Lords Sitting of 14 February 1893

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
COMMITTAL OF DEBTORS.

  SELECT COMMITTEE
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)called attention to the subject of committals under the Debtors' Act, and moved for the appointment of a Select Committee. He said, many persons were imprisoned under the Act year by year. Popularly it was spoken of as imprisonment for debt, but that popular description was not accurate as applied to imprisonment for non-payment of debt. The present law, passed in 1869, provided that in future there should be no imprisonment for making default in payment of a sum of money with exceptions which had no reference to this subject, being with regard to fraudulent Trustees, attorneys, and other persons. The Act, however, provided that the Court might commit to prison for a term not exceeding, six weeks, or until payment, any person who made default in payment of debts under orders or judgments, that jurisdiction to be exercised only where it was proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the person making default had means and refused to pay. So that imprisonment for non-payment of debt was only to take place where the non-payment was really what might properly be called fraudulent; for a person owing money which he could pay, but refused to pay even under an order of the Court, might obviously be regarded as in the category of fraudulent persons. Exception could hardly be taken to the law as intended by Parliament, but it was one thing that imprisonment should only be carried out in particular cases and quite another to secure that that should always be the result. No less than 8,955 persons were thus imprisoned in the year ending 31st March, 1892, and of those cases 5,852 were under judgments in the County Courts. Those were large figures, and evidently the matter was of considerable moment. A large majority of the committals were by the County
  1342
  Courts. First, an order was made for payment of a debt, then an examination took place as to the debtor's means; an order was thereupon generally made for payment by instalments. It an instalment were not paid, an inquiry took place whether the default had arisen from want of means, and if not the debtor was sent to prison for a term not exceeding six weeks. Of course, the difficulty was in many cases great of the County Court Judge satisfying himself as to what the debtor's means really were. Those Judges made the best inquiries they could, but it was certain that in many cases they did not get at the facts, and that not infrequently those who had no means to pay, and were, therefore, not to be regarded as fraudulent, were so imprisoned for non-payment of their debts. No doubt the power of imprisonment compelled payment of many debts which would probably otherwise remain unpaid; but it was not always because the debtor himself had the means of payment, but frequently that friends or relations rather than see hint, the breadwinner of his family, sent to prison, paid the debt or instalment ordered. Consequently, this power of committal often resulted not in punishing fraudulent people, as was intended, but in putting pressure on relations and friends. There was really no substantial difference of opinion in this matter among County Court Judges or even Judges of the Superior Courts. Recommendations had been made that this power of committa1 for non-payment of money should be altogether put an end to. That course had found many advocates, who maintained that it would really in the end hurt neither the trader nor those who were often driven to obtain goods on credit, that traders would be still able to obtain payment of their just debts when their debtors had the means. On the other hand, many believed the working classes would be deprived of the power of obtaining the credit they require owing to want or slackness of work or other circumstances. These two contending opinions he placed before their Lordships without expressing any views of his owns upon them. The subject was of great interest, alike to the working classes and to traders. While the abolition of this power of imprisonment would tend to diminish credit, it must be ad-

  1343
  mitted that a politic system of credit would be advantageous to both trader and debtor; and many persons thought that if this power were abolished the respectable working-man, conducting himself honestly, would not fail to get credit merely because there existed no longer this last resort against debtors, who had the means and did not pay. In view of the controversy to which this subject had given rise, and the great interest which was taken in it by the working classes of the country, he ventured to recommend to their Lordships the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question. No one could doubt that great advantages would arise from the abolition of the present system, unless it brought with it those mischiefs which some feared in the direction of lessened credit to a disadvantageous extent; and their Lordships, by ascertaining the views of those who administered the law, and of those who represented the working-classes of this country, whose opinions would undoubtedly throw considerable light on the subject, would be able to get a very great amount of useful information which would guide the Legislature, and be of great value in assisting them to determine whether to abolish, or in some way modify the existing law under the Debtors' Act.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject of committals under the Debtors'Act."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he had a perfectly open mind on the subject; but he was aware there had been, as the noble and leaned Lord said, a rather sharp conflict of opinion upon it, and he thought, therefore, that the appointment of a Select Committee would be advantageous, particularly as it would enable the views and experience of competent persons to be ascertained, and would enable Members of the Committee to carefully consider their evidence upon the subject, and report upon it to their Lordships.
  *LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he bad received a communication on the subject from a County Court Judge at Liverpool, who lied made thousands of orders of this kind. The power of committal was given by the Statute when the debtor either has or has had since the order was made the means of payment.
  1344
  At Liverpool, at all events, both the County Court Judges thought it undesirable to commit in the latter case, amid that they were only warranted in committing when satisfied on the evidence that the debtor has at the moment means of obeying the order for payment and refuses to do so. They also felt the difficulty of making a distinction between one man and another who can but will not pay a debt; and they were inclined to think it the creditor's right to obtain, if he pleased, an immediate warrant for the debtor's committal if he has it in his power to make payment. Butt if the debtor is dependant on weekly wages the creditor usually agrees to postpone the committal warrant for a fortnight or a month, so that it would not take effect for that time. It was thought that the Statute should empower the Judges to suspend the issue of the warrant in any cases where they thought fit, and should lay down certain rules on the subject. The practice differed. Many County Court Judges were guided by certain decisions, by which other Judges refused to be bound, and the statistics of commitment varied in consequence enormously in different County Courts. In Sheffield, out of 30,000 complaints issued in 1891, only 364 committal orders were made, and only 50 persons went to prison; while out of 34,000 at Leeds 5,133 such orders were issued, nail 362 persons were sent to prison. Another difficulty with the Judges was the proof of means. Under the Debtors' Act of 1869 the proof was on the creditor, whereas in certain proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 the debtor had to prove affirmatively that he could not pay in order to avoid committal, and in the circumstances it was necessary there should now be appointed a Committee of Inquiry into the whole matter.
  Motion agreed to.

THE STATE OF KERRY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DENRRYasked Her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been drawn to a paragraph in The Dublin Daily Express of Thursday, February 9th, which, referring to "The State of Kerry," stated that—

  1345
  "On Monday and Tuesday nights a number of men, who were disguised with masks awl sackcloth over their clothes, visited the houses of several farmers in the district between Tralee and the Spa, and demanded money and arms. In most instances they were successful. The gang also surrounded the car on which a clergyman was driving to visit a sick lady, but when they found who their prisoner was they ran off;"
  whether such paragraph was correct; and, if so, whether any person or persons had been made amenable for any or all of these outrages? He said when last he addressed their Lordships he drew attention to the increase of serious crime in Kerry and Clare, and referred to the sources of information open to the public in the daily Press. For venturing to do so he was taken to task by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who accused him of credulity in believing what he read in its columns. In order that he might not again incur that censure he would simply invite the attention of the Government to such statements, and leave them to either contradict or explain them as best they could. As the Irish Executive was represented in their Lordships' House, he proposed whenever paragraphs of a similar character appeared in the Press, to call attention to them in like manner.
  Loan ACTONsaid, he would endeavour as briefly as possible to satisfy the vigilant curiosity of the noble Marquess. The statement quoted with regard to outrages in Kerry which happened to have appeared at the same time in several other Irish Party newspapers was as it was there given entirely untrue. It was true that at the time and place specified certain persons did combine together and did proceed from house to house carrying away all the money they could obtain. But those "armed moonlighters" were children inoffensively keeping, as it appeared, according to local custom, a religious anniversary. The 5th November celebration was not kept, as their Lordships were aware, in that part of the country, and Guy Fawkes had been there dropped out of the calendar but on St. Bridget's eve the children went about dancing and singing and extracting coppers from their neighbours. They had even a weapon of offence. Their weapon of offence was a broomstick dressed up and decorated like a doll, and technically called a "Biddy." This was
  1346
  not the first time in the Session that the noble Marquess, With his great opportunities and advantages of knowing the state of Irish affairs, had challenged the Government upon them, and he ventured to entertain the hope that it would not be the last.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid, he could not but think their Lordships had received with a certain amount of surprise the statement just made, and he thought the British public when they read in the papers tomorrow the noble Lord's assertions with regard to what could only be described as raids on dwelling houses, but which the noble Lord had treated as simply the pranks of children in a part of Ireland regarded by Her Majesty's Government as being in a condition by no means satisfactory, would not consider it a satisfactory answer to the question. He would not, however, press the matter further—but would simply draw attention to the fact that the "children" alluded to must have been very precocious, as they took the precaution of disguising themselves with masks and sackcloth—if the noble Lord would assure their Lordships from the information he has received that these attacks on dwelling houses in Kerry were merely the freaks of children celebrating the wake of "Biddy," or whoever the person might be, and were not in any way connected with that system of moonlighting which had gained for the county an unenviable notoriety during the past few months.
  LORD ACTONsaid, he had forgotten to state that the children were disguised or got up in some sort of costume, and he might also have stated that the entire story was a hoax.

THE CHURCH IN WALES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury whether it was true that the Government had directed the Ecclesiastical Commission to proceed, in dealing with the four Welsh dioceses, as if the Suspensory Bill, which had been announced, had already passed into law? He said: My Lords, it appears that it is necessary to be careful in believing what one hears, but I have heard such strange reports of what the Home Secretary has said in

  1347
  another place that I will be satisfied with putting the question of which I have given notice to the most rev. Prelate opposite, and reserve any observations I have to make until I have heard what his answer is.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the best answer I can give to the question will be to read the Minute of what passed on the occasion to which the question refers. This Minute will be submitted for confirmation to the Ecclesiastical Commission Board at their next meeting. The Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commission had for some time had under their consideration the desirability of forming, under their statutory powers, a new ecclesiastical district at Colwyn Bay. A church—St. Pant's, Llaudrillo—had been built and consecrated; and the preliminary arrangements had been made some years ago by the former Bishop of St. Asaph (Bishop Hughes). The matter was to come before the Board at its meeting on Thursday, 9th February last, when, to quote the official Minute, there was read—
  "A communication from Mr. H. M. Suft, on behalf of the Lord President of the Council, forwarding copies of a letter from Mr. J. Herbert Roberts, M.P., and of a Petition to Her Majesty from the Rev. W. Venables Williams, the vicar of the parish of Llandrillo-yn-Rhos, in the diocese of Saint Asaph, protesting against the assignment of a separate district out of that parish to the consecrated church of St. Paul, Colwyn Bay. Mr. Roberts urges that, independently of the personal considerations set forth by Mr. Williams, it would not be justifiable, in view of the Suspensory Bill relating to Wales about to be brought into Parliament, for the Commissioners to create a new cure, and therefore a new ecclesiastical vested interest. Mr. Leveson-Gower stated that he was authorised on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to deprecate, in view of contemplated legislation, the assignment of any new districts within the Welsh dioceses."
  This matter was taken into consideration, and, after deliberation, the following order was made:—
  "That the Lord President be informed that the objections of Mr. Venables Williams will be carefully weighed by the Commissioners before any decisive action is taken in the matter of forming the proposed district, but that the Commissioners would not feel justified in withholding their sanction to the scheme on the general ground specified by Mr. Roberts."
  The Minute continues—
  "The latter part of the foregoing Resolution was not concurred in by Mr. Leveson-Gower."
  1348
  I will just add that this being the Minute prepared for confirmation by the Board at the next meeting, it has been shown to Mr. Leveson-Gower by the Secretary of the Ecclesiatical Commission, and that Mr. Leveson-Gower acquiesces in its correctness.
  THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: I presume I heard a false rumour of what Mr. Asquith said; but after what has been said by the most rev. Prelate, I feel bound to enter the most earnest protest against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. They have been guilty of a most gross and unconstitutional transgression of the powers which they hold with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission. If it had been an uncontested matter, and it was quite certain the Bill they are going to propose will pass through Parliament, it would have been at all events a very venial irregularity if they had asked the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to concur in, and to co-operate with, the policy indicated by that measure. But they are perfectly aware that no such character attaches to the suspensory measure which they propose. They are aware it is as highly controversial and as bitterly disputable measure as it is possible to propose. They have no ground for thinking that Parliament will adopt it. If they appeal to the precedent of the Irish Church, they know very well that a similar Suspensory Bill in that case was rejected by Parliament, and there is no precedent whatever for the adoption of such a Bill. I should have said that, even if Parliament had adopted it, the differences between this time and that are very wide. The Irish Church, whatever the merits of its disestablishment may be, is no precedent whatever for the four dioceses of the Province of Canterbury with which it is proposed to deal in Wales. There are many points of difference. One of them is, that the Irish Church belonged to a communion differing from the belief of the large majority of the old inhabitants of the country. The dioceses of Wales hold a belief and belong to a Church which has existed, at all events, very much longer than the communion of any of those who challenge its existence. There was no doubt in the case of the Irish Church that those who differed from it were in a very large majority. They were not ashamed of their religion,

  1349
  those who differed from the Irish Church. They did not resist the institution of a Census, and we knew by the testimony of Government figures that the Roman Catholics were in a very large majority over the Church that was in communion with the Church of England here. But in the case of Wales we have no knowledge of the kind. We are told by interested persons that there is a majority of Welsh Nonconformists, but decade after decade they have ostentatiously shrunk from allowing that pretension to be submitted to the only test by which its veracity could be ascertained. When people perpetually make assertions of which they perpetually refuse to allow the examination and the proof, it is probable that the assertion is false. But, my Lords, there are other reasons which separate very much the condition of the Irish Church from that of the four Welsh dioceses of the Province of Canterbury. We have lived many years since then. We know a great deal more of political science and its practice than we did in 1869. We know what the results of disestablishing a Church are. We know the gloomy series of destructive measures and proposals which in Ireland have followed the disestablishment of the Church. We know that the robbery of the Church is followed by the robbery of the landlords, and by proposals for the mutilation of the State. What we have learnt by experience with, respect to Ireland will guide, I am strongly convinced, the action of this country in regard to any proposals with respect to Wales. Even if these things were not true, even if there were no such strong elements of difference between the two cases, even if Parliament has not rejected, as it did reject, a Suspensory Bill in the past, still it would have been a matter of common decency with a measure of this intense importance—a measure constituting au absolutely new departure from anything that has taken place in our history before—it would ha ye been decent on the part of the Executive not to attempt, by private action or importunity or menace, to anticipate the decision of the Legislature. My Lords, it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the new step which is taken. Mr. Gladstone has the credit of being the first Minister since the Restoration who has lifted his
  1350
  hand to strike down and despoil the Church of England. This is not the time to enter into the grounds of his conduct, to appreciate its character, or the fitness of the hand from which this blow is going forth. But no one can differ from me in this; that this is a turning point in our history. It is a new departure. It is a proposal for the mutilation of an Institution older than any dynasty, older than any estate in this country. It is a proposal big with the most tremendous results to all other ancient Institutions in this land, and I repeat that it, was a matter of common decency that Her Majesty's Government should abstain from trying to obtain an anticipatory and preliminary approval and confirmation of this revolutionary policy by a secret action, taken without notice and without authority, upon an Ecclesiastical Body over whom they have no authority whatever.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Marquess has travelled, as perhaps is natural, far beyond the question which was answered by the most rev. Prelate, and has taken occasion to repeat in this House a denunciation of a variety of Irish measures in terms which do not err on the side of weakness. We have the old story of the robbery of the Church and the robbery of the landlords in Ireland, while the measure now before Parliament is described as "mutilation," I think it was, of the United Kingdom.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of the State.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I will not go into the old story. I do not admit that the Church was robbed in Ireland, and I utterly deny that the landlords were robbed of anything. I entirely deny that. I challenge anybody to point out wherein the condition of the Irish landlords in respect of their rents, which I suppose is the main matter they have to care for, is in any respect worse, and whether it is not in many respects better, than that of landlords in England. That is ancient history; and with regard to the mutilation of the United Kingdom or of the State, the noble Marquess refers to a measure now, I am glad to say, before the other

  1351
  House, and concerning which I shall not be induced to say a word. With regard to the question more immediately before us relating to that portion of the Church of England which exists in Wales, it would be far more appropriate to discuss that important question when the measure promised in the Queen's Speech is before your Lordships, and not upon an occasion like the present to enter upon a defence of the policy which Her Majesty's Government is prepared to pursue. In due time and place we shall be prepared to defend the policy of that measure and our action in regard to it, both here and elsewhere. I should like, however, very shortly to describe my own action in connection with the question on the Paper. That action consisted in simply sending certain communications in the ordinary course to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners upon this application referring to a benefice in Wales, and also transmitting to them two letters raising certain objections to the proposal; and in reply I received the letter contained in the Minute which has been quoted by the most rev. Prelate—that is to say, informing us that the objections of the vicar would be fully considered; but that the Commissioners did not feel justified in withholding their sanction to the scheme on the general ground specified by Mr. Roberts. On receiving that letter I directed that a reply should be sent to Mr. Roberts in precisely identical terms. That is my action in the matter as President of the Council. Exception has been taken to a declaration which it appears was made by Mr. Leveson-Gower. He is the Church Estates Commissioner appointed by Government. He objected to the course which was proposed to be taken in this matter, and, it appears, deprecated such course upon the ground that it was not desirable to proceed pending, the passing of the measure now before Parliament. I apprehend it was perfectly open to Mr. Leveson Gower, as Church Estates Commissioner, to take the course which he thought fit in regard to the particular matter; but I certainly am not informed that there has been a general decision by Her Majesty's Government on the subject stating in general terms, as I suppose is inferred from this Minute, that we call upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not to exercise their discretion with regard to schemes which
  1352
  may come before them as to benefices in Wales.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understood that Mr. Leveson-Gower distinctly stated that he was speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: And I am saying that I have not understood there has been any general decision of Her Majesty's Government that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be in any way prevented from exercising their own discretion in matters which come before them. They are an independent Body, and it is for them to take the course which they consider right looking at all the circumstances, and it seems to me that a Commissioner who is appointed by Her Majesty's Government is perfectly at liberty to express his opinion that a particular course would be better than another; but I repeat that I am not aware of any general decision by the Government calling upon the Commissioners not to exercise the authority which they undoubtedly possess as au independent Body.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, the position of this most important question was assuming a deeper significance every moment. The course that had been taken by the Lord President of the Council was very curious and extraordinary and not easy to follow. As he understood, Mr. Leveson-Gower was the official Representative of Her Majesty's Government on the Board of Her Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and appeared to be speaking as the Representative of Her Majesty's Government. The position of the question, therefore, appeared to be this: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, wielding their immense powers under Statute, had practically a message sent to them by Her Majesty's Government that they should suspend some of their most important functions. Why was it they had dared to take upon themselves a line of act ion grossly unconstitutional and without one atom of legal excuse or justification? That was the position, and there could be no possibility of getting out of it. The Home Secretary, when asked a question in the other House that evening, stated that Mr. Leveson-Gower was proceeding upon his own initiative. But that answer was inconsistent with the statement of Mr. Leveson-Gower, who

  1353
  was incapable of saying anything he did not believe to be absolutely true. Whether there was a general consensus on the part of the Government, or Mr. Leveson-Gower believed that there was, he was within his right with his ambassadorial functions when he told the Commissioners that Her Majesty's Government, in view of a Suspensory Act, not introduced or printed, desired that they should suspend some of their most important functions which they were bound by Statute to exercise. He found it difficult to imagine—perhaps it was the result of his legal training—any line of conduct more grossly unconstitutional or indefensible from every legal and fair point of view. They had not yet heard one syllable in defence of it, and he should be surprised if they could hear any whatever. Had the Suspensory Bill been waiting to be carried into law with the concurrence of both Parties there might have been some palliation for this proceeding, but, there had not been a vote or even a statement in Parliament upon which could be founded anything like a moral expectation that the Bill would have the support of anything like a majority. There was no reason whatever to suppose that a Suspensory Bill, if brought in, would go through. The question of the disestablishment of the branch of the Church in Wales had never even come before Parliament, so that Parliament cannot have expressed approval of it. Nay more, in 1889, when Mr. Dillwyn moved a Resolution on the subject, an Amendment was carried by a, majority of 53, to the effect that, having regard to the great and growing influence of the Church in Wales and especially to the nature of the work which it was doing in the Principality, the House was not prepared to adopt the Resolution. In the Debate on the subject Mr. Byron-Reed quoted on May 14, 1889, from a speech of Mr. Gladstone in a Debate raised by Mr. Watkin Williams in 1870, the statement that there was complete ecclesiastical, constitutional, and, he might add, historical identity between the Church in Wales and the Church in England; that he would not say what it would be right to do provided Wales was separated from England as Ireland was, and provided the ease of Wales stood in full and complete analogy to that of Ireland in regard to religious differences; but the direct
  1354
  contrary was the case, and, therefore, he thought it was practically impossible to separate the case of Wales from the ease of England. All that went to weaken the suggestion that there could be any belief on the part of Her Majesty's Government, when Mr. Leveson-Gower made the statement in question, that Parliament could be expected to adopt the Suspensory Bill without the keenest and most resolute opposition. In 1868, before the Suspensory Bill was introduced, a Resolution was carried after a long Debate; an Address had then to be presented to the Crown; an answer was received on the 28th of May, and on the day after Mr. Gladstone, in presenting the Suspensory Bill, said that it had derived a validity and moral force, from the Resolution passed a few days before. If that was so there was another link wanting in the present case. The Government seemed now to desire to repudiate Mr. Leveson-Gower, but that was a matter which must be settled between Mr. Leveson-Gower and Her Majesty's Government. No one who knew Mr. Leveson-Gower would believe that on a matter vitally affecting the Church he was likely to have imagined his authority if he were speaking on the authority of others and not of the Government. That was a very serious question. It was an effort made, it may be, not thinking it would receive the publicity it had attracted, to suggest to a great Board that it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government that they should, without law and in anticipation of what might become law, apply some sort of undermining to a Church which was part of the Chinch of England. That was, in effect, to apply a dispensing power which was revolting to the whole spirit and policy of our laws. But it was not the only instance. Something similar had occurred in Ireland. When in Ireland it came into the mind of the Government to, in their own words, make the Instructions to the Sheriff more intelligible, and to substitute for his discretion something else, that was an effort at applying a dispensing power which was rudely rebuked by the Courts in Ireland; and when public attention was called to this subject, no doubt the official steps taken would be similarly condemned. No effort had been made openly to throw over Mr. Leveson-Gower. The noble

  1355
  Earl, using cautious words, only said he was not aware of any general understanding of the Government as to the common policy to be adopted on this question.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I said a general decision.
  LORD ASHBOURNEwould then say there was an understanding of a general decision upon a common policy to be adopted by the Government upon the subject.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What I stated was that no general decision had been arrived at as to requesting the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not to exercise the power which they possessed.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that Mr. Leveson-Gower then must have been instructed before the Cabinet had arrived at its general decision, because he conveyed to the Commissioners that he was only the mouthpiece of the Government in what he did say. The position was not satisfactory, and he hoped that a more satisfactory explanation would he forthcoming before this controversy closed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not sure that he would be able to give the noble and learned Lord much satisfaction, because he confessed that until he heard this discussion he knew very little of the occurrences which had taken place in this matter. He rather demurred to the suggestion that the Church Estates Commissioner was to be viewed as a Representative of the Government in the Ecclesiastical Commission, of which personally he had the honour to be a member; and, as he understood the case, the Church Estates Commissioner appointed by the Government had no more status, power, or authority than any other individual of the Commission. In considering the point raised with regard to this being a constitutional question and an attempt to exercise a dispensing power, it was essential to see what was the nature of the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission. This Commission was an absolutely independent Body, and the Government of the day had not the slightest power over it. Any representation made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Government of the day would no doubt receive as much consideration and attention as the Commissioners chose to give
  1356
  it; and if the Commissioners thought it a reasonable representation and one to be acted upon, they would no doubt approve it; but if they thought that the contrary was the case, undoubtedly the Commissioners would not act upon it. What right would have been violated here? Where was the unconstitutional proceeding?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, they were bound by Statute to carry on their functions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not believe the noble and learned Lord had even as much knowledge as himself of the functions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Their functions did not compel them to take any particular course, and they were only to do what they deemed best.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that was true, and the point here was that the emissary of Her Majesty's Government advised the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to violate the law.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not understand that any such advice had been given them. The strong language used was quite out of place. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were bound to act according to the best of their judgment, and no representation made to them fettered, or could fetter or affect their action, except in so far as it might operate upon their judgment. It is, therefore, no violation of the law to put any view before them for their consideration. They were just as independent of the Government in their own matters as was the Government of them in reference to the affairs of the country. The importance which had been attached to the matter had arisen from a misapprehension of the relative positions of the Government and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of which body this particular Estates Commissioner was but one of the members. He was not in a position to enter into the question of the precise authority which Mr. Leveson-Gower had. No doubt that gentleman supposed he had authority, as represented by the Board Minute which bad been read; but, on the other hand, something might have passed leading to a conception of authority to make an announcement going somewhat beyond what was intended by those who communicated with him. For example, if he were told that as Church

  1357
  Estates Commissioner he could vote against a particular proposal as a protest against creating further districts, he would have been perfectly entitled to act upon that when the question came to be put to the vote. But, as he had said, he did not know the exact circumstances which took place, and could not, therefore, say anything more upon the subject. He had only intervened because he could not agree at all with the noble and learned Lord that anything unconstitutional had occurred, or any act done which could have compelled or induced any Body to violate any right whatever.
  *LORD NORTONsaid, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were an independent, Body, but only for one special purpose from which they had no legal power to depart, but that in this instance they had been asked ostensibly by the Government to depart from that purpose in order to facilitate the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. That was simply saying that the Government had appeared to attempt to make the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a kind of cat's-paw in the furthering of a measure which it was known the Government had in contemplation, by taking the first and, perhaps, irretrievable step towards that measure which he had not believe either House of Parliament would ever assent to.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.