Lords Sitting of 16 March 1893

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Ffrench—Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Martin Joseph Ffrench Baron Ffrench to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL. [H.L.]

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYpresented a Bill to provide for greater freedom for religious instruction in Board schools. He said this was an important measure, inasmuch as there were in England, to which the Bill referred, alone 4,747 Board Schools educating about 1,500,000 children. Many of them gave no religious instruction whatever. Statistics were very difficult to obtain, as constant confusion arose between the term School Boards and Board schools, but at least 91 Boards would not allow any religious instruction to be given. Many again allowed a certain amount of Bible reading without note or comment, while others permitted the use of prayers and hymns without any Bible reading; but, altogether, a considerable proportion of these schools gave practically no religious instruction of any kind. Others gave a certain kind of teaching after the method of the London and Manchester School Boards, which might be in some cases very good as far as it went, but was very inadequate to meet the requirements of parents really in earnest as to the future religious belief of their children. This Bill was meant to give greater security to parents of children attending the public elementary schools provided by School Boards that their children should receive religious instruction at the hands of persons in whom they had confidence.
  162
  The method of carrying out that object provided by the Bill was very simple, and one which the circumstances of this country seemed to call for. If our country were like Germany, possessing only four or five religious confessions, it would be easy enough to deal with this question; but, in fact, we had nearly one religious denomination for every day in the year, and, therefore, the only way of dealing with the subject at all satisfactorily as between these different denominations was to allow the parents of a sufficient number of children to apply for separate religious instruction, and to put upon the School Boards and the Department together the duty of seeing that that did not become too great a strain upon the staff and management, and that the work was not caused to be done inefficiently. The persons engaged in doing it were, according to the Bill, to be nominated by the parents, but they might be, and in most cases probably would be, already members of the school staff. The result would be to very much then what was good in the present system of religious teaching in Board schools, and where it was bad, or inefficient, to enable the deficiency to be easily remedied.
  Bill to provide for greater freedom of religious instruction in Board schools—Presented (The Lord Bishop of Salisbury); read l a ; and to be printed, (No. 52.)

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 24.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, any of your Lord-ships who have looked at this Bill which has been before you for some time will be quite aware that it is not intended in any way to interfere with or to depreciate the value of the right of private patronage. The right of private presentation to benefices formed part of the natural history of the Church of England—it is a usage which has grown up during centuries, and within certain limits it has proved to be beneficial in its working. The right, when properly exercised, undoubtedly gives the private patrons, who are usually

  163
  persons of importance in the parish, an interest in the choice of a thoroughly suitable clergyman; it gives them also an interest in the work of the Church at large, and it is beneficial in that it is a natural and practical means of securing that the diversity of schools of religious thought which exist among us shall have proper and adequate representation. How completely it is part of the English Church is visible in the fact that nearly one-half of the livings of England are in private patronage, and that the value of such livings is greater than that of those which are in public patronage. It is an indication of the interest taken in private patronage that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have received above £2,500,000 from private donors for the purpose of improving such livings. Therefore, it is not my intention in the Kill to disturb in the least any right of private patronage. One of the rights of private patronage undoubtedly is that of transferring the right of appointment for a consideration. Well, I am not concerned to defend that right, but it is important we should observe that it has always been protected by law. That subject, however, belongs to a field entirely outside of this Bill, or any discussion of it. It is plain in a moment that there are certain instances in which it is advantageous: for instance, where an impoverished landowner has to part with the whole of his property, it would be a loss to the parish that he should be obliged to retain the advowson. Public patronage, we may say, practically speaking, has never been sold within living memory, but in a limited number of cases private patronage has been sold over and over again; there is one case in my own diocese in which a living of £2,000 a year has been sold three times in 10 years. I do not then intend by this Bill to attempt to meddle with the principle of transfer for consideration any more than with private patronage itself: but only to deal with those real and glaring evils of the system which are universally admitted to exist. They are evils not inherent in the least in private patronage or in transfer for consideration, and they are not allowed by law. It is very important we should observe that these real evils are all against the law. One of the leading agents in these matters stated
  164
  to the last Royal Commission that nearly all of his transaction were illegal. These illegalities are the means by which wrongful transfer are effected; they are evasions, defiance of the law; they are subterfuges; and the Bill proceeds upon the idea that the law ought to stop whatever defiance or evasion of itself it is able to stop. Futile it is in general to pass laws which overstrain or outshoot the public conscience. Active steps have been taken again and again during the last 20 years to put a stop to these evasions and defiances of the law, and it is full time they were brought to a head If it were urged that they were not very numerous as regards the proportion of livings affected, though numerous in themselves, the comparative fewness of offences is no reason for not dealing with them. The Bill does not seek to make any revolution in the law of patronage, but to stem offences against the right use of patronage, and to provide securities where it is possible that the law as it now stands shall be observed. It is also intended to close loop-holes which the law has left open, but which are plainly against the spirit and intention of the law, The first evil we have to deal with is that of the purchase of next presentations for the benefit of the purchaser. That is distinctly against the law, and yet another of the witnesses who were called before the Royal Commission, who was himself concerned in this traffic, admitted that three-quarters of his transactions were for immediate possession by the purchaser. More than three-fourths of the offers advertised in a circular which I hold in my hand from a clerical agent are with the prospect of early possession, and this is achieved by various evasions. One very common practice is purchasing an advowson, which is lawful, then presenting oneself to it and again selling it, and not unfrequently selling it back upon a previous engagement to the person from whom it had just been bought. A more flagrant defiance of law than that it is scarcely possible to imagine, and yet that is done almost always with impunity. The law is right in enacting that a man shall not be allowed to buy a next presentation for the benefit of himself. It is against the very idea of patronage. The very idea of patronage is that another person

  165
  shall judge of a man's fitness for the work of the Church, and that he should judge it on grounds which it is perfectly easy to define. When a man buys an advowson and presents himself it is very often because he takes a fancy to the house and the garden attached to the living, and to the shooting and the fishing of the neighbourhood, and he puts himself in possession of those means and opportunities of sport, and having put himself in possession of that sport by a violation of the law he very often re-sells the living to some one else. I admit that a good man may under this system put himself into a living with the firm resolution of exercising his ministry most purely, but that is no reason why we should sanction evasion of the law. Even a good man who buys himself into a living in that way starts upon his ministry with a taint, and he never gets over the taint. Whatever other reasons his parishioners may have for thinking ill of him or lightly of his influence, are extremely aggravated by the fact that he is exercising the office of priest among them by purchase. The existing state of things leads, of course, to the establishment of shops for the sale of benefices. Livings become articles of commerce and are sold by auction to the highest bidder. The salesmen's lists set forth all the particulars and the attractions of the livings. Inducements of the lowest kind are offered to purchasers. One advertisement here reads—
  "Charming preferment for a man fond of sporting and a country life. Rectory-house cost £4,000. Price, with early possession, £2,000."
  Another advertisement states that "an attractive living" is "not far from a fashionable seaside resort." I hold in my hand a correspondence between an agent and a clergyman, in which the agent seeks to induce the clergyman, a rector with several incumbencies in his gift as rector, to dispose of the presentations to the agent. Another advertisement reads: "Population 1,500, but congregation small," actually gloating over the previous inefficiences of the place, and offering the results of them as an attraction to an idle man. In a letter, privately written to a clergyman by an agent, the nature of a living is mentioned, and it is stated of it—
  166
  "The price is £2,500, with interest until pos-session. The age of the incumbent is 76; but we hear this morning that he is very seriously ill. The doctor says that he cannot possibly last more than six months; so there is every prospect of a very early vacancy, so that we believe our client would be pepared to entertain a fair offer if made immediately. Are you disposed to make us one? Kindly reply by return."
  And this precious document is adorned with a mitre. A letter of that kind I think it will be agreed is nothing short of disgusting, and yet it is a kind of letter which is passing about continually. Upon the sale-lists to which I had referred, there appears this statement—"The rector will retire with one-third of his income; "and another—"The rector will exchange and give possession." Disgusting as the other instances were these examples show the cold-blooded nature of the transactions, by which so many people are to be defrauded. If a rector retires with one-third of his income, it means that he must first make a representation to the Bishop that his health is infirm. The Bishop will then appoint a Commission of Inquiry, and on the favourable Report of the Commission the rector will be allowed to retire with one-third of his income. Yet, in the case I have cited, the agent is actually anticipating all these proceedings by advertising that the rector will retire. In the other case, that of exchanging and giving possession, the same abuse occurrs. The advertisement reads as though there were no authorities to be consulted; they have it in their own hand. In the case of exchange, the law requires the consent of two Bishops to be obtained, but all limits are set aside by the contrivances of these people. It may not be possible to fight human nature so far as to make all contrivances of this kind impossible; but the purpose of the Bill is to make such contrivances as difficult as possible. Then besides the purchase of presentations with these attractions and inducements there is a second great evil, the mortgage of benefices for debts. If a clergyman mortgages his benefice for debts he has incurred he, of course, cripples the resources which the parish possesses for the proper discharge of spiritual functions. These debts are very commonly debts to the agent himself, who turns money-lender as well as salesman, and furnishes the

  167
  clergyman who has "a taste for sport and country pursuits" with the money necessary for the purchase of the desired living. I have in my hand a list of livings to be sold in England—about 40—where "part of the price," it is stated, "may remain on a mortgage of the advowson. "There are others where" interest will be paid by the vendor until a vacancy occurs." I need not enlarge upon these points. It is plainly a very corrupt and odious system. What I wish to emphasise is that not a single point of it is necessarily involved in the usage of private patronage. Not one of the actions I have mentioned is allowed by law. This unhealthy system and abuses have grown up, like an excrescence, a kind of fungoid growth, which it is the business of Parliament to try and remove. There are three remedies which have been proposed for dealing with this parasitic evil. The first step is to establish in every diocese a Board of Patronage, which would review every presentation and satisfy itself that it was given honestly and aboveboard, with none of these odious transactions about it. It is also an object of the scheme that, as fast as possible, by gift or by funds raised for the purpose, the Boards should acquire the patronage of as many livings as possible in the diocese. This proposal has been set aside by the framers of the present Bill, because we believe that Boards of Patronage would not be popular or workable institutions, and that funds and livings would not to any great extent be committed to them. Considering that the vast number of presentations are perfectly honourable and pure in every respect such a system would be very thankless, and sometimes without any result, an inquisitorial system. The second scheme proposed was the constitution of Boards of Fitness for certain areas, which should simply decide in cases of sale whether the purchaser was a proper person to purchase. On close consideration, however, it was held that to decide the fitness of purchasers there must be laid down very narrow and formal definitions, or else the Board, exercising its own judgment, must undertake a great deal of inquiry which would be painful and unpleasant to all concerned. Thirdly, an able attempt was made to define the classes of persons who might become purchasers—to say
  168
  what amount of interest a patron ought to have in the place which he presented; what constituted an interest, ownership, or business relationship. All these attempted definitions, however, proved unsatisfactory. The supporters of the Bill do not wish to make a revolution in the system of patronage. What we want is like a new street run through the low parts of a town; we merely wish to let in daylight and air into the dark places, and we believe this Bill will effect that purpose. It is first necessary to know who is the patron of any living. At present no one knows. There are authentic lists published and accepted of benefices with their occupants and patrons. But suppose a Bishop to be about to institute a clergyman in a living. The Bishop may acquaint himself with the statements in, the Clergy List and in the Calendar of his diocese as to the patron of the living; but at the last moment he may find himself confronted with a document stating that the new incumbent was presented by so-and-so, "the true and undoubted patron of the living," and that document has to be accepted at the moment. Little by little the difficulty would be successfully met if a system of registration of transfers of patronage were established. It is proposed in the Bill to institute such a plan of registration that the patron should not be considered to be the patron after a transfer of the patronage unless he has registered himself as the patron. Then, secondly, it is desirable that the law should explicitly declare to be illegal the evasions of the law which now exist, and that it should void benefices which have been obtained by evading the law. A man comes and asks the protection of the law to insure his possession of his living; it is only fair to require that he should make a declaration stating that he has not just broken the law. At present there is a declaration required, but it is almost useless, because a man simply declares that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, nothing which has taken place in connection with his appointment to a living was simoniacal. The word "simony" is a very vague word; it does not certainly retain its original meaning; the definition of it has passed the ingenuity of great lawyers, and a man may rely upon definitions which would enable him to make a declaration

  169
  such as the Bill is intended to guard against. The first point, therefore, is registration; the second is that the law shall explicitly state what is illegal; and the third is the security of the declaration of the man himself that he has done nothing that is illegal. The fourth point is that the law ought to state specifically what are the disqualifications against admissions to livings, and it ought to forbid the Bishop to accept a man who would not be accepted for a clerkship, a tutorship, or a butlership. A man would not be accepted for positions of that kind if he were labouring under actual debt of such a nature as is described in Clause 4, or if he were labouring under an infirmity which would prevent the discharge of his duties. Further, it ought to be a disqualification that a man is of bad character, and that his character would stand in his way if he were seeking any other position. It also seems to me just that before a man is appointed to a living the parishioners should have the right to state their objections to the Bishop. It is, therefore, only right that the parishioners should have his name before them for three or four weeks, and that if they made frivolous or spiteful objections the Bishop might dismiss them. There is another object in connection with the traffic in livings which ought to be effected, and that is the abolition of the kind of benefices which are called donatives. Ad native is simply at first sight a benefice to which, owing to its old history, through its having in the main been connected with some monastery, a patron is enabled to present a man without seeking institution from the Bishop. That seems an innocent proceeding, but it comes to this, that a man has not to present letters of orders to the Bishop, nor has he to present a testimonial, and it is not shown how he has behaved himself in his previous cures. There is, indeed, no certain proof that he is a clergyman at all, as he has to present no letters of orders. Then, again, he does not make any promise of could obedience to the Bishop, and is not subject to the Bishop's interference. Another characteristic of these donatives is that they are capable of being sold during vacancy. Now, these peculiarities bring them under the category of livings which are mischievous. Agents themselves
  170
  acquire donatives, and they use them in this way. An incumbent applies for leave to resign his living and another person is waiting to be presented to it. The proper authorities suspect that there is a simoniacal transaction, and believe that the incumbent in possession intends to resign his benefice for a payment or for some other benefit. When the offer is made to resign the Bishop has power to decline to accept the resignation, but if he does so the agent has now nothing to do but to present the simoniacal seller to one of his own donatives. When that is done his original benefice is ipso facto immediately vacated, and a way is opened to the purchaser to go in, and both law and authority are completely defied. It is not too strong a statement which was made to the Commission, "that the donative is the most powerful instrument of corruption which a man could have in his possession." By means of it he could ride through and over everything. There are only 100 of these donatives, and they are all, with the exception of eight, very small. Under the Bill they are all converted into presentative benefices; nobody will be hurt, and the only difference will be that the patron has the additional security of the letters of orders and everything else, and that the clergyman appointed is subject to the law. There is yet one other point. We believe that certain persons ought to be obliged to vacate their livings. We believe that a man who is labouring under great and hopeless debt should vacate his living, because there is nothing which more destroys a man's efficiency than his being known to be a debtor, with all the miseries and in capabilities which attend upon that state. Then, again, it ought not to be possible that the parishioners should, year after year, and sometimes for 20 or 30 years, be shepherded by a person labouring under hopeless infirmity. The Bill provides that if a man, labouring under hopeless infirmity, does not resign of himself and take advantage of the Incumbents' Resignation Act, 1871, to do so, it should be possible, upon proper representations, for that Act to be applied to him with this further humane provision, in order that he should not be wholly at the mercy of the Commission, to be issued by the Bishop, as to what his pension from the living should be; the

  171
  Bill provides that the pension shall in no case be less than one-fourth of the annual income of the benefice. In the preparation of the Bill I have taken counsel with those who are best acquainted with both the civil and the ecclesiastical law, and they have given me most careful and generous assistance, for which I thank them most sincerely. The Bill is not intended to make a heroic revolution in the system of patronage, but it has been devised to remedy chiefs and illegalities against which the world, both religious and irreligious, cries out, and cries out most justly. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid he should not like their Lordships to pass the Second Reading of the Bill without any Member of the House expressing the sense of obligation which most of them, at all events, felt towards the most rev. Prelate for his persevering endeavours to deal with this very important, and also difficult, subject. The House would agree with him in recognising the rule as universal, and without exception, that to property of all kinds some duties attached. They might be duties of imperfect, or duties of perfect, obligation—duties some of which no means could be found to enforce, excepting an appeal to the moral sense and judgment of the community; but if there were any kind of property the connection of which with duty was most obvious and most imperative, it was the property which the law allowed in rights of appointment to offices of public importance. That would apply to a lay office, but not eminently to a spiritual office, because for that it was necessary to appoint a person who should not only be free from obvious legal, moral, or physical disqualifications, but also a fit and proper person, as far as human judgment could go, to be a spiritual guide and help to a greater or less number of people. Even in the smallest parishes the souls of the people were as precious as in any others. Without exception, the good of the people should be regarded above all things in such a matter. The right of lay patronage was
  172
  very valuable, and, upon the whole, as far as he could judge, it had been generally administered in a conscientious spirit. The law recognised such rights of property, not as paramount, but as subordinate and subsidiary to the interests of those whose spiritual care was the ultimate object of that patronage. This was not a convenient time to go into the details of the Bill, but they bore very strong evidences of an endeavour to reconcile as far as possible those rights of property in private patrons with the higher and greater rights of those who were interested in the proper exercise of such patronage. Some provisions of the Bill went, no doubt, beyond the existing law,, but only upon the principle and with the purpose of cutting off means of defeating the just objects of the law, and preventing gross and scandalous abuses. Whatever limitations might be placed upon the exercise of private rights of patronage which could be shown to be either necessary or conducive to the curing of those abuses were perfectly justifiable. The Bill also provided for the avoidance of benefices when the duties could not be properly discharged,, and made other subsidiary provisions which would he dealt with at a later stage. This Bill, he had no hesitation in saying, was a well considered improvement upon former measures which had received the sanction of their Lordships' House, and was in all respects worthy of their full sympathy and liberal support.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I cannot let this Bill be read a second time without rising to thank the most rev. Prelate for the very great care he has evidently bestowed on the framing of the Bill, and for bringing it forward once more in its new shape for the consent of your Lordships' House. I am not going to enter into all the evils which the most rev. Prelate has described. I cannot imagine anyone entertaining a doubt as to the question raised that this measure is not only for the good of the Church, but for the good of the nation, and that an end should be put absolutely to these practices. There are many persons who think that it would a wise step to stop the sale of advowsons altogether. Undoubtedly that is quite a different subject, and one which is very much more difficult to deal with. I am entirely in

  173
  favour of the right of private patronage continuing to exist. It is the sale of the next presentation which practically works all the mischief. He quoted this remark from a judgment of Lord Chief Justice Eyre—
  "An advowson is a temporal right, not indeed jus habendi; but jus disponendi. The right itself is a valuable right and properly the object of sale, but the exercise of this right is a public trust, and, therefore, ought to be void of any pecuniary consideration, either in the patron, or in the presentee."
  I believe those words fortify the speech of the most rev. Prelate, and are exactly to the point of the Bill. What gives me a particular satisfaction in the matter is that it is now 23 years ago since I had the honour of passing a Bill for stopping the sale of next presentations through the other House of Parliament. That Bill was read by your Lordships' House a second time, and then I am sorry to say it went no further. These evils have gone on since then in many a hundred parishes, owing to that Bill not having passed, and therefore I am thankful to the most rev. Prelate for the persistency with which he has pressed this most valuable Bill upon your Lordships' consideration, and I sincerely trust it will at once become law.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he concurred in the expression of thanks to the most rev. Prelate. He would merely mention that about half a century ago he had joined with his father in divesting themselves of what they considered the very objectionable possession of a donative preferment by a deed giving a small regular endowment to a living and putting the incumbent under episcopal jurisdiction. Not the least valuable part of the proposed measure seemed to him to be the abolition of the donatives.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I do not think there can be two opinions that the abuses which the Bill seeks to check are most serious and mischievous. The right of presenting to a benefice is one that ought to be regarded as a sacred trust, and in my judgment it is impossible to imagine one involving greater responsibility. On the choice which a patron makes, and on the character of the person presented, depends very often the happiness of the parish. For years almost their only opportunity of religious instruction often
  174
  depends on the person presented, and considering the consequences of presenting an unfit person it is, I think, in the highest degree obligatory on your Lordships to sec; that, however much the right of private patronage may be regarded as a right of property, it, ought to be regarded still more as a trust. There is something repugnant in the idea of the sale of a sacred trust. I do not mean to say that there are not cases in which it may be perfectly innocently done and without mischief, as, for example, where an estate changes hands; but, speaking generally, I think the notion of traffic in this sacred trust is abhorrent to the feelings of everybody. It is selling as a right that which ought to be regarded as a trust; it is the sale, not merely of the right of the patron, but of the rights of the parishioners, whose interests are prejudiced and affected and who have no voice in the transaction. I should, therefore, have been better pleased if the measure had gone further than it does in abolishing the sale of patronage. The vast majority of patrons of livings like, no doubt, to have the disposal of a living to the persons presented, but I do not think that they look at the right of patronage as so much property which they can dispose of for so much money in the market. Therefore, I do not think myself there would have been any great sense of interference with the right of property as ordinarily understood, considering that it has grown up rather in the nature of an abuse if it had been dealt with even with a less tender hand than it has been in the Bill. The Bill contains proposals which go in the right direction, and the Government will not oppose the measure because it might in their judgment have gone further. So far as this part of the Bill is concerned,. I support it as being likely to go a considerable way in checking some of the more outrageous abuses in connection with patronage. But there are other lines on which the Bill proposes to enact reforms. What can be more disreputable than the spectacle of a man hopelessly embarrassed, loaded with debt, unable to pay his way and yet retaining his position year after year as the vicar of a parish? Such a state of things is a discredit to religion and a great disadvantage to the parishioners. It is quite impossible under such circumstances

  175
  that a man can with energy, zeal, and diligence discharge the important duties which he ought to discharge. I do not say that there are not exceptional cases, and that there may be some cases which are the result of misfortune. But I am speaking of the many cases where there is no reasonable excuse, and where there ought to be power to interfere to a greater extent than is the case at present. In many cases persons are presented for institution in whose cases there is no absolute disqualification according to the law as it stands, but whose institution it is known would be greatly detrimental to the parish. It is only right that there should be proper safeguards, and that the Bishop should not be compelled to force upon a parish one who would not be a desirable spiritual pastor. The Bill also prevents repeated sales of the same benefice; and, although its provisions may in a sense interfere with the patron's rights, I am quite sure that the limitations proposed will be felt by all right-minded and right-feeling patrons to be in the general interest of the public and for the good of the Church.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 25.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, this measure is a very short one, and has been brought up from the other House of Parliament. At the present moment if a Public Library is wanted a very cumbrous process of voting papers has to be gone through from all the inhabitants. That is a very expensive operation, and takes time. In other matters of this kind the system of voting papers has been done away with. In 1890 the proposal which I made was carried with regard to the Public Health Amendment Act; in 1891 the same proposal was carried with regard to the Museums and Gymnasiums Act; and all I want to do by this Bill is to enable the Urban Sanitary Authority by resolution and under certain safeguards which are contained
  176
  in the Bill, but with which I will not trouble your Lordships at present, to substitute that authority for the voting papers in existence now. Last year the whole of the Acts regarding Public Libraries were consolidated. A Committee sat in the other House of Parliament and went into the whole matter very carefully, and I am told that the Committee are entirely in favour of this amendment of the law, only as the Reference to them was to consolidate and not to amend, they would not allow an amendment to be put into the Bill of 1892. This measure has received the support of persons of all political views in the other House of Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and that it will speedily become law.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Viscount Cross.)
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid the Local Government Board offered no objection to the proposals in this Bill, but possibly when it reached the Committee stage he might he instructed to move one or two Amendments, of which he would give the noble Viscount notice.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 4.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ON SLOW*THE EARL OF ON SLOW, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, although of bore a prosaic title, it might be more properly called a Bill providing for the marking of imported meat. The question excited great interest at present in this country and in various parts of the world; and this Bill was in furtherance of a principle which the Legislature had already adopted in several Acts in connection with imported articles. It was said they could not make people sober by Act of Parliament, but it was not said that they could not make people honest by Act of Parliament. They could see, at all events, that people were not made dishonest by Act of Parliament. It was, he believed, a matter of common notoriety that large quantities of meat were

  177
  sold in this country as the product of a locality far from that in which they were actually produced. It was a most excellent motto to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, but it was not legitimate to buy an inferior article and sell it as a superior article. That was not the forethought of commercial enterprise but the knavery of the common cheat which this Bill would provide against. He could quote many instances of this particular form of fraud. In the case referred to by Mr. Nelson, a large importer of meat from the Argentine Republic, it was undoubtedly, as he said, a fraud to substitute Colonial meat for English meat. There was also the case mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture in the Lower House of Parliament in New Zealand of the Australian gentleman who went into a butcher's shop in London where his own frozen meat was being sold, and having told the butcher that it was Australian frozen mutton, the butcher threatened to send for a policeman and give him into custody for daring to say so, and all the time this gentleman knew that the sheep were his own. He had not the slightest intention of imputing fraud to those engaged in the wholesale trade. In July, 1891, when Scotch mutton was at the highest point it reached during that year—namely, 5s. 8d.—New Zealand mutton was fetching 3s. and River Plate mutton 2s. 2d. per stone. In July, 1892, Scotch mutton had again reached its highest level of the year. It was then at 5s. 4d. Buyers were at this time paying 2s. 9d. for New Zealand mutton, and 2s. 3d. for mutton from the River Plate. Over the whole of the former year, 1891, Scotch mutton averaged 4s. ll¼d. per stone, while the average of New Zealand mutton was 2s. 11d., and of River Plate mutton 2s. 4d. In the year 1892, buyers paid on an average 4s. 9½d. for Scotch mutton, 2s. 10¾d. for New Zealand, and 2s. 2¾d. for River Plate mutton per stone. That showed that a considerable difference existed in the wholesale value of these various qualities of meat. The growth and present extent of the import trade were significant. In 1880, only 400 carcases were brought over and sold from Australia; in 1887, from the same place 88,000 were sent to us, besides 750,000 from New Zealand, and over
  178
  500,000 from the River Plate. In 1892, those figures had still further increased. In that year we received 500,000 carcases from Australia, 1,500,000 from New Zealand, and over 500,000 from the River Plate. This importation of frozen meat had so affected that of live sheep on the hoof that it might be said to have annihilated it, and to have taken its place. In the year 1883, when we imported only 200,000 frozen carcases, there were sent to Great Britain over 1,000,000 head of live stock. In the year 1892, when over 3,000,000 of frozen carcases were received from abroad, the number of live sheep imported into Great Britain had dropped to only 85,000. The importations of beef were chiefly from America. Of the total supply of beef as meat consumed in the British Isles, Australia furnishes us with the insignificant proportion of one-third per cent., while the contribution of New Zealand is even less important, being at the rate of one-fourth per cent. It is estimated 15,500,000 cwt. of beef grown at home are consumed annually in Great Britain, while 5,500,000 cwt. of our consumption are imported. In October last, the President of the Board of Agriculture, replying to a deputation of persons interested in the Deptford cattle trade, on the subject of the importation of foreign cattle, quoted some interesting figures. A calculation that he had made, he said, showed that in 1891 the total meat consumption of the country was 2,139,000 tons of food, and out of that 1,478,000 tons were produced at home, 489,000 tons of dead meat were imported from abroad, and only 172,000 tons of live imports wore brought into this country. So that, while the produce of this country in round numbers amounted to something like 70 per cent. of the whole consumption, there was 22 per cent. of imported dead meat, and only 8 per cent. were living animals brought into this country. Their Lordships would thus see that not only was the trade in imported dead meat very extensive, but the range in prices between meat from different countries loft open the door for the perpetration of considerable fraud by the substitution of one for the other. As to the possibility of marking moat, it was largely practised not only in this country, but in the United States, and on the Continent of Europe. The Hebrew race would only

  179
  eat meat killed in the manner directed by their religion, and in order that a Jew might be able to recognise Kosher meat, it was stamped with a die, and by making a hole in the bone and passing through it a little metal tag, upon which a leaden seal was placed bearing the butcher's mark. In the United States a system of marking meat had been carried out since 1891, which had proved quite efficacious, the process adopted being much the same as that of the Jews, a leaden seal being attached to the meat and stamped by the Board of Agriculture. The marking of meat was, however, most completely carried out in Denmark, and he was indebted to the courtesy of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for procuring information for him from Copenhagen on the subject, which he would ask should be laid on the Table of the House. In Copenhagen, the practice was to stamp several parts of each carcase, showing whether it was first or second class meat, the former being marked in blue, the second in black, in such a way that it could not be got out, without leaving evidence that the meat had been tampered with. He proposed to adopt a combination of both those methods, stamping all carcases in several places, and passing through the bone a tag with a leaden seal immediately below the fleshy part of the leg. If the loss of time in doing this were made an objection, he would point out the rapidity with which letters were stamped in the Post Office, and that already carcases were sent to this country sewn up in bags, an operation which must take a considerable time. But he was satisfied seeing the increased prices obtained, that no objection would be raised on account of the increased trouble involved. This was not the first Bill for the purpose which had been introduced into their Lordships' House, for a measure was brought in some years ago by the late Lord Leamington, though it was very different from this. That Bill, he confessed, had filled him with amazement as a friend of our Colonial Empire, for it was proposed that all meat sent from our Colonies should be termed "foreign meat." He opposed that Bill for another reason: that it would not have distinguished between certain kinds of meat. In the New Zealand House of Assembly a motion was made to procure that a
  180
  system of marking should be initiated by the New Zealand Government. The Minister for Agriculture, himself a practical sheep farmer both in this country and in New Zealand, said—
  "Any legislation that we may pass here, or any brand that we may put on our mutton, will have no effect, and the only way to meet the difficulty will be to have legislation introduced in the Imperial Parliament to deal with the matter. … It is not much use representing the matter to the British Authorities, but the Government will do all they possibly can. We intend to again communicate with the Agent-General. But we have no power to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government to induce them to pass the law. … The matter must be left to the British Government in England."
  The Australasian, a Melbourne weekly newspaper, which probably had the largest circulation of any in those Colonies, among the class who were chiefly interested in the production of wool and mutton, had appointed a "special commissioner" to examine into the whole question of the export of meat to England, and, in the course of his Report, he said—
  "How to break down the imposition and fraud that seem so inextricably associated with the sale of the meat in Great Britain is the crux of this question at the present time, and certain it, is that nothing less than a great co-operative effort on the part of the producers to secure due protection of their interests in the English market, or an official grading of the meat can possibly grapple with the evil."
  Again, at a great banquet given to inaugurate the commencement of a trade in frozen beef from Queensland, Mr. Weddel, the agent for the new Company in England, replying to the toast of "Prosperity to that Company," said—
  "A great deal of correspondence has appeared in the papers lately on the subject of branding Colonial mutton with the country of origin. To this we could not have the slightest objection; on the contrary, we would welcome any such scheme as being the best advertisement we could have of our wares. We know we have a thoroughly good article to sell; we have no reason to be ashamed of it, and have no desire to sell it for other than what it is."
  These views were not confined to persons engaged in the Colonial Trade for Mr. Ward, a large importer of meat from the River Plate, to Liverpool, in an interview" with a newspaper representative, alluding to this Bill, was reported to have said this—
  "People are saying that the measure which is being brought forward is intended to ruin the foreign meat trade; but we would hail with

  181
  delight such a measure as is proposed. We have so much confidence in our trade that we can allow it to stand on its merits."
  In November, 1890, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, under the presidency of the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, resolved—
  "That it is desirable to label all imported meat when sold in this country."
  The present Bill was not introduced in the interests of any class in particular, as was sometimes suggested to be the case with measures when introduced into their Lordhips' House. It was brought forward in the interests of the artisans and labourers; of clerks, whose incomes were, as was well known so meagre; in the interests of small shopkeepers and tradesmen, who, if they could buy at a cheaper price, might be able to have meat every day in the week, instead of only two or three times; in the interests of young married couples, who frequently saw their families increasing more rapidly than their incomes; and, finally, in the interests of large public institutions supported by charitable funds. In one depot, in Liverpool, he was told that 50 purchases averaged no more than 2½d., while in another the average of 100 purchases was only 2¼d. He would like to ask, on the other hand, who were likely to be injured by the Bill. Certainly not the consumers or their Colonial friends; still less the English farmer. In fact there was but one person who could be injured, and he was a person with whom neither their Lordships nor the public would have any sympathy—the fraudulent butcher, who ground the faces of the poor. He did not ask the House to pass this Bill as a matter of special favour to the British farmer, all he asked their Lordships to do was to give a fair field to our Colonial stock-raisers, to see that our commercial men were shielded from fraud in the purchase of an important article of food, and to discourage imposition in trade. He moved the Second Heading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read, 2a—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that he did not propose to follow his noble Friend into all the statistics or considerations he had touched upon. He would address himself to the Bill his noble Friend had explained so pleasantly and clearly. This
  182
  Bill was one of several similar proposals, already in print, dealing with the identification and marking of imported meat. There were three Bills of this nature in print in the House of Commons, and there were kindred measures drafted relating to marking, with the view to identification and showing the origin of fruit and cheese. Now, what was the justification and object of these measures, as stated by the promoters? He conceived it to be this, and it was so stated to their Lordships by his noble Friend, the prevention of misrepresentation by the retailers, who were supposed in these cases, upon which Parliament was invited to legislate, to be getting a better price for foreign and colonial meat than they ought, by selling-it at the price of home-fed stuff, and so not only imposing upon the consumer, but also adversely affecting prices to the detriment of home-fed meat and our own graziers. If this was really going on, it was a very bad business. But was it the case? The noble Lord said it was a matter of common notoriety; but matters of common notoriety did not always stand the test of particular investigation. For himself, and he thought their Lordships also, he would have to be convinced by more evidence than they had at command at present, before they subscribed to en actments which must impose novel and troublesome obligations all round. But, even granting that all this was going on, he was under the impression that his noble Friend's Bill was inadequate for his object. He did not profess to be a Parliamentary linguist, but it seemed to him that Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill did not deal with the grievance. The carcase was the noble Earl's special care and not the pieces of meat cut from it. It was the small retailer they wanted to get at, but there was nothing in these clauses to protect the artisan or clerk from the operations of the small retailer, if the latter were inclined to be fraudulent. Carcases, indeed were to be marked, but not the smaller portions of meat which the small consumers presumably purchased from the small retailer. This Bill proceeded upon the lines of the law in Denmark, but the law in Denmark, as he understood it, was directed against meat unfit for human food, rather than against misrepresentation as to native origin. Moreover, the cases of

  183
  London and Copenhagen were not identical. There was a public slaughterhouse in Copenhagen; there was no such institution in London. This fact alone would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House to adapt the provisions of the law in Denmark to our own requirements. Failing a public slaughter-house, the submitting of all meat to public Inspectors was the alternative, which must involve a complicated, and might involve a harassing, machinery. This question was a large one, not to be lightly undertaken, and it appeared to him that, upon three fundamental points, fuller investigation and more light were essential. Those points he took to be—first, the necessity for this legislation; secondly, the practicability of this legislation; thirdly, perhaps the most important of all, the effect of such legislation upon our international commercial relations. In view of these considerations he must ask his noble Friend to withdraw the Bill, but not without giving him a quid pro quo. Upon his part he would undertake, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that a Select Committee of their Lordships' House should be appointed forthwith to investigate and report upon the whole question of the marking of imported meats and other produce, such as fruit and cheese. Margarine, and the working of the Margarine Acts, had been alluded to by the noble Lord, but, although the Government would consider the advisability of including those matters in the Reference of the Committee, he could give no undertaking as to margarine. He believed this would be the best course, and that it would commend itself to general approval, and command the confidence of the interests involved. The question of the marking of meat might have been included in the Reference of the House of Commons' Committee, to which he had alluded the other day, upon the general condition of agriculture. That Committee had had a sad fate; it had been blocked—and blocked by the action of a right hon. Gentleman in whose breast the patriotic fire of agriculture was supposed to burn with peculiar brightness, but he did not suppose that in that House it would suffer a similar fate. It seemed advisable, therefore, to appoint a Committee of their Lordships to deal with this question of marking imported produce, and he
  184
  hoped his noble Friend would accede to his proposal and withdraw his Bill upon the undertaking he had given.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that he did not know whether he quite followed the noble Lord in the proposal he made. He was not quite clear whether it was proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into all agricultural matters in lieu of that in the House of Commons, or to inquire more into matters connected with the importation of goods. In any case, however, he admitted that the subject was surrounded with the greatest difficulty, and the proposal of the noble Lord would no doubt tend to elucidate the matter, which was one of considerable interest to a large portion of the community. In reply to the noble Lord's appeal, he gladly withdrew the Bill on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would propose a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. The noble Lord said something about margarine. He was given to understand that the working of those Acts was not all that was desired by those at whose instance they were passed, and bethought, if possible, the working of those Acts should be referred to the same Committee.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

BILLS OF SALE BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 7.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  Amendments made, in Clause 1, page 3, line 4, before ("or to") insert ("or to the grant of an easement"); line 5, after ("land") insert—
  "Or by way of indemnity against any such annual sum or against any liability to perform any covenant, or to do any thing.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the last occasion on which this Bill was in Committee I stated that in consequence of the representations I had received on the one side and the other, leading to the conclusion that there was a great difference of opinion with reference to the expediency of bringing within the scope of this Act sale and hire agreements of a character well-known to your Lordships, I had determined to withdraw that provision from the Bill.

  185
  Owing, I imagine, to some little noise, I made the statement at a time noble Lords were leaving the House at the close of a previous discussion, this announcement did not find it way into the public Press. I am vividly aware of the fact because the communications I had previously received I continue to receive attacking the provision in the Bill, based upon the supposition that the clause still remains in it. I, therefore, repeat the announcement, that the provision relating to the hire and sale agreements is no longer in the Bill. The Bill is now almost entirely of the character of a consolidation Bill with a few amendments of the law, to which I do not think there is likely to be any opposition.
  Clause 1, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This proposed Amendment deals with a matter to which my attention has been called. I think there can be little doubt when the Bill of Sale Act was passed in 1878, the intention was that trade fixtures should not be dealt with by an unregistered instrument any more than other trade effects, and accordingly there was a provision in the Bill that fixtures as defined in the Bill which wore trade fixtures, except fixed machinery, motive power, and so on, should be regarded as goods within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Act, and that those goods should not be assigned by a bill of sale except subject to the provisions contained as to registration. It has been held that where there is a mortgage of premises, for example, containing such trade fixtures as are defined in the Act, that inasmuch as they pass as incident to the freehold they are not properly to be described as assigned by the conveyance, and that it is the land which vests the machinery in the person to whom it is conveyed by mortgage. I am satisfied that was not the intention of the Legislature in passing the Act of 1878, and that the decision, the propriety of which I do not comment upon, defeats the intention which the Legislature had. My attention has been called to this matter by those interested, and I propose to put in words now to make that clear, and to carry out what I am satisfied was the intention of the Act of 1878—namely, that the Act should apply to this trade machinery as defined by this Act whether charged separately
  186
  or in connection with any land or buildings.
  Amendment moved, Clause 2, page 3, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("whether assigned or charged separately or together with any interest in any land or building.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My attention has been called to the fact that where the registration of a bill of sale is renewed, between the original granting of the bill of sale and the renewal, or between one renewal and another, there may be changes in residence, occupation, or place of abode as stated at the time of the original registration. Of course the re-registration, supposing those changes have taken place, becomes much less efficient in regard to notice, because they may appear to relate to a bill of sale of a party who is residing at a different place altogether when the bill comes to be registered. Therefore, I propose that there shall be a statement of the change.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 8, page 5, line 9, after ("therein") insert—
  "And, to the best of the deponent's knowledge and belief, any change in any such name, residence, occupation, or place since the date of last registration."
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think my noble and learned Friend has done very wisely to insert those words. I think it is a very useful change.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.
  Amendments moved, Clause 14, page 6, line 20, after ("affidavit") insert ("or an abstract in the prescribed form of the bill of sale, and a copy of the affidavit"); line 23, after ("copy") insert ("or abstract").
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 to 19 agreed to.
  Amendments moved, in Clause 20, page 8, line 9, after ("if") insert ("a receiving order is made against the grantor or"); after line 18 add—
  "Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the law relating to goods in the possession, order, or disposition of a bankrupt."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.
  House resumed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as this Bill has already been through Standing Committee last Session, and no change has been made in it except those I have called attention to, it seems hardly necessary it should go through the Committee again. I therefore move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended." (No. 37.)

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.] (No. 18.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This measure has been so often before your Lordships' House that I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any detailed statement or arguments in support of it. It is, to put it shortly, a Bill to enable accused persons in criminal cases, or the husband or wife of an accused person respectively, if they so desire, to give evidence and be heard as witnesses. The measure has several times passed your Lordships' House, and I trust it may pass into law, for I am quite sure it embodies a most useful reform. There is hardly a week that one does not read complaints of persons who are not able to depose on oath to the facts as they allege them to be, and I am quite sure this will tend to the better administration of justice in this country, and will be an advantage to the accused persons who desire to give evidence, or the husband or wife of such person.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: As my noble and learned Friend has pointed out, this is a matter which has been before your Lordships' House in several previous Sessions. I think the last occasion on which it was here was last year, It then passed through your Lordships' House with the approval, I think, of all those of your Lordships acquainted with legal procedure and methods. It went down from your Lordships' House in a different shape, that is it extended to Ireland. For every reason it was desirable to so extend it. We have there the same law, the same criminal system, the same Common Law. There is not a single argument in its favour here which would not apply, I venture to think, with far greater force to Ireland. But I am aware of the difficulties of transit which occurred with reference to this Bill. Some of the Irish Members, with whom I do not agree in politics, took the view that it was not desirable to extend it to Ireland. I do not go into the reasons which led them to that opinion, stating only the fact that with reference to that a controversy arose in Parliament, and an opinion was strongly expressed by Members of the House of Commons, with whom I agree, representing Irish constituencies, that they would not permit the Bill to pass if Ireland were omitted from it. It is quite obvious that with that state of opinion in the other House it is very difficult to suggest any method by which an easy transit could be secured for this change in the law. I, myself, hold very strongly the opinion I have expressed, though I feel the objection of those who desire the change for England that it is a little hard that England should be deprived of this change because there is a difference of opinion in Ireland. But I am confident that anyone acquainted with the methods and mechanisms of the House of Commons will know that if the Bill goes down in its present shape unaccompanied by any such change, or purporting to carry out a similar change in Ireland, it will have a very slender chance of passing Not at all in a controversial spirit, but only dealing with difficulties which are obvious to any one, I should suggest to my noble and learned Friend to consider, and I should be glad myself to consider, some method by which the difficulties I have

  189
  referred to might be met, so that this Bill may be presented in a shape to meet those difficulties, or else that it may be accompanied by another measure which would meet the objections I have referred to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be most happy to consider any method by which the difficulty alluded to by my noble and learned Friend can be got over. The truth is that this measure, which has been most strongly desired for England for five or six years past—it must be as long as that ago since the Bill first passed this House—has not passed into law because there is a great difference of opinion among Irish Members as to the expediency of its application to Ireland. It is a little hard, and I will go further and say I do not think it is altogether right, that in a matter of this sort, which is regarded by Members representing England as of great importance, and as affording to accused persons the means of defending themselves, should not have been for five years past the law in England because of this difference of opinion with regard to Ireland. Surely the best course would be to let it pass into law for England, and if it works well it will be more likely to appease those opposed to it as extended to Ireland, and to induce them to consent to a measure of this description for Ireland also. But I should regret, and my noble and learned Friend will agree with me, that this Bill should become a hotly contentious one. Unless we can get rid in some way or other of this controversy, it is hopeless to expect to see this amendment of the law made. I cannot help thinking there must be some way out of it by which this Bill should pass into law as regards England, satisfying those who represent England in the matter, leaving open the question of its application to Ireland for afterwards.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS—STATE PENSIONS.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL, in moving for a Return in reference to State Pensions,
190
said that the Return was merely supplementary to one which had been granted in the House of Commons. It was quite open for a Member of the House of Commons to move for such a Return embracing both Houses of Parliament; but it had been thought it would be more courteous to let the Return with respect to the Members of the House of Lords be moved by a Member of that House.
Moved, That there be laid before the House—
"A Return showing the names of all present Members of this House who are in receipt of public money from the National Exchequer, whether in the form of salary, pay, pension, or allowance of any kind, or who have received commutation in respect thereof under the Commutation Acts, with separate columns showing the amounts they receive or have commuted, with the amount of the commutation money, and, the name of the office or nature of the service for which the money is or has been paid."—(The Lord Monkswell. )
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before this Motion is agreed to I should like to ask for some further information on the subject. I do not rise to oppose the Motion, but I think it would he interesting for us to know whether this is a matter which is within the province of the Local Government Board, and is therefore moved for on behalf of the Local Government Board by the noble Lord as representing that Department in this House—whether it is in any sense a Government Return, or whether, to put another hypothesis, it is moved for in the interests of the London County Council, of which the noble Lord is a member. I entirely concur with him that, as a matter of courtesy, a Return of this kind it is better should be moved for in this House. I have said already I do not propose to offer any opposition to it. I simply ask the question, because I think it would be interesting to know if any indication can be given to the House of the reasons why it is found desirable that this Return should be asked for and what use it will be put to when obtained.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that he had moved for a similar Return in 1888, and, as he was not then questioned, he had supposed that the present Return would be granted without comment. No member of the London County Council had said a word to him on the subject,

191
and he could not see why the noble Lord should suppose that the County Council was particularly anxious to get this Return. Previous to putting the Notice on the Paper he was assured by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he was in favour of its being moved for. If the noble Lord wanted to know more he could ask his friends in the other House to question the Secretary to the Treasury.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, that the information desired by Lord Monkswell was already obtainable, but the two Houses were not distinguished. The Motion simply placed upon certain clerks the duty of selecting out of the lists which existed the Members of the House of Lords. Why should a Return be made in that particular form rather than in the general form in which the information was now given?
THE EARL OF DUNDONALDasked whether in the Return the amount received from the Treasury by every officer in the Army would be stated, without the amounts which the necessity of his position compelled such officer to pay back. That would be to place before the country an unfair statement of the facts. Officers had to provide horses and servants and to pay subscriptions; and in his own case he had invested a large sum of money in the purchase of his commission. An appendix should be given showing the amounts that each recipient of salary from the country had to pay back.
EARL CADOGAN: I must say I think the answer which the noble Lord has given to my noble Friend is very unsatisfactory. There may be no objection to the Return, but the noble Lord who asked for it ought to state what was its object and how it was to be obtained. It seems to be a Return of a very inquisitorial character. The noble Lord has disclaimed speaking for the County Council, but he has not been quite so definite in disclaiming his agency as a Member of the Government. He told us he had asked the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury and was disposed to refer Members of this House to the Secretary to the Treasury for information, but surely, the noble Lord will not decline to inform us what use he means to make of this Return when he has got it.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had only been able to discover three reasons for asking for this Return, and none of them seemed to justify the expense to which it would put the country. First of all, these pensions were possibly asked for in order to tax the persons named in the Return on "betterment" principles, or the noble Lord might be intending to make use of the Return as ancillary to making payments to both Houses of Parliament, or he might be intending to pick up the mantle of Mr. Bradlaugh. It was difficult to see any other reason for asking for this Return.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that if the noble Lord was at a loss for a reason for his Motion he would suggest that he was moving in the interests of the Financial Reform Almanack.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The reason for moving for the Return is exceedingly simple. As stated by my noble Friend, it has been moved for and granted in the House of Commons. Out of courtesy to the House of Lords the Motion in the House of Commons was limited to the Members of that House in order that a separate Motion might be made in the House of Lords. I cannot understand the curiosity of noble Lords as to the intention with which the Return was moved. There is nothing at all uncommon in it. I am unable to say what particular object there may be in it, but I cannot see why particulars of pay and pensions should be objected to by those receiving them. If it had not been moved for in the other House no doubt it might have been invidious, but my noble Friend simply moved for it in this House because it was thought more courteous to your Lordships.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked whether the House was to understand the Return was moved in the interests of the Government, because, if so, the Government ought to know the reasons for moving for it. Another important point had been raised by the noble and gallant Lord (the Earl of Dundonald)—namely, of what was this Return to consist, and whether it was to take into account the money which had been paid back in one form and another by the recipients of pay or pensions. That noble and gallant Lord's expenses as Commanding Officer of one of the regi-

193
ments of Household Cavalry ought to be set against the pay he received. Under the circumstances, the House ought to be informed by the noble Lords opposite what it was they asked, and why they asked it.
LORD MONKS WELLsaid that as there seemed to be so much opposition to the Return, and as it could be moved equally well in the House of Commons, he was quite willing to withdraw the Motion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, there was no cause for that remark; he had clearly said he did not wish to oppose the Return, and he had obtained from the Lord President of the Council the information he had asked for, and which he did not get at first.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, that there was no objection to the Return in itself, though it was unnecessary, and was imposing on a number of clerks a duty which was not called for, because the information was easily accessible.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope I have made it quite clear, and it must be understood that the Return is not moved on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Select Committee of Six Members to join with the Select Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in the Message of this House of Friday last, to consider all Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for greater freedom of religious instruction in Board Schools—Was presented by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury; read 1✶; and to be printed. (No. 33.)
COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) HILL [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate the Copyhold Acts—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 34.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) (No. 35.)
POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Thursday next.—(The Lord Playfair.) (No. 36.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed (No. 38); to be considered on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.