Lords Sitting of 22 June 1888

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Hawke, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment* (170); Distress for Rent (Dublin)* (171).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Customs (Wine Duty) (169).
Committee—Coroners (36).
Committee—Report—Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) (93); North Sea Fisheries (158).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No, 8)* (172); Local Government (No. 10)* (173); Local Government (No. 11)* (174).
Second Reading—Gas (No. 2)* (148); Local Government (Highways)* (149); Local Government (No. 7) * (150); Local Government (Port)* (151).
Committee—Report—Local Government (No. 3) * (139); Local Government (No. 4) * (140); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6) * (141); Tramways (No. 1) * (143).

INDIA—HINDOO MARRIAGE LAW— RUKHMABAI'S CASE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the case of the Hindoo lady Rukhmabai, Whether it was coming home by way of appeal to Her Majesty's Council from the Government of India, or whether the Government of India
  942
  was taking any steps with regard to it? The case involved a very broad question which affected not only the unfortunate lady herself, who had been put into prison because she refused to live with her husband, to whom she was betrothed when a child, but also the happiness and domestic life of all Hindoo women. If the noble Viscount could give any information on the subject, it would be very acceptable.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): We have no recent information regarding Rukhmabai's case. The latest, which is taken from the proceedings sent home by the Government of India, relates to the issue last year of a letter from that Government to the several Local Governments as to proposed amendments of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, in its provisions relating to the execution of decrees for restitution of conjugal rights. We are not yet aware whether replies have been received from the Local Governments.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1874.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF MINTO, in rising to call attention to the composition of the electorate to which the appointment of ministers to vacant parishes ill Scotland has been entrusted by Parliament under the authority of the Church Patronage (Scotland) Act, 37th and 38th Vict., chap. 82 (1874); and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the provisions of the Church Patronage (Scotland) Act, 1874, and whether some part of the responsibility for the appointment of ministers to vacant parishes in Scotland might not properly and advantageously be extended to the parochial public by means of the heritors of the parish (being Protestants) and the elders,' or the heads of families, or committees of the ratepayers, or otherwise,"
  said, that although this subject might be uninteresting to their Lordships, he felt more than justified in asking them to listen to him for a few minutes, and to consider whether certain provisions of the Patronage Act of 1874 were not faulty and did not call for amendment. That was a disfranchising or disabling measure, as well as an enfranchising one. The system of patronage existing at that time was then abolished, and a new system substituted by the creation

  943
  of a totally new body of patrons or electors. The Patronage Act was, he contended, based on principles utterly unprecedented in Scottish parochial history. It furnished the first instance of any Protestant patrons or electors being placed under statutory religious disabilities in the nomination of ministers to the congregation of a vacant parish. For the first time in history it enfranchised females wholesale, and, also for the first time in history, it bestowed the franchise on minors. When he affirmed that these things were novel and unprecedented, he meant unprecedented not only in Acts of Parliament, but in Acts of the General Assembly also. Church membership was the basis of the new electorate. It began at about the age of 15. It signified in its very nature religious disabilities. Outsiders of all sorts and kinds were kept at arm's length, though many of them were deeply interested on their own account, and in behalf of the parish, in the appointment of the best possible man for the place. Under this Act, the electorate consisted, first, of all persons, without regard to sex or age, who were on the Communion roll; and, second, adherents above 21 years of age. An electorate built on these foundations naturally presented strange results. The Scottish population, as shown by the Census tables in 1881, was 1,799,475 males and 1,936,098 females, being a female preponderance of 136,623. The Return of communicants in Scotland in 1874 showed 197,592 males and 262,074 females, or a female preponderance of 64,482. From a House of Commons' Return in June, 1874, it appears that there were in Ayrshire 12,644 male and 16,661 female communicants; in Bute the respective figures were 201 and 413; in the county of Edinburgh, 15,504 and 23,714; and in Forfarshire, 16,933 and 24,644; the total showing a female preponderance of 20,150. A House of Lords' Return, issued in 1877, of communicants and adherents in parishes in which elections had taken place under the Act of 1874, showed that there were in these parishes 14,505 male and 23,019 female communicants, and 1,055 male and 688 female adherents, giving a female preponderance of 8,147. The juvenile portion of the electorate—those under 21 years of age—were, perhaps, 10 or 15 per cent
  944
  of the whole, and the female element preponderated here also, in consequence of the early age at which girls received the Communion. The history of the two franchises was curious. As to the female franchise, he was unable to trace the origin of the idea. The fathers of the Scottish Church and of the Free Church had no such ideas. Dr. Chalmers wished the "male heads of families in full Communion with the Church" to be electors. The General Assembly of 1842 made male communicants of full age electors for the appointment of elders. As to the minor franchise, it was the result of accident or oversight. He proposed in his Motion some modification of the principle of exclusiveness, and he had authority for that in the Act of 1690, establishing the heritors as the electors—the only condition being that they were Protestants; and he had also the authority of the General Assembly, who petitioned in 1874 that the legislation of the year should proceed on historical precedent, and that the heritors ought to be among the constituent bodies who were to elect the minister.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the provisions of the Church Patronage (Scotland) Act, 1874, and whether some part of the responsibility for the appointment of ministers to vacant parishes in Scotland might not properly and advantageously be extended to the parochial public by means of 'the heritors of the parish (being Protestants) and the elders,' or the heads of families, or committees of the ratepayers, or otherwise."—(The Earl of Minto.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he wished to say a few words upon this question before the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland replied on behalf of the Government. When he first saw the Notice on the Paper he had grave doubts whether it was intended as a proposal for serious discussion, but as the noble Earl had brought it before their Lordships he supposed it must be treated seriously, and that some considerations should be placed before the House upon the other side. It was, however, somewhat remarkable that, so far as he could learn, there was no one but the noble Earl himself who was in favour of the proposal, and in a letter written to a newspaper a few weeks ago the noble Earl himself admitted that the proposal would be opposed by the friends of the Church, by those who wanted Disestablishment, and that the

  945
  general public were absolutely indifferent in regard to it. If that were so, he should like to know in whose interest the proposal was really made? They would also notice that the Motion had been somewhat ingeniously altered since it first appeared on the Paper. As it originally stood it was "the heads of families or committees of the ratepayers or otherwise, "but it had now been altered by the addition before the words "the heads of families" of these words, "the heritors of the parish (being Protestants) and the elders." Anyone who knew anything of the question knew that those words were a quotation from the Act of 1690, which was known in Scotland as the Revolution Settlement. From the Notice and some parts of the noble Earl's speech the House would be led to believe that the heritors (if Protestant) and elders had power to appoint ministers; but that was not so. The only power given to elders and heritors was that they should propose a person for the parish, who should be approved or disapproved by the congregation. The noble Earl had raised the question whether the electorate in those days was composed of men or women or both. He supposed in those days the congregation was composed of females as well as males, and, therefore, they had a right to assume that the object of the Act of 1690 was to put the power of appointment into the hands of the whole congregation. That system worked well while it existed, but it was disturbed by an Act of Queen Anne passed in 1712, imposing patronage on the Church of Scotland. He would tell their Lordships that for nearly a century the Church had never ceased to protest against the passing of that Act and the manner in which it was passed, and claimed the restoration of what they regarded as the right of the Church in the appointment of ministers. His contention was that the Act of 1874 introduced no new principles whatever into the election and appointment of ministers, but simply restored to the Church what it had, from the time of the Reformation downwards, always claimed to be her simple birthright. The idea which lay at the root of the organization of the Presbyterian Church was that its government was a government by the whole body of its members for their own benefit. The election and appointment
  946
  of ministers was only one part of the government of a Church, and there had always been in the Presbyterian Church three conditions in the election of a minister—first, the examination of a minister's qualification by the Church; next, the election, or, at least, approbation, of the people amongst whom he was to minister; and, thirdly, the admission of the minister by the Courts of the Church to the benefice. Any system outside that was always regarded as alien to the idea of the Church. One essential condition upon which so much store was set by the Church was that the gentleman who sought to minister to the people must have the approbation of the people to whom he was to minister. He thought the idea embodied in the noble Earl's Notice was simply an attempt to revive the law of patronage in another form, and in a form which possessed all the disadvantages and none of the advantages, such as they were, of the previous system of lay patronage. There were still some parishes in Scotland in which there was, if not a majority, at any rate very nearly a majority, of Roman Catholics. He thought it quite likely that their good sense and good feeling would lead them to abstain from interfering in this matter, even if they were let in under the head of ratepayers; but he was afraid there were some people in Scotland, perhaps a small minority, who were so keen to do all they could to harm and injure the Church that they would make use of the power which the noble Earl would give them for the simple and sole purpose of bringing in confusion and increasing the difficulties of the Church. But the point he wished to bring before their Lordships was that if the heritors of the parish and the heads of families showed any desire whatever to be connected with the Church, and to attend to its ministrations, they had the simple right to qualify themselves as adherents, and nobody could say them nay. The definition of adherents was, he thought, as wide as it could be made, and he had never heard any complaint of the way in which it had been carried out. The roll of the electors for the appointment of ministers included all communicants, and it also included as adherents only such other persons being parishioners who were not 21 years of age. If heritors and heads of families did not

  947
  wish to be connected with the congregation, he was at a loss to know why they wanted to deal with the election of a minister. When they talked of admitting ratepayers, he would like to ask the noble Earl if he had ever heard of a church membership founded on what might be called a ratepaying qualification? The noble Earl knew as well as he did that the Church was not merely a mob of people who were supposed to hold certain doctrines. It was an institution and organized society with certain conditions of membership; and he ventured to say that it was absolutely impossible to impose upon a Church any purely secular terms for making qualification for membership. To do that would be absolutely intolerable to any Church which had a particle of self-respect; and he ventured to say that there was hardly a Presbyterian in Scotland, whether belonging to the Established Church, the Free Church, or the United Presbyterian Church, that would not scout the idea embodied in this Motion. He believed the noble Earl was perfectly friendly to the Church, and that he thought this would make it more comprehensive; but he ventured to tell him that if this proposal was to be carried out, however little prospect there might be of Presbyterian union at the present time, he would certainly relegate it to a dim and distant future. He understood the noble Earl to complain that the electorate was largely made up of persons under age. He thought the noble Earl greatly overestimated the number of those persons. Communicants under 21 years of age in any congregation must be a very small proportion indeed, and adherents must be over 21 years of age. He submitted that no case had been made out for disturbing the existing arrangements, which had worked extremely well for the past 14 years.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I waited to see whether any other Member of your Lordships' House connected with Scotland would interpose before the reply of my noble Friend who represents the Scottish Office. The somewhat languid interest which this House has shown in the speech of my noble Friend who brought this subject forward shows how little the consciences of most of your Lordships are aroused to the great principles which are at
  948
  stake in this Motion. It may seem to many of your Lordships a mere local question affecting Scotland; but it affects principles which some day at least—perhaps sooner than many of your Lordships expect—may be discussed with regard to the Church of England. It affects the largest and deepest principles touching the nature and constitution of the Church of Christ; and the terms on which it is lawful for that Church to become connected with the State. What is the history of this question? So far as I know, during the Middle Ages there was no difference between the practice in England and the practice in Scotland in regard to the lay patronage in the Church. The origin of the lay patronage of the Christian Church is closely connected with the origin of tithes, and those who originally endowed the Church acquired the privilege of nominating to the priesthood in many cases. There was no difference, so far as I know, up to the Reformation between England and Scotland in that respect. The Reformation, your Lordships know, was in the nature of a democratic movement rather than of an aristocratic and legal one. The movement was from below and not from above; and from the beginning of the movement in Scotland in 1560 up to the present time the spirit of the Reformed Church of that country has been to invest the government of the Church as a whole in the great body of its own people, which at that time might be assumed to be the great body of the nation. Early after the Reformation a great feeling arose in Scotland that lay patronage ought not to be unlimited. By the Act of 1500, the principle was clearly established that the stipend belonged to the State and the appointment of ministers belonged to the Church. Such was the state of the law down to 1712, when, under a very reactionary Government, it was determined to restore lay patronage to the Church in its full vigour, without any reference to the congregation. This was a monstrous violation of the feelings of the people of Scotland, and a departure from the revolutionary settlement. Then came 1832, with a great movement in the minds of men which was not merely political, but also religious and ecclesiastical. That movement was spread over the whole of

  949
  Europe and gave rise to the French Revolution, and, later on, to the Oxford movement. At last the General Assembly took a step on its own authority—the General Assembly is a body not composed of ministers and clergy alone, but representing, to a large extent, the whole body of Scotland—and enacted that the presbytery in every case should take the opinion of the people where a presentee was presented, and that if the people vetoed the presentee he should be rejected. This was appealed against in the Civil Courts, and it was decided that the veto was ultræ vires. At the last moment, after the secession took place, an Act, called Lord Aberdeen's Act, was passed. It was a confusing and bungling piece of legislation, and no human being could tell whether under its terms the mere dissent of the congregation could be accepted as a veto on the appointment of a presentee. I have myself the honour, or the misfortune, to be—with the exception of Lord Orkney and the Crown—one of the largest and most extensive patrons in Scotland, and I have had some experience of the working of Lord Aberdeen's Act; and before the year 1874 I had come to the conclusion that it was full of dangers to the Church. Nothing could be more objectionable than the state of things under it. Every man in the parish was encouraged by law to come forward and state objections to the personal qualifications of the candidate. They might object that they thought his manner was stiff, that his language was not strictly scriptural; and, of course, the best men in the Church gradually became unwilling to face such an ordeal. The objections were stated against them before the presbytery, which could not tell how far they could give effect to them or not. The result of my experience was that it was hopeless to present a man to a parish who had not the approval of a large portion of the population; and my practice habitually was to ask the congregation to appoint a committee, and when the congregation were likely to agree upon a man, unless I saw there were great objections to him, I presented him. The system was one of popular election by the members of the Church, subject to the veto of the patron. The system could not go on. There were repeated attempts to bring the question again before the Civil Courts, and great dangers arose lest, under an adverse
  950
  decision in the Civil Courts, the Church should again be bound hand and foot and fettered by the State. It was under these circumstances that the Conservative Government of the late Lord Derby came to the conclusion, in which I entirely agreed, that it would be wise to make a new law giving that power to the congregation, recognizing that popular right which practically they now hold in their hands, and which, if they were violated, would probably bring calamities on the Church. The Conservatives of that day thought they were in this taking a conservative step; and I fully concurred in their determination, and I avow my share with my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) who is not now present, in the drafting of that Bill. I understand that the noble Earl's present Motion is intended chiefly for the purpose of bringing in to the election of ministers men who are not members of the Church at all; but a grea part of his speech was against women.
  THE EARL OF MINTO: I did not say so.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: No; that is what I object to. Great part of the noble Earl's speech was directed against women, and yet his Motion does not propose to exclude them. Are we to gather from his speech that women and young communicants are to be excluded? The question arose in drafting the Bill of 1874 whether Parliament should define the constituency by the terms of the Statute, or leave it for the Church. It was proposed at one time that the constituency should be specified by the Act of Parliament to be the communicants. I myself had and have an insuperable objection to Parliament attaching qualifications to the taking of the Holy Communion. We all now look back with wonder and amazement at the fact that a very few years ago not only Conservatives, but a very large part of the Liberal Party, were willing to maintain a system in England by which partaking of the Holy Communion was made a necessity for civil office. I have an insuperable objection to Parliament re-entering on that course of legislation. It is not our business to interfere with who does and who does not take the Communion. That is the business of the various officers of the Church, and, therefore, I suggested to the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) that, instead of taking the word "communicants," or, in addition to

  951
  that word, we should put in the word "adherents" I did so because in the old documents connected with the Church of Scotland the word used was never "communicants," but "congregation." Of course, it was assumed in former days that all the congregation were communicants; but "congregation" was the word; and the nearest approach to that that we could make was that we should say communicants and adherents. A large number of patrons in Scotland were members of the Episcopal Church, but many of them attended, and still attend, the services of the Established Church of Scotland. They are almost universally warm friends of that Church and generous and liberal supporters of it; and I wish to leave the authorities of the Church free to consider them and other persons of a like character to be adherents of the Church, even though they be not communicants. So far from departing from the ancient principles of the Church of Scotland as my noble Friend represented, that Act was passed strictly in consonance with those principles. If he asks me the question whether I do not think that at times there are instances in which it may be a failure—whether there has never been a minister appointed whom I myself should never have voted for, I cannot deny the fact that this may be so; but what has that to do with the case? Under any possible system you would have some black sheep. Under the whole system of patronage you would have plenty of drones, and the popular party complained that the majority of the ministers appointed by the patrons were drones. That was an exaggeration; but under any system there will be men appointed by an electing body of whom my noble Friend or I myself would not approve. One may take a very narrow and insular view of this matter. It may seem to many Members of this House almost absurd that ministers of religion should be appointed by their people; and I dare say that many Members of this House think it would be inconvenient, and perhaps almost absurd, to give parishioners in England the power of appointing their clergymen. Yet there can be no doubt of the fact that in the early Church that was the general and universal practice. Nay, not only pastors, but the highest dignitaries of the Western Church, have been elected
  952
  in the great assemblies of the people. We all remember the celebrated case of one of the greatest names in the hierarchy of the Christian Church who was elected by a great popular assembly, and that, too, at a time when he not only was not a priest, but was not even a baptized member of the Church, but was a Roman soldier. I remember one Member of the Episcopal Bench, and one of its most admirable members too, who, not many years ago, was a military officer, but who afterwards became a priest and a valued minister in a great parish, and whose administrative powers are well known. When Ambrose was elected a Bishop there was no such experience in regard to him; yet he was nominated in a great assembly at Milan; and yet this is the man whose words we hear every Sunday in one of the noblest hymns of Christian worship when we sing the Te Deum Laudamus. I can tell my noble Friend that during recent years we have come to have new ideas in respect to the powers and qualifications and rights of women; and I challenge him to bring forward a Motion to refuse to women the rights enjoyed by male members of the congregation. Women are more pious and more disposed to reverence than men; and I should trust the opinions of many women in such matters better than those of men. Then I come to another point. My noble Friend, in substitution for this constituency, which I maintain has acted fairly, would introduce—whom? The ratepaying class. My noble Friend has not told us to what Church he himself belongs, and I have no right to ask him. I believe that he is a supporter and in a high and good sense an adherent of the Church of Scotland. I believe that he wishes to strengthen its foundations; but he evidently does not believe in the existence of such a society as the Church of Christ. I can understand the view of our excellent friends the Quakers, than whom no section of the Church has ever carried more sincerely into the combat of life and into politics the great doctrines of Christianity. But it has no settled ministry and no settled service. I can understand the view of the Congregationalists, who say that a unit of the Church of Christ is a separate congregation, and that they have a right to appoint their own ministers and to conduct their own service. I can understand the Presbyterian view, which is a

  953
  parity of pastors, but a subordination to a common law. I can understand the Anglican view, which is a parity of Bishops, although not of pastors. I can understand the Catholic view, which denies parity to pastors and Bishops too, subordinating the whole to one central government representing the supposed authority of Christ. All these theories I can sympathize with and understand to a certain extent; but the view of my noble Friend I cannot understand—that the Church of Christ consists of the same men who select the surveyors of roads and inspectors of nuisances. I tell my noble Friend, as a member of the Presbyterian Church, that if the proposition to elect ministers by the ratepayers were carried to-morrow I should immediately go for Disestablishment and Disendowment. I should be ashamed to belong to any spiritual body which pretended in such circumstances to represent any portion, any branch of the Christian Church. That, I am sure, would be the feeling of the great majority of this House, who think of the possibility of the application of such principles, such degrading principles, to the Church of England. In conclusion, I will only repeat that my noble Friend speaks, as far as I can understand, as a solitary individual. This is a crotchet of his own. There is no party in Scotland, there is no section of the Presbyterian Church, there is no section of the Episcopalian Church, which would venture to make such a proposal; and I trust that this House will never consent to appoint a Committee even to consider so preposterous a proposal.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he hoped the Government would not grant a Select Committee. He regretted that the late Lord Panmure had said that the abolition of patronage would not lead to the union of all Presbyterian Churches. In fact, all communicants, from any portion of the Church, including women, might occasionally take the Sacrament and vote for a minister in the Established Church, and all the clergy exchanged pulpits occasionally; and in Haddington the minister of the first charge had first been appointed by a patron to the second charge, and since 1874 had been chosen for the first charge by the vote of a majority of the communicants. It was absurd to complain of Church and State, for Kings and Queens might, according
  954
  to Scripture, be nursing fathers and nursing mothers of the Church of Christ; and where there was no difference of doctrine all Christians should unite, and show that the Church was one.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): I think your Lordships will not be surprised, after the eloquent speech to which you have just listened, if I reply at once to the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government do not see their way to grant the appointment of the Committee asked for. I must express regret that the noble Earl has placed his Motion on the Paper, because he seemed to be unaware of the delicate ground on which he was treading; and if a Committee was granted, results of a more far-reaching character than the noble Earl appears to anticipate would follow. But after what has occurred, I do not regret that the Motion has been made, as it has afforded the House an opportunity of knowing what the real causes were which led up to the Act of 1874, and the part which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) took in the framing of that Act. I carefully considered the terms of the Motion, and I confess that, after reading it over, I was at a loss to understand what the direct object of the noble Earl was; and, even after listening attentively to his speech, I am still at a loss to understand what object would be gained by the granting of the suggested Committee. The main object of the Motion appears to be that no one under the age of 21 shall be entitled to have a vote for the election of a minister of a parish, and that the Select Committee shall take into consideration the inequality between the sexes in Scotland. Those, I think, are the two principal points; but there is the further question of allowing heads of families or committees of the ratepayers and others to take part in the election of ministers. These two points, I think, were sufficiently dealt with by the noble Duke, so that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go into the matter in detail. It is proposed to extend the right of election in various ways. First, that "the heritors of the parish (being Protestants) and the elders" should take part in the election, which means that those who are not members of the Church should have the power to vote in the

  955
  election of a Minister. The same remark applies to the "heads of families," as they already have the power of voting if they are connected with the Church. I will not go into this matter further. I must point out, however, that there has been no dissatisfaction whatever expressed with the working of the Act of 1874. There are about 1,300 parishes in Scotland, and in over 700 of these elections have taken place since the Act came into force; and, generally speaking, the working of the Act has been extremely satisfactory. Of course, in some cases the ministers appointed were not, perhaps, exactly ideal parish ministers. But, on the whole, my opinion is—and I believe it is also the opinion of Scotland—that the Act has worked extremely well, and no injustice has been done. What the noble Earl seems to desire is really the appointment of a Committee to reconsider the settlement of 1874. But if any dissatisfaction had been shown with the working of the Act it would be in the power of the General Assembly to consider the subject. The regulations under which the elections are now carried out were framed by the General Assembly in 1883; and within the limits of the Act it was in the power of the General Assembly to make new regulations, should it become necessary or expedient to do so. I feel certain that if the Government were to grant the Committee asked for the noble Earl would find that not only would the results be different from what he expects, but they would inflict a great injury on the Church of Scotland, which I am certain my noble Friend does not desire.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, his object was simple in the extreme. It was to endeavour to take steps whereby the Church of Scotland should not be treated as a close Corporation, and that those outside the Church should not be entirely excluded from all management in its affairs. The Church of Scotland, in his opinion, made a great mistake when it tried to draw the lines within such narrow limits. The true policy of the Church of Scotland was to make itself more comprehensive than it was, and to trust people outside the Church much more than was done at present. He disagreed with the opinion that there was any danger likely to result from the course he had suggested.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, replying to a question by the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto), said, that minors who were interested and were upon the Roll of the Church ought to have a vote in the election of a minister.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

CORONERS BILL.—(No. 36.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
CORONERS BILL.—(No. 36.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Appointment of coroners to be made by the Lord Chancellor).
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he begged to move, as an Amendment, to except the appointment of County Coroners from the operation of the clause. He objected to give to the Crown the patronage of an appointment paid out of the County Rates.
  Moved, in page 1, line 5, leave out ("coroners for counties").—(The Earl of Pawis.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, their Lordships would remember that in introducing the Bill he said more than once that he was not enamoured of the functions he proposed to confer on the Lord Chancellor. His noble and learned Friend opposite had also on the Paper an Amendment providing that the County Coroners should be appointed by the "County Authority." The question was, what was the "County Authority?" If it were proposed to place this matter in the hands of a joint committee of the County Councils which were to be created and the Justices at Quarter Sessions, he would gladly agree to that. Everybody, he thought, was agreed that the present system of election by freeholders, as far as County Coroners were concerned, could not be continued, and a late election had called particular attention to the matter; but the question was with whom the duty of appointment was to rest. At present, however minute a man's freehold interest might be, or however short might have been his tenure of that interest, he was entitled to vote. No doubt, a scrutiny was incident to every right of voting, but in the election of Coroners it

  957
  would have to be conducted without a register, so that every person voting would have to be tried before the Sheriff as the Returning Officer.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that, of course, he had not had time to consider the proposal of his noble and learned Friend, but he did not quite like it. In boroughs the Coroner was appointed by the Borough Council, and he trusted that the County Councils about to be created would be no less worthy of confidence. It seemed to him rather a reflection on the latter Bodies if, at the outset, the Government showed them that they were not prepared to trust them with powers which for years past had been exorcised by the Councils of boroughs. What was to be done in the case of places like Liverpool and Manchester, which would be counties in themselves? Hitherto they had always elected their own Coroners. Were they to continue to do so? If so, there would be this curious state of things—that the Councils of Liverpool and Manchester would appoint their Coroners, but the other Councils in the same county would not. Surely there were great anomalies and inconveniences in such a system as that? The best system would surely be the uniform system of leaving it to the County Councils throughout the country. He would also like to point out that this question of electing Coroners involved a certain amount of sentiment, and, though it was clear the present system of election could not go on, it struck him that the wisest course would be to make the Coroner as much as possible a representative officer. That would best be done by putting the election in the hands of a Representative Body like the County Council.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYthought that as the salary of the County Coroner would be paid by the County Council that would be the best authority in whom to vest the appointment.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he hoped that the appointment would be given to the County Council. This was a matter which would most legitimately fall within its control.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would be somewhat peculiar for the House at the present moment to place the appointment in the hands of the County Council, having regard to the fact that no such Body was in existence.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, as the Bill was brought in it proposed to vest this appointment in the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord had now brought forward a new proposal. Under those circumstances, he thought it should be deferred for some time, so that it might be fully considered in the interval.
  LORD HALSBURYadmitted that the Bill originally proposed to vest the appointment in the Lord Chancellor; but when introducing the Bill he distinctly stated that he should be glad to accept some other proposal that would relieve the Lord Chancellor of this task. He could not agree that the matter was not urgent. There had been an election of a Coroner within the last week which had been the subject of the greatest possible complaint. If this Bill was postponed until the passing of another Bill in "another place," which might or might not come here, he did not think that it would then receive much attention. In his opinion, the joint committee of Quarter Sessions and County Council would make an excellent electoral body for this purpose.
  LORD BASINGsaid, that if there was a doubt as to the existence of the County Councils, the joint committee suggested was even more shadowy.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the election should be placed in the bands of the County Council. He was astonished at the amount of distrust of the County Council which was manifested. Why should it be feared that the County Council would not be as excellent a body as the Town Council? If anything, there was reason to think that the men elected on to the County Councils would be even more trustworthy men.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend placing the appointment in the hands of "the County Authority," and to postpone the discussion of what "the County Authority" should mean.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMthought the appointment would best be placed in the hands of Quarter Sessions. He hoped the Government would not withdraw the Bill, which contained provisions of great value.
  Moved, "That the House do now resume," agreed to; House resumed accordingly.

MALTA—THE NEW CONSTITUTION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL DELA WARRasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government can give satisfactory information with regard to the working and efficiency of the new Constitution of Malta, and of the manner in which it has been received by the Maltese people; also, whether a copy of a resolution moving an address to the Governor, and carried unanimously by the Council of Government on the 30th of May last, praying him to petition Her Majesty for the establishment of a Militia regiment in Malta, can be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether any communications on that subject have been made by the Governor to the present or any former Colonial Secretary; and, if so, whether they can be laid upon the Table of the House? He also wished to move for a Return in the words of which he had given Notice—
  Moved, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty for Return of the amount of the annual contribution from the revenue of Malta for military purposes, and of the amount remitted directly or indirectly in drawbacks to the military authorities, with the view of ascertaining the possibility of applying these sums towards defraying the expenses of the Militia."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAobserved, that he had recently had an opportunity of gauging the feelings of the people of Malta with respect to the formation of a Militia regiment. He felt sure that the formation of such a corps would be viewed most favourably, and would tend to increase the loyalty of the people.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): The noble Earl has always taken a keen interest in this subject, and has endeavoured to ascertain and forward the wishes of the Maltese to acquire larger powers in the management of local affairs, and I believe his work has been thoroughly appreciated in the Island. No one, therefore, will be better pleased than the noble Earl to hear my reply to the first part of his Question. I can assure him that the new Constitution has been received with satisfaction by all classes in Malta, and that up to the present moment it has worked most successfully. This success is largely owing to the tact and judgment
  960
  of the Governor, Sir Lintorn Simmons, and the Colonial Secretary; but it is mainly owing to the hearty co-operation and loyal support of the elected members under the new Constitution, and especially of the three elected members of the Council of Government, who are also members of the Executive Council. There were, no doubt, many persons who wished to see larger and more sweeping changes in the Constitution; but they had, nevertheless, shown a spirit of moderation and a loyal desire to support the Government and the new order of things. The Constitution was not yet in operation in its entirety. As part of it, it had been decided to divide the Island into districts, and to assign a member to each district; but, as it was found impossible to collect in this country the necessary information for the purpose of deciding what should be the actual districts, or whether any district should be represented by more than one member, a Royal Commission was appointed to go to Malta to examine into the matter. The Commission has now reported that the proposal to divide the Island into districts had been received with great favour throughout the whole Island. As the Commissioners took very great trouble to ascertain the views of the people, and went into all the districts and examined persons of all classes, I may, perhaps, read a passage of their Report to your Lordships. The Commissioners state that they have acquired a clear insight into the opinions and feeling of all sections of the inhabitants of the country districts, and that they havex2014;
  "Satisfied themselves by abundant proofs that the decision of Her Majesty's Government to divide Malta into several electoral divisions was equally just in itself and in accordance with the interests and wishes of the great majority of the persons principally affected by this change from the former system, under which the entire community, both urban and rural, was treated as one single constituency."
  From this change, which has long been advocated by leading men, I anticipate very good results, for it will, I believe, tend to create a more lively and intelligent interest in local questions affecting the well-being of the people. It will come into operation when the next Council of Government is elected. Her Majesty's Government have certainly made large concessions to the people of

  961
  Malta, and conferred upon them considerable privileges. This they have done in the full belief that the new Council of Government would meet them in a loyal spirit, and that its future proceedings would conduce largely to the credit and prosperity of the island without infringing in any way the rights and duties of the Crown. I may, perhaps, be allowed to observe that the power of the Crown to protect Imperial interests has been secured by the provisions of the Letters Patent. In answer to the second Question of the noble Earl, I have to say that the proposal to establish a Militia regiment was first made by the present Governor in 1885, when the Earl of Derby was Secretary of State. That noble Lord viewed the suggestion very favourably; but it appears to have been shelved for a time, as some questions were under consideration affecting the Malta Fencibles. It has now been revived by a unanimous Resolution of the Council of Government, and the Governor is greatly in favour of the establishment of a regiment. I have myself a strong belief that the creation of this Militia is advisable, both from an Imperial point of view, as adding to the defensive power of Malta, and from a Colonial point of view, as bringing all classes together and giving them a lively interest in the defence of the Colony; and I am very glad to find that the noble Lord who has last spoken is also in favour of the scheme. The matter has been referred to the War Office, and a favourable consideration for it has been asked. It is hardly necessary to add that the War Office would probably be the first Department to recognize the importance of having this addition to the Forces in Malta; and I, therefore, hope that their Report will be favourable. The Treasury must also be consulted on the subject. The Papers for which the noble Earl asks can not be well presented until a final decision shall have been arrived at; and I hope that the noble Earl will, therefore, consent to wait a little time for the Papers and the Return for which he has asked.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that he would accede to the request made by the noble Lord.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE SOUTH AND WEST COASTS.—RESOLUTION.
THE EARL OF HOWTH, in rising to move—
"That an immediate survey of the fishing grounds on the south and west coast of Ireland is much required; that in the event of Her Majesty's Government accepting the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works to reconstruct the Irish Fishery Department, legislation be not delayed beyond the present Session of Parliament,"
said, it was not his intention at present to enter into a discussion upon the whole question of the Report of the Royal Commission. He ventured to assert, however, that he approved of its principal observations, which consisted in the proposal to develop the deep sea fishing apart from those in shore or near the shore; that large vessels manned by skilled crews were to be constructed; that full-sized and deep harbours were to be erected; and that railway communication was to be established towards them for the purpose of facilitating the exportation of the captured fish for the English markets. This policy was a total subversion of the principles of the Irish Fishery Act of 1869, which, by promoting the building of small fishing piers, had conferred benefit and relief upon the coast population. He was certainly not opposed to seeing relief extended to congested and poor districts. Quite the contrary; but he ventured to think that expenditure could be beneficially made in improving the condition of the fisheries. The Irish fisheries, with the exception of the mackerel fishery in a small portion of the South-Western Coast of Ireland, had been very fully explained and entered into in this Report; and it would appear that in the opinion of the Commissioners it had been proved that there was an inexhaustible supply of fish on the Western and Southern Coast, and that, with the assistance of future legislation, great benefits might be conferred on the fishing industry. It was clear that the fishing grounds had never at any time been fully inspected and considered, and that thorough inspection of them was absolutely necessary in order that it might be fully proven what was the supply of fish upon them, what was the quality and the species of the fish, and in what localities they were to

963
be found, before an expenditure of a large sum of money was entered upon. It was always a matter for consideration, also, whether the youths who were employed on the sea fisheries of Ireland, and entirely on the sea fisheries of Ireland, should continue their profession unless more happy prospects might be secured to the future of the Irish fisheries. This inspection was really and decidedly a case of what might be termed urgency. In all that had taken place hitherto, it was assumed that there were inexhaustible supplies of fish; but there was a striking absence of information that could be relied upon. The only argument urged against immediate inspection of the coast was that no European nation had made such inspection; but the truth was the waters of all civilized countries were thoroughly well known, the habits of their fish had been studied, and there was no necessity for the inspection which was so urgent in this case. It was essential for the sake of Irish fishermen who were seeking the means of livelihood; in the interests of English fishermen who were on the look-out for new fishing grounds; in the interests of the British public who wanted larger and cheaper supplies of fish; and in the interests of the British taxpayer who was anxious to see more fish caught in return for the money that had been expended upon the Irish Fisheries. The Report recommended an expenditure of £400,000 on harbours and railways communicating with them; and it would be most unwise to incur this expenditure without more definite information as to the fishing grounds. For the purposes of inspection, and to obtain information for the guidance of fishermen, the American Government granted no less than £120,000 a-year. With regard to the second Resolution, the Royal Commission had very clearly and decidedly recommended the dismissal of the three Irish Fishery Commissioners—Sir Thomas Brady, Major Hayes, and Mr. Hornsby. They recommended that there should be substituted for them a Board of practical men connected with the fisheries; that only one of them, the Chairman, should receive a salary, and that the rest of the Board should be composed of unpaid members. He was opposed to that proposal, but he would not now enter into details in connection with the matter. It
964
was evident that the Royal Commissioners considered that the present Fishery Officers were unfitted for their duties, and that they were also dissatisfied with the way in which they managed the Irish Fisheries. He ventured to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that if they had decided that these men should be dismissed, it was very unfair to allow this sentence to remain hanging over them, even till next Session, or even after the present Session was past. There were in Ireland, he was sorry to say, in fishery matters as in politics, two programmes. The popular programme was that fishery grounds should not be made subservient to the interests of the coast population; while the other view was that the fishery grounds were not to be made subservient to supplying the demands of England with fish. The Irish fisheries were at present regulated by the Act of 1869, which was introduced immediately after the Election by Mr. Blake, then Member for Waterford, and received a very liberal support from the Irish county Members as well as the Members for boroughs. It was approved of by the Government and received their support, and its main features supported his first Resolution. The expenditure of thousands of pounds on the construction of harbours and railways would give enormous employment to the people. It would aid the farmers and the shopkeepers, and also, perhaps, the publicans would be paid. The whole neighbourhood would derive enormous benefit by these small piers, and they certainly were very popular all over Ireland. Mr. Blake, the previous Chairman of the Fishery Commissioners, had supported these principles for years, and Sir Thomas Brady had also supported them. He thought it was pretty clear that the Commissioners exceeded their powers in making an inquiry into the Irish Fishery administration, and he hoped that the sweeping measure of removing Sir Thomas Brady, who was a gentleman of great experience and ability, and two other Commissioners, which had been suggested by the Royal Commission, would not be adopted by Her Majesty's Government.
Moved to resolve—

1 "That an immediate survey of the fishing grounds on the south and west coast of Ireland is much required:

965

2 That in the event of Her Majesty's Government accepting the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works to reconstruct the Irish Fishery Department, legislation be not delayed beyond the present Session of Parliament."—(The Earl of Howth.)

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that it would be impossible not to sympathize with the objects of the noble Earl in placing his Motion on the Table; and he was certainly not prepared to say that it would not be desirable that the survey of the fishing grounds on the South and West Coasts should be made as soon as possible. It was quite true that the Commissioners did in one paragraph of their Report recommend that some such survey should be made, but they did not lay much stress upon the recommendation. Undoubtedly it was a point which must be considered in connection with other matters dealt with by the Commission. In reply to the last portion of the noble Earl's Motion, he could only say that it was not the wish of the Government to delay any legislation in connection with this subject longer than was necessary; but he would remind the noble Earl that on a previous occasion he informed him that the Commissioners were instructed to deal with the subjects which were to come before them in the order most advantageous to the Public Service, and they took the question of arterial drainage first and issued their Report on that subject before the Report on Irish Fisheries. The Government had thought it better to follow the order of these subjects adopted by the Commissioners. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had accordingly prepared, as he said some time ago ho would prepare, three Bills on the subject of arterial drainage, and when he informed the noble Earl that these Bills were prepared and printed at Whitsuntide, and that his right hon. Friend had not even yet had an opportunity of presenting them in the House of Commons, it would show how impossible it was for them to give any pledge as to when legislation in connection with the Fisheries would be begun, and whether there was any prospect of passing a Bill on that subject during the present Session. He would not follow the noble Earl in the remarks which be had made as to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, nor did he think it necessary to say much on the question of
966
whether the Royal Commissioners had exceeded their authority or not, because, as the noble Earl was well aware, Her Majesty's Government had no control over Royal Commissions, and if any recommendation that the Commissioners had made were ultra vires, so as to render objectionable such legislation as might be founded upon them, that was a matter which could be dealt with when they came to introduce into Parliament the measures on this subject which, no doubt, it would be their duty to bring forward. So far as the Motion of the noble Earl was concerned he trusted that he would not now consider it necessary to go to a Division. He could only say that the subject of Fisheries had received the anxious attention of the Government, and it was their wish to proceed with legislation on the subject with as little delay as possible.
THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, he must express his appreciation of the anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to promote the industries of Ireland, and he was in no hurry on the subject of his Motion. He would be quite satisfied if satisfactory legislation were introduced next year.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Ashbourne.)
LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 93.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Cork and Belfast local bankruptcy courts).
  LORD FITZGERALDbegged to move the omission of the clause. This was a subject which affected the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, as from his experience he could not fail to see that this measure, if passed, would entail very considerable and unjustifiable expense. He pointed out that there were no less than four Bills pending at present in the House of Commons having reference to the reduction of the judicial strength in Dublin, and other matters connected with the administration of the law, and he contended that it would be unwise, as it was unnecessary, to enact such a measure as this.
  Moved, to omit Clause 4.—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he was tolerably familiar with the Bills pending in the House of Commons to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, and he was bound to say that he entirely failed to see the relevancy of these Bills to the Bill now before their Lordships, and if they were passed by their Lordships, they would not have the remotest bearing upon this question of Local Bankruptcy at all. Then his noble and learned Friend raised the point of increased expenditure, and he ventured to think that there was not one of their Lordships who would not have supposed, from his noble and learned Friend's remarks, that by this moderate Bill he proposed to manufacture two brand new Courts, two brand new Judges, with brand new officials. Nothing of the kind. It only proposed to utilize existing Judges and existing officers, and only supplemented these officers where it was proved to be absolutely necessary. The only proposal it made was that it conferred upon existing Judges this much sought after and desired local bankruptcy jurisdiction. Since this question was last before their Lordships a meeting had been held in Cork which was attended by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and at which Resolutions had been passed strongly in favour of this Bill being passed. The Recorder of Cork alone, as far as his noble and learned friend had stated, was against it. And in Belfast there was a large meeting held in favour of this Bill. He found that the Chambers of Commerce of England and the United Kingdom had passed Resolutions in favour of local bankruptcy jurisdiction and in favour of such legislation taking place in Ireland. What authorities was his noble and learned Friend able to marshal against the Bill? Mr. Richard Davoren, a highly respectable solicitor practising in the Dublin Bankruptcy Court, of course, was against it, and another respectable solicitor, Mr. Bennett Thompson, gave his individual opinion against it, and he was bound to say that a more meagre support had never been given to the opposition to a Bill than the letter written by the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society saying that they did not wish any further action to be taken in that House with regard to this Bill. Last year three Bills
  968
  had been introduced into the House of Commons on this very question, one of them by Mr. Sexton, who was known not to be a Conservative. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, with Mr. Sexton as Chairman, and in all essential lines this Bill was the same as the Bill when it emerged from the Select Committee. Then they were asked not to pass this Bill because Mr. Chamberlain's Act of 1883 worked well. Mr. Chamberlain's Bill of 1883 made important changes in the law and procedure. This Bill made no change whatever in the law, and if it was thought desirable afterwards to adopt any or all of the provisions of the Act of 1883, there would be nothing in this Bill to interfere with that being done. He hoped their Lordships would consider it unreasonable to withhold what was sought for for a great many reasons—namely, the establishment of local bankruptcy jurisdiction, and that they would give it in the way which commended itself to the judgment of all those most interested in this question.
  EARL SPENCERthought it was desirable that facilities for bankruptcy proceedings should be extended locally in Ireland. When he was in Ireland representations were made to him from different parts of the country strongly urging the Government not to drop the clauses with regard to Ireland which originally appeared in the Bill of 1883. He would be the last person to wish to add to the already overgrown judicial state of Ireland; but when he read the Bill he did not understand it would necessitate anything like the expense his noble and learned Friend feared—considering that no new Judges or officers would be required. He hoped that the greatest possible care would be taken to see that the salaries and allowances under it would be moderate. If his noble and learned Friend had pressed his Motion to a Division he certainly should be obliged to vote against him and in favour of the Bill.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.