Lords Sitting of 3 March 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Irish Land Law (58); Land Transfer (57); Merchant Shipping (Transfer of Registry, &c.)* (59).
Second Reading— Sheriff's Consolidation* (50); County Courts (Expenses)* (48).
Committee— Report— Lunacy* (8).
Third Reading— Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment* (49), and passed.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
IRISH LAND LAW BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, in rising to invite your Lordships once again to address yourselves to legislative proposals for dealing with the land and land tenure in Ireland, I do not intend to waste the time of the House with protestations of my inability and incompetence to deal with a subject which the greatest master of legislation probably of this or any other country has lately described as the most difficult, and most complex, subject with which in the long course of his political career he has ever had to deal. No one can realize more fully than I do the great difficulty of the task which at short notice, and in circumstances of some peculiarity, it has fallen upon me to perform. I shall endeavour to do my duty to the House by stating as suc-

  3
  cinctly, as straightforwardly, and as clearly as I can the position of the Government with respect to this important question, and the provisions of the Bill which I have the honour to ask the House to read for the first time, and in doing so, I shall simply throw myself upon the indulgence and forbearance of the House. My Lords, it will be some relief to the House that I should at once state that it is not my intention, in dealing with this matter, to ask your Lordships to revert to the earlier chapters of Irish history, to which it has been the custom of all speakers on the Irish Question to invite their hearers to turn their attention. I shall not ask your Lordships to review the events that took place in the golden era of comfort and happiness of which we have heard so much lately. I believe I shall be able to address myself to this subject without once calling attention to that important, but, in my opinion, overrated event—the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam. I have limited my notice, and I intend to limit my remarks, to the more recent periods of legislation with reference to the Land Question for this reason. Nothing has appeared to me more remarkable in the study which I have been able to give to this question than the entire absence of unity, not only of detail, but of principle, which has characterized legislation with reference to land in Ireland, at all events, during the first half of this century. Up to and including 1860 the principles upon which that legislation was founded and guided may be roughly stated to have been those of the Common Law, upon which land legislation in this country was also founded. My Lords, in 1860, the Act which was passed for the reform of the tenure of land in Ireland entirely reversed the principle upon which, up to that time, legislation had been founded. It substituted for feudalism and the tenure of the Common Law a principle of absolute or implied freedom of contract; and for 10 years, between 1860 and 1870, it may be said that the law relating to land in Ireland rested solely and entirely on freedom of contract. After 10 years the policy was again completely reversed, and we come then to the great Act for which we are indebted to the late Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), which, if it did not reverse, at all events largely limited, altered, and controlled the principle of
  4
  free contract upon which, up to that time, legislation had been founded. I need hardly remind you of the provisions of this great Act. My object is only to show that the principle then adopted by Mr. Gladstone has been maintained ever since. The Act of 1870, as your Lordships know, legalized the Ulster custom and other customs wherever they existed in Ireland, and in the absence of any custom it gave the tenants two great rights, which constituted in themselves a tenure, apart from absolute freedom of contract. It gave him compensation for improvements and compensation for disturbance. I need hardly refer to the Bright Clauses of that Act for purchase, because the subject of purchase is one with which the Government has to deal as a separate question, and on a subsequent occasion. From and after the year 1870 we appear to have arrived at last at a sound and permanent principle of policy. The Act of 1881, under which the tenure of land is at present regulated in Ireland, to use the words of Mr. Gladstone, "limited and regulated still further the principle of freedom of contract." It enacted what wore known as the "three F's." It gave to the tenant free sale of his interest to a third party, under restrictions and with the consent or subject to the veto of his landlord. It gave fair rents, by the establishment of Courts which were empowered to revise rents. It gave fixity of tenure, by constituting judicial terms which were vested in the tenants subject to the special performance of the condition under which they held. Gene-rally, it may be said, that the Act of 1881 completely abolished freedom of contract, and created that system under which we are at present, I was about to say, suffering—namely, that of dual ownership. My object in the cursory recapitulation of these Acts has been to point out the principle upon which legislation is now founded, and the principle, therefore, upon which the Government are constrained to act in dealing with this great question. It has been said that the aim and object of legislation during the years to which I have just referred has been to improve the position of the rich at the expense of the position of the poor. My Lords, if that had been said merely by those whose object it is to find fault with all legislation which has received the ap-

  5
  proval of Parliament, I should take no further notice of that remark; but I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that this opinion has received apparently the sanction of a gentleman who, from his official position and the high character which he enjoys throughout the country, is entitled to the greatest respect. I refer to General Buller, the present Under Secretary for Ireland. My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to say, in entering my protest against one sentiment which he has expressed in the evidence before the Royal Commission, that I do so with the greatest possible respect and reluctance. General Buller is reported to have said, in reply to a question—
  "You have got very ignorant poor people, and the law should look after them, instead of which it has only looked after the rich."
  Now, the late Prime Minister, as I understand, has used this answer of General Buller as an argument to show that the present condition of the law in Ireland is such as to require remedies of the most drastic character. Nothing I can say would carry the weight which attaches to any statement by General Buller. But I must call to my assistance the evidence of the one man in the whole country who is best qualified by his antecedents and authority to give an answer to General Buller, and to explain what in reality has been the object of our recent legislation in Ireland. I need hardly say I refer to Mr. Gladstone himself. Mr. Gladstone, in 1881, in introducing his Land Bill, said—
  "It is commonly said that the iniquity of the Irish Land Laws is a main reason for legislation on Irish Land. Now, Sir, equity and iniquity may be in great part a comparative; but I must say that if we are to proceed on that principle of comparison, I think it is an exaggeration to describe the Land Laws of Ireland as iniquitous. …. The Land Laws of Ireland chiefly differ from the Land Laws of England in the very special provisions which they present to us on behalf of the tenant."—(3 Hansard, [260] 891.)
  It is a very poor compliment to the right hon. Gentleman, after all the efforts which his genius has made during the past years, efforts in which he was strenuously supported by noble Lords opposite, to say that the laws at present in force in Ireland are made for the rich at the expense of the poor. The Act of 1881 forms the basis of the legislation which Her Majesty's Government now propose
  6
  to the House. When they came into Office they found themselves face to face with a condition of things which I will not detain your Lordships with describing, for it is known to the House. In the difficulty which that state of things created, the Government determined that before they proceeded with any legislation with regard to land in Ireland, they would advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission, the Reference to which I may briefly state. My Lords, that Commission was directed to inquire to what extent, if any, and in what parts of Ireland, the operation of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, was affected either by combinations to resist payment of rent or by an exceptional fall in the prices of produce. That Commission consisted of five gentlemen, and it sat for five months. There is something pathetic in the manner in which the Commission described the labours through which they passed. They spent five months in reviewing all those abstruse questions; they sat 60 times, and examined 300 witnesses, whose evidence fills 1,000 pages of that vast Blue Book which is in the hands of your Lordships. At the conclusion of their labours, those five Commissioners produced three Reports, one of them differing only slightly from the Report of the majority. They reported first that the operation of the Land Act of 1831 had been affected by combinations, except in the case of Ulster; secondly, that Boycotting had largely prevailed; thirdly, that there had been a considerable fall in prices of produce in Ireland; and they made a further Report with reference to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, which it is not my province to-night to touch upon. That being the gist of the Report of the Commissioners, I will state shortly their recommendations. In the first place, they recommended that a shorter period for the revision of judicial rents than 15 years should be fixed; and they recommended that that revision should take place every five years. They further recommended that such revision should be specially applied to rents fixed prior to 1886. They also recommended that the judicial rents should be fixed with relation to the price of produce—what is called a "produce rent." My Lords, before I pass to the

  7
  further recommendations of the Commissioners, I think it well to say that this recommendation is one to which Her Majesty's Government have found it impossible to give effect. I can hardly give the House all the reasons which have guided Her Majesty's Government to this decision; but I think it will be sufficient if I say broadly that the Government regard that period of 15 years, during which the judicial rents were to run, and before which they were not to be revised, as a period which was intended by Parliament to be a permanent settlement, and one with which it would be highly inexpedient to tamper. The Commissioners themselves have said, in their recommendation, that it is most undesirable to disturb an arrangement which was understood to be a permanent settlement. Further than that, we have the dissentient Report of my noble Friend behind me (Lard Milltown), who has given strong reasons why it is inexpedient that this recommendation should be adopted. He argued that high prices were very often concurrent with bad years, and that the tenant might thus have a high rent fixed in a time of great distress. He also raised a point which is, I think, ingenious— namely, that you ought in this matter to consider the value of the tenant-right which is in the tenant. That is to say, that if the tenant has the right to sell his interest in his holding, and, if that holding is subject to a revision of the judicial rent within a period shorter than 15 years, you are bound to consider that there is a possibility, if not a probability, that the amount of rent might be increased. It is obvious that the tenant-right, in the event of such a rise in rent, would be decreased. We have another witness to the undesirability of carrying out this recommendation of the Commission, and that witness is no less a person than Lord Hartington. In a speech he made last night, he spoke as follows: —
  "It appears to me that in spite of all this it is an absolutely open question whether, in the first place, rents are excessive in Ireland, and, in the second place, whether, if excessive, such excessive rents are being exacted. Therefore, it may be— probably is—wise and reasonable for Parliament to abstain from any attempt to deal anew with the settlement of rents fixed by the Irish Land Act of 1881."
  My Lords, more than that, if you were to disturb a settlement intended to be
  8
  permanent and guaranteed by Parliament, you would lead the Irish tenants and people to believe that there was no prospect of any finality in regard to legislation on the question of Irish land. The Royal Commission further recommended that the leaseholders should be admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1881, that a power should be given to the middleman to make a surrender of his interest, and that in cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent the period of redemption should run from the date of the verdict. I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any of the other recommendations of the Commission. Now, my Lords, with this Report before them the Government determined at once to deal with the state of things which was created by the Land Act of 1881. There is, however, one subject mentioned in the Report which, perhaps, I had better at once deal with and clear out of the way before I proceed further. That, my Lords, is the great question of land purchase. I have referred, in passing, very briefly to what are known as the Bright Clauses in the Act of 1870. Those provisions were supplemented by the further clauses enabling advances to be made to tenants in the Act of 1881. The Bright Clauses appear to have been practically useless; indeed, they appear to have been used in about 600 or 700 cases all told. Under the Act of 1881 more advantage was taken by the tenants of the facilities of purchase offered to them; but it was not until the Act of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was passed that any tangible advance was made in assisting the tenants of Ireland to purchase their holdings. My Lords, that Act met with a considerable amount of success; but it is the opinion of the Government that this question requires a still greater amount of attention. My Lords, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the time has arrived when a further large measure must be formulated dealing with the question of purchase by tenants of their holdings in Ireland. To that we mainly look for the settlement of the great questions which unhappily disturb that country; and in that alone I believe will be found a final solution. The question of land in Ireland will then be dealt with by the Government in two parts—the first in a Bill, which I have now the honour to lay

  9
  before your Lordships, which will deal with questions arising out of the Act of 1881—questions of considerable urgency and great importance. It will be followed by a measure which, as I said before, will accomplish that which will alone permanently settle the difficulties with which we have to contend— in other words, the abolition of the dual ownership created by the Act of 1881. I will now proceed to explain to your Lordships the provisions of the Bill which I am about to introduce. First, I will endeavour to make it clearer to your Lordships by dividing the three principal subjects with which this Bill proposes to deal as follows:—First, questions with regard to tenure; secondly, questions relating to appeals; and, thirdly, questions relating to equitable jurisdiction. Under the head of tenure, the first subject which I will approach, and with which I think I need not occupy your Lordships at great length, is the question, recommended by the Royal Commissioners, of the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Act of 1881. The Bill proposes that those holding leases in Ireland who were excluded by the Bill of Mr. Gladstone in 1881 should now be included in the provisions of this measure. These leaseholders number, roughly speaking, about 150,000, and I think that when the Bill is reviewed it will be found that there is no part of it which will have such a general acceptation or be so important in its results as that which I have just mentioned. My Lords, there is a clause which provides that leaseholders in bonâ fide occupation of their holdings shall, on the passing of this Act, be deemed to be tenants of their present tenancies, in like manner and subject to the same conditions as if their leases had expired on the passing of this Act. I do not think it is necessary to justify this proposition. I am aware that Mr. Gladstone, when he introduced his Bill in 1881, appeared to think that there was some principle involved in the exclusion of leaseholders from the Act. No doubt it was desirable in the course of that process to which I have before alluded, the gradual abolition of freedom of contract—it was desirable, at any rate, to appear to retain some shred of that freedom in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. But I cannot say that even in his exclusion of
  10
  leaseholders he has altogether refrained from dealing with them, because leaseholders under the contracts into which they had entered were bound at the expiration of their term to give up their holdings freely to the landlord who was owner; but under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman in 1881 he broke to this extent into the conditions of the tenancy of the leasehold, that he enacted that at the expiration of the term the tenants should be considered as tenants from year to year. It is an absolute fact that in excluding leaseholders from the Act of 1881 Mr. Gladstone did not save his principle by excluding them entirely, and, under these circumstances and for these reasons, however imperfectly described, Her Majesty's Government recommend that leaseholders should in future be admitted to the benefits of the Act; thus there will no longer be two classes of tenants living side by side under entirely different conditions, the one class having rights which are denied to the other. Without further remark I will pass on to the further clauses of the Bill. There is a provision with reference to town parks which may puzzle some of your Lordships who are not conversant with the affairs of Ireland as much as I confess it puzzled me. The Royal Commission recommended that, under certain limitations, town parks should be included in the Act of 1881. I understand that a town park in Ireland is a holding in the immediate neighbourhood of a town. So long as it is occupied by a resident in that town it is considered a town park, and, being so, was excluded from the operation of the Act of 1881. The complaint made by tenants of these parks is this— that because they happen to live in a town, because they occupy a farm the occupation of which they claim to be strictly in accordance with what is legally designated a farm holding, yet, because that holding is in the neighbourhood of a town, they are precluded from going to Court to have a fair rent fixed. As I said before, the Commission recommended that town parks should be included in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Under certain limitations.
  EARL CADOGAN: Under certain limitations. Well, my Lords, we did not agree that it would be possible to admit all the town parks; but what

  11
  we do mean to do is to alter the definition of town park in our Act; and in the future, under this Act, the definition will be limited to those which are used as accommodation land, and not as a farm. To that extent the recommendations of the Royal Commission will be adopted. I now come to a more important provision which is contained in the Bill, one which refers to proceedings in ejectment—in other words, to evictions—a subject which has attracted so much and so widespread attention in the country during the last 12 months. It is hardly necessary for me in such an Assembly as this to enter at any length into an explanation of the right of ejectment, or, as it is more generally called, eviction. It is obvious that the right of eviction— which is simply the right of the owner to re-enter upon the occupation of his property when the tenant has forfeited the occupation by the omission to fulfil the conditions under which he has contracted to occupy—is a provision which may be said to be the only ultimate resort when the landowner fails to exact from the tenant the fulfilment of the terms of the occupation. It is difficult for me, my Lords, to deal with this subject without, perhaps, exciting sensibilities upon one side or the other. No one is more ready than I am to acknowledge that, taken altogether, it may be said that the landlords of Ireland in times past, and in recent times, have, with some notable exceptions, exercised this right, which legally belongs to them, with mercy and with forbearance. At the same time, scenes have taken place which it is impossible for us not to notice; and feelings on this subject have been aroused with which any Government, to whichever side in politics it might belong, is bound to do its best to deal. I may say further than this, that the power of eviction and the exercise of it is, in our view, not limited merely to the freewill of the landlord who exercises the right. It is impossible for any impartial observer of ejectments in Ireland not to notice that there is one potent factor in reference to this matter, to which I think attention has been insufficiently drawn—namely, the establishment by law of a six months' period of redemption. A six months' period is granted to defaulting tenants, within which they are entitled to re-enter and
  12
  to redeem the interest from which they have been temporarily evicted. The effect of this period of redemption has been this— that in order to make this six months' period of redemption run— at the end of which the landlord can finally exercise his right of dispossessing the tenant of his holding—it is necessary under the present law for the landlord to take proceedings and obtain a judgment in ejectment; and, not only that, but he must actually execute the judgment. Not only must judgment be obtained, but the landlord must exercise his right of ejectment before the six months' period of redemption is permitted to begin to run. See the position in which that places many landlords in Ireland. They do not object to the period of redemption being postponed. The landlord who has obtained judgment in ejectment cannot always exercise his own discretion as to when he executes that judgment, for he is often forced to execute it in order to make the six months' period of redemption begin to run. The Commissioners recommend that in cases of judgments for non-payment of rent the period of redemption should run from the time of verdict or decree, and not from the execution of judgment. We propose that notice shall be issued by the landlord, in a form which will be found in the Schedule of the Bill, when he obtains a writ in ejectment from the Court; that the landlord shall be required to serve that notice upon the tenant in the manner prescribed by the Court; that when the tenant receives that notice he shall, ipso facto, become a caretaker, and that the prescribed six months within which redemption can take place shall commence to run from that day. I should like to point out to the House the benefit that will accrue to both the landlords and tenants under the provision which I have explained. The House will perceive that the recommendation of the Commission was that the period of redemption should commence to run from the date of the decree, which would leave the tenant in a worse position than that which he now occupies, as it would be necessary, if the recommendation of the Commissioners were adopted, for the landlord to eject the tenant immediately after the decree was issued. Under the present proposal the six months for redemption will commence to run with

  13
  the serving of the notice upon the tenant, and thus the tenant need not be evicted, while the landlord will be saved the trouble and expense of evicting the tenant, who will, ipso facto, become a caretaker without having been first evicted. I do not think that I am overstating the case when I say that the effect of this proposed provision will be to reduce the number of evictions by one-half. I cannot give the House the exact figures relating to the subject, but I do not think that I am far wrong when I say that nearly four-fifths of the evictions in Ireland have occurred at the time of the execution of the judgment in ejectment, and not at the expiration of the six months' period for redemption. I, of course, admit that it will still be in the power of the landlord to evict the tenant after he becomes a caretaker, as he can at present, but the tenant, in that case, will still be entitled to his six months' period for redemption. My belief is that in the end this provision will be found to be of great advantage to both the parties concerned. Under the present system the tenant has to be evicted in the first place, before he can be re-admitted as a caretaker, whereas under this provision he will, ipso facto, upon the receipt of the notice, become a caretaker without having been evicted. The next class with whom the Bill proposes to deal is that of the middle-man. I am not sure that the middle-man will excite feelings of much sympathy in the minds of Englishmen, as they may, perhaps, not entirely appreciate the position he occupies in Ireland. They are a class of men not specially in favour in the Metropolis. The position of the middle-man in Ireland is this— he takes a holding from the landowner and he sub-lets it to different tenants. These sub-tenants may, under the Act of 1881, go into the Land Court and get their rents reduced, when the middle-man may find himself placed in the unfortunate position of finding that his sub-tenants have got their rents which they have to pay him reduced, while he himself is debarred from getting his own chief rent reduced, so that it may be that the rents he receives are less than which he pays to his superior landlord. This state of things is believed by Her Majesty's Government to constitute a genuine grievance on the part of the middle-man, and, therefore,
  14
  it is proposed by the Bill that where a middle-man finds himself in this uncomfortable position he shall be entitled to surrender his tenancy under certain conditions. I shall occupy your Lordships' attention for only a short time in dealing with the second great division of the Bill, which relates to the question of appeals. In 1884 Sir George Trevelyan called the attention of Parliament to the necessity for strengthening the Court of Appeal in the performance of its important duties, and he introduced a Bill to carry out his object. That Bill, however, did not obtain the assent of Parliament, and there is no doubt that some complaints have been made as to the inadequate manner in which the appeal business in connection with the Land Act has been carried on. We propose to enable the Lord Lieutenant to constitute an Appeal Commission consisting of two Divisions, and to associate with them the ordinary Judges of the Supreme Court or the most experienced of the County Court Judges, and we propose to return to the original practice of the Land Commission and to allow the parties to employ valuers free of expense in all cases where they think it necessary. I now come to a subject which, I confess, I approach with some fear lest I shall be unable clearly to convey our intentions to the House—namely, the equitable jurisdiction which we propose to set up under this Bill. By the term equitable jurisdiction I mean proposals for the relief of insolvent tenants, especially those who have become insolvent through no fault of their own, but in consequence of misfortunes over which they have had no control. In dealing with this question I must again refer to the speech which was delivered last night by Lord Hartington. He said—
  "I cannot entertain any doubt that if Parliament and the Government see their way to make some alteration for the recovery of rents and which will regulate evictions, if they can see their way to conferring upon some competent legal authority or Courts of Law some greater equitable powers, which shall give an assurance to the country that the extreme remedy of eviction shall only be resorted to when the process is not only legal but also just and equitable—any such change in the law, though I cannot hope that it would satisfy public opinion in Ireland, will go far to satisfy the opinion and the conscience of the people of the United Kingdom."
  It has been urged that there is no method of relief held out to the insolvent tenant, except that of going into

  15
  the Bankruptcy Court; but the view of the Government is that when you speak of insolvent tenants you are speaking of persons who may be divided into at least three classes. There are, in the first place, the cases in which tenants are insolvent from causes not only over which they have no control but which are merely temporary, and who, if reasonable time is afforded them, will be able to meet their liabilities. There are, in the second place, those who are in-solvent from no fault of their own, and who have no reasonable prospect of ever meeting their liabilities. In the third place, there are the cases of those who are unable to meet their liabilities from causes arising from their own improvidence and extravagance, and for whom it is not possible to claim the sympathy either of Parliament or the nation. With regard to the first of these classes —namely, the tenants who are insolvent but who might be able to meet their liabilities if reasonable time were given them—the Government do not think it necessary that they should be driven into the Bankruptcy Court. In such cases Her Majesty's Government propose that the County Court Judge, while granting the landlord the judgment to which he is entitled, shall direct a reasonable stay of execution; and for as long a period as the Judge shall determine the tenant shall not be removed from possession of his holding. It is hoped that during the period thus given a reasonable settlement may, in most cases, be arrived at between the landlord and the tenant, and that many evictions will thereby be prevented. In dealing with the other two classes, who are to a certain extent driven into bankruptcy, we provide that the County Court Judge shall have the power, for all purposes for which the Bankruptcy Court exists in Dublin, of a Judge in Bankruptcy in his own County Court, and that his jurisdiction shall extend over his own county. As the Bankruptcy Law is only administered in Dublin, the cost to a tenant who voluntarily goes into bankruptcy or the landlord who drives the tenant into bankruptcy is larger than is desirable, inasmuch as the cases to which the provisions of the Bill apply are limited to holdings, the rental of which does not exceed £50 per annum. Therefore, by giving County Court Judges jurisdiction in
  16
  every county, we have to a great extent simplified the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy, and brought it within the reach of tenants all over Ireland. With reference to the class of insolvent tenants who are insolvent from circumstances over which they have no control, and from no fault of their own, we propose as follows:—Where inability to pay arises from no misconduct or improvidence on the part of the tenant the County Court Judge may order a composition of the old debts, including the rent, and permit the tenant to continue in occupation of his holding so long as the Judge may determine, paying for the use of it a fair rent to be fixed by the Court. The general principle upon which this clause proceeds is that considerable indulgence may be shown to a man whose insolvency may be innocent, and whose good faith and rectitude are established to the satisfaction of the Court. And lastly, in the case of those insolvent tenants who have arrived at the last state of insolvency from their own fault, extravagance, idleness, or other causes, they will be left to the operation of the ordinary law of the land; and with reference to them the only change made is that the course of bankruptcy will, as I have said before, lie in the office of the County Court Judge who administers in each county in Ireland. These are the chief provisions with respect to the equitable jurisdiction to be found in the Bill. I am very sensible that in a matter of such extreme difficulty and importance it would have been better if your Lordships had before you the exact terms in which the clauses are drawn. There is one other matter to which I must refer before I conclude, and that is the question of the remission of the rates to landlords who, from intimidation and other similar causes, do not receive the rents upon which they are rated. This relief will operate in two cases. In the first place, if a tenant is in occupation and does not pay rent, the landlord will be exempted from rates. If the land remains unoccupied in consequence of a system of intimidation which prevents the landlord from letting his land, the landlord will also be exempted from the payment of rates during the time that his land is unlet. I have only one further remark to make of a general character. It relates to the fact that

  17
  Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to introduce this measure into this House of Parliament. There are those who hold the opinion that this House is not qualified to legislate upon matters relating to land, especially to land in Ireland. They believe, inasmuch as most Members of this House are connected with land solely as owners, this is not a fit Assembly to deal with a measure affecting the tenure of land with regard both to owners and tenants. This view of the subject has been taken in public on a late occasion by an illustrious statesman, whose opinion on these questions ought to be of value, and whose statements I cannot allow to go uncontradicted. A few days ago, Sir William Harcourt made the following statement with regard to legislation in the House of Lords on the subject of land in Ireland. He said—
  "It was the legislation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, so bitterly opposed by the Irish landlords, so violently opposed by the Tory Party, so mauled and mangled by the House of Lords, which was the first attempt on the part of the British Parliament to do its duty towards the country which it had undertaken to govern."
  I had not the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House when the Act of 1870 was passed, but I have a clear recollection when the Act of 1881 was passed in this House; and I think I remember that the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) who had charge of the measure during its progress in this House, and who with infinite tact, good temper, and ability, guided its fortunes through this House, bore testimony to the influence on the Bill of the discussions in the House of Lords, in direct variance with the views which have been expressed by Sir William Harcourt. My Lords, it would be presumptuous in me to enter into conflict with so eminent a statesman as Sir William Harcourt; but provided myself with a "sling and a stone," in the shape of an extract from Hansard, which I will venture to read to the House. After the Bill of 1881 had been read a third time in the House, and after many an anxious discussion had taken place between the Members of this House and the Members of "another place" on the subject of the provisions of the Bill, the noble (Lord Lord Carlingford) in this House made the following remarks:—
  18
  "I have only one word to say. In our opinion, this Bill, if it passes into law in the form in which it has now come from the House of Commons, will not have sacrificed any one of the essential principles which it originally contained, or fail, so far as we and Parliament are concerned, to attain substantially the objects it has in view. I am quite willing to add that, with respect to its details, in our opinion it has been distinctly improved by the collision and comparison of opinions of the majorities of the two Houses of Parliament, looking at it, no doubt, from opposite points of view. That is our conviction, which I am glad to state to the House."— (3 Hansard, [265] 10.)
  That is an answer to the statement of Sir William Harcourt that your Lordships are disposed to maul or mangle any measure which has for its object the settlement of the Land Question in Ireland. This Bill makes provision against a state of things which we hope further legislation before long will remove. It is, no doubt, a temporary measure, but it is temporary only in so far as it deals with matters which we believe and expect will not last for long. It is an instalment, but it must not be considered in the sense of a composition. With respect to the land in Ireland, it is, perhaps, hopeless to expect any finality; but if we are ever to reach the goal at which we are all aiming, it will be, to use the memorable words of Mr. Gladstone, by patient perseverance in well doing and by steady adherence to justice. It would be idle to deny that in passing this measure we are asking noble Lords in this House and those in whom they are deeply interested to make great and important sacrifices; but we believe they will take a larger and wider view of their own duties and responsibilities than regard to their own interests would imply, and that those interests, in the long run, will be subordinated to that which they must acknowledge to be the welfare and prosperity of the country. This measure has been drawn up with a strict regard for the rights of property; and, at the same time, with an earnest desire to meet the difficulties and remedy the defects of the laws relating to land as they at present exist. It is drawn up, as we believe, in a spirit of fairness and a spirit of justice. It is in that spirit I have endeavoured to present it to your Lordships, and I submit it with due deference but with perfect confidence to the wisdom, patriotism, and statesmanship of the House.
  Bill to amend the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885; and for other purposes connected therewith—Presented (The LORD PRIVY SEAL).
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Cadogan) has more than once in his speech made graceful apologies to your Lordships for his incompetence to deal with what we all confess to be a very difficult subject. The noble Earl may have been induced to make this apology from the fact that there has been some criticism out of doors that a Bill affecting such great and important questions should be introduced by one who has not as yet the authority of a Cabinet Minister. I am bound to say that I do not feel inclined to join in that criticism. In the first place, I have always remarked that the noble Earl when making a statement for the Government does it with great clearness, with great sympathy excited among his Friends, and absolutely without irritation to his opponents. I quite understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) should have felt some modesty in being the promoter of a Bill one of the principal provisions of which he condemned in such burning words not very long ago. I have no complaint to make of the account the noble Earl has given of the history of Irish land legislation. He might have gone further and have referred to the Encumbered Estates Act which was introduced with the best intentions into Ireland and failed, from its inconsistency with Irish customs. Again, it would be inconsistent for me, after my recent complaints of the same person being Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, to suggest that he should take upon himself also the duties of the Chief Secretary. What I complain of is that the noble Earl should have gone out of his way to make an attack on the evidence of the chief civil servant of Her Majesty's Government— one placed in the position he now occupies after a very distinguished man whom they thought not equal to the task. The noble Earl attacked General Buller's evidence on one point. He represented the General as having said, to the disparagement of the late Government, that all the legislation on land in Ireland had been in favour of the rich against the poor. I
  20
  thought it almost impossible, because we all remember the great arguments used against the measures both of 1870 and 1881, when the argument was entirely founded on the contention that our measures were contrary to justice and political economy and injurious not to the tenant but to the landlord. In referring to the General's evidence I find that he said that until lately the legislation with regard to land in Ireland had always been in favour of the rich against the poor. This phrase, until lately, absolutely cut the ground from under the noble Lord. The noble Earl gave us an account of some of the principal points in the Report of the Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government. The Report stated that it was impossible for a large portion of the tenants to pay even judicial rents. This was stoutly denied in the House of Commons, but it was not so stoutly denied hero. Lord Salisbury only doubted the fact, and promised a remedy of a conditional character if the case was proved. The Commissioners' Report on this point is precise, and from the evidence given before them, and from the fact that bankers had limited their assistance, and from statistics from the Registrar General, show how much the prices of produce have fallen— I believe it is 18 per cent. The noble Earl has quoted several of the salient points of the Report. Some of these might, or might not, be used as arguments for some measure of repression. But I put thes8 aside on the present occasion. Though it may be convenient to the Government to call attention to a Bill and then read it a first time, I do not think it is the most convenient course to this House, to the country, or to "another place," in regard to a Bill of this character. It may be to the promoters an advantage, because they have a perfect knowledge of the Bill, to make a statement and then adjourn without its being answered by those who are placed at a great disadvantage through having no opportunity of seeing the Bill. Another point in this Bill is the recommendation of the Commission with regard to leaseholders, and the Government adopt that recommendation with certain limitations. One of the recommendations alluded to by the noble Earl was in reference to the question of the revision of rents. The Commission strongly recommended that

  21
  the term of 15 years should be limited to five years; but there is to be no revision of rents proposed by this Bill. The noble Earl quoted the speech of Lord Hartington yesterday as upsetting all the statements of fact as made by the Commission, after hearing the whole evidence and weighing and considering every word of it. I can only say that this is another instance of what Mr. Goschen says—that Lord Hartington, though not in Office, is the person who has the power. Not once, but twice, the noble Earl fortified his case with the obiter dicta of Lord Hartington. It is perfectly open now, after the speech of the noble Earl, for any Peer to enter into the debate. But I cannot help thinking that it would be imprudent to enter into a discussion of the Bill before we have had an opportunity of reading it. I would point out, however, that I think some explanation will be expected as to the lop-sided and onesided character of this measure. With regard to the leaseholders, we refrained from dealing with them; but the noble Earl had given reasons for going further. The Land Commission has a comprehensive plan, whether right or wrong, for dealing with both sides of the question, and it is the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to enable the leaseholders to come into Court. It is clear that these leaseholders are in a better position than the annual tenants, for their rents will be revised according to a much lower scale than those of the annual tenants some four or five years ago, for whom no reduction is proposed. Another Land Bill is promised, and I confidently hope that some statement will be made this evening, which will give us a notion of the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government. I should like to know why the leaseholders should be put on a much better footing than the great masses of annual tenants. Some of these points must be met and explained by the Government. I must say that Her Majesty's Government have introduced a Bill in this House with singular advantage over that which we possess, because they are perfectly certain to carry whatever they propose, whereas we are in a very different position. [The Marquess of SALISBURY dissented.] The noble Marquess shakes his head, but I rather think, on the whole, that we shall find this Bill will be passed in its present
  22
  shape, or in a shape perfectly agreeable to Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that, having presided over the Royal Commission to which reference had been made, he would give a few reasons for what he considered its principal recommendation. The noble Earl had referred to the trouble the Commissioners had experienced, and the number of times they had sat and the number of questions they had put. He certainly sympathized with those who had to wade through the whole of the evidence. That evidence, however, required very careful reading by those who wished to understand the matter, because, in a mas3 of evidence of that sort, it was very easy to pick out arguments for almost any conceivable course. All he could say was, that his own impression, after hearing the evidence, was that there was very great depression and very great difficulty experienced among the tenants, and particularly those who had no capital—and he was sorry to say that there was a vast number of tenants who were in that position—in paying rent in Ireland, even rents which were fair two or three years ago. The majority of the Commission, after a long and careful consideration, came to the conclusion that something really must be done to help these unfortunate tenants. Of course, they were quite aware of the difficulty, inconvenience—and some people might, perhaps, say the injustice—of departing from the arrangement that was made only six years ago. But when they considered all the arguments that were used in favour of that arrangement, which was a distinct interference with freedom of contract and with the rights of the landlord—when they considered all the reasons which induced Parliament to pass the Act of 1881, it seemed to him, at least, that every argument which was used then might be fairly used now to meet the altered state of circumstances. He could not understand anyone who was convinced by the arguments used in 1881, when the tenant was so helpless that an outside authority had to fix the rent, not feeling that if that rent turned out, by the unforeseen and continuous fall of prices, to be such as he could not pay, it would be right, however disagreeable or painful to their feelings, to step in again with some plan by which his rent would be such as he was able to pay. After turning

  23
  all these things over, they thought they might depart so far from the contract that Lad been made as to make the rent now payable in the same proportion to produce, roughly speaking, as it was then. This would make the land lord share in the fall that had taken place, and not have it all thrown upon the tenant. At the same time, it would leave the landlord in such a position that if prices again became as they were before he might have the same rent as before; and if by any chance there 'was a rise of prices during a number of seasons, he might have even more rent than he had had before. In fact, he would be put in the position of receiving the same share of the proceeds of the farm that he got before. That would not be, at any rate, a very violent departure from what might justly be demanded. There might be, and there were, objections to what the Commission proposed; but he maintained that some relief ought really to be given to the tenants. He was very glad that the Government seemed to be of that opinion also. The proposals to stay evictions, and give the Judge power, if necessary, to make a reduction in the rent if he considered it too great, were certainly reliefs. These matters required to be very carefully gone into on the second reading; but, as far he could see, the plan had this fatal objection—this fatal omission—that in order to get a reduction the tenant would be obliged to force the landlord's hand and compel him to get a writ of ejectment. The tenants whom they were most anxious to help, the tenants who had done their best to meet their obligations, were in such a position that they had but few savings at their back. Yet they would have to draw upon their savings to pay. They would have no help at all, though they were the men whom they most wanted to help. He wished sincerely that something could be told their Lordships and the country as to what this purchase scheme of the Government was. The more the question of purchase was examined, the more difficult it seemed. But if it was such that it was to give any relief to the good and industrious and better sort of tenants in Ireland, the sooner they were told so the better. He thought, in honest justice, that they should have their fair share of relief. The majority of their Lordships were very anxious that the Union be-
  24
  tween England and Ireland should be preserved, and he was very much against Home Rule, as he thought it would inevitably lead to a complete rupture of the Union. The greatest hope and the greatest stay against this were these industrious and well-behaved tenants of the North. If they lost them they would have a very much more difficult battle to fight. It would be a difficult one to fight anyhow, but it would be very much more difficult if they were foolish enough to lose this well-behaved and industrious class of tenants. From what he saw in Ireland, he honestly thought that if these tenants did not get assistance they would be in as bad a position as an improvident and idle and bankrupt tenant in the South, and their loyalty would be very much shaken. For these reasons, therefore, he did hope that if there was to be any purchase and any chance of relief held out to them it would be very speedily made known. As far as he could gather from the statement of the noble Earl he really thought that they would be rather left out in the cold, while bankrupt tenants in the South might, perhaps, be relieved from some of the hardships to which they were now exposed.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he was glad to find that some change was to be made in the matter of evictions. There were several endowed schools in Ireland which were supported by estates scattered over the country. One of these schools—theRaphoe School—was in the County of Donegal, and the accounts of which now showed a debt of £900. The estate which supported it was in the same county. The tenants on that estate had not adopted the Plan of Campaign, but they had, with one exception, declined to pay any rent whatever, although the rental of the estate was at least 15 per cent below the Government valuation on the aggregate. During the last three years there had been three sales of the tenants' interest that the Board knew of—one at about 21 years' purchase, one at 45, and a third at 51 years' purchase. So it was evident that the tenants had a valuable interest in their farms. If this school had not been aided by drawing on the balances of other schools, it would have had to be closed in consequence of the non-payment of the rents which formed | its endowments. "With regard to leaseholders, considerable difference of opinion

  25
  had prevailed, and the power to break leases, while in some cases it might be beneficial to the tenant, would, in many others operate in the contrary direction, where the tenants were holding under leases at very low rents.
  THE EARL OF DUNBAVENsaid, it was impossible to criticize a measure of so complex a character, or to form a final opinion upon it, until they had seen the Bill; but so far as he had seen from his noble Friend's (Earl Cadogan) speech, it would be of considerable benefit to the country, and it would do a great deal to render more smooth and easy the relations between landlord and tenant, which, at the present time, were so strained. The main provisions of the Bill appeared to be the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, and the granting to the County Court Judges of certain discretionary powers which they had not hitherto possessed; and in those two main provisions of the Bill he was happy to find himself in agreement. He did the best he could in 1881 to enforce his opinion that leaseholders ought to have been admitted to the benefits of the Act of that year, and he rejoiced to find that they were now to be admitted. He did not quite clearly understand what the position of leaseholders was to be, but no doubt that would be made more clear when the Bill was presented. As to the discretion vested in the County Court Judges, he could not agree with the noble Earl opposite who presided over the Commission (Earl Cowper), that it would only apply to the case of bankrupt tenants. As he (the Earl of Dunraven) understood it, the County Court Judges would have additional powers of postponing the issue of decrees, and allowing the tenants to remain longer on their holdings. That would be an enormous benefit to the tenant, and no detriment whatever to the landlord. He was sure that owners of land would be only too glad to have any fair tribunal which would relieve them of the heavy burden of responsibility which now rested on their shoulders. They were tired of the misrepresentation and distortion to which their conduct was subjected in "another place." He could understand the justice of not levying rates on the landlord where he received no rent; but as the rates would become higher he would have to pay more out of the land that was let. So that was as
  26
  broad as it was long. He was glad the Government had not shortened the term of 15 years, because he believed if they had shortened it to five the result would have been disastrous. Tenants would not have been more satisfied than they were now, and it was obvious that it would keep the country in a state of turmoil without any intermission whatever. His opinion was now, and always had been, that to attempt to fix a fair rent to the satisfaction of the parties concerned was an absolute impossibility. He thought originally it might have been better to settle the question by means of what was called a "produce rent." That was to say that a certain fixed rent should have been decided as a fair rent based on current prices, and that it should have been raised and lowered according to the changes of prices on a regular scale; but for that to have been of any use, it would have been necessary to revise the rent not every five years or every 10 years, but yearly; and that would have required great machinery, and would have been very difficult to carry out. A method such as that, though partially satisfactory, would not have been entirely satisfactory, because other factors beside the price of produce had to be considered. There was the quantity and quality of produce and the price of labour to be calculated. Tenants would not be satisfied to have rents raised if prices were high because of a scanty yield. It was absolutely impossible to decide what was fair rent; and that, he believed, was the opinion on all sides. He was rejoiced to hear the noble Earl say that Her Majesty's Government intended, in a short time, to bring in a larger measure dealing with the whole question of land by purchase. He was satisfied that in the transfer of land to the occupier, in substitution of the absurd system of dual ownership invented by Mr. Gladstone and his Party, lay the only chance of salvation for Ireland. He believed such a scheme could be carried out without calling upon Imperial aid or Imperial money—at any rate to any large extent. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) had declared that such was the ease; but he added that it would be impossible, unless a Parliament was set up in Dublin. That was the opinion of the late Prime Minister, the Leader of a large section of the Liberal Party, that a scheme could be worked out and ful-

  27
  filled to buy out the rights of landlords ill Ireland without calling upon British credit or British money; "but this could be accomplished only if his former scheme was carried out. His (Lord Dunraven's) belief was that it could be carried out without the setting out a Parliament in Dublin. He sincerely hoped Her Majesty's Government would now get both time and opportunity to bring in a large and comprehensive measure dealing with that matter. He did not know that it was material to discuss the opinion of Sir Redvers Buller as to whether the law in Ireland was in favour of the rich or the poor; but he would remind the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that General Buller was comparing the condition of the country at a time when there was practically no law with its condition "but a short time ago," when, in his opinion, "what law there was was really on the side of the rich." Mr. Gladstone, speaking in 1881, declared the law in Ireland was much more in favour of the tenant than the law in England. That obviously related to the Land Act of 1870. General Buller could not possibly have referred to a state of things prior to 1870—that is, 16 years ago—when lie alluded to the law being in favour of the rich "a short time ago." He was certainly referring to the same laws which Mr. Gladstone had declared to be so favourable to the tenants—that is, to the poor. He believed this measure would be a salutary one, and of great service; and he believed that noble Lords opposite on the Front Bench would be obliged to admit that it did not fairly come within the category of agrarian laws of the 19th century, prominent among which were the Land Acts of 1881 and 1870, which were described the other day by Mr. John Morley as laws which had caused more woe to the people of Ireland than all the penal laws of the 18th century.
  Bill read 1a (No. 58.)
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he proposed to take the second reading of the Bill on Thursday, the 21st of April.

LAND TRANSFER BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOE (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, the subject to which I have to call attention is one of
  28
  very great importance, and has for considerably more than a quarter of a century occupied the attention of those who were best qualified to consider and to deal with it. I should feel great diffidence in speaking to your Lordships on the subject if I thought the previous legislation with regard to it had been so complete a failure as it is sometimes said to be. But I do not think it is accurate to describe the previous measures as failures. I believe it would be more true to say that they were steps in advance, enabling us to accomplish what they undoubtedly failed to accomplish. It had been my intention more than a year ago to introduce a Bill on this subject, and for that purpose I obtained from your Lordships' House a Bill, which afterwards became law, to suspend the operations of the Land Registry in London; so that in the event of your Lordships passing legislation on the subject of land registration, the Registry might be made part of my scheme. The Bill which I have to present to your Lordships now proposes to deal in two ways with what have been found to be defects in the existing system, or which, at all events, were matters which it was not thought desirable to deal with on previous occasions. Public opinion was not then ripe on the subject; but attention has since been directed to it in various ways. I find that since I gave Notice of my Bill at the beginning of last year a great variety of schemes have been under discussion. There has been an interesting series of letters in The Times, and several books relating to the subject have appeared. I mention these various publications and proposals for this reason. I have had the pleasure of reading them; but I cannot say that I agree with them all, because they do not agree with one another. Nevertheless I find in all of them considerable support for the proposals which it was my intention to make a year ago. There are several matters which I cannot doubt will be subjects of debate when the second reading of the present Bill is moved; but I believe that, instead of defending point by point the proposals I have to make, it will be better for me now to state in broad outlines the nature of the scheme. The first proposal is, that there shall be a Land Registry, and that that Land Registry shall not be something in the

  29
  nature of a legal office in London, but shall be a Board consisting of persons experienced both in conyeyancing and in organization and administration. It is to be constituted in London, and what I particularly wish to point out is, that the scheme is intended to be capable of greater expansion. The great difficulties in the way of establishing a system of registration hitherto, have been the magnitude of the operations contemplated and the necessity of applying the system all over the Kingdom. My proposal is, that branch offices shall be established from time to time, and that the work shall be done gradually. As soon as an Order in Council says that a registration district shall be established, certain consequences will follow which I will now proceed to describe. The Act of 1875, although I do not admit it has been a failure in the sense in which some people describe it, undoubtedly did not fulfil the expectations of its authors in causing land to be registered to the extent that was anticipated. One chief reason for this was that the registration was voluntary. It is not true to say that compulsory registration would be an interference with the liberty of the subject. It would be just as true to say that the Statute of Frauds or any other statute regulating the validity of certain contracts was an interference with the liberty of the subject. The compulsion which I propose is that upon the next transfer of land—the next time the owner of land proposes to give a legal interest to his transferee—it must be brought upon the register. When I first proposed that a system of registration should exist I felt very much pressed by the question as to what was to be registered, and whether it was possible to give a title which should include the boundaries. On that question my views have been considerably modified by what I have learnt since. I have heard with great surprise that there exists at the present moment a register in which every yard of land in this country has been registered by a tribunal which has worked noiselessly and inexpensively. The Land Tax Commissioners have a register of every yard of land in this country, and it has been formed with a degree of accuracy and precision that to me is absolutely astonishing. The Commissioners have from time to time without remuneration,
  30
  without expenso to anybody, been constantly exercising jurisdiction, and deciding questions of adjoining boundaries. That system exists in every county of England. I think there are 380 land tax districts in England in which that system exists. Under the Act of 1875 there are two or three different things which may be registered. I do not think anyone would recommend the registration of assurances as distinguished from registration of title. Under Lord Cairns' Act a person can register either an absolute or qualified title, and that Act, it appeared to me, afforded the materials on which a registration of title might be founded. It appeared to me that in the present state of the world's history, and with the present spread of knowledge and the mode of telling people what was being done, it was possible to avail one's self of it and to make a possessory title in a comparatively short period become an indefeasible title. The proposal I have to make is this, that when a person shall have given such notices as the Land Board shall prescribe—by advertisement or otherwise— that person shall after a period of five years be able to apply to the Land Board for a certificate of indefeasible title. My Lords, that is the nature of the proposal. It seems to me that the same operations might or might not, at the option of the person desiring his title to be registered, apply to boundaries. The boundaries might also be so registered as to obtain an absolutely indefeasible title for them at the end of the five years. My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the Act of 1875 was in some respects imperfect from the state of the law at that time; but the Conveyancing Act and the Settled Land Act have altered that state of the law, and have facilitated a measure for the general registration of land. I cannot expect or hope that the subject which I am about to introduce to your Lordships' notice should pass without debate. On the contrary, in the discussion which may take place on the second reading and in Committee, I look to your Lordships for the assistance which will enable a measure to be perfected, which, if it can be perfected, undoubtedly is for the advantage of all. My Lords, I should say, in the first place, that, leaving absolutely untouched the power of settlement and will, I propose to make the devolu-

  31
  tion of real property the same as if it be personalty, and to introduce a real representative, In the first place, the executor would be made the real representative, independently of any question of intestacy. As to the subject of estates tail there will be two proposals in the Bill. First, in respect to existing estates tail, I propose that wherever a person of full age has power without the consent of anyone else to enlarge his estate tail by deed duly enrolled, then the law shall do it for him. I propose next that estates tail should not be created in future, and that the Statute which is known as "The Statute of Westminster the Second" should be repealed. My Lords, that of course may be a serious subject of debate; but I believe that some such alteration will be found necessary in order to render the other provisions of the Bill possible or reasonable. I believe it will be found to the advantage of the owners of property that all property should be subject to the same legal incidents, and that if there is to be an attack upon property it will be resisted with much greater force, if it be possible to say that it includes all property and not merely property which has any peculiar privilege, because then it can be said that an attack on property is an attack on property of all kinds. My Lords, the other proposals in the Bill are comparatively immaterial, inasmuch as they merely provide the machinery ancillary to the main provisions. One provision is founded on the analogy of the plan adopted in some of the Australian Colonies, and it is in the nature of an insurance fund. This can be done without any considerable expense to the State or to those who desire to transfer their land. The effect of it will be to make the working of the Bill much more easy, and the experience of the Australian Colonies shows that so small a sum as a halfpenny or even a farthing in the pound will be found amply sufficient to provide a fund for all such contingencies that may arise from fraud or otherwise in relation to land register. I will leave the Bills in your Lordships' hands, hoping I may receive the assistance of my noble and learned Friends, and hoping that we shall be able to do that which we all desire—to cheapen and facilitate the transfer of land. At the present time the holders of land are are much less disposed to continue to
  32
  hold it than in former times. It would be a wise and prudent course to facilitate any system by which land can—with advantage to both vendor and vendee—be distributed, and I therefore implore your Lordships' co-operation in the Bill which I now propose to the House.
  Bill to further simplify titles, and facilitate the transfer of land in England —Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR.)
  THE EARL or SELBOENEsaid, that, although that was not the stage for a discussion of the Bill, he would venture to say at once that it was a very large and important measure. There were two points on which he had heard the noble and learned Lord (Lord Halsbury) with great pleasure, because in his (Lord Selborne's) own contribution to the working out of that great problem, he certainly arrived distinctly at those two conclusions. The first was, that if they wanted to do anything in that matter, they must determine to make the measure compulsory, provided always the country was willing to pay for the necessary machinery. It was idle, as long as it was left optional, to talk about general registration or real simplification of title. The second point was, that he proposed to take a short period of time within which, by the process of the registry, and after all proper notices, a possessory title could be converted into an absolute title. He had always thought that any measure of registration which did not tend, within reasonable limits of time, to the clearance of title would fail to accomplish the object of greatly cheapening the expense of transfer. It was not possible, without a general examination into all the titles of the Kingdom, to clear them at once. But it was possible to say that, after a limited time and with proper precautions, the title might, by proper authority, be declared absolute. It did not alarm him in the least that his noble and learned Friend should turn estates tail for the future into fee-simple estates, for it was only applying to real estate the same rule which was now applicable to personalty. Notwithstanding that rule, no difficulty had been found in making reasonable settlements of personalty; and, although they could have no entails, he did not think there would be any any such difficulty as to land. He owned that if his noble and learned Friend

  33
  had prohibited all settlements it would have been a different matter, because it would have made it necessary for every provision for members of a family out of land to take the form of charge or mortgage, which anyone who was conversant with the subject would know might be an alteration for the worse. There was one other matter—the Law of Descent. Public opinion in this country had long since been in favour of some alteration. Without any hostility to the principle of primogeniture, he had no hesitation in saying that if an alteration were made in the present law, it must be in the direction proposed. But he hoped that part of the Bill which related to a real representative would be found to be very carefully framed; because he could not think it possible to vest enormous landed estates in persons having only a fiduciary character, and no beneficial interest, under obligations similar to those which now attached to executors, without obstructing for a considerable time the proper discharge of the duties attaching to landed property, and preventing the acceptance of such trusts by those who might be the fittest persons to undertake them, especially in the present state of the market for land.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that he had listened with great interest to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Halsbury), and would give him every assistance in his power in dealing with this important and difficult subject. He rose, not for the purpose of criticizing the statement, but to ask for an explanation on one or two points. He understood the noble and learned Lord to state that, after a title had been registered for a certain number of years, it became indefeasible. Of course, the matter would require great care if the real owner was to be precluded after five years from claiming the estate unless he was to be given some kind of notice. He did not quite understand, if an indefeasible title was to be given to the person who had been on the register for five years, what was the use of the insurance fund. If he bought a piece of land and took a title on the register, and it should afterwards turn out that the person who conveyed to him had no real title, would he get an absolute title; or would he get compensation out of the insurance fund and the real owner get the title to the
  34
  land; or did his noble and learned Friend propose that the process should be reversed? The Australian, system was that if a person purchased a piece of land and was placed on the register, and it turned out that the vendor had no real title, the purchaser obtained no absolute title, but compensation out of the insurance fund. The real owner got the title to the land. His noble and learned Friend seemed to reverse that system, and proposed that the person last on the register should hold the land, and the real owner should have compensation out of the insurance fund. It was very questionable whether the Australian system was not better. He entirely approved his noble and learned Friend's proposal, that realty should descend in the same way as personalty, and it was very important to carry out that principle, as it was one for which many had long contended. It was quite true that anyone could make a will dealing with land of which he was owner as the law now stood; but it was also true that many persons did not make wills; and, as a Law Officer, he had been very much, struck with the many cases in which property escheats to the Crown for want of a will in case of illegitimacy, showing that intestacy was common. He had known extremely hard cases under the existing law, and he rejoiced that the Lord Chancellor proposed to make this change. In one case he was acquainted with a labouring man had invested almost his entire savings in land, and died suddenly without leaving a will. The result was that a distribution of his property took place which inflicted very great hardship upon some of his family, the distribution being in a manner which it was quite certain the man himself would never have dreamt of making. He would like to know who was to be registered. Was it intended to register a settlement of life estate, showing the different persons having title, or only to register the person or persons owning the fee? With regard to the cost of registration, he was persuaded that unless it was made simple and cheap to place a title on the register registration would not take place, and people would trust to getting equitable titles. It was essential to remember that this proposal was not made for the benefit of existing landowners; but because it was believed

  35
  that, in the public interest, there should be a simple means of passing land from one person to another. Previous attempts at registration had failed, because registration was made so expensive that no inducement was given to register. They must now endeavour to reverse that process by making registration as cheap as possible. The Lord Chancellor stated that power was reserved in the Bill, in the event of any person having been deprived of land to which he was entitled, to enable the Court to order compensation out of the insurance fund or the restoration of the land. The legal owner was always to be the person registered. It was not every person who had been on the register for five years who could at the end of that time ask for an indefeasible title, but only those who had complied with the provisions which the Land Board would enforce. The Bill was supplemented to, and would be incorporated with, the Act of 1875, in which there were a variety of provisions under which any person who had a right to come on the register might, by his caveat, have a case submitted to the High Court of Justice, whose decision would be final.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that with reference to the point his noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) had referred to, power was reserved by the Bill, in the events mentioned, to the Court empowered to deal with the matter either to order the real owner of the land to receive compensation out of the insurance fund, or to order the land to be restored to him. With respect to the person who was to be registered, he might say that it was to be the legal owner who was always to be on the register. Under the Settled Land Act, the tenant for life had power to dispose of the estate, the purchase-money being paid to trustees for the benefit of those entitled. Registration, therefore, would make provision for those circumstances. All tenants for life would be entered on the register, so that the whole condition of an estate would be seen by looking at the register. With reference to the period of five years required for obtaining an indefeasible title, the provisions of the Bill were of this character. It was not every person who had been on the register for five years who could, at the end of that time, come and ask for
  36
  an indefeasible title. The proposal of the Bill was that any person who at any time was on the register should be able to propose to the Land Registrar that he should accept a possessory title as the commencement of the five years necessary for an indefeasible title. Proper persons were then intrusted with the duty of making inquiry; and, in the event of that being satisfactory, at the end of five years an order was made conferring the title as indefeasible on compliance with the various provisions that it had been thought expedient to impose on the applicant. The Bill was ancillary to, and would form part of, the Act of 1875.
  Bill read la. (No. 57.)

  SHERIFFS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)
  (No. 50.) SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to consolidate all the Statutes relating to this subject, the first of which had been passed in the reign of Edward I., and the last in the 44th of Her Majesty's. The title of the various Acts which it was proposed to consolidate occupied six pages, and any persons who desired to make themselves acquainted with the laws relating to Sheriffs had to read all those Acts. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that it was a great hardship which was imposed now-a-days upon country gentlemen that they should have to serve as Sheriffs, and when the Bill got into Committee he should bring forward a proposal that would have the effect of relieving them from some portion of their present onerous duties.
  LORD HALSBIJRYsaid, that this was purely a consolidation measure, which depended, as to its object, upon being passed rapidly, and if there were any opposition of any kind to it, it must necessarily be withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ITALY AND THE GERMAN POWERS—RUMOURED ALLIANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD STEATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I rise to put the Question of which I have given Notice to Her Majesty's Government. It is not at all my wish to address the House at length on foreign policy, for which this would not be a proper season. It would be too long even to enumerate the journals in which the statement I refer to has been mentioned, and which comprise the best known in Great Britain and in Europe. The Standard of March 16 and of to-day might be particularly specified, as the Government are not, perhaps, inclined to disregard that organ. The alleged union of Italy with the German Powers might be fertile of results which it would become diplomatists to meditate. Among others, it would seem calculated to retard the foreign occupation of Bulgaria, from which endless inconveniences are justly apprehended. It would tend to guarantee tranquillity upon the Continent during the year which we have entered. It is, therefore, most important to the financial, the political, and military world, that an official statement should be heard upon the subject. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is required. In 1879 we were informed by the Government of that time that Austria and Germany had formed a new and, as it was thought, a satisfactory relation, although this country had not entered into it. The announcement came not only from the Government, but from the noble Marquess who now directs the Foreign Office. Supposing the alliance formed, it would be, no doubt, desirable to know what Powers were likely to accede to it, and in what manner it would bear upon the difficulties the Eastern Question has presented since the autumn of 1885. But it would not be prudent to approach the Government with too much interrogation. Whatever falls from them will be heard with curiosity in this House, and even far beyond its limits. The noble Lord then asked, Whether the repeated statement of an alliance between Italy and the German Powers was well founded?
  THE PRIME MINISTEK AND SECEETAEY or STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIES (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I suppose my noble Friend, when he
  38
  asks, "Whether the repeated statement of an alliance between Italy and the German Powers is well founded," means to ask, whether any Treaty has been signed between Italy and the German Powers? An alliance is so vague and general a phrase that I do not feel that it would be possible, under any circumstances, to give any answer. However, even if I could persuade my noble Friend to put his Question in a more accurate form, it would not be possible for me to gratify his wish, for I cannot give information which I do not myself possess. I am wholly unaware whether any Treaty has been signed between Italy and the German Powers. We have received no information upon the subject, and I do not know whether any information can be obtained.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TRANSFER OF REGISTRY, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts by making better provision for the registry of British ships; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Lord Stanley of Preston; read 1a (No. 59.)
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Church Patronage٭ (26).
Committee—Report—Law of Evidence Amendment (23).

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall he read a second time after Friday the 24th day of June next:
That no Bill originating in this House authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 10th day of May next:
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 10th day of May next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Friday the 1st day of July next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 1st day of July next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Monday the 25th day of April next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Friday the 20th day of May next.
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 20th day of May next:
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 35.)

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF SIR THOMAS ESMONDE, M.P., HIGH SHERIFF OF CO. WATERFORD.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF ORMONDErose to ask the noble Lord behind him (Lord Brabourne), Whether he intends to
1024
bring on the Motion which stands in his name on the Paper for to-morrow (Friday) evening, relating to the appointment of Sir Thomas Esmonde as High. Sheriff of County Waterford?
LORD BRABOURNE,in reply, said, that he was glad to have that opportunity of stating that he had raised the question with regard to the appointment of Sir Thomas Esmonde entirely in consequence of communications which, he had received from Ireland, and not because he had any private or personal knowledge of Sir Thomas Esmonde or his opinions. As the appointment, however, had been cancelled, and as, therefore, no public interest could be served by further pursuing the matter, it was not his intention to proceed with his Motion.

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 23.)
(The Lord Bramwell.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Consent of person charged necessary).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the following words, "nor shall such wife or husband be an admissible witness on any such hearing," with the object of making husband or wife an available witness for the prosecution, as well as the defence, said, that as it stood the clause made the husband or wife an available witness for the defence only; but that ought not to be the case, if it was right that everyone who could throw light on the circumstances should be allowed to give evidence. There were some cases in which the evidence of the wife alone could be available against the husband, and was the man to escape for want of legal evidence? To give the prisoner a veto would be to create a greater anomaly than that which it was proposed to abolish. In the case, for instance, of a father committing a gross outrage on his child, which was too young to be examined, the mother might be the only witness, the prisoner would, of course, object to her being called, and a failure of justice would result.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from ("hearing") to ("without") in line 14.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD BRAMWELL: I cannot accept the Amendment. The scope of the Bill is enabling, and not compulsory. It enables certain persons to give evidence, but does not compel them. Another reason why I cannot accept the Amendment is, that it is of the greatest importance that perfect confidence shall exist between husband and wife; and that they shall be able to communicate freely with one another, without the danger of what is said being brought up in evidence against the speaker. If communication with a man's lawyer is privileged, it is still more important that what is said between husband and wife shall be privileged.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that according to the provisions of the Bill it was compulsory on the husband or wife of the prisoner to give evidence, if the prisoner wished it. He (the Earl of Milltown) would enable the husband or wife to be called, whether the prisoner objected or not. No doubt, the home relations might not be so happy as before, but that might happen also when a child of the prisoner gave evidence, which was allowable under the existing law. It was quite as painful and undesirable, if it could be avoided, to convict a prisoner on the evidence of a son or daughter as on that of a wife or husband.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he thought it would be better on every conceivable ground that the law should remain as it was, than that there should be such an invasion of the marriage tie as the Amendment would make.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 severally agreed to.
Clause 5 (Witness need not give evidence as to former offence, &c.)
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the clause, which provided that no prisoner giving evidence on his own behalf should be cross-examined as to his previous career before the jury had returned their verdict—said that such a
1026
provision would give prisoners an unfair advantage, in having their evidence considered of equal value to that of prosecutors, when, in point of fact, the previous history of such prisoners might be such as to render them totally unworthy of belief. As the practice of the law was now, if a witness was a man of bad character he would be sharply cross-examined as to his previous life; why, then, should a prisoner giving evidence on his own behalf be exempt from cross-examination? He might have been convicted of felony over and over again, and yet, under this clause, counsel for the prosecution would not be allowed to ask a single question as to his past life. If their Lordships admitted the principle that a prisoner might be called as a witness, he thought it would be wise that the prisoner should be subject to the same rules that were applied to all other witnesses.
Moved, "To omit the clause."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he quite approved of the principle of the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, and if he divided the House upon the Amendment, he (Lord Bramwell) should, in all truthfulness, feel bound to support it. That being so, it might be asked why he introduced the clause. He did so to save the time of the House. In the Bill of last year the clause was not inserted, and the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Halsbury) moved to insert it. Believing that the noble and learned Lord would take the same course on this occasion, if the clause was omitted, he (Lord Bramwell) had put it in with the view of saving time, although he must say he did not approve of it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he supported the retention of the clause. The whole subject of the Bill was one in which it was necessary to strike a balance between conflicting considerations. On the one hand, it was wrong that an innocent man should be unable to prove his own innocence when all might depend upon his personal testimony; on the other hand, the prisoner ought not to be put morally upon the rack, as seemed to be done in France. He could not see how there could be any objection to the principle that it was better that they should not run the risk

1027
of having innocent men convicted merely because, at some previous time, the accused had been in trouble. It was certainly no impossible thing that a jury might convict a man who ought to be acquitted of the crime with which he was charged, merely on account of his bad character.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a. To-morrow.

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

SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, read.
Debate resumed accordingly.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON (Dr. TEMPLE)said, the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) in opposition to this measure was one which it was extremely difficult to answer, and so clever that, although their Lordships did not like to be kept from their dinner, they stayed to listen. For himself, he should have given up his dinner altogether for the mere intellectual treat. He felt, however, under some disadvantage in replying to the speech because of the absence of the noble and learned Lord through indisposition. The noble and learned Lord had complained that the Bill had not been sufficiently discussed. The fact was that a Bill of this kind was never thoroughly discussed in that House, and in its present form, until it came up for second reading. But the subject with which the Bill dealt had been very largely discussed by the people at large, and especially by those who were attached to the Church; it was a subject that had been discussed for years, and a Bill like this was really the fruit of that discussion. It was through the discussion which had taken place that they had come to know what were the feelings of the people generally, and of the mass of the laity of the Church of England, on the question. The objections to the present working of the Church of England were of four kinds—first, to incompetent and
1028
immoral clergymen; second, to the inequality of the incomes of the clergy in respect to the work they had to do; third, to the sale of advowsons; and, fourth, to the fact that under the present system of patronage the inhabitants of a parish had no voice whatever, or any chance of being consulted, in the selection of their clergyman. The Bill did not deal with all these points. With regard to the question of the sale of advowsons and the necessity of allowing the people to have something to say as to the appointment of clergymen to their parishes, the Bill was an attempt to deal fairly and justly, as far as it was possible to do so, with all the interests concerned. With respect to the complaint on the part of the parishioners that the clergyman was forced on them without their having any voice whatever in his appointment, and without their having any opportunity of making any objections to it; he could not for himself understand how anyone could deny that that was a very natural and reasonable feeling on the part of the parishioners. Considering how serious the matters involved were, how they affected the kind of religious teaching which their children were to receive, and the character of the public worship carried on in their parish church, it was impossible not to see that the appointment of their clergyman was a thing that closely concerned the parishioners. It was not very easy for those in the position of their Lordships quite to understand how strong a feeling of that sort there was in the minds of people to whom the character of the clergyman was of far greater importance than it could ever be to any one of them. The way in which the question touched their domestic life and their dealings with their children brought it home to them in a manner which their Lordships would hardly realize. The parishioners felt about it with a keenness which to their Lordships might appear to be absurd; but anyone who had been in the habit of hearing the talk of ordinary laymen would not think he was exaggerating when he said their strong conviction was that their claim to be listened to in that matter was only bare justice. Now, in order to meet that demand, this Bill provided that the parishioners should have the power to make objections; but it did not provide

1029
that the objections so made were in all cases to prevail. The objections were to be made to the Bishop, who was to act upon them, or not, as he thought best. If the Bishop thought the objection was of sufficient importance to be so dealt with, he would place them before a Council, which was to be provided to assist him in the inquiry. That Council was a Council only to inquire and report to the Bishop their opinions on the objections. The Bishop then had to decide what he would do. If he thought, after inquiry, that the objections were well founded, then he could act upon them. But even then there might be an appeal to a higher authority, if the patron desired it. That plan had been suggested as the best mode of securing that the Bishop should not act strictly on his own motion; and provided that they secured that the parishioners should be heard, and that there should be some power of considering their objections, whether it was done by a Council, or by the Bishop, or by referring the matter to three other Bishops, he did not think that the Episcopal Bench would regard it as a very vital point. It was not the wish of the Bishops to decide the question without appeal, or that if there was an appeal it should be to three other Bishops. He felt sure that there would be no objection on that Bench to any reasonable arrangement. What they thought was that the people should feel that they were to have a voice in the appointment of the clergyman, who was to take care of the spiritual interests of themselves and their children. The noble and learned Lord had objected to all that, and had described it in the way that a very skilled advocate would do by supposing that, in every instance, there would be objections made by parishioners who had no real ground for making them; that they would rake up all sorts of gossiping stories and press them on the Bishop; that these stories would be brought before the Council, that the Council would sit in public; that the clergyman would be very thin-skinned and sensitive, and would be absolutely skinned alive in the presence of the parishioners by the questions put to him. The fact, however, was that probably in nine cases out of ten there would be no objections made at all, and in many instances the Bishop, after hearing them, would dismiss them. Al-
1030
though there was a good deal of harm done by the present system, it was not of such a kind that if they made arrangements for dealing with it they were certain to find that the whole country would be immediately thrown into turmoil by all sorts of inquiries into the characters of all sorts of clergymen. Nothing at all like that would happen. Here and there objections might be made to the appointment of a particular clergyman, and those objections would be heard by the Council; and there was no reason at all for supposing that clergymen would be unwilling to meet them. That was the way in which, taken as a whole, the measure would work. Whether the Council would sit in private or public the Bill did not determine, though he ventured to think they would sit in private in certain cases. The highly coloured picture of the misery and torture which the noble and learned Lord the other night drew as probable to occur under the Bill was not at all likely to be realized. The objections to the working of the Church of England in respect of patronage were of two kinds—that of having no voice in the selection of the clergymen, and that relating to the sale of livings—the latter an objection which seemed even stronger in the hearts of the people. Could they get rid of the sale of advowsons with complete and perfect justice to the owners, he confessed he did not think they ought to hesitate about stopping them altogether, and at once. But that was the difficulty, and must always remain the difficulty. The owners of advowsons said—"Why, this has gone on for many years. It has been recognized by the State in every possible way; and, therefore, if it is something wrong, have you not recognized it, and are you not participators in it? You cannot put the whole burden of stopping it on us." The sale of advowsons had been felt to be odious to the public at large for this reason. It seemed as if persons dealt with the nearest and dearest interests without any regard whatever to those interests, and without regard to anything but the money to be got out of them. People thought it a very iniquitous state of things that such matters should be dealt with altogether regardless of the feelings of the parishioners. It was quite clear that there were two very different purposes for which these sales might be

1031
effected. A man might buy a living because he wanted to provide a comfortable berth for some particular clergyman, and it would be quite clear, in that case, he was not regarding the interests of the parishioners; or a man might buy for a very different reason, because the inhabitants were of great interest to him, and because he desired to secure the best provision for the people. They could not put these two proposals on the same footing. The purchase of a living with the view of securing a better clergyman was not the same thing as purchasing a living regardless altogether of the views of the parish, which was regarded as a great insult. And this showed very much the way in which this Bill proposed to deal with the sale of advowsons. The tendency of the Bill was to discourage those sales which shut the interests of the parishioners out of sight. That was why it was proposed not to allow sales by auction, where it was proclaimed before the whole world that they did not care about the parish, but all for money. That was in the nature of the case a very insulting thing. It was a very grievous insult. There was a scandal about it. It was an illustration of the reasons why the parishioners objected to such sales. It was for this and similar reasons that the very existence of the clerical agents was felt to be a blot upon the Church of England, which the great mass of the people could not tolerate. Recurring for a moment to the objection taken by the noble and learned Lord to the power given to parishioners to object to a presentee as over 70, he could conceive that a man of 70 might very rightly be put into a place where he had much less work to do than in his old parish. He did not believe that the Bishop could fail to recognire such a case, or that he would be unwilling to accept a man who had done hard work, and came to do easy work in some light parish. But they knew from experience that it was by no means always wise to translate such men from their old parishes in which they had laboured many years. While they remained where they were there were ties between them and their parishioners of the sweetest kind, and although they did little work their very presence was a great blessing. Put such a man where he knew nobody and he became a failure. They must give a cer-
1032
tain amount of discretion to the Bishop. He did not mean to say that there might not be certain points in the Bill which were worthy of examination in Committee; there might be restrictions which might be differently worded; but he thought, on the whole, unless they meant to maintain to the last that a patron was to treat a living as a property and in no sense as a trust, they could not have fewer restrictions than were to be found in this Bill. As to Scotland, they had few of these sales north of the Tweed. They had not the practice there. In Scotland the people had a strong belief in the right of the congregation to have avoice in the selection of its minister; and as soon as it was known that the parishioners had very little voice they commenced the agitation which led to the dismemberment of the Church, and the sweeping away of all the private patronage, which might have remained still if only private patrons would have consented at first to some modification of their rights. They were certain to have to deal soon soon with the question of Disestablishment—within, should he say, the next 20 years. He expected that it would be within a shorter period even than that; and he considered it was the duty of all who valued the Church to see that the reasonable demands of the people were carefully considered and as far as possible conceded. He believed that the refusal to pass a Bill of this sort, and especially a refusal by that House, where it was supposed that the interests of the Church were specially guarded, would cause very serious risk to the Church hereafter. It would leave it open to be said that those who professed to care about the Church cared still more about their own private interests in the Church, and that they were unwilling to assent to changes or modifications of their rights which had been shown to be reasonable. It was essential to the acceptance of the labours of a clergyman in his parish that he should not be appointed without regard to the wishes of those to whom he was to minister; and the disregard of their feelings was coming to be regarded more and more as an insult. For these reasons he felt that the rejection of the Bill would seriously hurt the Church of England, to whose interests he was deeply attached.
EARL COWPERsaid he spoke with the sense of responsibility which natu-

1033
rally attached to one who had the good fortune, or the misfortune, as some might think, to be the patron of 17 livings. No one could deny that there was need for reform of various kinds in the Church, and in considering what ought to be done they ought to have regard less to the attack of enemies outside than to the remedies for evils which were suggested by the experience of friends within. There was no primâ facie evidence that a man who bought a living was necessarily unfit to hold it. On the contrary, if he or his friends were willing to give money to procure him a benefice, it would appear at first sight that in his own belief or that of his friends he was adopting what he felt to be his vocation. He knew in his own neighbourhood a living occupied by a stranger for whom it was bought by a relative, and he made a most admirable parish priest. There was nothing iniquitous in paying a worn-out man to retire. It was one of the gravest scandals to the Church that men without energy should moulder in country parishes, when paralyzed either by age or by the monotony of their lives. The supersession of such men by younger and energetic men was a benefit to the Church. Perhaps there were shocking cases of sale by auction; and this was very wrong. But so far the supporters of this Bill had refrained from mentioning any of these scandals, perhaps from anxiety to avoid sensational speeches. Those who sold livings by auction must be men altogether devoid of all sense of responsibility. It was improbable they would make better appointments if they gave livings away, for if they were disreputable men they would be very likely to appoint their boon companions. As long as private patronage existed these risks must attend it. He was not sure that so great a grievance was connected with what were called family livings, some of which were held by most admirable clergymen. Still it had been said that these livings were reserved for the fool of the family who could not make his living in any other calling. The fact was, no system of patronage was altogether unattended by evil. The way to get at the evil was to take care that unfit men were not appointed, either by private presentation or in any other manner. The only way he could see was that of strengthening the hands of the Bishops, in the appointment of whom all
1034
Prime Ministers have felt a strong sense of responsibility. This was true not only of the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, and of Mr. Gladstone, but even of Lord Melbourne, of whom it was said he could hardly sleep at night when he had to appoint a Bishop. And there was not a Bishop on the Bench whose character and position would not secure public acquiescence in the increase in his powers. He did not like the idea of appointing a jury of Bishops. The matter had better be left to each Bishop in his own diocese. Party feeling in the Church was much exaggerated; and Christians of all denominations were beginning to make common cause against a common enemy. He did not think that Party spirit was so bitter as it was in the days of our forefathers. His own idea was that instead sometimes of being too anxious to interfere with and stop bad appointments, the Bishops were a little too humble and diffident of their powers. He hoped that if power were given and they were entitled to exercise it, something would be done to stop the appointment of unfit men. He also wished that more power existed of getting rid of incompetent men. That was a difficult matter, no doubt. It was an invidious duty to ask a man to retire and to surrender a portion of his income. He observed that the Bill gave the Bishop power to remove a clergyman who was lunatic for two years; but he thought that no hardship would be entailed in compelling every clergyman who had been unable from any cause to attend to his duties for two whole years to retire on one-third of his income. A provision of this kind he thought would be unobjectionable. Whether their Lordships could go any further than this he did not know. The matter was one which required very careful consideration. The subject of the lay element proposed to be introduced by this Bill was a very wide one; but in the opinion of many persons it was considered desirable to associate laymen in Church work. He was not quite sure, however, that to appoint a merely consultative council of this kind with no power and liable to be over-ruled by the Bishop,—the Bishop, indeed, being able to take action without them—was a good beginning for the introduction of this lay element. He was not at all sure that they

1035
would succeed in getting the men they wanted—men of business habits, clear heads, and active dispositions. Such men, as a rule, were pretty well occupied. They might be induced to come forward by a sense of duty if they were to have any real power; but it was a question whether, if they were merely to be a consultative body, they would come forward. In this case they would only be able to obtain the services of second-rate men. No one was more impressed than he was with the necessity of consulting the wishes of the parishioners; but he thought this would be best done through the Bishops who should have more power of objecting to the appointment of unfit men. He believed the right rev. Prelates were anxious to pass this measure, and he was willing to pay great deference to their opinions in this matter. Some persons were of opinion that it was the kind of Bill to read a second time and refer to a Select Committee. But as the Bill had already been before a Select Committee it was doubtful whether it should again be referred to such a body. He did not know whether the Bill was presented to their Lordships, either to take it as it stood, or to have nothing to do with it; if that were the case he felt very much inclined to have nothing to do with it.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH (Dr. Magee)said the discussion that evening had recalled to his recollection the time when, 13 years ago, a Bill almost similar in its terms was passed through their Lordships' House, and he then advocated reforms in the Church of England. On this occasion, however, he addressed their Lordships with a feeling of extreme anxiety, because what they were asked to do by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) was to refuse now and at once the second reading of this Bill. This measure had occupied the thoughts and the minds—and he did not think it was even unbecoming to say in that place, the prayers of those who had desired the reform of the Church of England for years in this matter. The main provisions of the Bill had the consent of the Primates, all the Bishops, and all the representative assemblies of the Church. The noble Earl who had just sat down (Earl Cowper) said they had to choose between this Bill as it stood or rejecting it altogether. He and his right rev. Friends were anxious
1036
to hear objections and criticisms and to withdraw clauses which were undesirable; but they, at the same time, felt deeply, painfully, how serious would be the injury to the Church, how great the encouragement given to the Church's enemies if, in that House—which might be called a House of Patrons—an admittedly needful reform in Church Patronage was met by, he would not say contemptuous, but a curt and brief rejection of the measure which sought to accomplish it without even an attempt to discuss its clauses, for some noble Lords were not willing even to discuss the clauses of the Bill; they thought it so mischievous and rash that they were willing to reject it altogether. The noble and learned Lord who addressed their Lordships on Monday evening, seemed to put forward this idea of the Bill—that it was a rash, crude revolutionary measure suddenly evolved out of the consciousness of the Bishops, and that no such revolutionary measure had been known since the days of the Long Parliament. He asked permission to be allowed to state the true history and genesis of the Bill and to test this assertion of his noble and learned Friend by a few facts. This was a Bill founded very largely upon the lines of a measure which he had introduced to the notice of their Lordships many years ago, and for which he obtained their Assent. More than one clause in this had been taken from that Bill. In regard to the charge of its rash and revolutionary character, the proper test on the second reading of a measure was the principle as distinguished from the details. He would therefore take one enactment on which a great deal of the noble Lord's displeasure and criticism was expended. In 1874 he (Dr. Magee) himself moved for a Select Committee to consider Church Patronage. That Committee was composed of, among others, the Archbishop of York, the late Duke of Marlborough, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Selborne, Lord Overstone, Lord Stanhope, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and Earl Nelson. There were only five Bishops on that Committee out of 19 Members; and a less rash, less revolutionary, more cautious, and thoroughly independent Committee was probably never got together. What was the principle of dealing with the Church patronage

1037
unanimously accepted by this most in fluental and most able Committee? The noble and learned Lord made very merry over the idea of being defined as a trust patronage. He said there was no such thing as a trust in patronage; and he seemed to have no idea of anything but a cestui que trust. What was the principle that was laid down by that Committee? The noble Lord had laughed at the idea of there being a trust in favour of the parishioners. But when the Committee were asked what were the principles upon which the subject of Church patronage should be based, they replied that they were of opinion that any legislation affecting Church patronage should proceed upon the principle that its exercise partook of the nature of a trust and that all existing rights must be dealt with in connection with that principle. The noble and learned Lord appeared to prefer the words "limited rights" to the word "trust;" but whether the former or the latter term were used they both meant to convey that the exercise of Church patronage was the discharge of a public duty, inasmuch as the man who was to be selected for a living was to be the holder of a public office. It was a most miserable view of the question to say that when a man bought a living under the existing system it was just the same as if he had bought a doctor's practice. When a man bought a living he undertook to discharge certain distinct and very important public duties. It could scarcely be said even in the present very depressed state of the Exchequer that it would be a good thing to allow a power of appointment of a Judge to be sold; and it would not be very creditable if the person appointed was a barrister who had only the year before just managed to scrape through his examination. It was not desirable for the public policy or for the public interests that the right of appointment to livings in the Church should, be sold. In his opinion the principle that ought to be laid down was that the right of patronage was to be exercised with a regard to the spiritual wants of the parish, and that a patron should be restrained by law from appointing an unfit person to a living. The noble and learned Lord had very severely criticized the action of some Bishops for having appointed their sons or sons-in-law to livings within their gift.
1038
But, in the first place, this Bill was not aimed against nepotism on the part of private patrons; in the next place, it must be remembered that Bishops lived under a brighter light of public criticism than most men, and that any shortcomings in this respect upon their part were at once marked down. In his view, the principle of restrictions and limitations on Church patronage should be carried out equally in all cases, and should apply as much to the patronage exercised by Bishops as to that exercised by private individuals; and if there was any inequality in their favour in the restrictions and limitations of this Bill, the Bishops would be most willing and most desirous that it should be removed. He (Dr. Magee) trusted, therefore, that it would not be supposed that this Bill was intended by the Bishops to be an attack upon private patronage. He would now consider the point involving the rights of the parishioners to object to the appointment of any particular person to a living in their parish. The Committee had expressed their opinion that there should be some check exercised by the parishioners to prevent the appointment of unfit persons, and that they should have the right not to veto, but to object to the appointment of a man known to be grossly and shamelessly immoral. He himself had some doubt whether debt should not also be a ground for exclusion. The noble and learned Lord had drawn a picture of the scum of the parishes gathering together at the Blue Boar to discuss the character of their parson. The noble and learned Lord probably knew very little about the scum of our parishes. Those who laboured in our parishes could assure him that when the scum went to the Blue Boar it was for other purposes than to discuss the character of their parsons. It was earnest, pious, moral Churchmen who were grieved, shocked, and sick at heart, when men were thrust upon them of more than doubtful character, and their hands were paralyzed when they were called upon to defend the Church at fair or market. His only fear respecting this clause was that it would be practically inoperative. It was the most difficult thing in life when a Bishop received private information about the misconduct of a clergyman to get the person who sent the information to come forward publicly. He almost

1039
always said, "Oh, leave me out, do not mention my name; you must not rely upon me." In a short time afterwards perhaps they heard it said, "The clergyman of so-and-so is leading a scandalous life. The Bishop has all the facts, and he will take no steps." Now, what he (Dr. Magee) wanted was to place the responsibility on the person who ought to bear it. He believed that nothing would tend more to satisfy the public sentiment than to give the parishioners some power of stating their objections, strictly limited to facts, and made before a properly constituted tribunal. It was hardly fair, hardly reasonable, to put the whole burden on the Bishop's shoulders. "Why should Bishops be mulcted in sums varying from £1,500 to £2,000 or £3,000 in instituting and carrying on proceedings in the case of unfit presentees? Before concluding, he would say a word as to the history of the case. When, as he was glad to say, the Bill passed into the hands of the most rev. Prelate who brought it before their Lordships, the same clause which gave the parishioners power of objecting was contained in it, and it passed through Committee in their Lordships' House. The Bill had been laid before both Convocations and the House of Laymen. It was very freely canvassed and amended, and it now came before their Lordships as the Bill approved by the House of Laymen. It met with the all but unanimous assent of the Church representatives and of Lay Church opinion, and their Lordships were now only asked, to consent to give it a second reading. He most earnestly entreated them, whatever they might think of details—and the Bill was, he admitted, very much a Bill of details—not to inflict upon the Bishops and the Church the pain and disappointment of a total rejection of the Bill. Let them do what they thought right in Committee, but he entreated them to pass the second reading. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) had made a strong appeal to the fears of the Members of their Lordships' House. That was not the kind of argument he himself would like to address to the Peers of England. If he believed that this Bill would seriously injure private patronage, instead of believing, as he did, that it was the only measure which could preserve it, he would nevertheless say to powerful and wealthy
1040
patrons, "Show your attachment to the Church and make some sacrifice, not only of money, but of family influence in the interest of the Church and of the country." But this Bill inflicts no such injury. Believe us when we tell you that those who seek a reform of patronage, a wise and kindly reform, are not the enemies of private patronage. They were the enemies of private patronage who scornfully rejected every proposal of reform.
"Hoc Ithacus velit, hoc magno mercentur Atridœ."
The hearts of the enemies of the Church would leap with delight if they heard that the Bishops could not induce the House of Lords to pass the second reading of a measure to reform admitted and notorious abuses in the Church of England. Rather than appeal to their Lordships' fears, he would appeal to their sense of justice—their impartial sense of justice—and to their attachment to the Church of England. Some of the details of the Bill might be distasteful to their Lordships. The Bishops were not strong enough to prevent them from Amending it. In a House of 500 Peers the Bishops were 25—and not 85—and there was but one Irishman amongst them. The Bishops were willing and anxious that their Lordships should deal as they thought right with any provisions of the Bill, but they entreated their Lordships, for the sake of the Church of England, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not think that the responsibility of recommending the second reading of the Bill ought to be left entirely to the Episcopal Bench; he would therefore give some reasons why he thought their Lordships should not reject the second reading. He agreed with the noble Earl behind him (Earl Cowper) when he said that their Lordships ought not to pass the Bill with the view of conciliating people who would not be conciliated. Their Lordships ought to do what they thought right. But he disagreed with another part of the noble Earl's speech in which he said it seemed to him that their Lordships had nothing to do but to take the Bill as it was, or else to have nothing to do with it. He did not think that their Lordships should take a Bill of that importance in that spirit—they should exercise their own judg-

1041
ment on its details. If they objected to the principle, let them reject the Bill on the second reading, but let them not do so under the idea that they must take the whole Bill as it was or reject it. The Bill was of a preventive character, and he fully believed that if its more important provisions became law it would very effectively tend to prevent the evils now complained of. It would consequently be more useful in its indirect than its direct operation; and he thought that so strong would its effect be in this way that few objections would be necessary or would be taken under it by parishioners. This was very desirable, because it was much more difficult to deal with the case of an unfit clergyman after he had entered on a particular sphere of duty than before. The difficulty of proceeding against a criminous clergyman was admitted on all hands; but that difficulty would be obviated if a charge against him were brought forward by the persons most interested, the parishioners, at the time when the clergyman's name was submitted for presentation, and if notoriously bad reputation, as well as proved criminality, were admitted as a ground of objection. The Bill did not give a power of veto to the inhabitants of a parish; but it would afford them full opportunity of submitting to the Bishop of the diocese objections—not all sorts of objections, but objections upon specific grounds defined by the Bill—which they might have to a particular clergyman before his appointment was made. Parishioners would not asperse the characters of innocent men, under such circumstances, by spreading evil reports; but, if there were evil reports, the Bishop should certainly know of them. He could not approve the view that there was no reason whatever why livings should not be bought and sold. He had always thought, however, that there was a broad distinction between the sale of advowsons and of presentations. The sale of an advowson, apart from any particular or proximate appointment to the office, did not seem to offend against any principle; but the sale of presentations was open to all the objections which could be offered to the sale of any public office or any private trust. On the same principle a man might buy a seat in Parliament, or an elector might sell his vote; but the law prohibited
1042
this, because the office and the vote were important public trusts, with great public duties attached to them; and the man who entered upon the office, or exercised the vote, should do so not for money, but by open, regular, Constitutional methods. He could see no difference in principle between buying directly and buying indirectly—between buying a vacant living and one about to become vacant: the same thing was bought in each case, namely, the office of a parish clergyman, with cure of souls; the only difference being that between a sale in possession and a sale in reversion, even when there was no bargain or secret understanding for an early vacancy. Whether a man bought for himself, or for another, the buying, as it seemed to him, equally contravened the principle that should govern selections for offices of public importance. All the principles which prevented trafficking in other offices applied strongly to the case of the clergyman. There were two sorts of sales of advowsons—one to persons who wanted to keep them; the other to people who only wanted the next presentation. The object of the Bill was to cut off that indirect mode of selling next presentations, and to interfere with sales to purchasers whose object was not to sell again after a presentation had been made, so far only as might be necessary to accomplish that object. If their Lordships would accept the main principles of the Bill, all its details might, and ought to be, open to discussion in Committee, upon their merits.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AEFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I agree with the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) who has just sat down that the House will do well to read the Bill a second time; but I say so with a full sense of all the criticism passed upon the Bill and with the feeling that the Bill will require very careful attention in Committee; and I hope it will receive that attention from your Lordships, and that it will undergo great alteration. The idea was thrown out by one speaker that it should be referred again to a Select Committee. I think all that Select Committees can do for this Bill has been done, and it has emerged from them so altered, that I can hardly hope any additional advantage can be gained. We

1043
must, therefore, attend to it in a Committee of the Whole House, and I have no doubt a useful measure can eventually be made out of it, though not, perhaps, without very freely amending it. The Bill consists of two parts essentially—I do not speak of those small, scattered provisions in detail towards the end of it—the part affecting the sale of advowsons or of presentations, and the other part affecting presentation itself. With respect to the sale of presentations, I have come to practically the same conclusion as my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down, though not perhaps exactly from the same premisses. I cannot help being struck—as the noble Earl was struck—with the practical fact that a great number of the best clergymen are people whose relatives bought them livings in the Church. It is a mode of entry into the functions of the Church which, I admit, according to strict logical principles, it might be hard to defend. But considering that the other modes consist entirely in the exercise of patronage of one sort or another—that is to say, that those who do not buy livings must obtain them by asking for them—I cannot but look with regret upon the necessity for putting an end to that mode of obtaining livings which has largely prevailed, and, in the experience of most of us, to the advantage of the Church. But, unfortunately, there is also this disadvantage, that unquestionably there is an amount of abuse connected with the sale of livings—with the agencies and with the auctions—an amount of abuse so real in its character and at the same time so crying and flagrant, and attracting so much public attention, and wounding so deeply public morality and sentiment, arousing so much discontent in the Church and a deep sense of wrong on the part of parishioners themselves; that I do not think it is consistent with the safety of the Church of England to allow things to go on as they are. I heard the other day of an instance of a kind of tenure of advowsons and the kind of agency which exists which gave me a very vivid idea of the feelings with which parishioners must regard the exercise of the existing right. It was in the West of England. There was a bank which had, I think, obtained an estate, with an advowson attached, for a bad debt. The estate was sold, and the advowson remained with the bank, and as
1044
regularly as possible—it was a bank in Dublin—just before the living fell vacant, the next presentation was sold by the bank in Dublin, with the knowledge of the parishioners themselves, who knew perfectly well the operation that was going on in the sale of their spiritual interests. There is a feeling among many to whom their spiritual interests are most dear, that, dealing with spiritual affairs in this cold-blooded, commercial spirit, would be enough to drive great numbers from the Church, and to leave a bitter sense of wrong and resentment in those who remain. I think it is a question of feeling more than of logic, but feeling in all countries, and in this country especially, must be regarded as a fact; and where a strong feeling of this kind exists—in reference to an institution depending so largely for its usefulness upon the amount of sympathy it can excite—it is a duty to pay regard to this feeling, and to act as nearly as possible in sympathy with the people. On this ground I do not take practical objection to the part of the Bill which deals with the sale of next presentations and of advowsons; although there are questions of detail into which I will not go. But I am not so satisfied with that part of the Bill which deals with presentations themselves. I confess that the more I look at that elective Council the less I like it. It is a very clumsy device; it will be exceedingly difficult to elect; it will be an enormous amount of machinery for doing very little; and you will never get the people to attend it. It is most dangerous to introduce the elective principle into presentations. But, besides these objections, there are two which are much more serious. One of the main duties of this Council will be to hear grounds for refusing presentation to a man who has been nominated; and among the grounds that will be given will be such things as mental incapacity, debt, and some moral stain. You may call the inquiry what you like, but it will be putting that man on his trial; it will be well known he is on his trial, that his character in these respects is being canvassed by this body, and the decision at which they arrive will cling to him through life. If his moral character be stamped as bad, if his mental qualities are declared to be inefficient, even if it is stated that he is heavily burdened with

1045
debt; by the verdict of this Council, not only will he lose that presentation, but he will have little chance of any other, and any hope of promotion, or preferment, or distinction in the profession will be closed to him for ever. It is, therefore, a very grave duty—the duty of trying a man—that this Council will have to discharge. And who are they? They are men elected by the ratepayers. In what other of your institutions do you have elected Judges to try men? We have had to change many things and alter many things in accordance with theories of an advanced character; but we have hitherto contrived to maintain the nominated character of our Judges. We have kept our elective principle at bay in respect of the Judges, and I earnestly trust we shall continue to do so. The elective principle has succeeded well in other matters; but I believe that, applied to Judges, it has terribly failed; and it has certainly been always earnestly repudiated, both by traditions and by the sound sense of the people of this country. I should be very sorry to select the machinery of the Church for the first occasion of introducing a principle so dangerous; and I think it would be hard that you should apply it, not to the cases of men who are culprits, not in the case of men accused of any crime, but in the case of men who were merely put upon their trial because they had aspired to be permitted to serve their God and their country as spiritual pastors of congregations. I feel that this is a deep objection to this principle of elective Councils. But I have another objection. The Bill takes away from Bishops their proper functions. Bishops can. refuse institution if a man is unfit to hold the living to which he is presented. If the law does not give them sufficient support in that, alter the law. I speak for myself; I do not speak for anybody else. As a patron I should not be in the least afraid of entrusting a Bishop with the power of rejecting all candidates for institution, on the grounds stated in this Bill, with an appeal, of course, to the Archbishop. I believe they might be safely entrusted with that power. Whether you agree with that view or not, whether you care to provide other securities or guards, at all events let the principle of episcopal responsibility remain intact
1046
The right rev. Prelate who spoke with so much eloquence admitted that the use of the elective Council was principally for the purpose of screening the responsibility of the Bishops. They can only gain by assuming their proper duty, and I cannot conceive why they should shrink from doing it. That they should shrink from expense I entirely understand. I earnestly hope that something in that direction will be done. I cannot understand why they should not step forward and assume their proper responsibility in this matter. Their power is sufficient. They have the right, if any men have, to exercise their office upon their own responsibility in behalf of the only authority to whom they are really responsible; and considering how they are protected by the law—how little of any public criticism can reach them—I never could understand why so much effort should be made to cover them by special securities, or to spare them from the duty of exercising their powers on their own responsibility. Of course I do not wish to press unduly the idea of giving to them this exclusive power if it should not meet with the views of others; but I do earnestly hope that the duty will not be removed, from them, and that their responsibility will not be effaced by furnishing them with an elective Council which will either be a nonentity or, if it acts at all, will entirely supersede their power and take it out of their hands. It is all very well to say that the Council will only advise just as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council only advised; but in due course of time that advice will become peremptory, and if the spirit of the Bishops is not equal to asserting their own responsibility now when they have nothing but public opinion to deal with, what chance is there of their asserting it against an organized elective Council? I fear the effacement of the episcopal office will be the necessary result of this introduction of the elective principle. There is only one other remark which I wish to make before I sit down. This anxiety about first appointments to the Church is open to the criticism that it does not touch the real danger and remove the principal evil. Undoubtedly we do suffer, not I believe to any great extent, not so much as we did in past times; or as they suffer in many other religious bodies. Still we do know that there is a certain

1047
number of clergymen who are wholly unfitted for the duties which they have to perform, but whom we have no power to remove, and who, if we leave them in their positions, must go on disgracing their pastoral office and misusing the powers given them. This Bill does not touch that evil. Lord Palmerston once said that all children were born good. I will not run the risk of imitating his observation; but to a certain extent it is true of clergymen, that when they are first appointed they are good. When they first begin very little is known of the seeds of evil within them. The tendency to get into debt, the laziness, sometimes even drunkenness, which mark, not, mind you, a large number, but, I may say, a very small number proportionately of the clergy, have not been, I think, if your Lordships will consult your own experience and local knowledge, distinguishable when these men first came into their livings. They are developed later under the temptation of independence, and under the wear of that monotony of life of which the noble Lord spoke; and it is that evil which, developing later, forms the blot and danger of the Church. You will not remove that evil by the care you are taking with regard to first appointments. The real evil lies much deeper, and it will tax all your legislative skill much more severely, and it is a much more arduous task to undertake; but until we have provided some means by which the rulers of the Church can get rid of clergymen who are, either from moral or physical reasons, no longer fitted to minister to their flocks, we have not dealt with the greatest evil which afflicts the Church.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he agreed with what the noble and learned Earl and the noble Marquess had said, so he need hardly detain their Lordships at all. There were excellent provisions in the Bill—(1) the suppression of the sale of livings by auction; (2) the appeal to the Archbishop, which he was glad to find conceded here by the right rev. Bench, though they had, unfortunately, succeeded in resisting it; (3) the notice to the parishioners of the intended appointment; (4) the protection of the Bishops in the discharge of their duty, by sending communications on the subject to them as to the patron—privileged communications. The right rev. Prelate
1048
who spoke first talked of giving the parishioners a voice in the appointment of their clergymen; he hoped the Bill would continue confined, as it was now, to certain specified objections which alone they were entitled to make. The Bishop also dwelt on the intense interest that was felt by parishioners in the appointmeut of the man upon whose efficient discharge of whose sacred duties and way of performing the services so much of the comfort and well-being of the parish depended. He (Earl Fortescue) doubted whether, except on the occasion of some political excitement, so much interest was felt in the generality of parishes. He had been a patron of livings now more than a quarter of a century; and in the course of that time—he would specify neither place nor date—he had received a numerously-signed memorial from the church warden and many other parishioners, praying him to present to the living a clergyman who for three or four months had done duty there during the incumbent's last illness. He (Earl Fortescue) had ascertained that the memorialists had signed without having taken the trouble to inquire into the character of the clergyman, who came from the next county. He turned out, as it happened, to be respectable, and had certificates from two respectable clergymen. But, as he wrote the memorialists this, no thanks to them for all they knew; he might have been utterly disreputable and deeply in debt, though not having incurred any public censure. He did not present him, having selected another clergyman. But what a lesson did this afford of the carelessness of parishioners in recommending clergymen. Again, one of the recollections of his youth was hearing of a contest for a living, while the parishioners at large were the patrons; and of the scenes of drunkenness witnessed there for days—the two candidates having opened every public-house and beershop. Then, as to Crown—that is, Ministerial—patronage; that was decidedly the worst. Ministers charged with the affairs of the British Empire could not, and ought not, to afford much time and labour upon the selection of clergymen for livings. Nor had the patronage of the Bishops been always well exercised. The Edinburgh Review, years ago, gave an account, unfair and exaggerated indeed, but in the main well-founded, of the nepotism and

1049
religious and political partizanship of Bishop Phillpotts in the bestowal of his patronage. The Chapters and Colleges generally exercised them less well than the Bishops did. On the whole, he believed it was acknowledged that the private patrons, with some exceptions, exercised their patronage best of all. And, remembering how little chance any earnest clergyman of what would now be called either Ritualistic or Evangelical opinions a century ago would have had of getting a living, or keeping a curacy, over the Bishops had absolute power, if it had not been for private patronage—he was jealous of the diminution of private patronage in the Church, as that kind of patronage secured some variety and some fairness of dealing towards men of different schools of thought. It was of great importance to the Church of England that there should be a certain amount of independent patronage clear of the prevailing pattern—or rather tone—of religious feeling; and he more than doubted the wisdom of the tendency of this Bill to increase the amount of patronage in the hands of what were called public patrons, and to diminish that in the hands of private patrons.
On Question, "That ("now") stand part of the Motion?"
Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 15th instant.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.