Sitting of 1 August 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3° Customs Tariff Acts Amendment and Consolidation; Turnpike Acts Continuance (No. 2).

CARLISLE CANONRIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. R. PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought the principle proposed to be dealt with was too important to be discussed in an unpractical manner. At that advanced period of the Session it would be hopeless to expect the passing of the Bill, and, therefore, any lengthened discussion would be simple waste of time. He doubted, too, whether the Bill would effect the object which the hon. Member who had charge of it (Mr. Ferguson) had in view, as the suppression of a canonry would not lead to the distribution of its funds among the poorer parishes, but the tithes would be expended in the parishes from which they were derived. He should, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the House should go into Committee that day three months.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would second the Amendment, and he thought it would be advisable to consider maturely the scheme proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before deciding upon a measure of this nature.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. FERGUSONsaid, he was not inclined to withdraw the Bill upon the plea suggested of the lateness of the Session, but, in the interest of the Church itself, he felt bound to ask the House to proceed with the measure.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, he agreed in the principle of the Bill, which was to increase small livings, and especially that the property belonging to deans and chapters in certain places should be applied to that object. That was a principle which he would like to see more extensively carried out than it had been, for, although he had always spoken in favour of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he did not think they had paid that attention to local wants that they ought to have done. At the same time, whilst concurring in the principle of the Bill, he differed from the hon. Gentleman (the Member for Carlisle) as to the mode in which he proposed
1610
to carry it out. He thought, for instance, that it was quite unnecessary to suspend the canonry for the purpose; for the income of the dean and chapter of Carlisle was a very large one, and under the system of improvement of their property which was now going on, he believed there would be a considerable surplus, quite sufficient to provide for what the hon. Gentleman wanted. All that was necessary was a legislative enactment, directing that that surplus should be used in the first instance for supplying the local wants of Carlisle. With those views he would recommend the hon. Gentleman not to press the Bill at present; but he (the Marquess of Blandford) so far sympathised with him, that he would use every endeavour in his power to carry out the object of providing for local wants out of the surplus property of the cathedrals.
MR. FREWENsaid, he had supported the second reading of the Bill, but hoped that further proceedings upon it would be postponed until the next Session of Parliament.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, that to show the necessity for the measure, he would call attention to the fact, that in the city of Carlisle there were four parishes, containing 26,000 inhabitants, whose spiritual interests were cared for by four incumbents and two curates. The aggregate of the incomes paid to those four incumbents were only 500 l. per annum. In the parish of St. Cuthbert the Church revenues amounted to 2,200 l. a year, while the stipend of the incumbent was only 150 l.; and in St. Mary's parish the incumbent only received 74 l. 10 s. 8d. a year, while the Church property produced 1,080 l. Such a state of things required alteration, and it would be in vain to expect anything from the Ecclesiastical Commission. He thought the people of Carlisle had reason to complain that a shilling of their tithes should be applied to any other purpose until the spiritual wants were amply provided for. It was said that the tithes, if the measure were passed, would return to the parishes to which they belonged; but power could be given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to provide out of the fund thus obtained for the wants of the parishes requiring assistance. He considered that the proposed Bill was a practical measure for Church reform, and that it ought to be passed.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he would recommend the withdrawal of

1611
the Bill, because if it were then persevered in it would lead to no result.
MR. COWPERsaid, he would suggest that the debate should be adjourned, and that they should apply themselves to the consideration of business of more pressing importance. He considered that the principle of the Bill was not clearly defined, and that the machinery was not perfect.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must appeal to the House, whether they were not throwing away their time by continuing the discussion.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill would divide on the question, and he would support him.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that if the question were pressed to a division, it would place some of them in a position of great difficulty. So far as he was aware of the character of the Bill, he would be rather inclined to support the principle of it, but if he were called upon to say aye to the Motion for going into Committee, it seemed to him that he would be assisting to throw away the day, because they must know very well that, if they should go into Committee, the measure would give rise to long debates, and the time allotted for business on that day would be entirely absorbed. He would not wish, however, to negative the principle of the Bill, but thought it would be much better to have an opportunity of discussing the measure on a future occasion than to commit themselves then one way or the other. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 36: Majority 15.
Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
MR. FERGUSONsaid, he was satisfied with having affirmed the principle of the Bill, and would not then proceed further with it, as he considered that it would be useless to attempt to carry the measure through that Session.
House resumed. (No Report.)

UNION OF CONTIGUOUS BENEFICES.
[Progress, 25 th July.] Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 2 (On representation of inhabitants of any small parish that their benefice might be advantageously united, Bishop of the Diocese shall inquire and may certify to Church Building Commissioners.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out the words "Her Majesty's Commissioners for Building New Churches," and to insert the words "the Parishes Commissioners."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Church Building Commissioners were better for the purpose in view than the body proposed to be constituted by the Bill. He considered, therefore, that it would be better for the present to leave the matter in the hands of the Church Building Commissioners, and not create a new body on the eve of such a change, as was inevitable, in the Church Building Commission.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, his right hon. Friend had lost sight of the real facts of the case. The reason why the power was given to the parishes Commissioners was, that the Church Building Commission was about to expire in twelve months from that time.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, the Bill was prepared by the Commission, and it was proposed last year to invest the powers in the Church Building Commissioners. But the House had subsequently decided to limit the existence of that Commission to two years, which would expire on the 26th of next July. He put it to the Committee, therefore, whether it would be wise to confide the powers of the Bill to that body, and by so doing add another Act to the already complicated structure of English Ecclesiastical Law? The Bill was an experiment, and the proper course to take with it, was that which had been recommended by the Commissioners—namely, to limit the existence of its powers to a certain period, and then to deal with it as might be seen fit.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he objected to the Bill altogether, because he considered its whole foundation wrong. If national property were taken, it should be applied to national purposes. The churches were national property, and it was not a national purpose to transfer those which were taken down to other places, the inhabitants of which ought to erect their own churches and support their own clergy. He also objected to the bishops having

1613
any interference with the Bill, or forming any part of its machinery, their duty being simply to consecrate churches and graveyards. He should move as an Amendment, therefore, that the Chairman report progress.
MR. R. PHILLIMOREsaid, he regarded the Bill as purged of all the objections entertained against it in its former shape. There was then danger of its leading to the desecration of church-yards and the remains of the dead, and new powers of appeal to the Privy Council were also given, which did away with other grave objections. He could not see on what grounds the hon. Member for Southwark wished to defeat the measure, he should give his support to the proposition of the noble Marquess.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark would not press his Amendment, because it was only a week ago that the House had decided, upon a division, that the Bill should be proceeded with. With regard to the principle of the measure, it appeared to be calculated to adapt the distribution of church accommodation to the altered circumstances of the times. He therefore asked the Committee to decide upon the question of reporting progress before discussing the Amendment to the clause.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, the powers of twenty-eight Acts of Parliament were to be conferred on the Church Commissioners to carry out the Bill. The Bill had been read a second time without consideration; and it might be considered as a local surprise. He should oppose the Amendment to omit the Church Commissioners—the Amendment of the noble Lord (Marquess of Blandford); but, at the same time, he (Mr. Hadfield) was by no means clear that the principle of the Bill was one to be adopted. The Bill began at the wrong end, and his objection to it was not removed even by the exclusion of the Church Building Commissioners.
Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the chair."
The Committee divided; Ayes 12; Noes 62; Majority, 50.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that with regard to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, the real question was, to which of the Commissions the proposed powers could be entrusted with the greatest advantage. The Church Building Commission was in some degree a volatile body,
1614
its powers having been renewed hitherto by Parliament from time to time, but the Parishes Commission had in fact no real existence; having been appointed to inquire into a particular subject, and having made its Report, the adoption of the Amendment would impose on the Crown the necessity of appointing a new Commission for a particular purpose. He thought the wisest course would be to leave those powers in the hands of the Church Building Commissioners, unless the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington), who had charge of the Bill, should be of opinion that a contrary course was desirable. It was objectionable to multiply Commissions to too great an extent, and the better course he considered would be to concentrate existing functions as much as possible in the hands of a single body. A Committee might be appointed at the commencement of the next Session to inquire into the whole subject, with a view to that result.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could only say, in answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, that his sole object was that he proposed powers should be vested in the hands of that Commission, which could most efficiently exercise them, and he could not approve of their being entrusted to an expiring body. He heard with great satisfaction the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman, that in the course of the next Session he intended to propose the revision of the Church Commission, with a view to the consolidation of its powers, which he regarded as of great importance, but he did not feel that that proposition bad any bearing on the immediate question. He thought the most advisable course was to adopt the proposition of the noble Marquess.
After some further discussion, the Amendment was agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3.
MR. CUBITTsaid, he wished to move at the end of the clause to insert the following words: "Provided that no rates for the purposes aforesaid be continued to be levied on the inhabitants beyond what may suffice for the wants of the respective parishes when so united." He wished the Bill to work, and therefore he had proposed that addition. In the City it was proposed to take away three churches out of five, and it would be exceedingly objectionable to parishioners if called upon to pay church-rates for the support of

1615
churches at a distance from the parish. He had no objection to churches being taken down and the sites sold; hut he did object to the law remaining in such a condition that the inhabitants of Fen-church-street or Lombard-street were to be called upon to pay a house-tax after the church was removed. If the words or similar words were not added, he was satisfied that the labours of Parliament would be thrown away.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not consent to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Andover. The hon. Member spoke of church-rates, but the Amendment did not point at church-rates, but at a poundage-tax, which had existed from the time of Charles II., known as the Fire Act. The Committee would see that that payment had become a payment in lieu of tithes, and was as much Church property as tithes were. Because certain parishes were to be thrown together, the Church was to be plundered of its means, and the present opportunity was selected for the experiment. The Bill before the Committee carried out the principle that had been in operation in legislation for some years past, namely, to make the superfluities of one district provide for the deficiencies of another. He saw no reason why the City should be exempted from the operation of that policy, and he hoped, therefore, that his explanation would do away with the objection of the hon. Member.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he did not think that the Amendment would effect its object. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington), had quite understood the purport of the Amendment. It was not to deprive the Church of any portion of its property, but to prevent a burden being levied on parishes for which they received no substantial benefit. As the payments in question, however, were not, strictly and technically speaking, "rates," he feared that the exact words of the Amendment would not attain the object in view; but undoubtedly the subject deserved consideration.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, so far as any rate in the shape of church-rate was concerned, that would not be transferred. In a recent instance—where the Bishop of London made an appointment in one of the most important districts in London, he made it a condition—that no less than 600 l. a-year should be taken
1616
from the income of the new incumbent and transferred to a poorer district.
MR. CUBITT,said he could not discover when the payment in question was commuted in lieu of tithes. He was in the habit of seeing very small congregations in some of the City churches. He thought the object of the Bill was very good, and ought to be carried out; but in the present instance the effect was to draw from the pockets of the people of one district a sum of money which was to benefit a distant district.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the question raised by the hon. Member for Andover was of great importance. The Bill was to be worked by the voluntary action of the inhabitants, but it was a Bill for the whole country, and not confined to the City of London. In that view, he doubted whether, if a proposal were made to a parish near Birmingham or Manchester to give up 300 l. a-year to augment a living in another district—he doubted whether that proposal would meet with much favour; and his opinion was that the City of London would, in similar cases, entertain very similar feelings. He doubted, where parishes were combined, whether the inhabitants would be willing to pay the same amount as before, for they would say naturally, "If the money is not wanted for our district, why should we be called upon to pay it?" That feeling, he feared, would seriously interfere with the efficient working of the measure. He believed the words proposed would not carry out the object of the hon. Member (Mr. Cubitt), but the question was well worthy of the consideration of those who had the Bill in charge, for if some inducement were not held out to the inhabitants they would not cordially co-operate in carrying out the Bill.
MR. R. PHILLIMOREsaid, the poundage paid in the City was as much in the nature of tithe as any other rent-charge paid in lieu, and was therefore the property of the Church. He felt, however, the force of the objections of the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, and thought that some words might be introduced to meet that and similar cases on the bringing up of the Report. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Andover would not, he thought, effect the object he had in view.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington), would be prepared with

1617
some words that would not only meet the case, but the cases of all other united parishes. He would throw out for consideration whether some machinery of a similar kind to that in the present Bill might not be applied to country parishes.
MR. FREWENsaid, the particular difficulty was this, that they could not levy one rate on two parishes for one church. There was no law to effect such a proceeding.
Mr. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he had no objection that a clergyman with a small income should enjoy a good income; but he objected to transfer funds from one district in order to provide funds for another district. He thought if, on uniting parishes, that a surplus existed over, say 500 l. a year, that that surplus should be so dealt with as to augment poor livings.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would consider whether a provision could not be inserted, on bringing up the Report, to meet reasonable objections. Also, whether some plan could not be devised to redeem those payments. He agreed that it would not be advisable to carry over church-rates to contiguous benefices.
Mr. CUBITTsaid, with the understanding that the matter would have consideration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, he would not press his Amendment, but he must protest against raising a fund to redeem this tax.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must complain that the provisions of the clause were ineffective to prevent the sale of grave-yards. The clause provided that no grave-yard should be sold separately from the site of the church, but no provision was inserted to prevent the sale of the site of the church and the grave-yard as well. The clause also provided that nothing in the Bill should legalise the sale of any church surrounded by a burial-ground; most of the churches, however, in the metropolis, abutted on the street, and therefore that provision was quite inoperative.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the promoters of the Bill did not intend to interfere with existing burial-grounds, whether distinct from or attached to churches. He had no objection, therefore, to leave out the words in the clause "apart from the site of any church."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that having disposed of the question of burial-grounds, the Committee now came to the point involving the sale of the site of churches; and he thought that, as the promoters of this Bill had given up the idea of disposing of grave-yards, the power of selling the sites of churches could not be retained, because every inch of ground within these churches was frequently occupied by vaults used for the purposes of interment.
MR. R. PHILLIMOREsaid, he wished to propose as an Amendment, to omit from the clause words which went to legalise the sale of the site of any church. The people would consent to part with the tithes and emoluments attaching to those churches, but they would not part with the burial-grounds or with the sites.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would remind the Committee that the Bill would be only operative by the consent of the parishioners, and that, in cases where interments had taken place in those churches, the remains and the monuments would be carefully and properly removed either by the friends or by the Commissioners. By the sale of those sites a large sum of money would be obtained to provide spiritual accommodation for thousands of persons elsewhere, and as this was no new proposal—as the sites of churches had been frequently disposed of for secular purposes and to accomplish works of utility, without Parliament ever interfering to prevent it—he hoped it would be acceded to in the present instance.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he believed there would be a strong feeling of opposition to the Bill, unless there was a distinct provision that the dead should not be disturbed, and the church sites kept as open spaces.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he should support the clause as it stood, for he
thought it sufficient that the option of adopting the provisions of the Bill rested with the parishioners.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he did not think that was a proper mode of putting the case, because the inhabitants of a particular parish might be desirous of adopting the other provisions of the Bill, although they were opposed to the sale of the site of their church. In his opinion it was impossible to draw a distinction between the sites of churches and burial-grounds, when both were equally used for the interment of the dead.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington would do well to defer to what seemed to be the feeling of the Committee on the subject. He would suggest that the clause should be so altered as to prevent the sale of sites of churches in which interments had taken place.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwas afraid even such an alteration as that suggested would materially affect the means of carrying out the objects of the Bill; but looking to the feeling of the Committee, he thought it would be best to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
Amendment made, in accordance with the suggestion of the Home Secretary.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The report of the Committee of Supply was then brought up and read by the clerk at the Table.
The twelve first Resolutions agreed to.
(13.) 17,696 l., for the National Gallery.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of 300 l. proposed as the salary of a travelling agent, and 1,155 l. 4s. as incidental and travelling expenses for such agent. He found that, in order to enable the Trustees and Directors of the National Gallery to obtain valuable pictures which might be offered for sale on the Continent, it was proposed that a travelling agent should be employed at a salary of 300 l. a-year, who might obtain the earliest information on such subjects. He considered the appointment quite unnecessary, for in every important city or town in Europe where there was any valuable collection of pictures there was either a British Minister or Consul, who would be able to acquaint Her Majesty's Government when any pictures of value were likely to be offered for sale. He understood that a German gentleman, Mr. Otto Mündler, had received the appointment of travelling agent; but they knew nothing of the qualifications of that gentleman for the post, and he thought if such an appointment was really considered necessary, that, among our numerous native artists, some one might have been found upon whom such an appointment might have been properly conferred.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the House had that year voted the sum of 10,000 l. to
1620
enable the trustees of the National Gallery to purchase pictures during the current year, and it was probable that an annual Vote of similar amount would be made in future. It was, of course, perfectly useless to vote money for such a purpose unless means were taken to secure valuable pictures whenever they might be offered for sale. The hon. Member for Stafford had said that we had Consuls and Ministers abroad who could afford information to Her Majesty's Government with reference to such sales; but it must be remembered that valuable works of art were to be found not merely in large cities, but in small towns, and that their existence was only known to those who were intimately acquainted with the arts. The Ministers and Consuls of Great Britain were appointed in consequence of their fitness for the special duties they were called upon to discharge, and, generally speaking, they were not gentlemen upon whose judgment the trustees of the National Gallery could rely with regard to the purchase of pictures. He could only say, with regard to Mr. Mündler, that the trustees had endeavoured to select the person who was most competent to discharge the duties of the office, and that Mr. Mündler was well known in every city of Europe, and was thoroughly acquainted with all the valuable collections of pictures. Lord Aberdeen, before he went out of office, appointed Mr. Mündler upon the highest recommendation, and without any personal knowledge of that gentleman. It must be remembered that the person who received such an appointment should not only possess a knowledge of the most valuable pictures in the galleries of Europe, but should also have an intimate acquaintance with the continental languages. Undoubtedly, if any English artist had been equally eligible for the appointment, he would have had a prior claim; but, upon the recommendation of the trustees Lord Aberdeen had appointed Mr. Mündler, and he (Mr. Wilson) hoped the House would sanction the Vote required for the payment of his salary and expenses.
MR. GROGANsaid, he wished to know whether the money was to be employed in reimbursing that gentleman for expenses he had already incurred?
MR. WILSONsaid, that no expenses had yet been incurred by that gentleman.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, considering that there were English artists who were perfectly capable of discharging the duties of

1621
the office to which Mr. Mündler had been appointed; he would support the Amendment.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to know whether the travelling agent was to have unlimited power with regard to the expenditure of the l0,000 l. to be appropriated to the purchase of pictures?
MR. WILSONreplied, that the duty of the travelling agent would be to proceed from place to place under the direction of the Trustees of the National Gallery, and to report to them upon any pictures which he thought were of value, acting subsequently upon such instructions as he might receive from them.
MR. BRADYsaid, he considered that the appointment of Mr. Mündler was an insult to the artists of this country.
MR. CUBITTsaid, he thought it necessary that the person appointed to such a situation should be thoroughly acquainted with foreign languages, and that on that ground Mr. Mündler might be well fitted for the office.
Question put, "That 17,696 l. stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided,—Ayes 45; Noes 38: Majority 7.
Resolution agreed to, as were also Resolutions 14 to 31 inclusive.
(32.) 52,500 l., War Medals.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he wished to ask what arrangements had been made for the distribution of medals to the relatives of those who had died in the Crimea; and whether any arrangements had been made for a more rapid delivery of medals to those soldiers who had been discharged?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the first step taken with regard to these medals was to obtain a list of the officers and soldiers entitled to receive them. Lists had accordingly been sent home from time to time, and those lists were referred to the Secretary of the Board of General Officers. When a person in England made application for his medal, all the Secretary had to do, was to ascertain that his name was on the list, and the medal was obtained without any difficulty whatever. With regard to those who were now in the Crimea, medals had been sent to the Commander in Chief to have them distributed there among the claimants. When applications were made at home for medals by the relatives of soldiers deceased, the first duty of the War Office was to ascertain that the claim was a good one, and the next that the person applying was entitled to
1622
receive the medal. When those points were ascertained, the medal, together with the effects of the soldier, was sent; an if there had been delay in any case, it had only arisen from the necessity of the War-Office determining who were the legal representatives of the soldiers.
Resolution agreed to, as were also the remaining Resolutions.

WAR WITH RUSSIA—MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
Message from HER MAJESTY, brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"HER MAJESTY deeming it expedient to provide for any additional Expense which may arise in consequence of the War in which HER MAJESTY is now engaged against the Emperor of Russia, and relying on the experienced zeal and affection of HER faithful Commons, trusts they will make provision accordingly.
"V. R"
Message referred to the Committee of Supply.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.