual trust
886
should allow it to be exercised for a sum of money. It occurs again and again, in the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission, that a great many of the undesirable men who get livings get them by sale of next presentations. So much for that precaution. Your Lordships will agree that it is desirable to close the scandal of the sale of advowsons by public auction. In an auction a patron parts with the last semblance of caring about his trust. Any bidder may have it. There is a recent instance in which an important living of £1,150 a-year was put up and withdrawn because not more than £2,500 could be realized for it. The offer of such a sum, and the contemptuous view taken of the right or trust as one not worth investing in, is disgraceful; and such a scandal should be got rid of by the abolition of sales of advowsons by public auction. We wish, further, to insure publicity in all transactions. For this purpose they should be registered within a definite time in the register of the diocese. Let all documents bearing on the subject be produced, and let the parties make a declaration that there are no other documents connected with the matter, and that there is no secret understanding. That, I think, is a fair demand to make. I am not sure whether your Lordships are aware—I was scarcely aware of it myself until I came to look into this question—that there is now no evidence at all at headquarters as to who is the patron of any living. A name is given in Crockford, or in The Clergy Lint; but there is no certainty as to who really is the patron. The sale takes place perhaps quite quietly, and the patron is not known until a new one starts up when the vacancy occurs. There was a case in my own diocese in which, even after the vacancy, it was not found out for some time who was the patron. All the people most concerned now know nothing of the matter. Surely it ought to be known to the parishioners and to the Bishop, and to the whole Church, who the patron of any living is. The agents who were examined before the Commission pointed out that sometimes a living was sold and resigned within a year without a suspicion arising of the connection of the two events, because no one in authority knew when the sale took place in fact. Clergymen have got into the hands of agent patrons, without knowing that the patron

887
is anything but a clergyman or private gentleman, and the greatest mischief and misery is produced. Registration would confer a great benefit upon us all, if it were only to procure us the knowledge of who the patrons of livings are; but it would further call attention to the facts of cases such as I have just mentioned. There is another subject with which this Bill deals. At present, when a clergyman is presented to a living he comes before the Bishop to be instituted, and makes a declaration that, to the best of his knowledge or belief, he has done nothing simoniacal. It may be imagined that in this respect the mind of an unsatisfactory man is easily satisfied. I desire to replace this declaration by more simple, specific, and unevasive declarations. Let the clergyman or the patron say whether they have or have not done certain acts; the present system is simply a trap for consciences. Another point in which this Bill gives security is that of testimonials. At present a clergyman, as a matter of usage, presents a testimonial; it is now proposed that it should be a matter, not only of usage, but of law. At present these documents are not actually legal documents at all. In this testimonial the clergyman presenting it should be obliged to make a statement of what positions he has held, so that his whole history may be known. The clergy are public servants, and we have the same right to know the secrets of their public life as we have to know the public life of any other public servant. I now pass to a totally different subject—namely, the exercise of patronage. It seems to me to be essential to the good working of any scheme of patronage that the parishioners should not be so utterly ignored as they are at present with regard to the filling-up of the living; but that they should be competent to make objections to be considered by the proper authority, after notice has been given to them as to who is going to be appointed. These objections should not be considered by the Bishop alone, but by such a jury as would be afforded by the Council to which I have already referred. These complaints, if any, would thus be inquired into and judged by a body of clergy and laity; and if they were frivolous a man would come to the parish under greater advantages, after
888
these charges had been examined into and set aside, than if they had been allowed to float about in the parish. On the other hand, a mere majority of the Council ought not to decide the matter; but if two-thirds of the Council, upon examining into the objections, affirm them, then the Bishop may refuse to institute. If there is a majority of the Council, but less than two-thirds, who affirm the objections, then it is left to the Bishop to decide; but if he should reject the man there is an appeal. This provision strengthens the parishioners to make objections. We must also strengthen the Bishop to refuse to institute an unfit person. Objections may be taken to a man for youth or for age. A man ought not to be appointed if over a certain age, and this should be the rule except where it can be shown that he is a capable man for the post. The Bishop should be able to refuse an incapable man; and the Council would act as a jury in deciding as to whether or not a man is physically or mentally incapable of performing the duties of the position. Another cause for which the Bishop should be able to refuse to institute is when a man is so burdened with debt that it is impossible for him properly to discharge the duties of his office. Bishops are all acquainted with such instances. Of what can happen this is an instance. Some years ago an important living in London—St. Giles, Camberwell—worth £2,300 a-year, came into the hands of a clergyman who was burdened with debt to the amount of £56,000, and there was no power to refuse him. He held the living from 1846 to 1879, and during that time, out of that income of £2,300, there was nothing available for the spiritual purposes of the living except £200 a-year. This would be rather more now under the present law; but the thing ought not to be possible at all. The Bishop ought to be able to refuse to institute a man who is incapable of performing his functions to the public benefit. Then, again, in the case of a public scandal, where it is destructive to a man's influence, the Bishop ought to be able to take action so as to prevent him from being accepted. Another security relates to the power of mortgaging livings. That power ought to be taken away. Again, a man ought not to be able to use his living by sequestration for debt. If

889
a clergyman is in debt, his creditors may, by an action, get his living sequestered, the property being handed over to them, and a certain allowance only reserved for the service of the place. Again, in the case of, some of those unhappy persons I have spoken of, the moment they have fallen into the hands of the money-lender they are lost; and the sequestration might go on for a man's life—obviously, if the debt is large and the living small. Let the Bill forbid mortgages, and let us pursue the system already in existence with regard to non-residents. If a man is not in residence for a whole year, or if he is not in residence for certain months in two successive years, the living is ipso facto vacant. If a living is sequestered, and a man cannot get the sequestration removed in one year, let it be ipso facto vacant. The present system makes not only corrupt clergymen, but it makes corrupt tradesmen. The tradesmen give credit because they know they can get the living sequestered. Care is further taken in the Bill that arrangements shall be made so that tradesmen, under existing sequestrations, shall not suffer in regard to goods supplied. There is another precaution still, my Lords. As to the case of lunacy, there is a very curious anomaly in our law. At present a Bishop may certify the fact of a Dean or a Canon being a lunatic, and the stall is vacant ipso facto. This Bill proposes that the proper authority in lunacy should certify the lunacy of an incumbent, and that then the living should become ipso facto vacant. I desire that it should be done with the greatest deliberation, and that when he has vacated in the prescribed manner, he should receive the same pension that he would receive as an incumbent retiring from old age. One other provision to which I beg to call special attention relates to Roman Catholic patrons. All temptation to evasions of the law should be done away. Evidence shows that there is now great temptation to sell next presentations each time, or else to put up trustees as patrons. There is a certain mistrust of Roman Catholic patrons arising out of our past history. Regard must necessarily be had to the many who entertain such mistrust; but, at the same time, justice must be done to the Roman Catholic patrons themselves. If, then, the Roman Catholic patron can satisfy the Council that the person
890
is a satisfactory man to appoint, then the patron shall have the right to appoint him. I would make the Council and the Roman Catholic patron joint patrons, so that both could be served with notice of objection and both be able to appeal. That is in the interest of the Roman Catholic patrons themselves, and I hope that this provision will meet the wishes of the noble Viscount (Viscount Barrington) who so considerately withdrew his Motion last year on this particular question, upon my promising to introduce a measure into a more general Bill. I have made inquiry as to the opinion of the Universities. The Vice Chancellor of Cambridge has replied, so far, that the system is not held in esteem there; and the Vice Chancellor of Oxford, having consulted the Hebdomadal Board, replies that no difficulty would be felt there if a better scheme can be devised. I think that no objection will be offered from the Universities. There is only one other subject to which I have to draw attention. This is the question of donatives. There are about 100 livings in England, most of which are very small, which enjoy this singular position—that the patrons can appoint to them absolutely without reference to any Bishop or any authority whatever. They are also capable of being sold when vacant. As regards all these donatives, there is no record of their sale. There is no institution by the Bishop. The clergyman does not come before the Bishop at all, presents no testimonials or letters of Orders—that is to say, produces no proof that he is a clergyman at all. He acquires the full cure of souls without any authority to check him. The working of these donatives is singular. A Bishop has reason to know that a man wishes to resign his living for one which has been purchased, or because he has sold his own, on his part, and he refuses to accept that resignation. The man informs the agent, who says—"Never mind, I present you with my donative;" and the man then informs the Bishop that he has been appointed, and his former living is vacant. It has been said that a donative is the most powerful instrument of corruption that anyone could have. The Bill proposes to make such livings presentative like all others; but if it is desired to provide a respite for any innocent donatives which may exist—and I believe some of

891
the larger ones particularly have never been abused—I should gladly accept a reasonable Amendment. To sum up, then, my Lords, the statement that I have made seems to present a very dark picture; but I entreat you to remember that you have only the shadows of the picture before you. The evil to be dealt with, nevertheless, is great, and excites the greatest contempt in the minds of those who believe that it represents the system of the Church. If the evils and the scandals to be removed are not very numerous, they are, nevertheless, very great. This measure, if it becomes law, will either end, or will greatly tend to end, a reproach, not only to the Church, but to our national system, in the administration of a great spiritual trust. It is a great hindrance to people who think the scandals prevail more widely than they do, and suppose that there can be little truth or honesty in the Church which allows it. Compared with the Bill before the House of Commons, your Lordships will, I think, acknowledge that this Bill goes further to preserve all that can be considered rights; and it also goes much further to obviate and correct wrongs. It is a more substantial measure by far than that before the other House. The wording and details are, no doubt, susceptible of that improvement which your Lordships are so well able to effect; and I can only say that Amendments will be most acceptable which will carry out the principle of the Bill. I now leave the Bill with confidence in your Lordships' hands; and I ask that your Lordships may accord to it a second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I rise, as no one else rises, to express what I think is the general sense of the House—a feeling of gratitude to the most rev. Prelate for having undertaken this weighty duty, and for the manner in which he has discharged it. The House is not at this stage asked to express an opinion upon any of the particular details of the Bill. There are some of them, no doubt, presenting more difficulties than others. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that the lay Body, of which the most rev. Prelate has more than once spoken very
892
kindly, are of opinion that the constitution of the Council is capable of improvement, and wish that it should be made more representative, and that the element of nomination should, if possible, be curtailed. That is the principal point on which they venture to suggest to the most rev. Prelate a modification of the Bill. I only now wish again to express my gratitude to the most rev. Prelate for the vigorous and efficient manner in which, upon what appear to be thoroughly sound principles, he has endeavoured to grapple with this important subject, and to remove from the Church, not only a serious evil, but also no small scandal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be unwilling to allow the Bill to go to a second reading without joining my voice with my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down in expressing our great gratitude to the most rev. Prelate for the admirable statement which he has made to us, and the great care bestowed upon the Bill. I agree with the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne) that this is, perhaps, not the opportune moment to go into the details with which the Bill bristles, and that we cannot be held, in assenting to the second reading, to do more than accept the general principle, that this House is willing to remove the evils against which the Bill is framed. In view of the state of Business in the other House, I should suggest to the most rev. Prelate that he should have a small Select Committee to which the Bill could be referred. I think if we deal with it only in this House by majorities on questions with which many of those who may vote are not familiar, we shall run some danger of altering the character of the Bill in a way which will not be satisfactory to the most rev. Prelate, and it will be more efficient to refer it to a Select Committee, which need meet but two or three times in order to go through all the suggestions. It is evident that the Council of Patronage is a difficult question. I do not think the most rev. Prelate gave the House a full idea of the amount of power which he intends to confer upon it. Practically, they and the Bishop will have an absolute veto upon any nomination whatever; because they have only to be set in motion by some objecting parishioner and their power is complete. That is obviously a

893
very considerable alteration in the law I doubt whether the provision that the squire should have the right of presentation would be well received by the other House. The most rev. Prelate has introduced two limits to an appointment which are open to considerable doubt. I think that the provision of the Bill that a clergyman over 70 years of age should not continue the exercise of his spiritual functions, even in a small parish, would require consideration. Under the Government which we see before us, I doubt whether we are competent to say that every man over 70 is absolutely incapacitated, even from doing the duty of a small county parish. If a man is unfit to be presented to a living at 70, he is unfit to stay in it; and if the most rev. Prelate is inclined to make an enactment of that kind, it is a matter worthy of consideration whether the distinction he has drawn between appointments and continuance in a living is one he can logically sustain. Still more do I doubt the wisdom of a proposal forbidding the presentation to a living of any man until he has been three years a priest. Extreme youth, no doubt, is usually undesirable for important livings; but all newly-ordained priests are not young; and it is obvious that if a man is ordained in middle life—a thing which happens not infrequently—there can be no reason why he should not be appointed at once to a living if he is deemed fit for it. I take leave to think a hard-and-fast rule objectionable. There is only one other subject to which I wish to make allusion, and that is the question of sequestration. The evils of sequestration are terrible, and I think it is almost impossible to exaggerate them; and, considering how great are the evils arising out of them, I should be inclined to withdraw altogether the income of a clergyman under sequestration. I am not sure that the most rev. Prelate was not a little too hard in dealing with donatives, and he has attempted to deal in rather a cavalier manner with unquestioned rights of private property. I should like these matters to be carefully considered, and I believe that can better be done by a Select Committee than by the Whole House. The rights of private property must be recognized; but I entirely assent to the proposition that those rights must not be allowed to control the more serious aspect of a right
894
foundation of a sacred trust for the benefit of the Church.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, he agreed with the noble Marquess that a Bill of this kind, consisting essentially of details, would be best dealt with by a Select Committee. Objections might be raised which might in that way be easily removed. In many cases the landowners had performed their duty as patrons as well as any class could do; but circumstances had become such that it was a very serious thing to say that Church patronage should be in the hands of the owners of one class of property.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that he would be most happy to accept the suggestion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He hoped that the Committee would not be put off to a distant date, but would quickly meet and consider a question which had been waiting to be dealt with many years.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

"IRELAND (ELECTORAL STATISTICS) RETURN."—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in rising to call attention to the "Ireland (Electoral Statistics) Return," recently laid on the Table of the House, and to ask whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to introduce any measure for the further protection of voters and to insure the secrecy of voting? said, that this Return gave the number of registered electors in each county, city, and borough in Ireland, the number who voted at the late General Election, the number who abstained, and the number who appeared to be illiterate. The summary of the Return showed that there were in the counties 631,649 registered electors, and in the contested divisions of the counties 489,250, of whom 373,863 went to the poll, leaving 115,387 who abstained from voting, and of the 373,863 who voted no fewer than 92,882, or 25 per cent, were illiterate. In the boroughs there were 102,047 registered electors, of whom, in the constituencies in which there were contests, 77,043 went to the poll, 25,404 abstained from voting, and 5,582 were illiterates. He brought forward this subject with the object of pointing out two things—first, the great

895
number of illiterates; and, secondly, the large number of electors who stayed away from the poll. It appeared that in East Clare, out of 10,128 electors, only 6,642 went to the poll, of which 1,186 were illiterate. Therefore, 3,486 abstained from voting. In the county of Cork there were six contests, the number of registered electors in the contested divisions was 43,604, and the number who voted was 30,047, of whom 11,557 were illiterate, and 13,557 abstained from voting. Even a more extraordinary state of things was shown in South Donegal, where the registered electors were 7,864, and the number who voted 6,466, of whom 3,358, or more than half, were illiterate. He would call attention to only one more set of figures, and that with regard to the City of Cork, represented by Mr. Parnell. In that constituency there were 14,569 registered electors, of whom only 8,376 voted, and of that number 1,297 were illiterate. It was an extraordinary thing to find so many illiterates in a city like Cork. The number of electors who abstained from voting was no fewer than 6,193. It was evident that with such a large body of illiterate voters the secrecy generally supposed to attend the Ballot did not exist, or, at all events, the illiterate voter might be influenced as if it did not exist at all. After the Elections of last year two or three letters appeared in various papers, one of which, taken from The Times, purported to be from a gentleman who described himself as an Irish candidate. He stated the case very clearly, observing that a very large proportion of the voters in the three Southern Provinces abstained from voting altogether, and that went far to prove that there was the greatest apathy with regard to Mr. Parnell's proposals for separation. He did not think he exaggerated when he said—"In this country 25 per cent abstained from voting." That bore out his statement. The writer went on to say—
"As things now are, under the wonderful organization of the League, the voters are literally driven to the poll like so many sheep, and numbers of Loyalists were afraid to vote all over the country."
Of course, it might be said that that was an expression of opinion only by a gentleman who was an unsuccessful candidate; but where illiterate voters went into polling booths and saw, perhaps, their
896
priests, and the chairman and secretaries of the local branch of the National League acting as agents for candidates, though they might be sworn to secrecy, could they help fearing that the declaration of secrecy which those gentlemen had made might not be adhered to, and that the voters would imagine that their votes would be known to all? Under the circumstances they would be pretty certain to vote in a certain way. It had even been stated that in some districts the voters had been directed to vote illiterate whether they were so or not, and in that way pressure was brought to bear upon them. He thought that the Report, to which he had called attention, showed that where there was strong popular feeling the Ballot Act was no protection to the voter, as it was intended it should be. He ventured to think that was the case in Ireland.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, the subject brought forward by the noble Earl was, no doubt, one of great interest and importance; and he had thought it right to endeavour to obtain information on the points raised by the Return referred to, with regard to the illiterate voters who were represented to have come forward in such large numbers at the recent elections in Ireland. Certainly, the large number of illiterate voters, as stated in the Return, was surprising. He was unable to follow the noble Earl in the particular instances he had quoted. No doubt those of Donegal and Cork were very remarkable; but he was unable to make any special inquiry with regard to any particular locality. He was unable either to confirm or to deny the statement of the noble Earl that numbers of voters were ordered to declare themselves illiterate in order that it might be known how they voted. He had, however, made inquiries upon the point; but the result of them was not sufficient to enable him to answer the noble Earl on that point. The proportion of illiterate persons in Ireland was 21·8 per cent at the last Election. At the last Census the proportion of illiterate men of 21 years and upwards was 23·5 per cent. That was in 1881, and the Election took place in 1885. It might be said, however, that, the Election having taken place in 1885, it was not fair to compare the two years. The only way of getting a fair comparison

897
was by comparing the number of males married in 1881 who signed the register by marking with the number in 1885. In 1881 the proportion was 26·1 per cent, and in 1885 23·5 per cent. Correcting the Return of illiterates in 1881 on the same basis, the proportion of illiterate males in Ireland last year worked out at about 21·2 per cent. which was almost exactly the same figure as the proportion of illiterates who voted at the last Election. The latter figure was 21·8. That was a remarkable coincidence, and really seemed to show that the proportion of illiterates who voted was the right proportion. What he had stated, no doubt, gave the impression that education in Ireland was at a low ebb. As regarded Donegal, he was well aware that education was very low there; and there was the Irish-speaking population, who might possibly have misunderstood the directions, and have declared themselves illiterate because they could not understand the regulations, which were made in English. He had made inquiry as to the proportion of illiterates over 21 years of age in Ireland as compared with those in England, and it was certainly not satisfactory. At the same time, there had been, with respect to general illiteracy, a satisfactory improvement during the last few years. In 1841 the proportion of illiterates was 52·7; in 1851 it was 46·8; in 1861 it was 38·7; in 1871 it was 33·4; and, finally, in 1881 the proportion had fallen to 25·2. No doubt, the independence of the voter at elections was very important. He did not think he had anything more to add, except that he was not prepared to say, on the part of the Government, that they intended to introduce any measure with regard to this matter, though he might say that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider any strong facts which might be brought to their notice showing the necessity for a change in the law.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the proportion of illiterate voters, according to the statement of the Lord President, did fairly correspond with the Educational Census; but the mode of taking their votes had not been noticed. It was quite obvious that when an illiterate voter was brought into a polling booth and saw three or four extreme local politicians before whom he
898
was to state his vote in office there, although he was told that those gentlemen had made a declaration of secrecy, he could not leave the booth with the idea that his vote would remain secret, and that was the prevailing impression. There might be a difficulty about amending the law, with only the experience of one General Election conducted at high pressure; but the present state of things showed a change to be necessary.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that when the recent Reform Bills were before the House of Commons attention was directed to the subject of illiterate voters. It was suggested from various parts of the House that it was undesirable to maintain the distinction referred to any longer—that if a person had not sufficient intelligence to sign his voting paper he ought not to complain if he lost his vote. He thought ample ground existed, and that there was much in the Return to suggest the importance for reconsidering the whole question of the status of illiterate voters. It was melancholy to reflect upon the fact that of the 373,000 voters in Ireland who voted at the last Election, 93,000, or one fourth of the total voting at the last General Election, were unable to write or read. It was the result of voting of this kind which had returned to Parliament 85 Members of a particular Party pledged to a certain course of action. It was because of the significance which had been attached to such a vote that the matter which was now being considered with such painful anxiety and interest throughout the country was brought forward.
Copy of selection from the representations made to the First Lord of the Treasury by public bodies, in response to the invitation for the free communication of views on Ireland, contained in a letter addressed by the First Lord of the Treasury to Viscount de Vesci on the 12th day of February, 1886, ordered by the House of Commons on the 16th April last to be printed, No, 117; Ordered to be laid before the House (The Lord Ashbourne).

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Friendly Societies Act, 1875—Was presented by The Lord Greville; read 1a. (No. 99.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.