Sitting of 17 July 1856

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Dorchester, v. Henry Gerard Sturt, esq., Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Charities; Vice President of Committee of Council on Education; Evidence in Foreign Suits; Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer.

CHARITIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought some explanation ought to be given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the second reading of the Bill at that late period of the Session. Last year, at a late period of the Session, a Bill was introduced and passed for exempting Roman Catholic charities from the supervision of the Charity Commission, and now at this late period of the Session this Bill was introduced for continuing that exemption. He saw no reason for such exemption, and should therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. If that should not be adopted, he should move in Committee that the duration of the Bill should be to the 1st of June instead of the 1st of September.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BAINESsaid, there were a great number of Roman Chatholic charities founded by Roman Catholics for the very best purposes, but in many of them there were certain things mixed up which might be construed into superstitious use, and hence the whole by that might be vitiated and rendered void. It was, therefore, thought expedient to exempt such charities from the usual supervision of the Charity Commissioners. For instance, in many of these excellent and most valuable charities there were provisions for certain masses to be said for certain purposes. In examining into such charities, the Commissioners could, if necessary, have to report upon the fact of such charities containing such provisions, and that would of necessity make void the whole of the charity. He, therefore, asked the House to agree to carry on the exemption for another year,
966
and by next Session a general measure would be introduced, which, he trusted, would meet the whole necessities of the case. He could assure the House that he was as much averse to the present state of things as any one, and he would pledge himself before next Session to do all in his power to advance the general remedy that was required. Under those circumstances, he therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought there was that in these charities which required the proposed exemption to be extended or provided for in this Bill. He thought the general law of mortmain ought to be revised as speedily as possible; for all sects, the Established Church as much as any, suffered from it. He gave his cordial support to this measure. It was greatly to be regretted, that so many of the Bills brought in by the Government were postponed to that late period of the Session.
MR. BARROWsaid, he understood that it was not intended that the Charity Commissioners were to have any power over county hospitals and county asylums which were supported by voluntary contributions. But he found that some of those institutions had been called upon by the Commissioners to furnish copies of their accounts. Now, that proceeding had given great offence to the trustees of those charities, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines) would except from his measure institutions that were solely maintained by the voluntary contributions of the public.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he was quite satisfied with the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, that he would be prepared next Session to place Roman Catholic charities under the same control as other charities were subjected to.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was surprised that this Continuance Bill should have been brought forward. There was a most distinct pledge given by the Government, when the Charity Bill was passed, that if the House consented at that time not to deal with Roman Catholic charities, a Bill would be brought in upon that subject. He need not say that he did not believe any one of the proper and legitimate objects of those charities would be interfered with. He thought a distinct and positive pledge ought to be given by the Government, that the subject should be legislated upon early in the next Session.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was glad

967
to find that no observations had been made calculated to prejudice the question before the House. The case of Roman Catholic charities was one of a special description, and could not be dealt with without full consideration being given to all the special circumstances connected with it. It was hoped that the Bill formerly introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Atherton) which passed the House of Commons, would have removed many of the difficulties connected with the Roman Catholic charities; but, unfortunately, that Bill did not meet with the assent of the House of Lords. He hoped the House would be content with the pledge given by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baines), that the subject should receive his attention at an early period next Session.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he hoped the Government would insert a clause in the Bill to exempt county asylums and hospitals from the control of the Commissioners. He quite agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Hadfield) that legislation, at a very late period of the Session, became a perfect lottery. He thought it would be better if Government struck out of the list of the Orders of the Day every Bill they did not intend to proceed with.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it would very much surprise him to find that any interference had been attempted with any institution supported wholly by voluntary contributions. He thought it would be found that the application to the Nottinghamshire charities had been for accounts relating to their income arising from endowments. With respect to the question of introducing measures early in the Session as had been alluded to in the course of the discussion, he had himself brought in measures of great public importance as early as the end of February, but he had been wholly unable to find an opportunity of again bringing them on, and he had in consequence been compelled to withdraw them. Indeed, until some division, was made between what might be called the legislative and the political business of the House, it would be hopeless to expect that measures of legislative importance would not often be postponed to matters of more pressing political interest.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines), that he would introduce a Bill on the subject next Session, he would withdraw his Amendment. But not feeling quite so satisfied of the disposition of the
968
Government on the subject, he should in Committee move that the Bill be extended only to the 1st of July, instead of, as proposed, the 1st of September.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

HOSPITALS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. COWANsaid, it was his intention to move, that the Bill be committed that day three months. It was from no want of sympathy for the inmates of the Dublin hospitals that he took that course. It was at once the glory and one of the most precious and palpable evidences of our common Christianity that such institutions existed, and he should greatly regret if the step he now took should, in the slightest degree, impair the usefulness of those charities, or close the portals of those hospitals against the admission of any one who required their aid. But he thought the course of the present and former Governments in respect to these hospitals to have been unwise and vacillating, and neither fair nor honest. He did not see why Dublin should enjoy a privilege which other large cities and towns did not enjoy. Edinburgh, for instance, was distinguished for its medical schools, and was as much entitled, in his belief, to receive a grant from the public fund as the Irish capital. He was informed by Sir William Gibson Craig, that the grants which had been made to the Irish hospitals would in a few years cease and determine, In 1844, a resolution was come to by the Government, that the grants should be reduced 10 per cent every year, and the hospitals be left to be supported by the subscriptions of the charitable and humane. That was acted upon for some time; but on the Motion of the hon. Member for Dublin, a Committee on the subject was appointed, and the present Bill was the result of the Report of that Committee. The tendency of the Bill was to place those hospitals permanently as a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. If the House continued these grants to Dublin, he saw no reason why they should not be extended to Edinburgh, and, if to Edinburgh, to Glasgow, Liverpool, and other great towns. He found that the Commissioners had laid it down as a rule that no grant should be given to an hospital unless

969
it was also a medical school. He wished to know if the converse was also to be a rule, and every medical school to be entitled to these grants. No doubt a great proportion of the poverty of Scotland arose from immigration from the sister isle; and as Scotch hospitals were freely used by Irish paupers, he thought that was an additional reason why Dublin should not exclusively have the benefit of the public money. The Bill was useful so far as it proposed to deal with admitted abuses in the management of the Dublin hospitals, but he objected to its local operation and character. He hoped, however, that the whole matter would be set at rest by the Government retracing their steps and dealing equal justice to all.
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.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he hoped the House would not allow itself to be led into a discussion on a question which was not before it. The question they had then to decide, was not whether any grant should be made to the hospitals of Dublin, or whether that grant should be permanent. Those two questions had been already decided upon by a Resolution of a Committee and a Vote of that House. What the House then had to do was, to carry into effect the object of Parliament in making that grant. A Commission issued last year had reported the manner in which these grants of money had been hitherto applied. For many years these grants had been annually voted. In 1854, the subject of the grants was submitted to a Committee of inquiry, and which Committee recommended the continuance of them. The question which Government had then to consider was, whether those grants were wisely and well applied. With a view to ascertain that fact, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the condition and regulations of the medical institutions of the city of Dublin; and the present Bill was founded on the recommendations of that Commission. The Bill was not a Bill for granting money to those institutions, but was for the better regulation of the hospitals in Dublin. If Parliament should, next Session, refuse this grant, then the interference of Government would cease, but so long as the grants were continued, no one could deny that the Government
970
had a right to provide for the better regulation of the hospitals. Under those circumstances, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the object of the Bill was plain and unmistakeable; it was to fix the maintenance of those hospitals on the public taxes. It was an insult to the subscribers to those hospitals to suppose that they could not properly manage and conduct them. If the power of appointing the governors and officers of those charities were vested in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, he would make use of that patronage for political jobbery. No other part of the Kingdom would come to that House and ask for charity out of the public taxes to support their institutions. He was surprised that the pride and national feeling of the people of Dublin allowed them to accept such charity. The result of the passing of the Bill would be that the maintenance of the institutions would be saddled on the public taxes.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he must remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) that grants had been made for the promotion of works in Scotland as well as in England. He might mention the Caledonian Canal as an instance. Therefore it could not be urged as a special ground of objection that this grant was exclusively for the benefit of Ireland, seeing that similar grants had been made for works in other parts of the United Kingdom.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he thought that it was the duty of the Government to extend hospitals all over the country. He should certainly support the Government in the measure under consideration. The opposition to the grant, he considered, was disgraceful in those who exhibited it. The grant was only of £15,000, and yet they made no objection to the expense of going to Aldershot to reviews, and for sending rockets into the air to please the Londoners. The expense in the course of the year for reviews and fireworks, and eating and drinking of the Houses of Parliament, in going to reviews at Aldershot, and for paying for railway fares to Portsmouth and Southampton, could not have been less than £100,000. No objection was made to dip into the public purse for those purposes, but when a sum of £15,000 was proposed for charitable purposes in Ireland, objections were immediately raised.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he could not

971
understand why the city of Dublin should be paid a sum of £15,000 a year to support its charitable institutions. The question was whether the charge was to be permanently settled upon the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had said that the object of the Bill was to guard against abuses; but his belief was that it was really to make it the means of ultimately imposing this charge upon the Consolidated Fund. He thought that the Irish Members, for the honour of their country, should put an end to these applications for charity, which were only to support abuses in Ireland.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that hon. Gentlemen were going away from the real object of the Bill. It was not whether a grant should be made, for that had already been agreed to. It was to make a great medical school as efficient as possible. The hospitals had produced many eminent medical men for the army, navy, and general service of the country. But those hospitals could not be kept up by means of their ordinary resources. It, therefore, became necessary to make a grant, and the object of the Bill was to regulate the application of that grant.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the objection which he entertained to the Bill was, that it was intended to confer upon the hospitals of Dublin a Parliamentary title to an annual grant out of the Consolidated Fund, which no other similar institution asked for. None of the London hospitals received any public grant.
MR. VANCEsaid, there was nothing in the Report of the Commissioners which impugned the administration of those grants. Those grants were originally made by the Irish Parliament. The grants were also made by the British Parliament for twenty years after the Union, under the impression that the Union would produce great prosperity, and in twenty years render the grants unnecessary. Such, however, was not the effect of it. The Union had removed the nobility and the wealthy commoners, and Dublin, from being the city of the rich, had become the city of the poor. For that reason he maintained that Dublin had a prescriptive right to those grants.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, that the argument of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was very ingenious. It was true there was not one word in the Bill having reference to money, and yet the fact was that the whole case turned
972
upon and had reference to a pecuniary grant. These grants were most unpopular with his constituents. The hospital at Glasgow was quite as extensive and efficient as the one in Dublin, yet that received no Parliamentary grant
MR. WILSONsaid that, although he agreed with the recommendation of the first Committee on this subject, that the grant to these hospitals should be gradually reduced, and, although he was opposed to the appointment of the second Commission, yet since that Commission had recommended the continuance of the grant, he considered it the duty of the Government to give effect to that recommendation.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 22: Majority 31.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 (Lord Lieutenant may grant Superannuations to the Officers of the Hospitals).
MR. W. BROWNsaid, he should move that the clause be omitted.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the circumstances relating to these officers were different from ordinary cases, and he must support the clause as it stood.
SIR JAMES ANDERSONsaid, he considered that granting pensions to officers who were no longer able to discharge their duties was introducing a new principle into those institutions, for which he did not see any necessity.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he also objected to the clause. Men were glad to obtain the reputation of having passed their days at the public hospitals, without asking for a pension.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that the subject had undergone great consideration, and that these superannuation allowances had been more than once recommended to the House.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he objected to the principle of allowing the governors of hospitals to diminish the funds by granting superannuations.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 29: Majority 14.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 13 were also agreed to.
Clause 14 (Lord Lieutenant may appoint a Secretary to the Board).
MR. HORSMANsaid, he should move that the salary be £300 a year.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the amount was excessive, and he should move that the salary be only £150 a year.
Question put, "That the blank be filled with the word 'three.'"
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 51: Majority 25.
MR. HORSMANsaid, it was impossible that any medical gentleman could be prevailed upon to accept the office of secretary at so small a sum as £150 a year. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with the result of the division which had just taken place, and let the question stand over for consideration.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the question was whether it was desirable that the secretary should be a medical man. There were on the staff of these institutions some of the most eminent medical men of the country, who bestowed vast time on the management of the institutions, and therefore it did not so much require that the person who performed the duties of secretary should be a medical man. He believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining an efficient person at a salary of £200 a year.
MR. VANCEsaid, he had heard of men who were perfectly competent to discharge the required duties, and who would readily accept the office at a salary of £150 a year.
The Motion was then put and agreed to, and the blank was filled up with £150.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

GENERAL BEATSON.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, by some mistake a Motion of his had been put on the paper for that night instead of for Tuesday next. It was as follows:—
"That the Under Secretary for War having admitted that, upon anonymous information, a secret inquiry had been ordered into the conduct of a general officer, this House feels itself bound to express its reprobation of such a proceeding."
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he wished to offer some explanation on the subject.
MR. ROEBUCK: Had you not better defer it until I have made the Motion?
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: No; it is pressing. As regards the conduct of General Vivian—
MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I rise to order. How can I answer the statement of the hon. Gentleman when there is no Motion before the House?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can only make his explanation under the indulgence of the House.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: The point, Sir, is simply this. Certain charges have been made against General Beatson in connexion with transferring the command of the Turkish Contingent, and they came to the knowledge of the War Office through—
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Member was clearly out of order.
MR. LABOUCHERE: My hon. Friend simply intends to offer a personal explanation.
COLONEL FRENCH: I rise to order, Sir. This discussion is quite irregular, and ought not to be continued.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: I only wish to say—
MR. ROEBUCK—Order, order. Sir, I insist the hon. Member is quite out of order.
MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member was out of order, and the matter dropped.

DECIMAL COINAGE—QUESTION.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was likely that the Report of the Commissioners on the Decimal Coinage question would be presented?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEOUERsaid, the Commissioners had taken various steps for the purpose of obtaining information on the subject referred to them, but they would not be in a position to make a Report in sufficient time to admit of its being laid on the table during the course of the present Session.

CIVIL SERVICE VACANCIES—QUESTION.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he wished also to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to extend the principle of competitive examination for civil offices, what means it was intended to take to make known to the public the vacancies which from time to time might arise in the several public departments, or the steps which it might be requisite to be taken by candidates, in order to their selection by

975
the heads of departments, for competitive examination?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not able to state what means in particular would be adopted for circulating the information referred to. Inquiries might be addressed to the heads of the departments in which vacancies occurred; but he was not aware that there was any necessity to take additional means for spreading information, for whenever a vacancy did occur the Government were instantly overwhelmned with applications for it.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE COLONIES—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether measures would be adopted for further mitigating the laws imposing capital punishment in the Colonies, in conformity with the laws imposing capital punishment in Great Britain?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was quite true that, although generally the law of capital punishment in the Colonies differed little in practice from that which was established in this country, yet there were exceptions to the rule—in Ceylon, for instance, where the old Roman and Dutch law prevailed; some of the West India islands, where there were many obsolete laws yet in force; and in the Australian colonies, where capital punishments had very recently been carried out in cases of aggravated burglary. In the case of Ceylon and the West India Islands he was quite ready to consider whether it might not be advisable to remove those laws from the Statute-book, but the Australian colonies had their own local Legislatures, which were the best judges of the cases in which capital punishment ought to be carried out.

THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—QUESTION.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he wished to inquire whether the Government were in possession of any later intelligence from the Cape of Good Hope on the subject of the hostile attitude of the Kafirs.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he would also beg to inquire whether the colony or the mother country would bear the expense of any military proceedings necessary to suppress an outbreak?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the latest information which he had received from the Governor of the Cape of Good
976
Hope, dated, he believed, the 1st of May, was, that although there had been great apprehensions of the existence of a widespread confederacy among the native tribes to attack the colonists, yet up to that date no actual aggression had taken place, and he entertained the confident expectation that no such act would occur. Nevertheless, the Government had, as a matter of precaution, ordered considerable reinforcements to the Cape of Good Hope. The expense of sending those military reinforcements would be borne by the mother country.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must again advert to the large amount of public business on the paper at that late period of the Session, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he could state which Bills would be proceeded with, and which abandoned. There were four Bills with regard to which he was particularly anxious to learn that information, they were the Vice President of Committee of Council on Education Bill, the new Appropriation of Trust Property Bill, the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, and the Lords Amendments to the Cambridge University Bill.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the hon. Member appeared to wish for a catalogue of massacre, but execution had been done upon the innocents, one by one, so completely that little remained to be told. The intention of the Government with regard to each Bill would be stated as it came on. With regard to the Bills to which the hon. Member had particularly referred, he might state that the Vice President of the Council on Education Bill would certainly be proceeded with; as to the Criminal Appropriation of Trust Property Bill his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would on the following day state his intentions; the Lords Amendments to the Cambridge University Bill would be considered to-morrow. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill was a most important measure, involving questions of great magnitude, upon which very considerable difference of opinion might exist, and as many persons had left town he did not think it would be desirable to press the House to come to a decision upon it. It was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill upon the subject into that House at the beginning of the next Session. It was unnecessary to say

977
what changes might, upon consideration, be made in the measure; but the Government certainly would not include in their Bill the 24th clause of the present one, which prohibited marriage between the parties convicted of adultery. Doing full justice to the motives of those who introduced that clause, he was of opinion that that would be not only a cruel but an immoral provision.

BIENNIAL GRANT TO THE SCOTCH EPISCOPAL CHURCH—QUESTION.
MR. GORDONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury if he would have any objection to state that the Biennial Grant to the Episcopal Church of Scotland was not withdrawn because it had been misapplied. Such an impression had obtained some prevalence in Scotland.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the Government had no reason to believe that the grant had been applied to any but the purpose for which it was intended. It had never been placed upon the Votes, but had been made upon the responsibility of the Government, and defrayed out of the Vote for civil contingencies for the ensuing year. It had become the duty of the Government to consider whether they should withdraw the grant, or should place it regularly upon the Votes; and they had adopted the former course.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to move that the Committee should be deferred for three months. He should have opposed the Bill upon its second reading; but, owing to the extraordinary manner in which, at this period of the Session, Bills jumped through stages, and perhaps, also, to the studied want of articulation on the part of some Members of the Government, he had failed to seize the proper moment for doing so. He trusted that the House would not forget that this Bill, which was the Act of 1854 redivivus, was first introduced immediately after a general election, during which both the great parties in that House had used every means and appliance to obtain a majority. The consequence was, John Bull and his family had been, as usual, coaxed, cajoled, bought,
978
sold, bullied, intimidated, and screwed. The present Bill had been brought forward as a substitute for the proposition which he and the 224 lunatics in that House who did him the honour to agree with him in opinion regarded as an efficient remedy for a most deplorable and dishonourable state of things. But it had proved a most inadequate substitute, and he still adhered to the opinion that the true remedy was to be found in the Motion which he had repeatedly submitted to the consideration of the House. That Motion had been received in some quarters with ridicule, and it had been said that it came round regularly every year with green peas. From others it had experienced still more unworthy treatment, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had endeavoured to put it down by pooh-poohing it in that easy, jovial, and offhand style for which he was so celebrated. However, he (Mr. H. Berkeley) would not trespass on the attention of the House with any further allusions to his Motion. He would endeavour that evening to avoid the question of the ballot. He had nothing whatever to do with it; his concern was with the Bill that had been substituted for it. As regarded that Bill what course had been taken? When it was found that the state of the country was so bad that something must be done the usual safety valve was opened—a Select Committee of that House. It was agreed that the corrupt affairs of the country should be submitted to a Committee. That Committee sent down a Bill which was laid upon the table of the House, and, after it had been cut and mutilated and shorn of all its valuable attributes, it was transmitted in a completely emasculated condition to the House of Lords. There it was received with vast approbation, for their aristocratic neighbours appeared to take delight in adopting measures which, while they pretended to do a great deal, in fact did nothing. Just such a measure was the one in question, for, while it affected to promote reform, it was in reality conservative of corruption. That was a proposition which he hoped to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the House. The Bill passed rapidly through the Upper House, and receiving the Royal Assent became the law of the land. It was then noticed by that great member of the press, The Times. In the columns of that journal there appeared a very able analysis of the Bill, said to be from the pen of an eminent Parliamentary casuist.

979
The Editor of The Times pronounced the Bill to be a "pompous profession;" intended to be inoperative. In that dictum there was a serious accusation against that House—an accusation of hypocrisy, which he, who had the honour to be a Member, would not presume to iterate. With reference, however, to the Bill itself, he would take leave to say that, having been tested throughout the country, it was found to be "inoperative." That it was a "pompous profession" no hon. Member would venture to deny. Its avowed object was to prevent bribery and undue influence, and the preamble set forth that it was intended to promote the freedom of election. That was on the face of it a "pompous profession;" and, if it could be also shown that the Bill was "inoperative," there would be ample justification for the course he was about to take in imploring the House not to stultify itself by perpetuating such a statute. He had before him a list of boroughs in which elections had taken place since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and as regarded those boroughs the press had been almost unanimous in stating that the Act had been quite inefficacious to correct the grievances complained of. This being so, the First Minister of the Crown would have done well to attend to the representations both of the press and of the persons who had petitioned that House, and to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, instead of contenting himself with simply moving that the Bill be read a Second time. The following summary, the accuracy of which might be relied on, would show how utterly useless for all practical purposes the Act had proved:—Abingdon: Electors did not vote more independently than before. Screw used, especially where there were debts. Many who had promised to vote one way voted the other. The new Act useless. Bedford: Bribery suspected to have been practised to a great extent. The screw used more than ever. New Act a failure. Barnstaple: The Act had no effect whatever in enabling men to vote more independently. Frome: The screw strong as ever, the signs of bribery as apparent. Dinners given, and travelling expenses paid. Workpeople publicly told they might vote as they pleased, but privately had such intimations given to them as showed them that they would be turned off if they did. Many tradesmen voted against their party, their convictions, their friends.
980
Exclusive dealing after the election practised by non-electors to a great extent. Maldon: The constituency in no way changed. From the poll it was evident that the screw had been put on with effect. The Act laughed at. Norwich: No difference as to voting of dependents. The Act, as far as intimidation is concerned, waste paper. Portsmouth: Government screw too potent to be resisted. Sunderland: Bribery strongly suspected. Screw decidedly used. Wigan: Screw used as much as ever, unquestionably. The outward signs of bribery apparent. The Act not thought of. Bath: Sixteen cases of intimidation asserted by the candidates. Application for loans as a condition of voting. The Act waste paper. Wells: Bribery, treating, and the screw. The Standard and Globe had drawn faithful pictures of this borough, the latter stating that the Act was not of the slightest use. Both papers could be completely confirmed. Boston: The notoriety of this place for profligate corruption has no way diminished. Colonel Sleigh, a late candidate, ready to verify on oath the statement of the papers in this respect. Leominster: The Act had no effect at all. The screw extensively applied. Many persons deterred from voting for fear of offending their employers. Rochester: In the same condition as ever, and loudly calling for the ballot. Such was the unfortunate condition of the boroughs which had had the "benefit" of the Act which the House was now called upon to renew. It was curious to observe with what perverse ingenuity care had been taken to destroy any clause of the Act which seemed likely to work well. The payment of electors' travelling expenses, for instance, was objected to by the Act, and very properly so. Such payments were not only a fertile source of bribery in all places, but in counties they placed the poorer candidate in a less advantageous position than his rich rival. The Judges of the Court of Exchequer had decided, however, that under the Act the travelling expenses might be paid, provided that it could not be proved that the candidate made, or that the elector accepted, the payment with a corrupt intention. Who was to prove the corrupt intention? It was a farce to legislate in that way. What election agent was likely, with this Bill before him, to tell a man, "I shall pay you this sum more than your expenses, and you must go down and vote

981
for Mr. So-and-So?" Why, the agent might send the voter down, and then somebody else might pay him; so that, when they talked of proving a corrupt intent, he recurred to the dictum of The Times, and said it was "a pompous profession, meant to be inoperative." Another provision of the Bill required each candidate, before his nomination, to give to the election auditor, in writing, the names of the agents who alone should have authority to expend money on his behalf, and afterwards to render to the same officer an account of all payments made by them. Thus the old law touching agency was set aside, and, although they might make acknowledged agents answerable, fifty unacknowledged agents might do the work, without any of their acts, however flagrant, affecting the candidate's seat. This so-called improvement of the old law offered direct facilities for bribery. Having carefully guarded the candidate by naming his agents, a body of unacknowledged agents might be let loose, and then anybody from the Carlton or the Reform Club—any man from the moon—might descend upon any borough, as in the ease of Aylesbury and Carlisle, and, taking up his station at some hotel, lavish money on behalf of any candidate, and yet that candidate, if returned, would be quite safe in his seat. Instead, therefore, of preventing corruption, this Bill only opened a wider door to it, and was nothing but a false pretence. Such, then, were the sins of commission in this measure; but its sins of omission were quite as flagrant. All who were conversant with the proceedings of the Election Committees well knew that the granting of loans to electors was a mode of purchasing their votes. This was proved before the Rye Committee to have been a fruitful source of bribery in that borough. Yet not one word in this Bill was pointed against that practice. So much as to bribery and corruption, neither of which was touched by this measure. A much more serious part of the question related to intimidation—the great disease of our electoral system. By intimidation the landlord controlled the tenant, the customer controlled the tradesman, the manufacturer controlled the operative, and so on through every grade of society—the great body of the electors being reduced by this engine to the level of political serfs. How, then, did the Bill deal with this widely ramified and inveterate evil?
982
The 5th clause was supposed to supply a sufficient check for it. The mode, however, by which this was to be done, even if it could be carried into effect, which it could not, was unconstitutional. It violated the rights of property, and consequently also the liberty of the subject. How could an Act of Parliament be defended which pretended to coerce a landlord in the choice of his tenant, and to dictate to a customer what tradesman he should employ? Could they maintain a law imposing penalties to keep a tenant in his holding, and continue to a tradesman his custom? The very attempt to do such a thing was an absurdity. He would not leave the enforcement of this important point to his own feeble advocacy, but beg the House to listen to the opinions of two of the highest authorities, Mr. Macaulay and the late Sir Robert Peel. In an address to the electors of Edinburgh Mr. Macaulay, after arguing that corruption might be reached, and citing instances where men had been imprisoned and find £500, wound up this portion of the subject thus:—
"You can trace out and punish a man for corruption, or deprive him of all the advantages he has gained by it, but in cases of intimidation the evil cannot be corrected by penal laws. You cannot put them in force without affecting the sacred rights of property. Can I tell a man that he must deal with such and such a tradesman who has voted against him, or that he shall renew a lease to a tenant who has done the same? If I did that, it would destroy the sacred rights of property. What is it the Jew says in the play?
'I'll not answer that:
But, say, it is my humour.'
Or, as a Christian of my own time expressed himself, 'I have a right to do what I like with my own.' There is a great deal of weight in the reasoning of Shylock and the Duke of Newcastle —'I have a right to do what I like with my own.' If you tell a landlord that he is not to eject a particular tenant, you might as well tell a man that he must employ a particular butcher, and take as much beef from him this year as last. The principle of the rights of property is, that a man is not only to be allowed to dispose of his wealth according to common sense and in an ordinary way, but that he shall be allowed to indulge his whims and caprices, to employ whatever tradesmen and labourers he pleases, and rent, or refuse to rent, his land to tenants according to his own pleasure, however absurd the principle on which he chose to let it to them. The first evening I had a seat in the House of Commons Mr. Poulett Thomson made a Motion for Parliamentary censure on the Duke of Newcastle, in reference to the borough of Newark. Sir Robert Peel opposed the Motion, with his accustomed ability, and with really forcible and unanswerable reasons. He asked if it was meant

983
to be held that the tenant who voted against the landlord was to be kept in his place by penal laws because of his vote? If so, the tenant who wished to keep possession of his tack had only to vote against the landlord, and receive protection from the law. Such is the argument against penal laws in relation to the rights of property. Were they enacted, it would be impossible to tell what the consequences would be, and, therefore, we are obliged to consider whether there is any other means of prevention. The only mode of putting down the practice of intimidation appears to be vote by ballot."
The last sentence that he had read was not necessary to his present argument, but he had quoted it because it was word for word the same language as was used by Daniel Defoe. So much for the principle of the £50 penalty contained in the fifth clause of this Bill. Landlords did not tell their tenants, neither did customers tell their tradesmen, that they were discharged because of their votes. Yet, undoubtedly, tenants and tradesmen were frequently so discharged; and no clause like this, however ingeniously worded, could remedy the evil against which it professed to be directed. He could not describe the virtues of this Bill more forcibly than by adopting the language of an eminent political casuist who wrote in The Times, and upon whose analysis of the measure the editor of The Times pronounced that the Bill was a mockery, meant to be inoperative. He need not quote the analysis of the measure, but the writer said in conclusion:—
"Now, what will be the effect of this new Bill? Direct bribery and the direct use of undue influence will be more difficult and dangerous, but will not be suppressed; greater circumspection and care with whom done will be required; but indirect and circuitous bribery, by payment for fancied services and by feigned ways and means, notices to tenants to quit without reasons assigned, and secret influence, will not be, in the slightest degree affected thereby. A penalty is imposed on a candidate who shall give, be accessory to giving, or shall pay for, any treating; but the penalty attaches only to a candidate. A stranger, a friend, or a body of people may give meat, drink, and entertainment to any extent; the voter corruptly receiving it will lose his vote. But, by the insertion of that word 'corruptly,' the intention is referred to the committee, who will have to decide in each case whether a voter accepted it corruptly or not. By the section prohibiting the giving, or causing to be given, to any voter on the days of nomination or polling, of any refreshment or refreshment ticket, the giving is limited to those two days, and the voter is made the only person to whom it is not lawful to give refreshment; so that on any other day such tickets may be given to a voter, and to any but a voter on those days. The payment of any money for chairing, bands of music, flags, or
984
banners is declared illegal, but no penalty is attached; and this enactment will be inoperative. The providing of cockades and ribands being made illegal, will probably put a stop to that practice, as the riband or cockade-seller, who provides them, will be liable to the penalty. By the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, no election can be questioned later than fourteen days after the assembling of Parliament, or, during the Session, than fourteen days after the return is in the Crown Office. Yet the election auditor is not to have the bills of expenditure until three months after the day the return is declared; so that the effect of this will be effectually to prevent any charge being made against the Member, which if the bills were sooner sent in might have been the case, and the publication of an abstract of the Bill becomes a mere gratification of idle curiosity without benefit to any one but the proprietor of the newspaper in which it is advertised. The notification by the candidate to the election auditor in writing, of his agent or agents, who alone shall have authority to expend money or incur expenses on behalf of the candidate, is the most cunning device to shield the candidate and cover corruption ever propounded. A B and C D are appointed agents; their acts alone bind or affect the candidate; but the whole fry of corruption agents in every borough will work for the benefit of the candidate, who has secured himself from the penalty attaching to their acts by artful disclaimer and the immunity afforded by this enactment. The candidate is legally answerable only for the acts of A B and C D; they sanction nothing, but they know what will be done, and their ignorance is an ignorance which candidates and agents alike know well how to assume and to preserve. Such are the provisions, and such will be the effect of the new Bill for consolidation and amendment of the laws relating to bribery, treating, and undue influence. The consolidation is perfect, the amendment imperfect; but how could it be otherwise? After the Bill came from the Select Committee every attempt in the House of Commons was made to damage it and to neutralise its enactments. When Members of Parliament decline to make a declaration, 'that they have not knowingly heretofore made any illegal payments, and that they will not knowingly hereafter make any illegal payments on account of being elected to Parliament,' and strike such declaration out of the Act, they may call the Act by any name they please; but all the world knows what they intend it to prove."
He (Mr. Berkeley) asked the House to pause before they committed themselves to this measure. He submitted that he had torn the Bill to rags, and he thought it would puzzle any hon. Gentleman who supported the measure to put the tatters together. There might be good points in the Bill, but that must be a wretched measure indeed in which a decent clause could not be found. The Bill was nothing less than a snare and a delusion to the people, and mockery to legislation, and an insult to common sense. Some hon. Gentlemen

985
had told him that it would be an advantage to get rid of bands of music, banners, and cockades. He was prepared to admit that it would be an advantage, but be it remembered that a Bill to prevent the use of bands, banners, and cockades, was brought into that House some time ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings), in conjunction with an hon. and gallant relative of his own, the Member for Cheltenham, now no more. That Bill contained clauses with reference to bands and banners, similar to those included in the present measure, but it was unceremoniously kicked out of the House; and why? The Bill to which he referred passed through several stages; but at that time the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was First Lord of the Admiralty, and the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) was a Lord of the Admiralty, and they could not then do without music and banners. The right hon. Baronet objurgated the hon. Member for Cirencester and his (Mr. Berkeley's) hon. relative for endeavouring to put down the glorious pomp, pride, and panoply, of glorious elections. The right hon. Baronet's taste for music was so strong that it seemed he could not go to an election without "Rule Britannia" played before him, and the right hon. Member for Hertford could not be induced to give up "The Girl he left behind Him." This Bill, however, included similar clauses to those to which the right hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman formerly objected. Were they prepared now to adopt the Bill because it contained clauses which they before argued were grounds for its rejection? It might be a good thing to get rid of music and banners and cockades, but he (Mr. Berkeley) believed that the provisions of the measure which professed to prevent corrupt practices and intimidation would be wholly inoperative, and he should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the House resolve itself into Committee on that day three months.
MR. CRAUFURDseconded the Motion. He said he supported the Bill on a former occasion by voting for it on several stages; but when the House rejected the declaration he considered the measure would be a failure, and he could no longer support it. The Bill was only carried through by a very narrow majority. If he wanted any authoriry to support the views he entertained, he need only refer to the late decision in the Court of Exchequer on the
986
question of expenses. The question there raised was, that although it was proper, and within the provisions of the Bill, to furnish carriages for the electors, yet it was uncertain whether there could be a legal payment for travelling expenses; and the Court, after a most able argument, and taking time to consider their judgment, held that those expenses might be paid. It was stated by one of the learned Judges on that occasion that the Act had been inconsiderately framed, and ought to be amended. He might mention that the last election for the county of Ayr, which lasted only one day, cost more than the previous election, which lasted two days. In that case, therefore, the Act had been clearly inoperative. He also must condemn the system of placing an election auditor, like a toll-keeper, over candidates, to tax them as far as he pleased, but without being able to do them the slightest benefit. Now, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he would, with the knowledge he possessed, press this Bill through the House? Legislation of this sort was not required; it did not check expenses, but it added to the expenses those of a useless officer.
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. INGRAMsaid, he could not help expressing his great surprise that the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) should oppose the Bill. The experience which he (Mr. Ingram) had had in the borough he had the honour to represent (Boston) convinced him that the Act was of very great use in checking expenses. He could state that at the last election for that borough not one single farthing was expended in treating, and cockades were not required; and whatever might be considered necessary with regard to having bands of music in the parks on Sundays, there was but one opinion as to the impropriety of having music at elections. He should support the Bill, because he felt certain that great benefits would be derived from its operation.
MR. TITEsaid, that he agreed with very much that had been said by the hon. Member for Bristol; and having had the

987
experience of two contested elections and one Election Committee, he could only say that there was but one remedy for the evils that prevailed, and that was the remedy which the hon. Member had so often proposed, and which the House had so often rejected. Since his experience of contested elections, he had always supported the Ballot, and should continue to do so, thinking it the only means of putting a stop to the evils of contested elections and the intimidation, which did not cease with the election, but was continued by the publication of the list of voters. He held in his hand one of those famous Bluebooks in which, not only the name of the voter but the amount of the rating was given—an invitation to exclusive dealing, and a mode of keeping up political irritation, which the ballot would effectually put an end to. He thought, therefore, there was but little use in passing a mere continuance Bill, as this really was, but that the Legislature should direct its attention to a remedy for the evil itself. He would admit, however, that there was some good in the Bill. It defined the character of bribery and the nature of agency: the appointment of the election auditors, and the compulsory render of accounts, was also a good measure, though clumsily carried out; he thought, too, that the expenses of the auditors were excessive, and the mode of payment, by fees, absurd. In some cases these gentlemen would pocket £50 or £60 for preliminary fees, for merely walking into a borough and then walking out. There were 912 candidates at the last general election, and forty members lost their seats; if there were the same number of candidates at the next election, they would have to pay £9,500 in the first instance. He would by no means abolish the office of election auditor—which, as he had said, he thought a very useful institution—but he thought that if the Town Clerk or the Clerk of the Peace were ex-officio the election auditor, there would be less complaint, and such a person holding a public office, for which he was responsible, would be less liable to corrupt influences. He had given notice of several Amendments, which would remedy some of the inconveniences of the existing law. Among them was one which provided that the declaration of the agents should he made before the returning officer and kept by the auditor. Again, the present state of the law as to travelling expenses was uncertain and full of peril to the candi-
988
dates by a recent decision in the courts of law. The whole question turned on the mere wording of a note: that is whether in the language of the law the letter inviting the voter to come contained a condition precedent or not. If the House were not prepared to do away with such expenses, they were bound to legalise them, and that could best be done by reintroducing the clause which was expunged by the House of Lords; and he had therefore, proposed an Amendment introducing words permitting the candidate to pay, or cause to be paid, the actual and reasonable expenses of bringing voters to the poll. But the most important Amendment he proposed was, to compel the petitioner and sitting Member, on inquiry before any Select Committee of the House of Commons, to give evidence, but in such case he would take away the penalty attached to the act of bribery, and would provide that such evidence should not afterwards be used in any indictment or criminal proceeding against the parties giving it. With regard to the accusation of bribery at the last election in Bath, he believed there was no foundation for such a charge. He believed there was no bribery, and he knew that none of his money was spent in any such way. If the Bill were to be merely a continuance Bill for one year, and a promise given that a Committee would be appointed next Session, he would not propose his Amendments; but if not, he should move them in Committee.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the present Bill was not proposed for the first time as a Bill for checking corrupt practices at elections, nor was it a Bill for rendering permanent the present law. The Government merely asked the House to continue the Bill for one year, without Amendment, the intention of the Government being to propose next Session a Committee of Inquiry into the operation of the Bill in those elections which had taken place since the measure became law. Hon. Members did not seem to be agreed as to the operation of the Act, because, while the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) said the Act was a failure, the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Ingram), who had had recent experience of the working of its provisions, said its operation was most beneficial. The question was one upon which other hon. Members were just as well enabled to judge as the hon. Member for Bristol. He would not express any opinion one way or the other

989
on the subject, but it was desirable that some inquiry should take place before a Select Committee previous to the Act being either continued permanently or abandoned as a failure. [Mr. H. BERKELEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard Colonel Sleigh's statement?] He had not heard Colonel Sleigh's statement, but he had heard the statement made by the hon. Member for Boston. Colonel Sleigh's statement was not before the House. It might be true, but let it be submitted to a Committee, and let evidence be tendered by those who complained of the operation of the Act. If it was the opinion of the House that the Act should be continued for a year, it would be better to go into Committee on the present Bill at once, instead of getting up a desultory discussion upon the details.
MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, he believed that the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act had been of great benefit to the country. He stood in that House fresh from a severely contested election, which was followed up by a petition, and he had therefore had some experience of the working of the Act. There were no open houses on either side in the city which he had the honour to represent (Rochester), and he did not believe that so much as £5 had been spent in drinking during the election in a town of 16,000 inhabitants, if there had been he was sure some of his Friends would have detected it. There had been no treating and no bribery, and he wished for the credit of the inhabitants to say that any charge to the contrary was quite unfounded. He should be glad to see an Amendment agreed to in Committee with regard to travelling expenses, since the alteration which had been proposed would make an enormous difference to the pockets of the candidates. If travelling expenses were prohibited altogether the prohibition would be nugatory, for a labouring man could not be expected to lose a day's work and spend a day's pay in coming to the poll. But if such expenses as the House agreed to allow were paid openly through the election auditor, a great improvement would be effected.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that although the Bill could in no way prevent bribery or intimidation, it effectually prevented treating; and so far it was, no doubt, productive of considerable advantage. He very much regretted that the measure had not passed the House with that provision recommend-
990
ed by the Committee from which it had emanated in its original form, under which every Member would have been required before taking his seat to make a declaration that he had incurred no illegal expense at his election. Persons well acquainted with the subject had expressed their belief that that was the only proposal which had ever been made for the prevention of corruption in the return of Members to that House.
SIR SAMUEL BIGNOLDsaid, he thought the Bill a very useful one. Every shilling of expense he had incurred at his recent election for Norwich had been laid before the world under the provisions of that measure.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would not withdraw his Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, unless he should receive a distinct assurance from the Government that they would merely make it a continuance measure, and that they would refer the whole subject to the consideration of a Select Committee early next Session.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I stated, Sir, on a former occasion, and I have not the least difficulty in repeating now, that it is the intention of the Government to refer the Bill to a Committee at the earliest period possible next Session. We are quite aware that the Bill is imperfect. We Cannot, however, admit that it is a failure, but it certainly requires, and is susceptible, of amendment, and that amendment can be better made in a Select Committee than in a Committee of the whole House. I am, therefore, quite ready to give the pledge which the hon. Member requires.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought it would be desirable to insert in the Bill an Amendment of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Shoreham (Sir C. Burrell) had given notice, under which the number of polling places would be increased among such constituencies as those of East Retford, Aylesbury, Shoreham, and other places, which extended over large portions of counties.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that such a provision would not come within the scope of the Bill now before the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Bill reported without Amendment.

VICE-PRESIDENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR GEORGE GREY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it related to a subject which had been much referred to in the course of the debates on education during the last and the present Session. The Government were strongly pressed last Session to alter the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education; and instead of leaving the administration of the funds, voted by Parliament for education, in the hands of a body, constituted out of the Committee of Council, consisting of several Members of the Government, but no one of them having any of that individual responsibility which ought to attach, to a Minister of the Crown, the importance was pointed out to the Government of centralising the responsibility as to administering those grants, and superintending matters of education, so far as the Government were concerned, in the hands of one Minister. It was also pressed on the Government that a representative of this department should have a seat in that House, and be ready to explain all the measures which had been taken by the Government, with the concurrence of Parliament, for the promotion of education, and should also take his share of the business which devolved upon such department. Accordingly, his noble Friend at the head of the Government announced that it was their intention to propose a Bill at the commencement of the Session for that purpose. This Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in fulfilment of that pledge, and having passed that House it now came before them for their consideration. It authorised the appointment of a Vice President, who would be enabled to have a seat in the House of Commons, and would be the responsible Minister there in all matters connected with education, so far as the Government were concerned. The Bill had been before the House a considerable time, but its passage had been delayed partly out of deference to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), who objected to it, and partly in consequence of pushing forward other Bills which had to go up to the House of Lords by a certain day. The only objection he had heard raised against the Bill was by that hon. Member, who was opposed to all grants whatever for education, and who thought that, by passing the Bill, Parliament would
992
give an additional sanction to the grants which it now placed at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of extending education. But not only those grants, but the Committee of Council on Education itself had been recognised by various Acts of Parliament. He trusted, therefore, that the House would pass the Bill, which he believed would effect a most beneficial change.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. Baronet he could not approve of the Bill, and should move that it be read a second time that day three months. He found, for instance, that the new Minister was to have no jurisdiction in Ireland, where a large portion of the money voted for educational purposes was expended. The Bill was of a most extraordinary and indefinite nature, with the exception of that portion which regulated the salaries. He should like to know what the duties to be performed under it were? He must also complain that of the enormous sums voted for the purpose of education, the Church obtained by far the greater part. He thought the House would be doing an injustice to the cause of education by creating an office of this kind. When such offices were created there was no getting rid of them, except by means of an enormous compensation; and if this one were created, with a salary of £2,000 or £3,000 a year, a like demand would be made. The principle of the Bill was bad, and the measure itself had been ill-considered. It was true, as had been stated by the right hon. Baronet, that it had been introduced early in the Session, but it had never been brought on for discussion. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government, which had not brought it in on its own free will, would not lend the weight of their authority in its favour, and that it would be rejected. It would be far better to withdraw it, and come next Session prepared with a well-considered measure. For a long time the voluntary principle had prevailed, and it was only when it became a means of creating political capital that the subject was taken up by the great parties in the State, who used it merely as an instrument in their hands.
MR. PELLATTseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. INGHAMsaid, he regarded the Bill as a most satisfactory measure, and one which, if adopted by the House, would effectually tend to the promotion of education. Many schemes for the extension of education had been proposed, but had failed on account of the great diversity of opinion which prevailed throughout the country. He believed the best plan would be to continue the present liberal grants, and to keep both schoolmasters and scholars to their duties by a vigilant and intelligent inspection, at the same time allowing some degree of discretion to those who had the administration of the funds. At present the Committee of Privy Council, to avoid the imputation of partiality, was obliged to lay down certain rules and abide by them strictly; but if there was a representative of the Committee in that House who could explain and justify each grant, it would have a much wider discretion, and would be able to effect more good.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he felt called upon to complain of the increasing cost of this Board. At first it was only £1,300 a year, and now it had increased to between £19,000 and £20,000, besides pensions to the amount of £1,500 a year. The Board had done more harm than good, and its defective mode of laying down sewers—at Croydon, for instance—had caused more disease than it had removed.
MR. COWPERsaid, the General Board of Health was not responsible for laying down sewers in provincial towns. All it did was to approve the plans, and if there was any defect in the sewerage at Croydon, which the hon. Member had instanced, it was certainly not in the plans, but in their execution. As to the expenses of the Board, he would remind the hon. Gentleman of the large amount of public money saved by the application of the Public Health Act to fifteen towns, at an expense of only between £150 and £200, whereas a separate local Act would have cost them
994
something like £1,000 each. Those towns at least were not dissatisfied with what they had thus obtained. The hon. Member had forgotten, too, that by the Act of 1848, before a town could borrow any money for public works, to be repaid in a term of years, they must have the sanction of the Board of Health. In such cases the Board had to take care that the interest of the persons who were to pay the loan hereafter should be considered, and that if the work undertaken did not promise to extend its benefits beyond a period of ten years, the repayment of the money spent should not be extended beyond that period. The amount of money which had been borrowed under the Public Health Act up to the present time amounted to no less than £2,500,000. All the works which were to be made with that money had been carefully examined by the General Board, and that was one of its functions which, while it was most important, was also one which gave great satisfaction to the local boards. Hardly a week passed without plans being sent up by local boards for the inspection of the engineer attached to the General Board, and it very frequently happened that those plans turned out utterly worthless, involving a great expenditure of money, and certain to prove failures and produce disappointment. In many instances the General Board of Health had prevented local boards from thus wasting their money, and in that way he felt certain that it was productive of much good. It should likewise be remembered that the General Board was instituted, not only to carry out the Public Health Act, but for a great number of other useful purposes, to which he need not now allude. He only hoped, however, that the friends of the sanitary cause in that House would not allow themselves to be blinded by mere prejudice against the Board of Health, but would consider how necessary it was that there should be some department of the State whose business it was to take cognisance of all those matters in which legislation or the action of Government might be usefully employed to protect the lives, to preserve the health, and to promote generally the physical well-being of the people of this country.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he could not avoid expressing his disapproval of the Act of 1848, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some idea of the improvements he intended to make in that measure next Session.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend to give his attention to the Bill recommended by the Select Committee, which had inquired into the subject, and of which he was a Member. He believed that if such a Bill were introduced in the next Session of Parliament, it would meet with a more ready acquiescence than any other measure that could be proposed.
Bill passed through Committee; House resumed; Bill reported, without Amendment.

COUNTY COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for taking the Amendments in consideration read.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had understood the Bill should be recommitted, that the clauses might be considered, as they had been passed through Committee at a very late hour, and in a great hurry.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that also was his opinion, but he was given to understand that after the present stage the Bill would be reprinted in its amended state.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it would be, and that the third reading should not be taken before Tuesday at Twelve o'clock.
Clause 9.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Government and the Chairman of Ways and Means to this clause, to which he greatly objected. He had provided, in framing the first County Court Act, 9 & 10 Vict., that the clerk should reside in their districts. That had been found ineffective, and he had pointed out the importance of more stringent provisions for the residence of the County Court clerks in their districts. He knew of one who resided 120 miles from the district. The present clause did away with the absolute prohibition of non-residence, and he hoped that it would be withdrawn, and that the absolute prohibition would be restored.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the clause was only intended to meet exceptional cases, but it would be liable to abuse, and, therefore, he should not oppose its omission.
Clause struck out.
Clause 30.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to call attention to this clause, which would materially affect proceedings in the superior Courts, and it also deprived plaintiffs of costs of suit in those Courts in cases where they recovered judgment by
996
default for less than £20. That would operate prejudicially in many cases, and he should propose to insert the words, "except where the plaintiff dwells more than twenty miles from the defendant." The present law gave concurrent jurisdiction to the Superior Courts so that his proposition would only retain the law in its present state.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that the clause was in accordance with the principle of the County Courts Act, and was to prevent actions being brought in the superior Courts for sums under £20, except under certain circumstances. If it was a fit case for the superior Courts, the Judge would always certify for costs. A plaintiff residing more than twenty miles from a debtor, might by the present law sue him in the superior Courts.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, that a judgment by default could be obtained at a less expense in the Superior Courts than in the County Courts. It would cost in the Superior Courts only £2 5s., whereas in the County Courts, where the parties resided more than twenty miles apart, the expense might be ten times that amount, for the whole case must be proved. The present clause could only have been framed by some person not practically acquainted with the subject.
MR. COLLIERsaid, the policy of the County Courts system was to allow the suitor an option of suing in the Superior Courts where his debtor did not reside within twenty miles of him. He should support the Amendment.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, the difficulty was this, an action might be brought, not knowing whether it would be defended or not; and it would be absurd to force the action into the County Court, which would cause far greater expense to the defendant. If the plaint were in the Westminster County Court, and the cause of action arose at Lewes, £10 expense might be caused by the necessity of bringing the witnesses to prove the case. However, if there was power for the suitor to apply to a Judge for the costs, the difficulty would be remedied. And in that case he would support the clause.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid it was so.
Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 82.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he desired to remind hon. Members that he had called the

997
attention of the House early in the Session to the case of Mr. Falconer, and of another Judge, who claimed the increased allowance of £1,500 a year. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had on that occasion stated that had that Motion not been made, those Judges would have received the increased allowance, as a Treasury Minute had then already passed. He proposed to omit certain words in the clause, which would enable those Judges to be placed in the receipt of that allowance from the date of the Treasury Minute.
MR. WILSONsaid, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward a Motion some months since on this subject, he (Mr. Wilson) stated that as long ago as December last the Treasury had decided that the two Judges in question were entitled, by reason of the amount of business transacted in their Courts for the last three years, to be added to the list of Judges who should receive £1,500. One of those Judges was Mr. Falconer, a relative of the hon. and learned Member; the name of the other he did not know. In the month of January, Mr. Falconer addressed the Treasury claiming to be placed in the position of a Judge receiving £1,500 a year, and was informed that a Treasury Minute granting him that salary had already been passed. About the time when the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) brought forward his Motion a communication to that effect was made to the Home Office, and the Home Secretary replied that, inasmuch as the Lord Chancellor intended to introduce before long a measure for the general regulation of the County Courts, it would be better to defer the consideration of the question until then. The Treasury Minute, however, had been long since agreed to, and he was clearly of opinion that to those two Judges the Treasury was committed. He was bound to say, from all he had seen and heard, that a more assiduous, able, or conscientious County Court Judge than Mr. Falconer did not exist.
Amendment negatived.
Bill to be read a third time on Tuesday.

MARRIAGE LAW (SCOTLAND) AMENDING BILL.
Order for consideration of Amendments read.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would have any objection to strike out from the Bill the words "usual
998
place of residence," in reference to Scotch cases?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was afraid there would be a difficulty in agreeing to do so.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would suggest whether those words would not create a great laxity in construction, as they might be construed to mean some sort of residence contradistinguished from actual residence.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would take the suggested Amendment into consideration before the third reading of the Bill.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he must again appeal to the House whether or not it would be advisable that a joint application ought to be made by both bride and bridegroom, which would entail no hardship, and would not be productive of inconvenience.
Bill ordered to be read a third time Tomorrow.

COAST-GUARD SERVICE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Clause 3.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that when an emergency recently occurred, and the services of the coast-guard were required for manning Her Majesty's ships, it was found that there were some 2,000 or 3,000 men employed in the coast-guard who were unfit for service afloat, and he thought the House ought to "know the reason why." It should be clearly known who were to blame for such a state of things. If the rule providing that to qualify a man for service in the coast-guard a special certificate should be required from the commander of the ship in which he had served had been adhered to, an efficient force would have been at the command of the Government. There were in the coast-guard service a number of officers who were civilians, and he should like to know what the Admiralty intended to do with them. The Bill provided for the coast-guard having the charge of the naval volunteers, an arrangement which he approved, and he trusted it would prove successful. It was matter of complaint that though the coast-guard were exceedingly useful in the protection of life and property the House should understand that was a service for which they never got promotion.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that with reference to the civilians mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, they would not be subjected to the discipline imposed on the sailors of the coast-guard, but would be allowed to remain as they now were. The sailors he had spoken of as too old for the service had no doubt once been good seamen, but had been too long in the coast-guard. It was intended to pay those men off with pension, and replace them with younger men fit for any duty to which they might be called.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he wished to inquire if the children of the men serving in the coast-guard would be eligible to the schools at Greenwich? One of the qualifications for admission as they at present stood was, that the candidate should be the child of a mariner in either the Royal Navy or in the merchant service.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that when the Bill passed into a law all the men employed under it would be treated as seamen of the Royal Navy, and their children would be eligible to the schools at Greenwich.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he would beg to ask whether the Coast Volunteers were to be kept up, or whether the coastguard was to replace them?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the coast-guard were to be under the control of the Admiralty, and to be trained for service in the navy, particularly in the management of gun-boats. All coast-guard men would be entered as seamen on the Admiralty books. Some of the older coastguard men were not so entered; and no alteration would be made in respect to them.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the power given to the Admiralty of taking five acres of land at any point within half a mile of the coast of any navigable river for the erection of barracks for the coastguard was too extensive. Under the existing Act power was given to take half an acre only.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not anticipate that there would be any material increase of coast-guard stations, or that it would be necessary to exercise the power granted by the clause. But the existing law had been found insufficient, the consequence was that great num-
1000
bers of the coast-guard were lodged in villages, where they were exposed to all sorts of temptation. What he wanted was to have power to erect stations where none existed at present.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that in addition to the five acres there was power given to provide foot-paths, &c.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he did not think that sufficient explanation of the reason for those additional powers had been given.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he thought that it was desirable that sufficient barrack accommodation should be provided; but he would ask the right hon. Baronet if not less than five acres would be sufficient?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that if the Committee would pass the clause as it stood, he should reduce the number of acres to three on the third reading.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
House resumed; Bill reported, without Amendments.

MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 struck out.
Clause 2.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must urge the rejection of the clause. A man might at present safely buy cattle in open market, but if the clause passed he would be liable to have his right to them disputed by any person who represented that they were stolen and claimed them as his property.
MR. LOWEsaid, the question had been considered by the Mercantile Law Commission, a Commission composed of many learned persons, who were of opinion that in the event of the sale of stolen property it was better, as the loss must fall on some one, that the purchaser rather than the original proprietor should suffer. The clause, however, was no insertion of his, and he had no wish to press it against the wish of the Committee.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the buyer in open market ought to be protected, as he had no means of knowing that the property was stolen, whereas the proprietor might by precaution defend himself against robbery.
MR. MALINSsaid, he also concurred in the objections urged against the clause.
MR. LOWEsaid, he must confess that there was great justice in what had been

1001
stated in opposition to the clause, and as he was inclined to think that there was great advantage in affording every facility possible to dealings between man and man, he would consent to the omission of the clause.
Clause struck out.
Clauses 3, 4, and 5, agreed to.
Clause 6.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he should move the omission of the clause, which provided that a guarantee to or for a firm should cease upon a change in the firm, except in special cases.
Question put, "That Clause Six stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 13: Majority 82.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 7.
Clause 8 withdrawn.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported, with Amendments.

CURSITOR BARON OF THE EXCHEQUER BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now beg to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to abolish an office the duties of which had become merely formal. As Tuesday next was the last day, according to the rules of the House, on which Bills could be sent up for second reading, he hoped there would be no objection to allowing the Bill to pass another stage that day, and to read it a third time and pass it to-morrow.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, the only duties of the Cursitor Baron in recent times had been to make a ridiculous speech in introducing the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, when a certain number of nails were counted and so many sticks were chopped, a ceremony which attracted a good many ladies to witness, but was of no earthly use. He thought some less absurd mode of introducing the sheriffs might be devised.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Bill only provided that the duties of the Cursitor Baron should be discharged by one of the Barons of the Exchequer, or by an officer appointed by the Court, but he thought it would be in the power of the Court to make regulations for the ceremony which they thought fit.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: It may end, then, in the speech being made by one of the Ushers of the Court.
Bill read 2°, and the Standing Orders having been suspended, it passed through Committee, and was reported without amendment.

JUDGMENTS EXECUTION BILL.
Order for Committee read; Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should move that the Bill be committed that day three mouths. If the Bill passed there would be nothing to prevent a fraudulent creditor in Ireland coming over and getting a judgment here, and then sweeping away all his alleged debtor's property in Ireland, without the possibility of stopping him. He could not see why a private Member should be allowed to revolutionise the law after this fashion at his own pleasure.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he thought that if the principle of the Bill was good, it ought to be introduced as a Government measure. He should second the Amendment.
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 put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 39: Majority 12.
Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should now move the adjournment of the debate. He had frequently stated his objections to the measure, and had not had them answered. He believed it would open the door to innumerable frauds. It was an impolitic Bill—there was no ground for pushing it at that period of the Session.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he was opposed to the Bill, as justice could not be done to it at the present period of the Session.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Bill was introduced on the 4th of February, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was not time to consider it. He would, however, recommend his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr, who had charge of the Bill, to withdraw it, and to leave out Ireland when he next introduced it, as he would then have more chance of getting it passed.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he was afraid he must adopt the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and be content with the partial success which the Bill had obtained. He thought, however, he had reason to complain of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), who led him to believe that he would support the Bill, and even agreed to put his name on the back of it. He would not on the present occasion press his Motion, but he would re-introduce it early in the ensuing Session.
Motion and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
Order read for taking into consideration the Lords' Amendments to this Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should move that a clause which had been inserted by their Lordships, giving to magistrates power in certain cases to send juvenile criminals to a reformatory school, without the infliction of the punishment of previous imprisonment, should not be agreed to. It was incompatible with the provisions of several other clauses in the Bill.
MR. GORDONsaid, he must differ from the right hon. Baronet, for he regarded the Amendment in question as quite in consonance with the other provisions of the Bill; and certainly it was a clause which, sooner or later, must be enacted. He considered that it was desirable to retain a discretionary power in the hands of the magistrates to send juvenile offenders to a reformatory institution, instead of committing them to prison, which was the object of the Lords' Amendment.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that although favourable to the clause, he thought it would not harmonise with other provisions of the Bill; and he therefore recommended that it should be withdrawn, and that this matter should be made the subject of legislation in a future Session.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he trusted the House would accept the Bill. He was at a loss to discover anything incompatible between the original clause and the Lords' Amendment. Cases often arose in which it was desirable that a child should be saved from the disgrace of being sent to a convict prison; and the law ought, in his opinion, to provide for such cases.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must express
1004
his concurrence in the observations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and should support the rejection of the Lords' Amendment.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was in favour of the Lords' Amendment. He considered the practice of sending juvenile offenders at once to prison as rather calculated to confirm than correct them in their early tendency to vicious courses.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the clause under discussion is perfectly incompatible with the arrangements of the Bill as it now stands, and, in my opinion, that is quite a sufficient objection to the clause without entering into the merits of the case; but, I am bound to add, that when the subject was discussed some time ago, I entirely concurred in the principle upon which this clause was resisted. It is now, however, urged, that committing children to prison before sending them to reformatory institutions places them, to a certain extent, beyond the chance of reformation. If, however, this House decides upon sending children to those institutions in the first instance, I very much fear that parents will induce their children to commit offences in order to have them educated at the public expense. To avoid this I consider that they should be subjected to some short period of imprisonment before being sent to any reformatory institution. The object of the Bill is to reform criminals, not to hold out to the lower classes the temptation of getting their children educated at the expense of the country. It is objectionable in principle, because, instead of a punishment, it holds out a species of premium to crime.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, no Member of the Government had attempted to prove that the clause was incompatible with the general purport of the Bill, but they had all contented themselves with asserting that the fact was so. The argument of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), that parents might induce their children to steal that they might be admitted into these schools, was, in his belief, fallacious. The parents bad an interest in getting them into prison, where they would be supported at the expense of the public; but they could not have any in forcing them into schools where they would have to contribute to their support.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if he were not precluded by the rules of the House from again speaking on the ques-

1005
tion, he could demonstrate that the clause was incompatible with the general purpose of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 31: Majority 15.
Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. MASSEY, the LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. FITZROY, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, and Mr. KINNAIRD:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that one effect of pasing the Bill might be to interfere between the Master of the Rolls in Ireland and Mr. James Sadleir, whose effects had, he understood, been seized on their way to furnish a villa at some place unknown. It was contrary to all sound principle to enact a law to meet such a case as that of the Tipperary Bank. It was his belief that it was a measure introduced for a particular purpose, and he was of opinion that it was calculated unfairly to prejudice the interests of the smaller class of farmers who had been made the victims of the unparalleled frauds of the Sadleirs in the case of the Tipperary Bank, for those men would probably know nothing of the person who was to be allowed as their representative, to dispose as he might please of their rights. He should move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill on that day three months.
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.
MR. MALINSsaid, he could deny that the object of the Bill was to enable the shareholders of the bank to avoid the payment of their debts; its object was, in fact, the very reverse. The truth was, that a vast number of actions had already been commenced, and if the Bill were rejected all the assets would be swallowed up in
1006
law expenses. The carrying out of the provisions would be dependent on the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, whom the hon. and learned Gentleman had so much and so justly lauded. He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had so little confidence in the tribunals of his own country. Unless he (Mr. Malins) had known that the Bill was one for the benefit of the creditors—3,000 in number—he would have had nothing to do with it. The simple object of the Bill was to enable shareholders who had property to make a surrender of it, and then to obtain a discharge.
MR. HENLEYsaid, although the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) represented the Bill as a creditors' Bill, it was remarkable that it did not give the creditors any hold on the property of their debtors. The effect of passing the Bill would be, that the creditors would be induced to accept a small dividend, and very soon parties who had declared that they had next to nothing would hold up their heads again, and appear as well off as ever. He was strongly opposed to the measure, and he thought it most ill judged, in the midst of a gigantic swindle, such as that which had just been perpetrated in Ireland, to step in, and by a legislative enactment, reverse the position of the parties.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 40: Majority 9.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for three months.
Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTE.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Boyle, after the Death of his Grandfather.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland).
2a Coatham Marriages Validity; Indemnity; Formation, &c. of Parishes; Nuisances Removal, &c. (Scotland); Episcopal and Capitular Estates Continuance; Customs (No. 2); Railways Act (Ireland), 1851, Continuance; Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland).
3a Revenue (Transfer of Charges).

FORMATION OF PARISHES BILL.
Order of the Day for the second reading read.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that its object was to amend and enlarge an Act passed some years ago, called Peel's Act, whereby populous districts might be formed into parishes. There was a body called the Church Building Commission, which had been appointed for the purpose of portioning out such districts and building churches therein, and that Commission having expired, the present Bill had been introduced for the purpose of transferring its powers to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of enabling those Commissioners to build churches, and of assigning to them various rights and jurisdictions which they had not hitherto been entitled to exercise. At present, the greater part of the services of baptism, marriage, and burial took place in the mother church of the parish, and in populous districts great confusion and disorder were thereby caused in the sacred edifice, while much dissatisfaction was felt on the part of those who were obliged to travel a long distance to take part in the marriages and burials. In the collegiate church of Manchester, as many as sixty marriages had sometimes taken place on a Sunday; while in St. Pancras, London, there were sometimes between thirty and forty. It was important to the Church of England that there should be an easy access to all its services, and that there should be a multiplication of districts enjoying the full power of performing all the services of the Church. The Bill now before their Lordships would, it was hoped, contribute to induce people to come forward and multiply these districts.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he had much pleasure in supporting a Bill which would enable the Church to develope itself according to the spiritual needs of the population, and should rejoice to see the Bill become law.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was disposed to give his assent to the second reading of the Bill, but, since there were many details in it which required great consideration, that it was desirable that it should be referred to a Select Committee where they could be examined. He did not wish to interpose any delay, but the measure was not one that ought to be passed hastily.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, said,
948
he had no objection that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee; but, at this late period of the Session, there was some danger in adopting the suggestion of the noble Earl. The measure was one of vital importance, and he was authorised to say that it had the entire sanction of the Lord Primate. He trusted that if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, they would meet to-morrow, so that no time should be lost.
LORD REDESDALEthought that the appointment of a Select Committee need not delay the passing of the measure in the present Session.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
LORD REDESDALE: I submit to your Lordships whether, before going into Committee, you ought not to have the correspondence between the Bishops of London and Durham and the Government, relating to their retirement, and which has been moved for by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), laid upon the table of the House. The preamble to this Bill states that these right rev. Prelates have represented to Her Majesty's Government their inability to perform their duties, and their desire on that account to vacate their sees. We know nothing—except from the representations of Her Majesty's Government—of the terms upon which that representation has been made. We do not know whether the conditions are such that the Bill cannot be amended without breaking them. We do not know whether consent was given by these right rev. Prelates upon the understanding that there would be a general Bill, or upon the understanding that there would be a measure personal to themselves only, because I must repeat what I said on a former occasion, that upon the latter supposition, this measure is a mode of carrying out a simoniacal contract, and I cannot believe that the right rev. Prelates could, however incautiously, come to agree to a proposition that a separate treaty should be made with them. They may have said that if a general measure were passed, they would willingly avail themselves of it;

949
but I can hardly believe it possible that they would consent to treat in a manner which, if a rector so treated with his patron, would lead to the charge of a simoniacal contract. Under these circumstances, I do think the House ought to have the correspondence to which this Bill relates, and I hope the Government will allow the Committee to be postponed till Monday.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That the House is entitled to the correspondence in question no one can doubt, and there is not the slightest reluctance or hesitation in laying it upon the table; but I trust your Lordships will not make that very natural wish on the part of my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) ground for not proceeding with this stage of the Bill. Notice having been given by my right rev. Friend that he would move for the correspondence, I immediately communicated with the First Lord of the Treasury, in whose hands the correspondence rests. Unfortunately, I have not got it yet, but no doubt it will be laid upon the table to-morrow. I can, however, assure your Lordships that the noble Lord is quite mistaken in supposing it relates to a general measure. It distinctly shows that these right rev. Prelates did not suppose they were doing anything simoniacal. The language of the Bishop of London was, if by law it could be done, he was anxious to do it, in consequence of the difficulties he found in discharging the duties of his office. With regard to the Bishop of Durham, I believe the letters also show that he considered the matter related specifically to himself.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I hope your Lordships will well weigh this objection before you go into Committee. The going into Committee implies that you are about to consider the details of this measure, involving the amount of salaries and proposed pensions to these right rev. Prelates; and this your Lordships are about to do without any knowledge whatever, except on the statement of Her Majesty's Government, as to the previous stages of this arrangement. I am bound to say—and though I have no authority to say it, yet from my own knowledge of the cirstances I pledge my truth for it—that what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack does not give the true state of the case. Of course I do not, for a moment, impute to the noble and learned Lord the slightest intention to misrepresent; but, speaking from no slight
950
acquaintance with the circumstances, that is what I believe to be the truth of the case. I believe the Bishop of London heard that Her Majesty's Government had been considering, by some general measure, the means of providing for the work of dioceses, the Bishops of which were worn out, and that within a few days a Bill would be laid upon the table of the House; and, being very anxious to help forward any such general measure, he did communicate to Her Majesty's Government, with a distinct view to that general measure, his readiness to retire. I believe, further, that it was stated to him that it might be found necessary, if not convenient, to deal with the case of the Bishops of London and Durham by a separate Bill; but that it would be a supplementary measure falling in with the general state of the law, as far as that general measure affected it. Mark, my Lords, the different position in which that would have placed my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London). If a general law, affecting all who held spiritual charges, passed, and if an accompanying measure applied the general principle to any particular case, with the limitations which that particular case required, the right rev. Lord (the Bishop of London) would be altogether free in conscience and appearance from conniving at simony by merely consenting to bring their case under the then existing general law of the clergy. My right rev. Friend has not been acquainted with the objections on the ground of simony. I put it upon a hypothetical case. Suppose my right rev. Friend has not heard of this objection. Suppose that, not having it clearly before his mind, he assented because he expected this arrangement would be a proviso to a general act and altogether free from the general charge of simony. Suppose that in his present state of weakness he is unable to read the public journals, and his anxious friends who are watching round him do not dare to tell him this objection to a private Bill—I will suppose there was no positive stipulation that there should be a general measure. Then, I ask, if such a hypothetical case should turn out to be the truth, are you prepared to proceed, and, taking advantage of an offer under very different supposed circumstances, to make the right rev. Lord guilty in the eyes of the great body of the Church of England of a simonical transaction, for his own convenience, when my right rev. Friend is altogether free from any charge of the

951
kind, and it is only from the mode in which he has been treated that he is exposed to it? A great deal was said the other night of the feelings of my right rev. Friend, and how much was due to him, and the noble Earl said, in almost a pathetic way, would the House refuse the petition of the right rev. Prelate to be released in his old age from duties which he found himself unable to perform? I believe that is an entire perversion of the state of the case; that my right rev. Friend made the offer with a view to helping forward a general Act; and that, so far from promoting his wishes by carrying this Bill, your Lordships would promote them most abundantly by refusing in this way to give these particular privileges; because the more attention I give to it the more I come to the conclusion (and a frightful conclusion it is) that this is nothing more than an Act to exempt the Bishop of London from the pains and penalties of committing simony. I believe that is the real effect of the Bill you are passing, and I can only say, knowing the tender and sensitive conscientiousness of my right rev. Friend, that I tremble to think what the effect will be if, at a future time, on recovering some strength, he should find the way in which he has been treated, and that by the substitution of a particular for a general Act he has been made guilty of a scandal to the Church. I dare not estimate what the effect of such a discovery on his mind may be. I ask your Lordships whether you aught to do this—whether you ought not to require that the correspondence should first be in your hands? I think that is the least measure of justice to my right rev. Friend. I claim it of you as a matter of justice to him, that you should not take any representation of his words from a third party, and I say you ought further to do this—you ought to have an assurance that he knows this private Bill is being carried on, the public Bill being dropped. You ought not to take advantage of any letter he may have written in the simplicity and sincerity of his heart, and bind him down to that letter; but Her Majesty's Government ought to state distinctly that he knows it to be an act of simony that you are going to lead him to do. I ask upon what principle you are going? If an assent to a certain thing be obtained from a man, and afterwards the circumstances under which that assent was given are altogether changed, would not a Court of Chancery itself relieve a man who had so bound himself to
952
a bargain under totally different circumstances? It is the plainest equity in the world, and I say your Lordships ought not to proceed with this Bill, based upon a resignation which I in my conscience believe was given by the right rev. Prelate under quite different circumstances from those which the passing of the Bill must produce. I at least pray your Lordships, at the present stage of this Bill, not to dream of going into Committee to settle the details until you know all the facts upon which the present measure is founded.
LORD CAMPBELL: I was, indeed, surprised when I heard my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) accuse the Government of having introduced a Bill to legalise a simoniacal proceeding—accuse all your Lordships who had supported the measure now before the House of having voted for a Bill to carry out a simoniacal treaty—and, going further—and accuse five of his brother Prelates with having aided by their votes to ratify a simonaical treaty. If any layman had stood up and made such a charge against Archbishops and Bishops of the Church—including the Primates of England and the Primate of Ireland—what would my right rev. Friend have done? Why, he would have instantly stood up in that House as the defender of his order, and have indignantly repudiated such a charge. And has it come to this—et tu Brute?—Do I hear my right rev. Friend stand up and charge five Members of the episcopacy with one of the most serious offences that could be attributed to any ecclesiastic? A more merciless attack was never made. I will tell my right rev. Friend that his charge is not founded in law or in fact. What is simony, and what does this Bill propose to do? Simony is a certain transaction which the law prohibits. One Act of Parliament can nullify a previous Act as perfectly as if the Act nullified had never been on the Statute-book; and I lay it down most solemnly for law, that an agreement to do this Act conditionally upon the sanction of the Legislature being given is not simony. The condition assented to by both the right rev. Prelates was this—they were content to do what certainly is now against the law of the land, but to do it with the consent of the Legislature. If the Legislature assent to this Act, it will pro tanto be the same as if the law had never prohibited it. It is not a private bargain. I should like to see a general law upon the subject. I do see great inconveniences in

953
bargains toties quoties between retiring Bishops and the Government of the day; but I say that, to call an arrangement which is publicly expressed to be conditional upon the consent of the Legislature being obtained, a simonaical proceeding is a mere perversion of terms.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My noble and learned Friend has completely misstated my words. I said if this privilegium did not pass, the compact which had been entered into, whether made publicly through the public journals, or privately by correspondence, will be simony by the law. I said also there were two ways in which the Act could be relieved from the crime of simony—one by altering the general law, and the other by passing a privilegium, a special Act of Parliament, to withhold in these instances the penalties which attach to similar acts done by other persons. What I say is this, if after you pass this Act any rector or vicar does, in the most open manner in the world, and with the most honourable motives in the world, the very same act which you allow the Bishop of London to do, then that rector or vicar will commit simony. Then, I say, this Bill is a privilegium to withdraw, in these instances, the penalties of simony from acts which under the general law will still remain illegal and simoniacal. I do not mean to say that legally the two right rev. Prelates would be guilty of simony if you pass this Bill, but the act they do will remain in other cases illegal.
LORD CAMPBELL: I say that if this Bill passes—though by a combination between my right rev. Friend and another party it may not pass—then there will be no simony either legal or moral in this matter.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERexplained the circumstances under which the resignation of the Bishop of London was communicated to him. He had been waited upon by the confidential friend and adviser of the Bishop, Mr. Hodgson, who informed him of the right rev. Prelate's desire, and begged of him to communicate it to the Ecclesiastical Commission. He (the Earl of Chichester) did so, and also immediately communicated it to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He subsequently had several interviews with Mr. Hodgson and his partner, and took care to inform them, for the information of the Lord Bishop, of what was occurring in respect to the draughting of the
954
Bill; and, in order to save time, he (the Earl of Chichester) himself had a Bill prepared, not exactly similar to that now before the House, but the same in principle, in respect to its being a separate measure. A copy of that Bill was given to the Bishop's confidential adviser, and he was authorized to state that the Bishop saw that Bill, and generally approved it. Not a word was said by the Bishop against its being a separate measure, although, no doubt, he thought there shonld be a general measure, as every one else did.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I wish to mention one matter, which appears to me to be well worthy of consideration, in reference to this subject—I mean the actual and prospective state of these great dioceses. I would ask of those who object to this Bill, in what way they intend to carry on the ecclesiastical government of this great town—how they intend during the interregnum to dispose of the patronage of the see? in what way is the correspondence of the see to be carried on, or how are the clergy to be superintended, and generally how is the ecclesiastical government of this diocese to be administered? The diocese of London stands in a peculiar position, different from all other dioceses, and in which it will not itself stand henceforward. It is one of the unregulated bishoprics, and the consequence is, that all the powers formerly exercised by Bishops are vested in the Bishop of London for the time being; and I beg your Lordships to consider what those powers are. The Bishop has the administration of vast territorial revenues, amounting to no less than £22,000 per annum. He retains the powers formerly exercised by Bishops, of levying fines, of granting leases, and of disposing of the property of the Church; he even has the power of anticipating and of making appropriations and assignments beneficial to the receiver, but prejudicial to the Church itself. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Exeter spoke the other night of the great convenience of entering upon an interregnum at the present moment, because the great pressure of business to which Bishops are exposed in holding confirmations and consecrations was over, as those ceremonies are not performed in the autumn and winter months. But are those the only duties which a Bishop has to perform? If they be the only duties, shall we not hear

955
very soon repeated that which has been so often said about Bishops—that they received large salaries and did nothing? If I find a great supporter of the episcopate—himself a Bishop—saying that during six months a Bishop has noting to do, I believe he is establishing a stronger argument against the continuance of Bishops than anything which could be urged by the most violent anti-state-church partisan in the country. But is it nothing to have the spiritual charge of more than 2,000,000 people—of a population larger than that of many German duchies, and nearly as large as that of the kingdom of Sardinia? But I must rely on my authority alone. I will read an extract from a letter written by a rev. gentleman, an archdeacon, of great experience, who is far better able than I am to form an opinion as to the consequences which would ensue from the continuance of such an interregnum. It is necessary, I should first explain that it is intended, I believe, to put the diocese into the hands of Commissaries. Writing to me on this subject, my informant says—
"There can be no doubt that it is a great evil for this metropolitan diocese to be without an active head. Commissaries cannot have the same authority and influence; and the Commissaries of this diocese must henceforward labour under the additional disadvantage of exercising not merely a delegated authority, but an authority which, it is notorious, must soon expire. A new Bishop may reverse all their decisions. At the recent annual meeting of—, a rector expressed a general feeling when he stated that, in his arduous position, with a parish containing nearly 200,000 persons, he felt continually and most painfully the want of the full support of episcopal authority."
This is a sentiment shared, I believe, by all the rectors and vicars of large parishes in the metropolis. But the Bishop of London has many other duties to perform besides consecration and confirmations. The writer of the letter I have quoted says—
"The Bishop of London exercises a customary jurisdiction over all chaplains in foreign parts, or in the colonies and the East Indies, where there is no Anglican Bishop. This is a jurisdiction of a very delicate nature, and of great importance to the credit of this country on the Continent; but having the sanction of the law, it is less easily delegated to a Commissary."
It will be seen, therefore, that the Bishop of London stands in a very peculiar position. He cannot delegate his full powers to a Commissary, for he has many functions that do not attach to him by law, and which can be exercised only by himself and on his own responsibility. But
956
we are also not without the benefit of experience on this question. There have heretofore been interregnums in various sees, and most mischievous consequences have ensued. I will not go into the details of some which took place many years ago; but there is one extremely notorious case of the kind to which I will refer, which occurred during the infirmity of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Hear what is said of this case by a person who knew well what the facts were:—
"No one knows more practically than the Archbishop of Canterbury—and I wish his Grace was now present to confirm this statement—the jobbing, the confusion, the spiritual destitution which rioted in Bath during the mental incapacity of Bishop Law, and the physical incapacity of Bishop Bagot. The Archbishop might be appealed to with confidence, as able to testify both as to the damage sustained by the temporalities of Bath, and as to the neglect of its spiritual interests."
Immense evils arose, as Bishop Stanley felt to his cost, through the long incapacity of Bishop Bathurst in the diocese of Norwich, and during the whole of his episcopacy it required all his energies to bring that diocese again into proper order. To show you the labours of the Bishop of London—how impossible it is that commissaries should discharge those duties, and how necessary it is that there should be one living and active superintendence over that great diocese—let me give you some little description of his ordinary duties. I have been reminded of a passage in one of Sydney Smith's letters about the Church, in which it is said that the Bishop of London devotes eight or tea hours a day to the business of his diocese, and gives labour enough to govern the empire. The Bishop has been used to have one day in the week at London House, and in the height of the season, two days on which clergy and laity could consult him. On these days the whole time—from nine o'clock in the morning till five or six o'clock in the afternoon—was occupied in personal interviews and discussions. All these interviews, of such great service in bringing together the Bishop and his clergy and laity, and in making the business of the diocese work smoothly, must be suspended for an indefinite period in the case of an interregnum. And here let me recur to the difficulties and confusion which arose in the diocese of Bath and Wells, because I received this morning a letter from a layman of great experience, a soli-

957
citor living in that diocese, who was personally cognisant of many of the mischiefs which were occasioned there by the interregnum to which I have alluded. He says—
"The system pursued in this diocese (Bath and Wells) during the interregnum of Bishop Law's infirmities was to leave the affairs of each archdeaconry in the hands of the rural deans, generally speaking young and inexperienced clergymen, and between whom and their brethren in the ministry constant differences were arising. Unseemly disputes about the Church patronage became the subjects of general scandal, and, although the Church of England in the populous city of Bath and the county of Somerset had been for a long series of years most popular, its popularity would, I believe, have been well nigh lost had such a state of things continued. I am speaking from my own personal observation, but I do feel solemnly that the case of this diocese is a frightful example of what such a state of things as now exists in the dioceses of London and Durham may come to. And sure I am that no real friend of the Church can desire to see a repetition in the metropolis of England of that which I, in common with others, have mourned over in the diocese of Bath."
So long as there is one head responsible for the conduct of these affairs they may go on well in London; but when all these facilities for jobbing and misappropriation are given, and there is no responsibility and superintendence on the part of the Bishop, I do gather that the very worst consequences will ensue in the case of any interregnum. My noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale)—and anything which falls from him cannot fail to be listened to with great attention—says this state of things has gone on for a very considerable time, and he asks why it might not continue for six months longer? Now, it is very well for certain parties in the State to make use of that argument, but I am astounded that it should be urged in the House of Lords, and by a person of the experience of my noble Friend. If this state of things, my Lords, can go on without mischief for six months, it may go on for six—for sixty years—for an indefinite time—in short, until masses of the people are brought to the conviction that the Bishop of London is a name and not a reality. When, too, I find a right rev. Prelate making use of the same argument—when I hear it urged that the Bishop of Oxford is capable of presiding for the time over the diocese of London—will it not be immediately said that there are evidently too many Bishops by half, and that they might be reduced, without
958
public detriment, to a very limited number? I may, perhaps, be more sensitive on this subject than many of your Lordships, but I am conversant with the opinions expressed by many classes of the community on this subject, and I know it is said that Bishops have nothing whatever to do, that their incomes are too large, and that their numbers might well be diminished. The language employed in this House, by which it seems to be inferred that the Bishop of Oxford could preside over the diocese of London, and the Bishop of Manchester over that of Durham, and that no great and irreparable mischiefs would ensue in consequence, is language which could hardly be expected from those who have always been urging the necessity of extending the episcopate. It is curious enough that whenever the number of Bishops is to be increased we hear exaggerated statements of their duties (though I am one of those who think that they have many and great duties to perform), while, now that such a Bill as the present comes before your Lordships. I find that the labours of the Bishops are made light of, and we are told they consist mainly of consecrations and confirmations. ["No, no!"] No! Why, did not the Bishop of Exeter say that the time for confirmations and consecrations was now nearly over, and that little or no business of any serious importance remained for the Bishop, as a proof of which he said that the right rev. Prelate had been in the habit of taking his vacation and of disporting himself in foreign parts about this time of the year. I am certain that the country will interpret such language in the sense I have mentioned, and if they see a continuance of this state of things, and one Bishop doing the duty of another Bishop, they will argue that one-half the number would be sufficient. Having pointed out what the prospects of the diocese of London are likely to be should any interregnum of this kind occur, I have only in conclusion to express the hope that your Lordships will give your earnest consideration to the welfare of the immense population of the two dioceses thus deprived of their Bishops, and will pass this Bill, nothstanding the charge of its being a simoniacal measure.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not think that my noble Friend has been exceedingly appropriate in his arguments in relation to the matter in hand, because he has in forcible language—

959
which he, indeed, always uses—asserted that the prolongation of the interregnum in any of those sees is a matter of serious inconvenience and considerable objection. That is a point which, though my noble Friend has laboured much to prove, is one which is admitted upon every side; and the only question to be decided by those who are now discussing this Bill is, whether on the whole we shall not incur the greatest prospective evil by adopting a partial and imperfect measure like the present, which is, I believe, more calculated to impede than to forward subsequent legislation, than by the postponement of the introduction of any Bill on the subject until we have time to deal with the general question, which general measure would materially advance the great object which your Lordships have in view. My noble Friend has, I think, very much exaggerated the effect of the language which fell from the right rev. Prelate the other night. I was present on that occasion, and what the right rev. Prelate did say was, that of all times of the year the inconvenience would be least felt at the present, inasmuch as the active duties—those of confirmation and consecration—are over; and during the remaining portion of the year the Bishops have the less laborious duties to discharge. And I must say that it is a perversion of the obvious meaning of the right rev. Prelate's language to assume that either he or any other noble Lord who has taken part in discussing this question, has maintained that, during the remaining portion of the year the life of a Bishop is an idle one, or that the number of Bishops is greater than is sufficient to perform the duties of that office. For my own part, I frankly say I think that the number of the episcopal bench is not sufficient; but that is not the question now before your Lordships. I am happy to find it acknowledged on both sides of the House that the duties of a Bishop are so important, and that there is so little superfluity of episcopal attendance, it becomes a matter of vital importance that provision should be made for the resignation and retirement of those Bishops who are rendered incapable of the discharge of their duties. I am glad to see that it is so admitted; and the question is by what description of legislation we can best attain that object. The only question raised now is whether we shall go into Committee before we have received the
960
communications made by the right rev, Prelates to the Government which have led to this mutual understanding. It was my intention to have adverted—and I had risen for that purpose—to the misrepresentation of the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice of what had been said by the right rev. Prelate opposite; but as the right rev. Prelate has himself vindicated his own expressions I do not think it necessary to return to that question. The obvious intent and meaning of the right rev. Prelate being this—that the object of the Bill is to legalise that which, if this Bill did not pass, would be simoniacal, and making that legal in the case of these two Bishops, which, if this Bill passed, would exempt them from the operation of the law in respect to pains and penalties, and if such an act had been performed by other parties would, by the general law of the Church, be considered an act of simony. The acumen of the noble and learned Lord, and his long professional experience, might enable him to turn and twist the argument as he pleased—and no person is more capable of doing so in support of his particular views—but it is impossible, with all his ability, to torture the observations of the right rev. Prelate into any other meaning than this—that the contemplated arrangements made by the retiring Prelates without the sanction of this Bill might be construed into an act of simony. In making these observations I am bound to say I have no doubt whatever that those retiring Prelates have consented to those arrangements with the best and the purest intentions. I should like to ask my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) if he feel so strongly the evils and inconveniences arising from the interregnum in the dioceses of London and Durham, why he does not feel with equal force the evils and inconveniences which are sustained in other dioceses—to which I have no hesitation in referring—I mean the archbishopric of York and the diocese of Norwich? He admits the inconveniences of these arrangements, and I agree with him as to the mischief of these toties quoties arrangements; and therefore it is that I now, as I did upon a former occasion, press upon your Lordships the expediency of dealing with the whole question by a general measure and not by a measure admitting the principle of negotiation between the Minister of the day and the individual concerned. That is a principle

961
involved in this question which in my mind is sufficient to outweigh the serious and grave inconveniences which arise from the continued suspension of the functions of these Prelates. The principle is a bad one in itself, and I can see that grave inconveniences may arise from suspicions engendered as to the motives which may lead to the retirement of a Bishop. The particular circumstances of this case enable your Lordships to afford a retirement to these Bishops, and will enable you to carry those arrangements into effect. The consequence would infallibly be, that when there are not such means of providing for such retirement from the superfluities of the incomes attached to the sees, that then it would be necessary to make some farther special arrangements to meet the difficulties of the case. And, therefore, if you rest this case upon the peculiar circumstance that you are enabled to do it without endangering the common fund, you will virtually negative the possibility of doing that which you admit to be desirable to have done by a general law applicable to all sees. Before I sit down I wish to ask the Government whether they will consent that the annual sum of money which will be saved by the effect of these arrangements shall be held in abeyance until a general measure be passed to form the nucleus of a surplus fund which shall be applicable to the general retirement of Bishops. If Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give this assurance—if they say they do intend to bring forward a general measure at the earliest possible period of the next Session of Parliament, and that they will reserve by those arrangements a fund to meet the requirements of a general measure, they will then, to a certain extent, remove the very serious objections which I entertain towards this particular measure. I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to give a definite declaration to this effect, because it would remove one of the greatest objections of those who oppose this measure, namely, that you are by this Bill depriving yourselves of the means of effecting a general measure of retirement hereafter. With regard to the question of your Lordships' going into Committee, I am unwilling to throw any obstacles in the way of Her Majesty's Government at this advanced period of the Session; but I think, before this measure is finally carried through this House, it is important that we should be officially and formally in pos-
962
session of the previous understanding which has existed, and of the previous correspondence which has existed on this subject. I trust my noble Friend and the right rev. Prelate will not, under such circumstances persist in their opposition to this Bill going into Committee, and that they will permit the Government to make such Amendments in the Bill as they may think necessary, and that Her Majesty's Government will then afford time and opportunity to your Lordships for the consideration of the effects of the measure, both upon the bringing up of the Report and upon the third reading. I have just ventured to throw out these suggestions because I really do not wish in any way to retard the progress of public business.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwished to explain that he had not intended to represent those who opposed the present Bill, as thinking that a Bishop led a life of idleness. What he intended to say was that, if noble Lords voted for a prolongation of the present state of things in the sees of London and Durham, people out of doors might draw that inference.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it appeared that both sides seemed to agree in theory, but what they wanted to do was to go beyond theory to practice. The argument of his noble Friend opposite was, that if they postponed this Bill, there would be a better chance of passing a general measure in a future Session. That might be the case, but with regard to any surplus that might accrue under the proposed arrangement, the only pledge the Government could give was, that it should not be appropriated to any purpose without the sanction and authority of Parliament.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee, accordingly.
Clause 1,
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed, as an Amendment, that the pensions under the Bill should not come into operation until the Archbishops had accepted the resignation of the Prelates.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3,
THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that he had intended to move, that the retiring allowance to the Bishop of Durham should be £6,000 a year, the same as that proposed for the Bishop of London; but, as his right rev. Friend had expressed a wish that such a proposition should not be made to their Lordships, he should aban-

963
don his intention of bringing the subject forward.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYfelt strongly that £6,000 a year was too large an amount for Parliament to grant to a retiring Christian Bishop. The attention of the public at large had been very much directed of late to our Church Establishment, and a great deal of jealousy existed in the minds of a considerable portion of the community with regard to it. Much of that jealousy had, in his opinion, no foundation in reason; and, upon that account, he was the more desirous that Parliament should not pass any measure which would occasion a just cause of complaint, such as he thought would be created if so large a salary as £6,000 a year were to be granted to a retiring Bishop—a sum larger than the full salary enjoyed by many of the right rev. Prelates who were able to perform the duties of their high office. His main ground of objection to the measure, however, was, that it was not of a general character, for he feared that by now sanctioning so large a retiring allowance as £6,000 a year, their Lordships would create an inconvenient precedent which might greatly hamper them in years to come. He was not prepared with a distinct proposition on the subject, but he thought that one-third of the future salary of £10,000 a year would be an ample allowance for the retiring Bishop of London. In making these observations, he desired to add, that he felt the utmost respect and veneration for the right rev. Prelate, to whom this retiring pension was proposed to be given.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that he entirely concurred with the noble Earl, in thinking that the retiring allowance in question was not only beyond bounds, but under the circumstances enormous. Independent of the allowance of £6,000 a year, the Bishop of London was to have the palace at Fulham for life; while the Bishop of Durham was to have only £4,500 a year witdout a residence. The apportionment of the allowances was by no means equal. Considering that the income of the future Bishops of London was to be limited to £10,000 a year, and also that the incomes of the other working Bishops had of late years been materially curtailed through the means of the Ecclesiastical Commission, he conceived that a retiring pension of about £3,000 a year would be amply sufficient for the present Bishop of London. It was not right, in his opinion,
964
to make this retiring pension greater in amount by £1,000 or £1,500 a year than the income allotted to many of the working Bishops. He thoroughly and entirely disliked the present Bill, and regarded it as one of the most mischievous measures ever introduced under a plausible pretext. He looked upon it as the more dangerous, because the case was a strong one, though it was not stronger than were the cases at the present moment of the Archbishopric of York and the Bishopric of Norwich. He was at a loss to understand what material evil could have resulted from the Bill being postponed until an early period in next Session. He wished not to be understood as entertaining the slightest disrespect towards the right rev. Prelate, on whose retiring pension he had commented, as he felt for him the utmost veneration. A more essentially useful and thoroughly worthy Prelate never adorned the episcopal bench, and it was matter of deep regret, in reference to the best interests of the Church, that, by the dispensation of Providence, he should be placed in a position which obliged him to relinquish his see.
LORD WYNFORDobserved, that a special justification for the amount of the proposed retiring allowance existed in the fact of the splendid and munificent acts of charity for which the Bishop of London was distinguished.
THE LORD CHANCELLORalso adverted to the Bishop of London's munificent charity, which, he was understood to say, occasioned to that right rev. Prelate the expenditure of about £15,000 a year; and of the proposed retiring allowance of £6,000 a year, there was no doubt that a large proportion would go in charity.
Clause agreed to.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDgave notice that he should, at a future stage, move the introduction of a clause to the effect, that the sums received from time to time by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from the revenues of the sees of London and Durham should be carried to a separate account, until Parliament had decided whether any provision should be made for the retirement from their offices of Bishops unable, through age or infirmity, to discharge their duties.
Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.