Lords Sitting of 28 February 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Railway and Canal Traffic* (32).
Second Reading—Church Patronage (26), debate adjourned.

DOVER (CORPORATION) HARBOUR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  EARL STANHOPE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it affected only the Inner, or Commercial, Harbour at Dover, the control of which, it proposed to transfer to the Corporation of the town. At present, the Harbour was managed by a Board consisting of the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, two members of the Corporation, one member of the Board of Trade, two representatives of the two Railway Companies having termini at Dover, and a representative of the Admiralty. The chief business of the Board, however, was managed by a local committee of four in a hole-and-corner manner, for they eat with closed doors, and published no accounts. The Bill, which had nothing to do with the Outer Harbour, was supported by the Corporation, by the chief traders, and by the great majority of the ratepayers of Dover. The financial condition of the present Board was shown by the fact that they had to raise money at 4½ per cent; while their management of the Harbour had been so unsuccessful, that the amount of shipping using the Harbour had decreased during the last 20 years by 262 vessels. Thus, though the population of Dover in 1861 was 25,325, it rose in 1881 to 30,292; the rateable value had increased by 55,510 during the same period, and yet the shipping had decreased in number. It had been asserted that the Dover railway companies were hostile to the Bill. It would be found that they merely formally objected to the Second Heading of the Bill, in order to obtain a locus standi before the Committee. In his opinion, there could be no real ground of objection to a measure which had been introduced for the purpose of transferring the Harbour property to a well-constituted Corporation whose sole object would be to provide additional accommodation for the travelling public. It was hoped that, by better management, there would be more traffic and trade at Dover, as the new Board would be able to borrow money at a lower rate of interest than 4¼ per cent—probably, say,

  657
  at 3 per cent—in order to make the improvements which were necessary to develop the Harbour, increase the shipping, and generally to provide greater conveniences for cross-Channel traffic. He contended that it was an anomaly that a prosperous town like Dover should have so very little control over their own harbour. He always understood that it was one of the great principles of the Party opposite that they always encouraged local efforts and local self-government; but on this occasion the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville) seemed to have forgotten their cardinal principle, as he had given Notice of opposition. He (Earl Stanhope) could only imagine that the noble Earl's opposition was due not to any desire to prevent the Second Beading of the measure, but with the view of protecting some little patronage that he might have as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. He felt assured that all objections entertained by the noble Earl could be removed when the Bill was referred to a Committee; and he therefore now begged leave to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to make the Motion of which I have given Notice—namely, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, and in doing so, it is scarcely necessary for me to deny that I have any personal motive in so doing. As Lord Warden, I am ex officio the Representative of the Crown on the Dover Harbour Board, with which this Bill deals. The other members of this representative Body are two burgesses elected by the Town Council, one Representative of the Board of Trade, one of the Admiralty, and one of each railway company having termini at Dover; the number of the Board being seven. The two Representatives of the Government on the Harbour Board and I have been placed in a great difficulty. If the Bill is, as appeared to us, contrary to the principles which, up to this time, have been adopted by successive Governments and by Parliament, and has no primâ facie recommendations, it ought to be stopped by the Government. But if a change of views recommends itself to the Government, we asked ourselves whether we
  658
  had any right to ask—and we certainly had no wish to see—that the money of the Corporation and of the Harbour Board should be spent in Parliamentary Committees, instead of being applied to the proper purposes. In this dilemma, I applied to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade for his advice, and he, in the straightforward and courteous way which has marked all his communications with me, gave us as his opinion that we ought to oppose the Bill. That has relieved us from great embarrassment; our course is clear. But it has not made me less anxious to secure the object without wasteful expenditure of the funds of the two public bodies at Dover. This Private Bill proposes to cancel the principal provisions of the Public Act of 1861, to dissolve the Harbour Board, and to transfer the harbour to the Dover Corporation. The Board has a considerable property, not derived from any local dues, but from former tolls on the passing trade. The revenue at present is spent in improvements on the Harbour, and in reducing the amount of dues on shipping entering the port. A Paper has been communicated to the Board of Trade, showing the great improvements which have been made by us, and the excellence of our financial position. The Bill proposes to transfer all the property and management of the Harbour to the Corporation, with power to apply the income and proceeds of the sale of the Harbour property to the paying off of the town debts and the improving of the town—in other words, to transfer property held in trust for public purposes to a Town Council, whose primary interest would be in the town and not in the Harbour purposes. The management is to be confined to a committee of the Town Council, with, the same representatives as at present, of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and of the two railway companies. The Lord Warden is to be removed, and the Mayor and four more Town Councillors are to be added to those who now sit. The acts of the committee are subject to the Town Council, and the Representatives of the Government will have no place which is supreme. With regard to the removal of the Lord Warden from the Board, I may say the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Palmerston—former Lord Wardens—took especial interest in the work

  659
  of the Harbour. I have tried to follow the example of these illustrious men for more than 20 years. I believe, perhaps too fondly, that my independence of all local interests, and the facilities I had as a Representative of the Crown for communicating with successive Governments of all politics on the business of the Harbour, and thus keeping the Government and Board in harmony, has made me of some use. In personal qualifications, I do not deny that a town councillor might be much more than equal to me; but, in the course of nature, my tenure of the office must be short, and I much doubt whether even five town councillors, all liable to be changed every year—an important circumstance—would make up for the services of such men as the Duke of Wellington, Lord Dalhousie, Lord Palmerston, and of such as I hope will be my successors. I know that the President of the Board of Trade is of opinion that the Lord Warden should not be removed; but I pointed out to him that there would be some incongruity in asking such a man as, for instance, the Duke of Wellington to be a member of the committee of the Town Council, under the Mayor, and subject to the absolute control of a superior body. There is now an intimation that the Lord Warden, the Representative of the Crown, may appoint a representative of himself; but the privilege would not be of much value, as his nominee would be in the same hopeless minority as the Representatives of the Government Departments. I do not clearly gather from the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) what are the primâ facie arguments in favour of the Bill. It is stated that the Government Departments have come to an agreement as to important alterations. But with whom? Neither the Town Council, nor any committee appointed by them, have been consulted or know anything of these alterations. It is stated that the Town Council can, by their credit, give pecuniary aid to the Harbour. The Harbour Board is much obliged at this additional proof of the proverb, that everybody likes to lend to the rich. The Harbour Board has a large property, they can borrow quite as cheaply as the town, and they think the offer a poor compensation for the power claimed to use the Harbour property for town uses. It is said that an arrangement has been come
  660
  to with the railways. It is possible that this has been done privately; but the South Eastern Company's shipping interest is in Folkestone, not in Dover Harbour. As to the London and Chatham, they maybe asked, "It is all very well to dissemble your love, but why do you kick me downstairs?" They have presented a Petition complaining, among other things, of the gross injustice of the composition of the committee of the Town Council and of the power reserved to the Town Council. All the noble Earl's statements are, if I may use the phrase, begging the question—assumptions. He assumes that, if the transfer is made to the shifting body of the Town Council Committee, with the Government Representatives in a helpless minority, great results will flow—more ships in an improved harbour, and greater facilities for continental traffic. If these anticipations have any solid ground, the present management must have been bad in failing to secure such improvements. But I can show that any such insinuation can only be an afterthought. When the Bill was first proposed to the Town Council, the proposer stated distinctly, without a dissentient voice being heard, that there was no complaint against the administration of the Harbour Board. Some such complaints have since appeared, founded on mis-statement of facts; but the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade, 14 days ago, with his usual courtesy, confirmed to the deputation which waited upon him, the assurance of the proposer of the Bill that there were no such complaints, and he assured us that we were not in any sense on our defence. Further, than this, an overwhelming majority of the traders and shipowners, the local parties who are interested in the Harbour, are opposed to the Bill. They have petitioned Parliament against it, urging, among other reasons, that it is unjust to divert Harbour revenues to other purposes, and objecting to the management being placed in the hands of persons who have no knowledge whatever of the duties they will be called upon to perform, and who, before they have time to acquire that knowledge, might all be superseded by others no better qualified than themselves. A considerable number of the most important ratepayers are also against it; but I admit that a majority

  661
  are in its favour. Indeed, it would be odd if they were not so. The present Board is representative and without any pecuniary interest. Though they have always endeavoured to benefit the town, when compatible with their duty to the Harbour, their primary object has been the Harbour. But for the ratepayers, their primary interest is in the Borough; and it is natural that they should be tempted by the idea of discharging the town debts and of improving the town by means of the Harbour property, derived not from local rates, but from former passing tolls. Also there are many ratepayers holders of leases, some of which will shortly expire, and there is to be found in the Bill a peculiar provision which they must greatly appreciate. I do not think that I can be contradicted in saying that the transfer is contrary to the principles on which the Board of Trade and Parliament have acted for many years up to the present day. In some places harbours used to be in the hands of Town Councils, and it was found that their funds were often diverted to local purposes of a different character; and therefore since the passing of the Town Dues Act, the efforts of successive Governments have successfully placed harbours in independent hands. It is true that there are two small ports—King's Lynn and, I believe, Preston—where the money has been provided by security on the town rates, and where, naturally, the management rests with the Town Council. But no such example exists with regard to large national harbours in this country; they are all managed by independent authorities, and that policy has always been upheld by Parliament. Your Lordships will have remarked that my contention is, that this Bill is not founded on any charge of mal-administration by the present Harbour Board, and that it proposes a policy in direct opposition to that which has been advocated by successive Governments and by Parliament up to the present time, and that no arguments of any weight have been advanced for such a change. But, even if the substance of the Bill wag good, there is a grave objection of form which must be fatal to it. It is a Private Bill, promoted suddenly at the latest moment consistent with the Standing Orders. This Private Bill cancels the principal provisions of a
  662
  public Act of 1861. Such a proposal, now made for the first time, is contrary to the principles and practice of Private Bill Legislation, and would, as many of your Lordships must be aware, have excited the lively indignation of the late lamented Lord Redesdale. It is certain that he would never have been a party to it. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade will probably make a statement to your Lordships. I know that he is hampered by a pledge he gave to the Promoters of the Bill, that he would not oppose the Bill. It was shown at a meeting of the Board of Trade that this decision was founded on exclusively one-sided information; but what I would request the noble Lord to state is, whether, at the time of his decision, his attention had been called, or whether it had occurred to him, that this Bill is, as I have said, contrary to the principles and to the practice of Private Bill Legislation in this House, dealing in the manner it does with a public Act. I think I have a right to appeal to the noble Duke the Chairman of Committees, whether it is in his opinion well to create such an innovation; and I would extend the appeal to noble and learned Lords who have studied and observed the ways of this House. It has been urged that the principle of this Bill is a great one—namely, the extension of local government. I am in favour of such a principle, and I think it desirable that municipalities should have increased power; but the principle of self-government is that those who pay should be represented in the body that spends their money, not, as it will be in this case, the money of others; but the question remains whether this extension should be, in this particular direction, by means of a Private Bill. If the Government think this change of policy should be adopted, they should propose a public enactment dealing with the general question. But even if they shrink from being logical, and prefer to make the experiment at first only in one instance, let them give that experiment the best chance. Let Glasgow or Liverpool try it with their great and powerful Corporations. The Corporation of Dover is most respectable; but it is only the ruling body of a small town which cannot be put in comparison with the great cities I have named in import-

  663
  ance, wealth, or population; and, on the other hand, Dover Harbour is not a mere local harbour. It is a national port, and one of the chief highways to the Continent. It is strongly fortified. A great extension of the Harbour has been sanctioned for Imperial purposes, and the last Committee of the House of Commons recommended, in accordance with Minutes of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, that it should be placed under the present Board, strengthened, not by more members of the Corporation, but by more Representatives of the Government Departments. I venture to say to your Lordships, do whatever may be right, but do it in the right way. This House is subject, like other institutions, perhaps more so, to criticisms, sometimes of a friendly, sometimes of a hostile character. I, like others of your Lordships, have not shrunk in this House and out of it, sometimes before most unfavourable audiences, to defend it against accusations which seemed to be unjust. One of our battle-horses has always been the admirable, judicial conduct by this House of its Private Business; I appeal to your Lordships whether we have yet heard any single argument in favour of the advantage, the importance, and the urgency of this Bill, to induce you to abandon all the time-honoured traditions of our Private Bill Legislation in this Assembly, in order to encourage such a measure as this. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Earl Granville.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON)said, the matter was not one of such great dimensions as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) appeared to have assumed, and the course that had been adopted was not contrary to the public interest, or to the usual course pursued in questions of the kind. Notwithstanding what the noble Earl had said, he (Lord Stanley of Preston) contended that the Board of Trade neither had, nor was it their province to take up a position antagonistic to the Harbour Board on the one hand, or one of encouragement to the promotion of this
  664
  measure on the other. Having regard to precedent, they had looked only to the general feeling of the town in the matter, and, doing so, there was reason why the Board should not oppose the Bill ab initio, but should allow it to be subjected to thorough investigation, and to stand or fall by its own merit He could join the noble Earl in the tribute he had paid to the Dover Harbour Board, as to the manner in which that body had carried on its financial and other work; but, while he said that, he could not disguise from himself the fact that there was a strong feeling in the town that there had not been that advance as to harbour facilities in the Port of Dover which might have been expected, and which the current trade of the place demanded; and it was felt that if the Harbour was in the hands of persons who were more deeply ooncerned in the interests and trade of the port—who would take a more lively interest in its affairs, and who would have the power of raising loans on the larger security of the Borough rates—great advantages would be gained. When the matter came before him in December last, he suggested that certain alterations should be made in the Bill, and that it should, before passing, be referred to a Hybrid Committee of either House for consideration. He did not think that the course taken was exceptional, further than that, in this case, there were naval and military considerations mixed up with the municipal and commercial question; but the Bill would not interfere with the outer roadstead or the Admiralty Pier, and it was not opposed by the Naval and Military Authorities. He had a list of 20 cases in which Corporations acted as Harbour Authorities; and there were other cases in which Corporations, although they were not themselves the Harbour Authorities, practically controlled those who were. The promoters of the Bill, he believed, were quite ready to adopt a clause to secure that the Harbour dues should always be applied to Harbour purposes; and, therefore, the Board of Trade had allowed the Bill to go forward. He did not appear as either the advocate, or the opponent of the Bill. At the same time, he felt very strongly that where a town was endeavouring, and making strenuous efforts to increase the trading facilities of its port, and doing so in a manner which, as it seemed

  665
  to him, did not appear to interfere with other public interests, it was not the duty of the Board of Trade to stand in the way. He believed their Lordships would be well advised if they allowed the Bill to be read a second time, as, in that case, another tribunal could deal with the complicated points at issue, and, after inquiry of that kind, their Lordships would be in a position more clearly to determine whether, on the whole, the points advanced by the noble Earl were such as outweighed the general considerations in favour of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he opposed the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that no reply had been given to the objection of his noble Friend (Earl Granville); that the Bill was practically a private measure which proposed to interfere with a body which had been created by a public Act for public purposes, and reasons of national import. No one could doubt that if it were impossible to separate the management of the Inner Harbour from that of the Roadstead, local interests must be subordinated to those of the nation. He objected to public legislation being repealed by means of private Bills, considering it a most dangerous thing, as the latter had not the same safeguards.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, it was important to adhere to principle in these matters, and the principle which had been firmly established for many years in appointing Harbour Boards was that of having them elected expressly for Harbour purposes. He had received that morning a paper which had the appearance of coming from his own side of the House; but it had led him to the conclusion that he should vote against the second reading unless there was more to be said for it than he had heard yet.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he could assure their Lordships that the Harbour finances would, if the Bill passed, be entirely distinct from those of the local government of the town, and that no part of the Harbour property would be devoted to Corporation uses. As to the objection raised regarding the repeal of a Public Act by a Private Bill, he might say that the Admiralty had insisted that the provisions of the Dover Harbour Act of 1882 should be repealed.
  666
  But, at any rate, the noble Duke the Chairman of Committees (the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos) had, after full consideration, allowed the Bill to proceed to a Second Reading, and, therefore, had practically over-ruled the objection.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he trusted some Member of the Government would offer some reply to the point raised by his noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) in regard to a matter of great national importance. The only important harbour managed by a Corporation was that of Bristol.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked if they were to have no further declaration of the views of the Government on this matter? He was entirely in ignorance whether they were going to support or vote against the ordinary principle and practice of both Houses with regard to Private Bills overlapping public measures.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he had always been brought up to believe that these matters were not to be made Party measures.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not sought to make this a Party matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was a question of the practice of the House. As to the remarks of the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne), he (the Marquess of Salisbury) must say he had the greatest possible respect for him; but he had always thought, when on the Front Opposition Bench, and when the noble and learned Earl was Lord Chancellor, that he was a little of a formalist in these matters, and he thought so still. He thought the noble and learned Earl wrong then, and he thought him wrong still. He thought the House might judge of these matters for itself, and to declare that something laid down by a Public Act could never be infringed upon by a Private Bill, was to lay down a rule which could not possibly be observed, and which was absolutely untenable in practice. It was obvious that any kind of Private Bill Legislation must upset something which had been provided by Public Statute, and such a doctrine as the noble and learned Earl had attempted to lay down was abso-

  667
  lutely unfitted to the practice of the House. The matter was one that depended a good deal upon details which could be argued better before a Private Bill Committee than in that House. It seemed to him to be eminently a Bill which was fitted to be dealt with by a Private Bill Committee. If he were asked whether he would vote in favour of, or against, the Bill becoming law, he might have some difficulty in giving a final answer at present; but he was not asked that question. He was asked whether it was not a Bill that ought to be decided by a Private Bill Committee; and as this was a matter which was to be argued out before the proper tribunal, he would say that the Bill ought to be sent before a Select Committee. The matter was one which depended a good deal upon details, upon the evidence of individuals; and he thought it would be more proper that it should be argued in a Committee than before that House.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, it was not a mere question of a Private Bill interfering with the enactments of a Public Bill. It was a question of a Private Bill introduced by a Corporation, for the purpose of taking to themselves the property of a Body constituted by a Public Act for a public purpose. There was no precedent for such a course of procedure as that, and no case had been cited by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Preston) of its ever having been done. If they passed the Bill, they would lay down a precedent which might be followed by every town possessing a harbour.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was bound to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that there were precedents in favour of the Amendment of a Public Act by private legislation. The case of the Thames Embankment and the Metropolitan District Railway went to prove there was no absolute and inflexible rule against infringing Public Acts in a Private Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he must point out that what he said was that there was no precedent for a Private Bill taking away from a Public Authority powers which it possesses, and which had been conferred upon it by Act of Parliament.
  On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 50; Not-contents 45: Majority 5.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.

ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SANDHURST, AND ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—REPORT OF THE BOARD OF VISITORS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL of STRAFFORD, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether any of the recommendations of the Board of Visitors at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich (presented to Parliament in 1886), have been or are likely to be carried out? said, he wished to point out that the Report of the Board of Visitors on the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, for 1886 stated that the annual inspection was made on the 30th of June last. The health of the cadets was reported good, the average daily number of sick being 3·78 on an average strength of 304. Discipline was also good, unpunctuality being the principal shortcoming. The conduct, tone, and spirit were also stated to be good. The Board recommended that a sword of honour should be given to the best conducted of those about to get a commission, as at Woolwich. Shooting with the rifle and revolver were reported good, owing to many cadets belonging voluntarily to a rifle club. The Board recommended for consideration that a practical course of shooting with both weapons should be introduced as a voluntary subject, and that the cadets should have rifle instruction, with a view to their utility with their regiments. It was further pointed out that the quartermaster, who acted for both Staff and Cadet Colleges in that capacity, and as acting Ordnance and Commissariat Officer, only received the pay of an Infantry quartermaster. This case appeared to be very exceptional, and the Board were of opinion that it required exceptional treatment. Then there was the question of gas in the riding school. The Board fully concurred in the recommendation that the introduction and use of gas would make it possible for riding classes to be held

  669
  on winter afternoons. In regard to the changes in hospital arrangements, he remarked that the previous recommendations of the Board had been fully carried out, and the medical officer was completely satisfied with the present arrangements. The furniture in the cadets ante-rooms was certainly unfit for further use, and the Board recommended this as a case for favourable consideration. The clerks' and mess meeting rooms were devoid of ventilation, and lighted only by skylights which did not open; they were unfit for habitation. The Board recommended the opening out of a window in each room, which could be done at a small expense and would look well. The Board also recommended a new roof for the racquet-court, as the defective and leaky condition of the old one rendered the court useless in wet weather, when it was most needed. The former recommendations which had not received attention were (1) accommodation of the servants in the College estate, which was desirable both from a disciplinary and sanitary view; (2) provision of lavatory and dressing room adjoining gymnasium, the cost of which was proposed to be equally divided between the War Department and the Royal Military College Mess Fund. With these exceptions the Board were highly gratified with the result of the inspection. The visit to Woolwich Academy was made on July 2, 1886. In this case it was found that the normal number of terms (two) per year and the courses of study had been returned to, the extraordinary circumstance of the last two years having ceased. The deficient accommodation for cadets was strongly remarked upon by the Board. There were 230 cadets on the roll—30 over the establishment—22 rooms holding three cadets each. At the last visit of the Board, 15 rooms held three cadets each, and on that occasion the Board animadverted on the arrangement, which forbids privacy to the cadets, and prevents the erection of partitions in the rooms. The conduct of the cadets was good, the large number of terms, numbering 16, which were lost being attributable to the admission of nearly all qualified candidates. The reception of cadets suffering from illnesses of an infectious order, or requiring isolation, was at the Herbert Hospital. The Governor of
  670
  the Royal Military Academy, who had no control here, stated that the accommodation was only that of a private soldier. The Board most fully endorsed his recommendation that a private room should be fitted up for the accommodation of cadets so suffering. The hot-water supply to the bath rooms was still deficient, although recommended by the Board on two previous occasions. The daily average of sick was shown to be 2·9 on an average of 219 cadets.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS), in reply, said, the recommendations of the Board of Visitors, of which the noble Earl (THE EARL of Strafford) was Chairman, were considered so important by the present First Lord of the Treasury, the War Office, and by the Secretary of State that they had endeavoured, as largely and rapidly as possible, to carry out the changes recommended in the Report; but he was sorry to say they had not been able to carry out all the changes in such a way as the Report suggested. The difficulty of finding sufficient sleeping accommodation for the number of cadets at Woolwich was one of funds. The estimate for the work was £22,000, but it was not practicable to find the money at present, in view of many other Services of an even more urgent character. An arrangement was, however, in contemplation for reducing the length of the course, by which the number of cadets at one time would be reduced, thereby increasing the accommodation for those who were there. The room at the Herbert Hospital which the Board suggested should be fitted up for the reception of cases of infectious disease, was, he regretted to say. not available at present, but as soon as possible the matter would be dealt with. With regard to Sandhurst, nearly all the recommendations had been carried out. It had been determined to confer some distinction, as a sword of honour, on the best-conducted cadet of those about to be commissioned at the end of each half-year. Ammunition for voluntary revolver shooting had been issued to the cadets, but it had not been thought necessary to make shooting a part of the course. The recommendations with regard to Woolwich would be carried out by the War Department as rapidly as circumstances permitted.

THE CURRENCY, GOLD AND SILVER (ROYAL COMMISSION).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, in rising to call the attention of the House to the terms of reference in the instructions to the Royal Commissioners appointed 21st September, 1886, to inquire into matters connected with the currency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and to ask Her Majesty's Government, If they would consent to amend the terms of reference for the purpose of including in the scope of the Inquiry before the Commission a special reference to Agriculture, namely, as to whether the appreciation of gold and the difference in the exchange value of the rupee in England and in India had had any special effect on the agricultural industry of the United Kingdom; and whether the continued fall in the value of all agricultural produce, and consequently of the selling value of land in England and Ireland, was in any degree attributable to a disturbance of values brought by currency complications? said, he had very great hesitation in bringing the subject before their Lordships, not only on account of the extremely uninviting character of the subject and the difficulty of dealing sufficiently with all its details, but also because it was one that required a long and careful statement. Questions connected with the currency had formed the subject of inquiry to many persons, and at the present time a great portion of the Press, especially in the North of England, was filled with daily contributions on this subject from persons who were connected with trade and agriculture. The subject had been brought prominently to the notice of their Lordships in the report of the late Lord Iddesleigh's Commission on the Depression of Trade. It had been brought to his (the Duke of Marlborough's) attention in attempting to arrive at some ground for explaining to himself the reasons for the great commercial depression which had extended over every branch of our industries. In studying the question it appeared to him—as it did to that Commission—that the appreciation of gold and the difference in the exchange value of the rupee in England and in India had a wider bearing on the existing depression than was sometimes acknowledged. There was nothing more certain than that the one
  672
  object which they should seek to arrive at was the stability of value. As this country became more divided by an advancing civilization into the two classes of creditor and debtor, of capital and labour, it became more and more necessary that the relations between them should be of a fixed and permanent character. Generation after generation pledged the credit of the future generation which succeeded; and unless the medium of exchange which was the standard of value was of a fixed character the one class would suffer for the advantage of the other. Now, it was his object to lay before their Lordships certain arguments and reasons which bore upon the subject from the point of view of whether any one of those interests had suffered to the advantage of the other. History taught that stability of value in trade was the invariable accompaniment of political quiet and contentment, and wherever we found the classes engaged in trade suffering in their manufactures there one always found political unrest and disquiet. The fluctuations in trade and in the exchanges of value had been aptly compared with the diurnal phenomena of oceans and storms. Of such phenomena Lord Liverpool was an early observer; for it was in 1805—he (the Duke of Marlborough) thought—that he (Lord Liverpool) laid down his theories as to the principles upon which our currency should be based. He was unfortunately accepted as a true prophet in his day, but, nevertheless, he spoke with hesitation as to the consequences of his theory and the results of the legislation he proposed. On page 161 of his letter he said—
  "I do not pretend that a new system of coinage founded on the principles which I have endeavoured to establish will be in all respects perfect; for the nature of the subject does not admit of absolute perfection. I am sensible that it will be liable to the first of the imperfections stated in an earlier part of this letter—that is, that the metal of which this standard coin or principal measure of property is to be made will vary in its value in successive periods, even with respect to itself. It has been shown that this imperfection is so inherent in the subject that it does not admit of a remedy. This variation may be occasioned either by a greater or less production of the mines from which one or other of these precious metals is obtained."
  When, however, Lord Liverpool's legislation was adopted by this country, the enormous expansion in the volume of trade was not and never could have been

  673
  foreseen any more than the enormous effects brought about by the introduction of steam and electricity in altering the whole conditions of our mercantile arrangements. Now, the important tact with, regard to this question was that as the volume of trade had expanded the volume of the currency had remained the same. It was manifest that if the volume of produce decreased very rapidly and the volume of currency remained stagnant prices would rise; wherever, on the other hand, the body of currency diminished and the volume of produce increased there was a fall. The question then arose in what degree the depression of trade since 1870 had been brought about by a scarcity of the currency. He thought that it could be shown that the whole of our commercial and agricultural depression was owing to the appreciation of the gold standard. From statistics which were available it could at once be seen whether the production of gold was increasing in a sufficient ratio as compared with the increasing volume of trade. Previous to the year 1870 the large discoveries of gold in California and in Australia had caused some £30,000,000 of gold to be poured into Europe. Since 1870, however, the production of gold had fallen to £ 17,000,000 annually, nearly one-half of which was absorbed by the arts. Therefore, during the last 15 years there had only been Borne £130,000,000 of gold available for the currency of the world. Moreover, during the whole of that time there had been great demands made upon the gold resources. Thus, since 1873 Germany had consumed £80,000,000, the United States £100,000,000, and Italy £20,000,000 in replacing their silver by a gold currency, making a total of £200,000,000 of gold which had been absorbed by those three nations. During the same period India had likewise absorbed some £4,000,000 of gold annually. Nothing was more curious in connection with that question than the fact that the output of gold and silver taken together had hardly varied at all during the period to which he had referred. In 1870 the output of gold was £21,500,000, and in 1885 it was £17,000,000; whereas in 1870 the output of silver was £10,333,000, and in 1885 it was £21,000,000. Therefore, the combined output of gold and silver was £31,700,000 in 1870 and£38,000,000
  674
  in 1885. Those figures showed a slow but healthy growth in mining industries which was consistent with the rise in the volume of trade. Therefore, if silver had not been demonetized we should not have suffered from the great commercial crisis through which we were now passing. A well-known Member of the other House of Parliament had delivered an address on this subject which was well worthy of attention. Mr. Samuel Smith, M.P., in referring to the fall in the value of gold and silver taken together, said—
  "Allowing that there are about equal values of the two metals in the world, in place of gold values falling 40 per cent and silver values 10 per cent, in silver countries there would have been an average fall of 25 per cent all round. The last crushing 15 per cent falls with crushing effect upon trade."
  How did this appreciation of gold and this depreciation of silver affect the two great classes in this country which represented capital and labour, or perhaps he might say creditor and debtor? Capitalists of all descriptions found that the 3 or 4 per cent which they received in the shape of interest upon their funds had a greater purchasing power than it had formerly, while the manufacturer had had to sacrifice more and more of his produce every year to pay his gold debt. It would, perhaps, be useful for him at this point to call attention to England's standing capital account. On the capital side of the account must be placed the public Debt of £750,000,000, bearing £23,000,000 interest; railway bonds and preference shares, £500,000,000, bearing £20,000,000 interest; municipal debts, £160,000,000, bearing £6,400,000 interest; land mortgages, £500,000,000, bearing £20,000,000 interest; capital mortgages, £500,000,000, bearing £20,000,000 interest; town rents, £30,000,000 a-year; mining royalties, £8,000,000 a-year; and annuities, £18,000,000 a-year. This gave a total capital of £4,000,000,000, which was probably about half the capital of the country, bearing interest to the amount of £150,000,000 per annum, which had to be paid out of the labour produce of the country. One peculiar feature of the present state of things was that the money market was in a perpetual state of commotion, that there were constant fluctuations in the Bank rate, and that the trader was continually involved in difficulties which it was impossible for

  675
  him to foresee beforehand. There was much difficulty at the present time to find any really good and sound investment for capital. If it were possible to find any substance which could be made to serve as a legal tender in place of gold for the payment of debts and of taxes, there would be a cessation of those difficulties which were connected with the fluctuations of the Bank rate—that was to say, that the banks would no longer be able to make a large profit out of the depressed condition of trade. It had always been the case, from time immemorial, that silver had been a legal tender in this country, and it was still a legal tender among 700,000,000 of the population of the world. A paper currency would not pay debts, because its value depended upon its foreign exchange. If silver could be used today at its market value to discharge debts its value would rise permanently to 15½ to 16 to 1 compared with gold. It was remarkable how exactly the value of wheat rose and fell with that of silver. This Commission had been instructed to inquire into the effect of the rate of exchange upon the trade of this country with India during the last 20 years. The Commission was instructed to inquire whether there had been an appreciation of the gold and a depreciation of the silver standard; but there was no Instruction to the Commission to inquire into the effect, if any, which had been produced upon our agriculture, and to ask whether agriculture in this country was suffering from a state of things in which a bonus was given to the Indian cultivator, which bonus was withdrawn from the English. In England and in our Colonies we had a gold currency; in India we had a silver currency; and therefore we had, by some means or other, to try to arrive at a stable exchange between the two. If there was a silver currency in so near a country as Scotland, while we had a gold currency in England, we should at once see the falseness of the position. As silver became of less and less value in England, Scotchmen would be able to export their cattle at cheaper prices to the disadvantage of the English agriculturist, and we should not long stand such a state of things. The question of the currency had an intimate bearing on the whole social relations of the
  676
  country, since it affected the debtor and the creditor, and if the interest of the one was advanced to the detriment of the other we should have instability in the social condition. The noble Duke concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of): The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) has approached the subject in a very interesting speech—a subject which often elicits high individual ability, but which, according to my observations, seldom attracts very enthusiastic attention on the part of any assembly. I do not presume to be confident in following the noble Duke into the very abstruse portions of his speech; but I may say, in answer to his Question, that I have put myself in communication with the Chairman of the Commission which is appointed to inquire into the subject, and he assures me that the terms of Reference under which they act include the matter which the noble Duke desires to see included—namely, the effect which the appreciation of gold and the undoubted difference in the exchange value of the rupee has had upon the agriculture of this country. I feel the greater hesitation in following the noble Duke because most of the matters to which he has referred are sub Judice in this Commission; they are precisely the matters to which the Commission is giving its attention, upon which it is receiving a great deal of evidence, and upon which we may hope to have a deliverance before long. I agree with the noble Duke as to the extreme importance of the question. It is important to agriculture as well as to all branches of production in this country. It is not in itself abstruse, it is very obvious, that if the price of gold is rising, the price of other produce for which gold is given will fall, and the position of the producer, whether manufacturer or agriculturist, is this—while the price of his produce falls immediately, the interest of the capital which he has borrowed to carry on his business does not fall at all, and the wages which he pays his workmen do not fall for a long time, for men are very tenacious of the nominal rate of wages. It therefore follows, as a matter of course, that any fall of the standard of value must bear hardly upon

  677
  all producers, and upon all those who sustain the commerce and manufacture and agriculture of the country—on all those, in short, who gain their livelihood not so much by labour as by risk. But when the noble Duke goes on to say—as I understand him to say—that the whole of the suffering which the land has experienced during the last few years is due to this appreciation of gold, I think he exaggerates its effects a good deal. There have been too many obvious causes besides the appreciation of gold under which the landowner and land occupier suffer. There has been a succession of the most unfavourable seasons, and the extreme competition of America, which is not produced by any fall or rise in the standard of values but simply by the acceleration in the methods of communication, which undoubtedly, in the first instance, has produced this fall of prices from which agriculture suffers the question, again, as to the remedy is not, in my judgment, so simple as the noble Duke deems it to be. It would be rather hasty to speak positively before we have the evidence of the Commission before us; but it is by no means proved that any Government has it in its power to remedy this disturbance of the standard of value, even though we admitted that this disturbance is guilty of all the results which the noble Duke imputes to it. There are several things to be proved which are not proved yet. We must show that it is possible for us to get rid of the difference of standard which exists between England and India, or, we might say, between India and Europe. Everything which we have been able to learn shows that it would be a task of the extremest difficulty, and it is a task from which all Indian statesmen have shrunk. You cannot deal by logical propositions with the sentiments of a people—still less with the sentiments of a people numbering such multitudes as are found within the confines of India, so deeply attached to the conditions under which they have lived for centuries past. I have seen schemes for altering the standard in India; I have no doubt the noble Viscount beside me (Viscount Cross) and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) have seen such schemes; but I have seen none that would commend themselves to the judgment of any Ministry. Again, any advantage to be produced by the bi-metallic
  678
  remedy, supposing it were possible—which has not been proved—to establish a permanent relation of value between silver and gold, and to prevent circumstances from altering their substantial values when the nominal values are fixed by law, you could only realize by an agreement among all the coin-using nations of the world. What chance is there of that? I am afraid we must advance very much more than we have done in the path of International Concert before any such achievement can be anything but a speculation. My Lords, these are very interesting subjects, but they are far too abstruse to be dealt with in an Assembly such as this. They have been referred to a Commission, which is examining them with great care, and which, I trust, will before long give matter for consideration to those interested in the question. I can assure the noble Duke and the House that the matters of profound importance to which he has called attention are being the subject of the investigation of the Commission, and they will give them all the consideration in their power.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 26.)
  (The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the scheme was not a new one. He had been allowed, on a previous occasion, to enter into a detailed statement of its provisions. The Bill embodied a scheme which had grown into its present shape very gradually, and after a great deal of careful review and supervision. In 1874 a Select Committee of the House of Lords was appointed on the matter, after that a Royal Commission sat, and Bills had been brought before both Houses. The subject had been before the clergy in Convocation and before the House of Laymen, and by all these Bodies the principles of the Bill had been approved. Since the Bill was before their Lordships last Session 13 Diocesan Conferences, besides those which had done so previously, had also considered and approved it. Only one Diocesan Conference had pronounced unfavourably to the Bill, or, rather, had declined to recommend it

  679
  as originally introduced. The very important Select Committee of last Session had treated the Bill in a way for which all who cared for its principles must be grateful. Their Lordships might, therefore, feel well assured that the Bill had received—word by word—the most careful consideration. The only material alteration made since the Select Committee reported on the Bill was in Clause 10. It was now proposed that members should hold office for three years from the time of the triennial election, and not from the time of their own election, if they had been elected at a broken period. There was nothing now to prevent what it was hoped that henceforth a real check would be placed upon—namely, the exceedingly gross evils which attended the sale and transfer of patronage. The very terms of the law as they now existed were actually used as a means of furthering these gross evils. Facts which existed by provisions of the law were sometimes made the most effective instruments for promoting transactions of which they were all ashamed. The evils were not very wide, and the prevalence of them was exaggerated; but although not very wide they were very gross. As scandals they were particularly offensive to the most sensitive feelings about subjects of the most sacred character. They wounded our sense of right in regions in which right ought to be absolute. As weapons they were most effective in the hands of the enemies of the Church, though the Church herself might be as keen and as anxious as possible to have the evils redressed. But what was worst of all was that the scandals to which he referred brought wrongs and injuries to the parishes subject to these transactions, and they must recognize the fact that the evils weakened the Church where she ought to be strongest—in her ministry. Those evils, then, ought to be met just as other gross, yet not widespread, evils were met—by legislation, which would most carefully and cautiously touch the evils without inflicting any further disaster. It was no defence of them to say that they introduced excellent men of means into livings. That was not denied; but, under any circumstances, such men—whom the Church so valued for their work—would be always forthcoming, and would enter on it by ways more satisfactory to themselves. There were
  680
  hundreds of patrons to whom the advowsons possessed no money value. Nothing would induce them to part with an advowson for money. Many other patrons in selling would only dispose of the advowsons to persons who would take the utmost care as to the use to which they might be applied. But beyond these two broad bands of patrons—those who would not sell an advowson for money, and those who, while exercising the right to sell, took precaution, that they were selling only to persons who would exercise the right as they themselves did—there was what he might call a floating zone of livings, not so numerous as had been asserted, but which came again and again into the market, and which, being capable of being used for ill purposes, gave rise to most of the scandals. It had been said that about a third of the livings which were in private hands had been sold again and again; but that appeared to be exaggeration. There seemed no reason to suppose that above a tenth of the livings of the Church had been systematically subjected to the action of which he had complained. There was, moreover, a quietly-working tendency to bring a great deal of patronage into the hands of unsatisfactory patrons. Clergymen had a greater temptation than anyone else to purchase livings when the sum to be paid was small and there was an expectation of better times. In parts of the country where the livings were small many had passed lately into the hands of clerical patrons. These were induced either to purchase livings because they yielded to them so high an interest, or to bring up members of their family, not necessarily fitted for the holy office, to inherit the advowson. The Bill was not intended, and could not be construed, into any ratification of the system of sale. That system must simply be accepted as a fact, and as a fact which could not be altered within any measurable period of time, but as a system, the abuses of which it was lawful and most needful to correct. Since the Bill was originally presented an alteration had been made in the 2nd clause, giving it in words its proper prohibitive force. The clause now provided that no rights of Church patronage should in consideration of money or money's worth be granted or assigned unless the person to whom such

  681
  rights were granted or assigned had a bonâ fide interest in the good of the parish, or was interested in the good of the Church. Opportunity was given for learning that which the Church had a right to be assured of, and he was sure that no honest person would ever have any difficulty in showing that he had an interest in the parish, or that he purchased with a view of the good of the place in which the church was situated, and that he had no intention of presenting unfit persons to the living. The only persons who would be prohibited from purchasing were agents, or persons who would be unable to make a declaration that they were not purchasing in consideration of money or money's worth to be received by them, or were unable to say that they had not entered into any covenant with the present incumbent that he should retire at some future time. The Bill was framed upon two principles which he fearlessly asserted their Lordships would agree with. The first of these principles was that an advowson was a sacred trust—a spiritual trust. Not a mere commercial interest in a marketable ware, but a trust in the same sense in which official appointments were trusts unsubjected to sale. What Cabinet would dream of vending, say, Colonial Governorships? He was very well aware that the word "trust" had two meanings, and of course he did not mean that it was a legal trust; but an advowson had never ceased to be a trust according to the definitions of the past. The most popular treatises and the best authors—as Phillimore, Gibson's Codex, and Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity—regarded advowsons as a sacred trust. They were described as "trusts for the benefit of the souls of men." He need not add more than to remind their Lordships of the words with which the Prime Minister concluded his speech last Session, when he said that private rights must be recognized, yet must not be allowed to control the more serious aspect of a right foundation of a sacred trust for the benefit of the Church. It had been urged by a great authority (the Earl of Selborne), at the last introduction of this Bill, that the Council proposed in it should have more of an elective character. That had been worked out with care by the Select Committee, and with that new element fully provided for it
  682
  now came forward. The Council should have real power, in order to inspire confidence in the Church. The Council was made capable, if funds or livings were put at its disposal, of becoming itself a patron. It remained to be seen whether it would become so to a large extent. He did not believe it would. But it would, which was more important, put a stop to the scandals connected with floating livings. The check to scandals was proposed to be given by defining the Bishop's power to refuse, and the grounds on which he might refuse, an unfit person. The Bishop's capability of inquiry ought to be strengthened by a kind of council or jury of an equal number of clerical and lay members, whose function it would be to make real the power of inquiry which now, to some extent, existed. The second principle he submitted as fearlessly to their Lordships. It was this—that the trust in question is a trust which so vitally affects a parish, on each exercise of it, for a generation, or, at the least, many years, that the parish ought, before the appointment is made, to be enabled to state to the Bishop any knowledge it possessed of such objections as a Bishop would find it proper to refuse upon. The parish was brought in as witness upon certain points. Many patrons would welcome this opportunity of being able to introduce, in a proper, formal manner, the name of the person they intended to appoint, and to be able to receive objections of a limited and special kind, based on knowledge. If this were adopted, they would, he was certain, avoid much of the feeling which sometimes arose. Had it not been for a lack of such knowledge, he himself would never have made a certain appointment to a living in his own gift to an improper person—the thought of which was a daily distress to him—if he had only let the name been known beforehand. It was recommended to him in the highest way. He did his best, and his informants placed the information they had at his disposal. But if the name had been affixed to the church door he would have been delivered from the misfortune, and the parish would have been delivered from an unsuitable rector. The Bill was intended to carry out these two principles—that the advowson was a trust the exercise of which should always be, as

  683
  in most cases it was, no matter of money, and that the persons affected by the discharge of the trust ought to be able to make definite objections beforehand, based upon knowledge. Other points, formerly dwelt upon at length, could be discussed in Committee. The evils, then, to be corrected were gross, although often exaggerated, and they were quite capable of being healed. The proposed remedies had been examined and re-examined by most competent persons, and it was believed to be capable of effecting what was required, and, what was equally important, of effecting no more. He, therefore, laid the Bill before their Lordships in the hope that they would allow it to be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD GRIMTHORPE, in rising to move the rejection of the Bill, said, he thought that at that hour (7 o'clock), and in the very thin state of the House, some of their Lordships might prefer to adjourn the discussion of so important a Bill, which required much more explanation than it had received in that House. It could hardly be said to have been discussed in the conversational speeches that were made last year, and no attempt had been made to show that the Bill would cure the evils against which it was said to be directed. Moreover, no importance could be attached to the friendly discussion it had received in a Committee containing five Bishops and the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne) who had spoken in favour of the Bill. Such a Bill could not be properly discussed, except with a hostile witness, with an eye for defects. It was not only a most important Bill, but he did not think anyone would dispute that the measure was by far the most revolutionary that had ever been introduced in reference to the Church since the Long Parliament. There was no substantial discussion on the Bill last year; and, in point of fact, its real objects and defects had never yet been stated in the House, for it did not arrive at a third reading when it was introduced before. It was nothing to say that Diocesan Councils had recognized it as an excellent Bill. He believed they had not attempted to discuss its operation thoroughly. Equally superficial was the attention it had received from
  684
  the religious newspapers. The only elaborate article in a magazine, by Chancellor Espin, was adverse to the Bill. The approval of the House of Laymen did not amount to much, for it was a voluntary body; at all events he, a layman who was known to take an interest in Church affairs, did not know how it was elected, and had never had the opportunity of giving a vote for a member of it. In fact, a Dean had described the House of Laymen to him as "the Chatterbox." It was, therefore, correct that all the indications he could find of any notice having been taken of the Bill did not justify the assumption that its provisions had been appreciated. If they were to accept the most noble Prelate's account of the Bill, it was enough to say that there were evils to be cured; but he had been benevolent enough to add that those evils were exceptional, and that it was quite an exaggeration to suppose that they were common. So that because there were a few bad things, and because one-twelfth, according to the most rev. Prelate's estimate, of the livings were sometimes sold, therefore they were practically to pass a Bill which would abolish private patronage in England altogether. The Dean whom he had just quoted once told him that private patronage was better dispensed than episcopal patronage. This was a very complicated Bill, and instead of dealing with its sections and sub-sections it was better to state cases, and see how the Bill would operate. Suppose a Bishop had a living to give away. He had to consider the possibility of the patron desiring to sell it. The Bishop might not present the best person; but he might be as good as he need be, for every living could not have the best man. There was a trust. Surely it was a trust to do some definite thing. What? To present a fit man. There was nothing new in that form of trust. The patron, who had a right to present a fit person, had possessed it for 800 years, and everyone knew that he was under condition to present a fit man. But who was to judge of the fitness? A body of people elected like the churchwardens, as they were to be in this Bill? No; the Bishops. He admitted that the Bishops not only had the duty of doing this, but he thought their power of doing it had been gradually, almost unduly, restricted, as regarded

  685
  the interests of the Church and the Kingdom, by lawyers and Judges. Why was that? Because Judges were obliged to act by rule, and if they found that a Bishop had invented a new test for himself they were obliged to say that it was not legal. He objected to the giving a single Bishop the power of vetoing the presentation to a living. In the first instance he would give the power very largely indeed, but subject to the control of somebody else, who should not be a fixed person, but a precarious tribunal of other Bishops upon whom he could not reckon beforehand. He did not think there would be much danger to the Church, to the patrons, or to anyone else, in such a reference to episcopal discretion. He was not speaking as an opponent of the Bishops; he was more interested in them and more episcopal than they were themselves, because he wanted them to have more powers; but he did not feel prepared to trust any one Bishop to decide who was, or who was not, a fit person for a living; but now the Bishops wanted to give up their power to the worst possible Body that could be chosen. The Bill proposed that a constituent Body should be elected by the whole parish, and should be composed of persons who had made a declaration that they were members of the Church of England. He thought there were many people who would make that declaration, and yet who were not the persons which one would wish to substitute for the Bishops in this matter. How would this Body work? As soon as notice was given that a living was vacant, a separate committee would probably be constituted in every public-house in the locality—the High Church at the Bull, and the Low Church at the Bear. These committees would organize opposition to every person not on their own side; and, although it was all very well to snub a single person and put a veto on a person who wanted to enforce the law of England, it would be a much more serious matter to deal with a body of persons meeting at the Tiger or the Black Bear, or any other public-house in the locality; and it would never do to treat such opposition with contempt, for in that case a Bill would probably be introduced in "another place" to compel them to recognize it. They might make all sorts of objections. Then, again, was it a right thing to subject a
  686
  man, against whom there was no objection, to such an inquiry as was proposed. A man might be too old, too young, or too weak, mentally or physically, or might lack other qualifications which the parochial council thought a serious disadvantage, and the Bishops must consider them all. Assuming, however, that they did not exercise the power and consider the objections, and supposing that one party obtained the victory, what happened? The new vicar came into the parish with one or two of the parties dead against him. That was a very uncomfortable position for a man to occupy, and unless the Bishop meant to upset the parochial Body he must refer the matter to the new Diocesan Council. For seats on the new parochial Body, too, there would be a lively contest in the parish, and, once elected, clerical and non-clerical members, High Church and Low, would all be found voting against each other. It was before a Body so composed that the incumbent nominated was to be brought, and it was to sit in public. It had once been his (Lord Grimthorpe's) lot to sit as a Commissioner, under the Church Discipline Act, upon a drunken parson. There was a well-packed assembly in the gallery to watch the whole proceeding. A British jury would always side with a drunkard, and so this British mob cheered everything that came out in favour of the drunken parson, and received everything the other way with marks of disapprobation as near to hissing as they could. But here, under the present Bill, the most innocent man in the world was to be hauled up before a publicly constituted Body—to be tried in public, to be asked all about his debts; whether he had such and such an illness; in short, to be asked every possible question that an impudent churchwarden, or men of that class, chose to put to him. He could imagine a sensitive man saying to such a Council "Go to Jericho" before he would consent to go before them. Was such a system likely to induce good men to go into the Church? The most rev. Prelate said the present system had produced a large number of excellent rich young men. Did his Grace wish to stop rich young men from entering the Church in these days when the net annual value of livings was declining rapidly, and going down to nothing; and when it was notoriously below £250 a year on

  687
  the average, did the Church not get more out of her rich men than out of the poor ones? It was, he contended, most improper that men against whom there was no suspicion should be subjected to an ordeal of the kind he had described. And they had some little experience to go upon in this matter in the Disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843. Well, in 30 years after that event patronage was abolished in Scotland, for they all remembered the Bill of the late Earl of Aberdeen dealing with presentations in Scotland. It did not avert the split in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; but it destroyed the value of the advowsons, as was discovered when patronage was finally abolished. The patron, indeed, got some compensation, but only one year's purchase, and that, it had been contended by men like the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) and the late Duke of Buccleuch, was too much, because the right of patronage had ceased to have any selling value at all. The same result would title place in England as in Scotland, for Bills of this kind had already reduced the value of an advowson from ten to five years' purchase, and soon they would be of no value at all. It was said, however, that the Bishops might negative the votes of his own Council, just as he might negative the vote of the parochial Council. What! A body called into existence by the Bishops themselves? He did not believe the Bishops would do that. The Bishops would be helpless; and, therefore, this was a Bill to transfer the donee from the Bishops to the churchwardens. The Bishops said that laymen had spiritual trusts, as well as the Bishops themselves. Laymen had nothing of the kind, but the Bishops had. The Bishops came down to the House and proposed, in a Bill of this kind, to throw overboard their power in favour of a Board to be elected by the lowest of the parishioners. He should like to know how the Bishops could get over that. In his opinion, these were reasons enough to give against that portion of the Bill. Then, as to that portion of the Bill which related to the mode in which patronage was to be exercised, it was said that a layman was very wicked if he gave a living to his son. But Bishops had done that themselves. It must be recollected that now-a-days
  688
  very few young men went into the Church without having a real calling for the position. The profession of a clergyman was not by any means a very desirable one. Certainly, young men did not enter that profession for what they could get out of it. If a man were rich, he was almost certain to spend more on his living than he got out of it. He, himself, knew the case of a man who had never put a single penny into his pocket out of his living for eight or nine years. This was the constant case—it was the rule, and not the exception. And yet their Lordships, on the strength of a few exceptionally bad cases, were asked to sweep away rights which had existed since the foundation of the Church of England, merely because a few jobbing agents had interposed. No one would go farther than he would to deal with those agents, and he entirely agreed with that part of the Bill which dealt with them with the view of suppressing the practice. The only way of dealing with the question of patronage in connection with the Church of England was that it should be placed in the hands, not of a Board, but of some persons who could be trusted to exercise a fitting discretion in the matter. The most rev. Prelate had said that some livings appeared to exist for the mere purpose of being sold, and that might be the case with regard to donatives, which he (Lord Grimthorpe) was quite willing should at once be put an end to; indeed, he thought they ought to have been abolished long before. It had been said that livings might be purchased like public-houses; but the fact was that it was exceedingly difficult to purchase any-particular living. In his opinion the Bill was a very fanciful one, and there was no connection between its premisses and its conclusions. A very strong feeling had been exhibited against the persons known as clerical agents. One of these gentlemen, however, had held his own uncommonly well before the Commission, against the Bishop of Peterborough, who was probably the cleverest cross-examiner we had. It had been said that it was illegal to buy a living with the understanding that it was shortly to become vacant; but that was not the fact, although it was undoubtedly illegal to give a bond to that effect. If the incumbent lived for five minutes after a living was bought, the transac-

  689
  tion was perfectly legal. Neither was it illegal to purchase a living, when it was known that the incumbent was about to resign the next day, or that he had been promised another living. It was not the proper way to legislate to sweep away all that was good in a system, in the hope that by so doing some of what was bad might also be swept away with it. Once take a step in the direction of substituting the people for the Bishop, and the Church, of England would become subjected to the churchwarden class henceforth. Beyond that, under the present system, a great many good men were brought into the Church who would be kept out if the proposed alteration in the law were carried into effect. In his opinion, the case of the promoters of this Bill had not been proved. He had taken their Lordships through the substantial parts of the Bill. If he were asked why, as there were some parts of the measure to which he had no objection, he would not consent to read it a second time, he would say it was because the main features of the Bill were bad. The things, however, which he thought good might be embodied in two or three small Bills, to which there would be no objection. But he would impress upon their Lordships that if they passed the Bill they would make a greater revolution for good or bad in the Church of England than had been made since the Long Parliament swept the Bishops altogether out of that House. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of LONDON, the further debate adjourned to Thursday next.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better regulation of railway and canal traffic; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Lord Stanley of Preston; read 1a. (No. 32.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.