Sitting of 2 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Detached Parts of Counties; Police (Scotland) Act Amendment; Lunatics (Scotland) Act, Amendment.
2o Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance; Navigation Advances (Ireland).
3o Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Marriage Law Amendment.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (No. 3) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 13, (Salary of the Councillors shall be £1,200 per annum).
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he wished to propose as an Amendment, that the salary should be £500 a year, which was the remuneration agreed upon in 1853, when the question was debated at some length. No difficulty has been found in obtaining the services of competent persons at that salary. He did not think that fifteen Coun-
  858
  cillors could be employed during the whole of their time in managing the affairs of India, and they would have a great deal of patronage, which was an important element in the consideration of the question.
  Amendment proposed in page 4, line 25, to leave out the words "one thousand two," in order to insert the word "five."
  LORD STANLEYobserved, that he could not assent to the reduction. It was desirable that they should have the very best men upon the Council, and as the members would be required to reside during the greater part of the year in London, he did not think the remuneration proposed was too large. He might add that, in pursuance of a suggestion which had been made on the previous evening, he had prepared a proviso to the effect that if Parliament should hereafter deem it desirable to reduce the number of Councillors, no member should be entitled to compensation on that account who had not served for ten years.
  MR. GREGSON(who had also given notice of a Motion to reduce the salary to £500 per annum) said that he should support the Amendment. Previously to 1853 the salaries of the Directors had been only £300 a year, and he apprehended that an attendance of two hours a day for once a week would be ample. If so, £500 a year would be an adequate remuneration; but if the whole of their time should be taken up by the nature of the duties reposed in them, £1,200 would not be sufficient.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Member was under a mistake as to the time which would be occupied in discharging the duties of members of the Council. No doubt the Council would only sit once a week; but it was anticipated that the duties devolving on the members, in their capacity as members of committees, would require their daily attendance for a considerable time during the day. The Council would therefore not come under the category of Boards where attendance once a week was the general routine of duty. On the whole, the Government considered that £1,200 was a just and proper salary for the members of the Council. They had fixed it at that amount, as there were many eminent individuals whom it would be desirable to have in the Council who were not in the habit of residing in London, and a less allowance would not meet their extra expenditure.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought that it was high time that the duties of the Councillors and the way in which they were to perform them should be clearly defined. His own belief was, that fifteen members were too many to have upon the Council, and that at least half of these offices would be complete sinecures. The proposal would exactly double the expense of the home Government of India, and as to the new Councillors devoting the whole of their time to Indian affairs, he did not believe that they would do anything of the sort. He would ask the Committee to take the Indian register, to look at the first four names upon the direction, and to say whether it was possible to expect that men who were at the head of great commercial establishments would give up all their time to serve upon the Council. The gentlemen who were to be elected by the Directors of the Company could not be expected to give so much time to this business as the members to be nominated by the Crown, and if they were required to do so they ought to have a larger salary.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that it would be very invidious to establish a different scale of salary for the elected and the nominated members. It was not proposed absolutely to bind the members of the Council entirely to abandon all other employment; but he considered that the duties of this office would be so heavy that a great deal of their time would be required, and they would be bound to give as much of their time to the duties of their office as might be necessary. He could not pretend to say what the difference in expense would be between the existing and the proposed system of direction; but his belief was, that if there were an additional expense in one respect, there would be a saving in another. For instance, of all those voluminous documents which were now sent over from India in duplicate for the use of two offices, one copy only would in future be required, and this alone was not an insignificant item.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that his difficulty was, that he was called upon to assess a salary for services of the nature of which he was ignorant. If he knew what the duties of the Councillors were to be he should be able to decide without hesitation upon the salary; but the members of the Government differed so much that it was impossible to discover from their speeches what the duties of these gentlemen were to be. The Solicitor General stated last night it would be competent for them to undertake
  860
  other duties; while the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control stated there would be an honourable understanding that they should devote themselves exclusively to their duties. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was to be a difference in the two classes of members—the nominated members were to give up all other engagements, but not so the elected members. On what basis, then, were they to fix the salaries? If the Solicitor General was right, £500 would be quite enough; but if the noble Lord was correct £1,200 was not too much. On the other hand, if the case was to be as represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if one, set of Councillors were to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water," and the others were to be gentleman at ease dropping in to the Council whenever they pleased and just as it suited themselves, then he contended, however invidious it might be, that there ought to be a difference in the remuneration. In the absence of any intelligible explanation from the Government, he should vote for the Amendment, and he would earnestly warn the Committee against squandering away money which might make whole districts in India happy and prosperous, which might spread education, and might mitigate the evils resulting from a perverted religion and a false faith.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that if the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) knew anything whatever of the business of the East India Company, and if his right hon. Friends the Members for Northampton and for Kidderminster knew a little more about it, they would not have spoken as they had done. What were these Councillors to do? Why, they were to assist in the Government of India, which comprised no fewer than thirteen distinct departments of State. He could only wish that those who thought the duties of the present direction were light would visit his room at the India House. These Councillors would be men of position, to whom salary would be no object. He should wish the amount awarded them to be considered rather as an honorarium than a salary, and he, for one, would object to take £1,200 a year, and should say that £800 or £1,000 merely as a recognition of their services, would be ample.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that the Committee should not forget that by the vote of the previous evening they had deprived the members of the Council of all political hopes and aspirations, and he

  861
  thought, if they reduced the salary below that of a Lord of the Treasury, that they would unduly derogate from the importance of the office. In spite of the able appeal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) he did not think that the future welfare of India would be advanced by any petty parsimony; and he doubted even whether the expense of the direction would be increased by the Government proposal, because there would be a considerable saving from the consolidation of offices which was to be effected under the Bill.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he had a strong opinion that the work would be quite as well performed if the salary were £500 as if it were £1,200 a year. Indeed, the influence and patronage of these gentlemen would be so great, and their personal dignity would be so much enhanced by being made Councillors, that he doubted whether we should not get quite as good men if they had to pay £500 a year for holding the office, instead of receiving £500 a year for discharging the duties of it. On the other hand, he feared that if they adopted £1,200 as the salary, he thought that many persons would be placed in the Council whose only qualification would be that of being hangers on of the Ministers for the time being.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Committee ought to recollect that the members of the Council would have great patronage. In 1853 the patronage of an East India Director was estimated at £6,000 a year. Therefore, considering their patronage and the not very onerous character of their work it would be wholly unjustifiable to give them large salaries.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he considered the question was one of considerable difficulty. That difficulty was increased by the large number of the Council, and the fact that they were to retain the patronage now vested in the court. With regard to the patronage, he entertained so strong an opinion on the subject that he intended to move a clause to deprive the Council of it. The principle that the patronage was to be considered as part of the emolument was a most dangerous one to introduce, as it would justify any member of the Council in disposing of this patronage to the benefit of his own family The experiment of this Council being a new one, he thought the Committee ought not to withhold from the Government any means which they might think necessary to render it less hazardous, and therefore, if the Government felt that
  862
  £1,200 was the proper salary he would not be disposed to reject their proposal. There were many Indian officers who would be highly competent for the office, but unless the salary was such as would enable them to reside in London, they would not accept it. He thought some regulation should be made to the effect that the members of the Council should be bound to devote their whole time to the duties of their offices. Many of the present directors held offices which would render it impossible for them to make such an engagement, and he did not think they would be proper members of the new Council unless they undertook to give up their other duties.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he believed that the occupation of the members of the Council would be daily, as power was taken under the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to divide the Council into Committees. Reference had been made on a former evening to Captain Shepherd; but he was authorised to say that if that gentleman was appointed a member of the Council he would give up all his other posts. This showed his estimate of what the duties would be. It was now settled that the Councillors were to be excluded from Parliament, and as they would be consequently precluded from attaining the highest object of the ambition of an Englishman, they were entitled to an increased remuneration. He admitted that patronage was the worst possible mode of remuneration; but after this Bill passed the amount of patronage left to the Council would be very small, comprising only the first appointment (subject to a strict examination) to the more scientific portion of the military service. On the whole he really believed that if a great change in the home government of India was to be made it could not be carried out in a better manner than was proposed by the Bill as it now stood; and although he did not wish to squander a single rupee of the revenues of India, yet, considering the duties to be imposed on the Council he did not think the salary of £1,200 was at all too much. He did not think it would be expedient to lay down a rigorous rule in an Act of Parliament binding the members so to devote their time; but there should be an honourable understanding that the daily occupation of the Councillors at Leadenhall Street would be expected, subject to the control of the Minister of State.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Goverment expected the members of the Council would place their

  863
  time at the disposal of the office; but they did not think it advisable to introduce words into the Act which would rigidly prevent them from performing any other business whatever. The understanding on this point to which his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had referred was not intended to be a more verbal understanding, but would be placed in such a form, by regulation or otherwise, as would leave no doubt on the subject. Any positive clause in the Act would only give rise to constant difficulties and misunderstandings. The power given to the Secretary of State to define the duties of the Councillors would sufficiently ensure that their time would be fully occupied. If any member found he could not fully discharge these duties, he should resign; but the Government did not think it necessary to insert any clause which would prevent a member of the Council forming any relations which would not interfere with his duties, but which might render him a much more valuable member of the body. It was very easy to urge what might be called the sentimental argument, and ask how many wretched Hindoos might be made comfortable with the £10,000 a year of the increased expenditure. The same argument might be applied to any office. They might take any Minister of State, and ask how many starving families his salary would feed. He might as well ask a member of the administration which had engaged in a Persian war without the authority of Parliament, and spent £1,000,000 in it, what benefit that sum would not have produced if distributed among the population of India. With regard to the salary, he admitted he could not adduce any irresistible arguments to show that £1,200 was the exact sum required. The noble Lord the Member for London appeared to be in favour of a higher sum. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) told them £800 a year would be a compliment, but £1,200 would be an insult. The Government thought the sum they proposed would be a fair equivalent for the services to be performed, judging by the analogy of the salaries attached to other offices of the State.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the main difficulty arose from the large number of the Council. If it had been eight or ten, the Committee would have had very little hesitation in fixing the amount of salary. He should vote in favour of the Government proposition; but, as the clause fixed the salary absolutely at £1,200, the Government would have no control whatever
  864
  over the amount, and he would suggest that, as there was considerable difficulty in determining beforehand the amount of duties to be discharged, words should be inserted to the effect that each member of the Council should have a yearly salary not exceeding £1,200 as Her Majesty by Order in Council might from time to time direct.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, the Government thought that the independence of the Council would be best secured by allowing Parliament to deal with the question of their salary, and thus to prevent the Minister of the day from having any control over it.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to be informed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General whether he was to understand, from what he said on the previous night, that the Government would have power to remove any member of the Council whom they might suppose to devote too little time to the Council. If so, the Council would be in the position of clerks.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, there could be no doubt that it would be misbehaviour on the part of a member to neglect to devote such portion of his time to the Council as the Secretary of State might require, and that for such misbehaviour he might be removed.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was entirely in the hands of the Committee, and was perfectly ready to withdraw his Amendment if such was their wish.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, the statement as to Captain Shepherd's intention to resign two offices which he now filled, if he should be elected a member of the Council, was most satisfactory, and, if it was intended that the Council should devote their time to the business of the Council, in the manner indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be wholly unnecessary for him (Sir E. Perry) to move the Amendment of which he had given notice on that subject.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEvindicated the character of Captain Shepherd from an imputation which he imagined had been cast upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster, and bore testimony to the high sense entertained by the East India Company of the services of that gentleman. He hoped that he would form one of the new Council.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he must disclaim any intention of disparaging the gentleman

  865
  referred to. Indeed, he was perfectly ready to agree in passing an eulogium on Captain Shepherd.
  MR. COXthought, if the name of one candidate was to be mentioned in that House, the others ought to be brought forward too. The Directors of the East India Company had been eulogized by all parties, the late Government and the present. And, therefore, as they received only £500 a year, that was an ample payment for a member of the new Council.
  Question put, "That the words 'one thousand two' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:£Ayes 224, Noes 57: Majority 167.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he wished to propose the words, "providing that the salaries shall be paid out of the revenues of India."
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he had no objection,
  Words added.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move to add the words "each member shall give his entire time to the duties of his office;" but, in consequence of the explanation of the Government, he would not move his Amendment.
  In answer to Mr. RIDLEY,
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the pension of any member who might have served in India would not be deducted from the amount of his salary.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Retiring Pensions).
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wished to ask what was the object of making the pensions dependent upon the Government, and of requiring the warrant to be signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was an unusual course, and he would suggest that the pensions of the Councillors should be placed on the same footing as those of the Judges, so that a Councillor on retiring should be entitled to his pension as a matter of course. With respect to the increased pension after fifteen years, would not that afford a temptation to men to continue in office after they were unfit for their duties in order that they might have a title to the larger pension? Of course the object of every one must be to get rid of incompetent men; but this clause only induced men to "dawdle on," sticking fast to office when they ought to retire. Let the Committee fix the retiring allowance at a fair sum, and
  866
  let it not be increased for length of service. Perhaps the logical inference would be, that the longer a man remained in office the smaller the retiring pension should be. He did not propose that, however, but he suggested that one uniform rate should be established.
  Mr. BLACKBURNsaid, he had an Amendment on the paper for carrying out the object which the right hon. Baronet had in view.
  MR. RICHsaid, he agreed generally in the observations of his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, and with a view of giving effect to them he would move, as an Amendment, that no pension should be allowed under a service of fifteen years. He believed that this was the period of service required from the Judges, who were taken from the most lucrative profession in the world; and, considering the handsome salary which the Councillors were to receive, he contended that his Amendment would fully meet the justice of the case. Why should these men not be placed in the same position as the other public servants under the Civil Service Superannuation Act?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the wording of the clause was adopted from the Act which granted the retiring pensions to the Judges, and the counter signature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was required to bring the matter under the cognizance of the Treasury, which was necessary, as the expenses were to be paid out of the revenues of India. He admitted that there was a good deal in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but it was open to argument whether there was not as much danger in inducing men to retire too early as there was in leading them to remain too long upon the Council. Originally he had intended to give no pension under fifteen years, but he feared that the effect would have been to retain men on the Council when it would he for the advantage of the public that they should retire.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was disposed to support the Amendment, because he looked with apprehension on such an innovation of the law as was proposed by these pensions. The only cases in which he thought pensions could be justified were when you had obtained all the virtue and strength out of a man; but if persons were to be appointed to this Council who had spent the most effective part of their lives in India, and who enjoyed pensions

  867
  for their services there, and if they were now to be put into a new office for a short term, and were to receive cumulative pensions, he should look with the greatest aversion upon such an arrangement. He should prefer to get rid of the system altogether, but in default of that he should support the Amendment as a mitigation of the evil.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the reason why pensions were introduced in the Bill was not to give compensation for energies exhausted in the public service, but rather to give some security against persons who had become disabled holding office after their services were no longer of use to the public.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he though a retiring allowance ought to be given; but any pension to which the parties were already entitled should be deducted from it.
  VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, the retiring allowance was merely a plan to get rid of the old gentlemen when they got unfit for the office.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to know whether these salaries and allowances were to be accumulative on any previous pensions.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that, on reconsidering the question, he had no objection to stop the clause at the words "five hundred pounds," so that the effect would be to grant an uniform pension of £500 after ten years' service, and to give no increase for a more lengthened tenure of office.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would now propose the addition of the proviso to which he had referred in the course of the discussion, the effect of which would be to give the Councillors no claim for compensation for loss of office under ten years' service in the event of Parliament deciding at any future period to reduce their number.
  Proviso agreed to.
  Motion made, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought it was desirable that the Government should have the power of removing a member on the ground of inability.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, there would be no difficulty in carrying an address through both Houses of Parliament in any case where a member's incapacity was notorious and such as to justify his removal.
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked, that an Address of the House was intended not
  868
  for such a case, but for cases of flagrant misconduct. The House would not stigmatize a man by agreeing to an Address to the Crown against him when his only offence was infirmity.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, he objected to the Government having the power of removing members of the Council, because they might avail themselves of it to get rid of a "cantankerous" member£that is, one opposed to their views.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a case recently happened of an Address for the removal of a person from high office merely for physical inability£he meant the Address with regard to an eminent Irish Judge.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That Address was not carried.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: You cannot provide by an Act of Parliament that an Address shall be carried.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, in France incapable men could be got rid of by very admirable superannuation rules. A man could be walked out of his office in France the moment the Government thought he was incapable. The House had agreed to give the members of Council a very absurd tenure£namely, one for life, and the Government ought to have the power of superannuating any member whom they might deem incapable. He thought the words "or shall be incapable by reason of infirmity" should be inserted in the clause.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he fully concurred in the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone), and the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask how it was possible that Parliament could judge of things going on in India when it had so much difficulty in judging of what was under its own eyes£namely, the Council proposed by the Government.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the House, of course, did not intend to bring a Member to the bar that he might there undergo an examination to enable them to judge of his mental and bodily health. An Address to the Crown was not the remedy, but a removing power on the part of the Government in such a case.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: All these suggestions strike at the Independence of the Council.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I should have

  869
  thought that the first object of the Government would have been to get, not an independent, but an efficient Council.
  MR. HUDSONsaid, he was opposed to the suggestion of the right hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone).
  MR. RICH. observed, that as he believed that £1,200 a year was more than a sufficient salary, he must object to the grant of any pensions to the Council, and insist that the sense of the Committee should be taken on the clause.
  Question put, "That Clause 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 101: Majority 98.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Secretaries and Offices of the Council of India).
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he understood the object of Clause 15 to be that the plan of the first establishment of the Council should be framed by the Secretary of State, and submitted to the Government for their approval, and also to Parliament. If Parliament should approve it, the establishment was to be created by an order of the Queen in Council. But it would seem by the wording of the clause that all future alterations in the establishment would require only the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State. That was the first time that it was proposed to set aside an order in Council by the mere consent of two Ministers of State, and he must therefore, object to the proposal.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he fully agreed with the right hon. Baronet. His official experience convinced him it was desirable to provide that no change should be made without the sanction of an order in Council.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he rose to move to insert after the words "Secretary of State," the words "in Council."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, this Amendment was one of a series of which the noble Lord had given notice, and which would alter the entire action of the Council, and prevent the Secretary from doing any act unless in Council.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, such was not the case. He would consider the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that by the clause as altered by the Government the Secretary of State, like the "Governor-General in Council," would have to act in conjunction with his Council.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdoubted the truth of the assertion that no addition could be made without an order in Council. Salaries, at all events, could be increased without such an order.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would admit that such was the fact with regard to salaries, but no alteration in any establishment could be made without an order in Council.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEremarked that he concurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth in thinking that, especially as they were dealing with Indian revenue, in the prudent expenditure of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel so much interest as he did with respect to English revenue, no important increase in the establishment of the Indian Minister should take place without the consent of Parliament.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, as were also Clauses 16, 17, and 18.

  THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION,
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to know whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a Commission to inquire into the best mode of transferring the Indian army to the direct control of the Crown?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he had stated, on the second reading of the Bill, that it was the intention of the Government to appoint such a Commission, and that it would consist of three Officers of the Indian Army, three Officers of the Queen's Army, three Civilians, and the Secretary of State for War, the Commander in Chief, and the President of the Board of Control.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with regard to the business for that evening, he had to suggest that the House should go into Committee on the India Bill as soon as possible; and if they did not conclude that night, as he hoped they might, that they should sit tomorrow morning for that purpose. Under these circumstances, he would not make the usual Motion for the adjournment of the House till Monday.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he had a question to put to the Chief Commissioner of Works, which he had intended to ask on the usual Motion for the adjournment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his noble Friend would be happy to answer the question if he could.
  MR. H. BERKELEYreplied, that that was all very well, but he had wished to preface his question with a speech, which would be out of order unless a Motion were made. He should, therefore, move that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose to order. He had merely made a suggestion, without wishing to force its adoption upon the House, contrary to any general feeling. The hon. Member would, he was sure, frame his question with his usual ability, and the Government would be happy to answer it.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, it was perfectly impossible that he could be content with merely asking the question on the paper.

SUPERINTENDENT REGISTRARS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COXsaid, in order to place himself in a proper position for making a few remarks in reference to a question of which he had given notice, he would move that the House do now adjourn. He wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Wyatt, who has lately been appointed Superintendent Registrar of the parish of Islington, is to retain his office of Assistant Clerk at Somerset House; and whether any other Clerk in the Registrar General's Office holds the appointment of Superintendent Registrar of a large Metropolitan Parish. Mr. Wyatt was eighth Assistant Clerk in the Registrar General's Office, and his appointment to the important office of Superintendent Registrar of Islington, without resigning his former office, was unjust to a parish containing 130,000 inhabitants. A similar appointment was made in Clerkenwell some time since, and it created great dissatisfaction in the district.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the office of Superintendent Registrar was one of importance. He found, however, that most of the duties of the office could be discharged at other hours than those usually allotted to official business—namely, between ten and four. The Registrar General, who took immense interest in everything connected with his department, and who was one of the most deserving public servants that he knew,
  872
  had thought right in this instance to reward a meritorious clerk in his office by appointing him Superintendent Registrar of Islington. In so doing, he had followed one or two precedents, and the appointment being a good one it would not be right to disturb it after it was made, though it would have been better had the reward of meritorious service been given in some other shape than an appointment to an additional office. Three years ago a similar appointment was made at Clerkenwell, and was confirmed; but the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him intimated that he did not consider such appointments as a general rule desirable. In that view he (Mr. Walpole) concurred, and he had written to the Registrar General requesting that no such appointments might be made in future, except on special grounds, and having been previously sanctioned by the Secretary of State.

HAINAULT FOREST.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, that before he put the question of which he had given notice he was anxious to take the first opportunity he had of correcting a charge of inaccuracy brought against him by the Secretary to the Treasury on Tuesday night, in reference to the discussion on Hainault Forest. On that occasion the argument on which he founded his case was that an excessive expenditure of £67,000 odd had been made upon an estate of 3,000 acres. The Secretary to the Treasury had contradicted him—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he rose to order. He must put it to Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Gentleman could refer in the manner he was doing to a former debate.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood that the hon. Member had an explanation to make of a personal character. But his reference to a former debate, and the length to which he had already gone, appeared to him to transgress the rules of order.
  MR. CAIRD continued: He had been about to say that he must ask the indulgence of the House, as the question was one involving his personal accuracy in regard to a statement of some importance which he had made to the House. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had used these words:—"The truth was that Hainault Forest comprised an area of 17,500 acres." Now, his own

  873
  statement was, that the expenditure had been confined to an area of 3,000 acres. He now held in his hand the documents. ["Order!"] If it was out of order for him to produce these documents to prove the accuracy of his statement, he must only rely on the forbearance of the House while he said that which he had not had the means of doing at the moment. He had now beside him the map of the Forest—
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he rose to order. He was the last person in the world who would wish to prevent an hon. Member from entering into any explanation which he might think necessary in his own vindication, but if the hon. Gentleman went into the explanation he was now about to make, it would be necessary for him also, in his turn, to enter into a similar explanation, establishing the accuracy of the statement that he had himself made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he again rose to order. He had no desire to interpose between the hon. Gentleman opposite and any personal statement which he wished to make to the House under any circumstances. But he thought the hon. Gentleman misconceived the position in which he had placed himself. His personal honour was not concerned simply because a statistical fact might not be correctly appreciated by the House, either one way or the other. This was really a statistical question, which might lead to a lengthened controversy, involving much delay to the public business, and it in no degree affected personal character.

PERUVIAN GUANO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, that that being the case he would take another opportunity of referring to the matter. He would now proceed to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the question which he had given notice with reference to the Peruvian guano monopoly. At present the English farmers have to pay very much more for their guano than had the farmers of America; but since he had given notice of this question the agent of the Peruvian Government had reduced the price £1 a ton. Still, however, there was a large difference between the price here and the price in America. He was aware that the Peruvian Government could charge what price they pleased, and all he asked was that the Government should point out to
  874
  them the unfairness of placing the English consumer under a disadvantage as compared with the consumer of America. There was now a very large quantity of Peruvian guano in the docks, and if there was a proper combination against this gigantic monopoly the price would be brought down to what it was in America, if not to the old price of £9 a ton.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the question was doubtless one of importance, and he was not surprised, considering the deep interest which the hon. Gentleman took in agricultural matters, that he had turned his attention to it. He was glad to say that he had received a communication from the agent of the Peruvian Government, which he hoped would be found satisfactory. There were certain circumstances affecting the consumption of this article which ought not to be forgotten, especially that the interest of the whole bonded debt of Peru was charged on the produce of the sale of guano. In the communication he had that day received he was informed that in the first place the price of guano would be reduced to £13 15 s. to £12 a ton, and in the second place, the same price would in future be charged in this country as was charged in America. This would produce a saving to the agricultural interest of something approaching £400,000 a year.

  STATE OF THE THAMES—BATERSEA PARK.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether he has received any communication from the Metropolitan Board of Works respecting the Main Drainage of the Metropolis—and, if so, to request that he will state whether the outfall of sewage be proposed to take place on the north side at Barking Creek, nearly opposite to the Warren at Woolwich, or where? During a long Parliamentary career the present was only the second instance in which he had availed himself of discussing a question on the Motion for the adjournment of the House. He did so now because a very strong opinion prevailed out of doors that on the very important question of the state of the Thames there existed great apathy on the part of the House, and on the part of the Government, who ought to have come down to the House, have taken the initiative, and have asked for plenary powers, and grappled with this great evil. If the matter were not dealt

  875
  with before Parliament rose, it would no doubt be hung up in red tape, and perhaps not dealt with at all. He was surprised at the silence of the metropolitan Members, and still more surprised at the opinion of those hon. Members, who seemed to think that the matter should be dealt with locally and not nationally. He differed from that opinion toto cœlo. His opinion was that it was a great national question, and ought to be so dealt with. Committees and Boards sitting in different places would be of no advantage; the proper plan was for the Government to act upon the centralizing principle and ask for dictatorial powers. The House would be the more bound to concede such powers, because it was it own legislation which had principally led to the creation of this gigantic nuisance. A few years ago the Members of both Houses found their olfactory nerves much affected by the nuisance of night carts; that was about the time of the reign of Mr. Chadwick, who was considered an authority for everything. Among the powers entrusted to him was that of preventing night carts from coming
  "Between the wind and their nobility."
  What was the consequence? Why, that the ordure of this great city was conveyed away not in carts, but Chadwick and the House of Commons plunged 100,000 cesspools into the Thames. The stuff was there out of sight, and the House of Commons and the House of Lords never for one moment fancied that there were poor inhabitants on the banks of the Thames who could not get away from the nuisance. If extraordinary heat had not prevailed, and the noses of hon. Members been affected, the matter might never have been considered. When they were affected it was astonishing to see hon. Gentlemen who had been parties to throwing this filth into the river, turning round and saying, "God bless me, where can it come from?" And then they said, "What is the Board at Westminster doing; what are they doing in the City of London; has the Lord Mayor got into Petticoat Lane?" It was necessary that they should give full power to counteract this evil. He appealed to them on behalf of the inhabitants of the banks of the river whose noses were forced to be continually in the smell, who could not go to their country houses and to the moors. There were also the merchants and bankers who were tied down to their places in the city. He trusted that the Government
  876
  would give some promise that before the House rose they would ask for those powers which they ought to be proud on this occasion to demand. It was a question which the Government should be ready to meet. Let them prove their utility. They were a weak Government, but they would strengthen themselves immensely if they met this evil. If they did not do so, they would deserve the contempt they would meet with from every class of the community.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that he could not help saying a few words with regard to the arrangement of business in connection with this question. A short time ago an hon. Member who represented an important metropolitan constituency gave notice of his intention to submit a Motion with the view of ascertaining what was the opinion of the House upon the question from whence the funds should come by which this great change was to be effected. The hon. and talented Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) had said he had heard hon. Members asking from whence the vile smell could come; but he (Mr. Gladstone) had never heard that question asked on the contrary, he had never met a single person who was at all sceptical on the subject. But a question which he had often heard asked was where the sum was to come from by which the vile smell was to be cured. He would put it to the hon. Member who had given that notice of Motion (Mr. Cox), to Her Majesty's Government, and to that House, that it would be convenient to have an early day fixed for the consideration of the subject, which was to the full as important as the hon. Member had represented it to be. Her Majesty's Government would confer a great service on the country if they would deal resolutely and definitively with the whole question—but at the same time it would not be fair to press it upon them as if it was the duty of the Executive, as a matter of right, to be prepared at once with a complete solution. There were several important considerations connected with the subject. First, there was the important question of the mechanical and material means to be employed for curing the evil; secondly, the source from which the funds were to be raised, upon which he (Mr. Gladstone) held a very strong opinion and one not in unison with that of the hon. Member for Bristol. And, thirdly, the important question arose, if it should be the opinion of that House that London,

  877
  the richest city in the world, should not bear the cost of draining its own river, as was done by less wealthy and less important places, what would be the future position of local government in London if that House interfered to do that which ordinarily, ought to be done locally? He thought it would probably aid the progress of business if they would fix an early day for the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

CHELSEA BRIDGE AND BATTERSEA PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the expediency of ascertaining the value of the surplus land at Battersea Park, with the view of applying the produce of such surplus land (100 acres) to the payment of the principal money and interest, amounting in all to a balance of £284,730 9s. 3d. due to the Government in respect of Battersea Park, Chelsea Bridge, and the Embankment of the Thames at Chelsea; and to submit that Chelsea Bridge be opened to the public toll free. It was obvious that unless immediate steps were taken these tolls would remain for ever—
MR. FITZROYsaid, he rose to order. There was a Bill before the House relating to the tolls on Chelsea Bridge, which was read a second time last night, and which stood on the orders for committal; and, it was therefore irregular to enter on the discussion of the matter now.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the conclusion of the Motion was to submit that Chelsea Bridge should be open to the public toll-free. It would be irregular to discuss, on the question of adjournment, a subject on which there was a Bill before the House; and the hon. Member must confine his observations to the other part of his Motion.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he would do so. There was a debt due to the Government on Battersea Park and Chelsea Bridge, the amount lent by the Government for Chelsea Bridge—
MR. SPEAKER: I repeat to the hon. Member that a discussion on Chelsea Bridge, is inappropriate and out of order; but there is a part of his question relating to Battersea Park, which I believe is not included in the Chelsea Bridge Bill which may be brought into discussion.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he only wished to say that the amount which he had stated in his notice as being due to the Government in respect of Chelsea Bridge, Bat-
878
tersea Park, and the embankment of the Thames at Chelsea—£284,730—was perfectly correct, as appeared from documents obtained from the Office of Works itself. The Chief Commissioner might ask him whether, if the Bridge were opened tollfree, the parties interested would be prepared to repay the sum advanced by the Government with interest. His reply was, that if the noble Lord would allow any person to purchase the surplus land for the same sum he would be in a condition to answer his question in the course of a few days.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to say one or two words in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley). After the pleasing manner in which the hon. Member had dealt with the subject, they must all regret that the hon. Member was not in the Executive Government, for he seemed to find no difficulty in dealing with the subject. Upon that point, however, the hon. Member would find himself mistaken. He agreed with the hon. Member in recommending the Government to deal at once with the question, but he joined issue with the hon. Member when he stated that it was an Imperial, and not a local question. He (Mr. Bentinck), on the contrary, believed it to be strictly a local, and not an Imperial question, and that the Government would not be justified in taking a farthing, in reference to this matter, out of the pockets of people who had no interest in it. Nothing was more uncalled for, more unjustifiable, or more at variance with what was due to the rest of the country, than that the richest city in the world should go about in this manner with the begging-box.
MR. ALDERMAN CUBITTremarked, that he thought it was quite a truism to say that every town and city should pay for clearing away its own filth; but if they imposed on the metropolis the whole cost of doing that, they ought to leave it the power of deciding how it should be done. The House, by an Act passed twelve years ago, decided that every house should drain into sewers. Every sewer ran into the Thames; and, therefore, Parliament compelled the metropolis to drain into the river, and since then Parliment had announced that great sewers should be made all along the banks of the Thames; and it also said that the metropolis should pay for them. He thought that if the Metropolitan

879
Board of Works had not been dictated to, but allowed the power of deciding what should be done, that body would have carried out a plan for purifying the Thames at a very much cheaper rate.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. Member for Bristol, if he were in his (Lord John Manners') place for twenty-four hours, would never have dreamed of charging apathy on the hon. Members of that House in reference to the drainage of the metropolis, for the hon. Gentleman was perhaps the only Member who had not, in the course of the last fortnight, suggested some plan for the purpose. The hon. Gentleman now came forward in a decided manner, not to suggest any plan, but to say that the Government should be impeached if they did not do something. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that the Government were apathetic with respect to the state of the river. They were most anxious to prepare and bring before Parliament, at the very earliest opportunity, a measure which would satisfactorily settle this long-standing and difficult question; but he put it to the hon. Gentleman whether it was wise to raise these preliminary discussions, which had only a tendency to throw additional difficulty in the way of a settlement, which was sufficiently difficult already. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Metropolitan Board of Works had presented any scheme, and in reply he had to state that that Board yesterday officially submitted to him a plan which they believed ought to be adopted to remedy the grievance. Of course the hon. Gentleman would not expect any opinion from him on a plan which he received only yesterday; but he might state that the point of outfall, as contemplated in that plan, was somewhere down at Barking Creek. He respectfully declined at present to enter into the question which had been raised as to whether the metropolis should pay the whole expense or not. That question must be deferred until the Government produced the measure, which they intended to propose at the earliest possible day, and certainly in time to enable the Houses of Parliament to come to a decision—he trusted a satisfactory decision—on the whole question. With respect to the question put to him by the hon. Member for East-Surrey (Mr. Alcock), he could only say that he should be quite ready to hear what was the hon. Gentleman's offer for the land in question, which he was as anx-
880
ious to sell as the hon. Member could be to purchase.

CHAPLAINS IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he rose to call the attention of this House to the arrangements now existing with respect to the provisions for Roman Catholic Chaplains for the troops serving in India; and to ask the President of the Board of Control whether his attention has been called to that subject as well as to the regulations respecting Regimental Schools and Orphanages for the children of European Soldiers in India, and whether it is intended to make any alterations in those regulations which would make them more satisfactory to the Roman Catholic Soldiers serving in that country.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that since last year there had been an increase in the pay and allowances to Roman Catholic chaplains serving in India. Formerly the pay and allowances amounted to £150, and they now amounted to £300. There had been some delay in complying with the orders sent out on this subject, and no longer ago than the 24th of last month instructions were sent out by the Board of Control, desiring that the regulations already made should be carried into effect without delay. The other subject adverted to by the hon. Member was under consideration, and he trusted to be able to remove any complaint with respect to it.
MR. GREERsaid, he wished to express a hope that something more would be done than at present for providing religious instruction for the Presbyterian soldiers serving in India. He would not at that moment enter into any details, as he intended to bring the subject under the notice of the House in the course of the ensuing Session.

IRISH BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the numerous Bills now before the House relating to Ireland, and to ask him to state which of those Bills he intends to proceed with this Session.
MR. COGANsaid, he rose to appeal to the Secretary for Ireland not to press the Dublin Police Bill at this late period of the Session. The measure was objected to by the corporation and ratepayers of Dublin, and therefore if Government per-

881
sisted with it the Irish Members would feel it their duty to give it every opposition.
LORD NAASsaid, the Government were of opinion that the Bills which had been introduced with reference to Ireland were of great practical importance, and they hoped that during the present Session the greater number of them would become law. He must, however, appeal to hon. Gentlemen to allow Irish business to be proceeded with at a later hour of the evening than had been usual for some time past, and if that were done he believed many of the Bills now on the paper relating to Ireland might be passed. It was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Police Bill, many of the objections to that measure being, as he believed, entirely groundless.

THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when Copies of all the Documents submitted to the right honourable Sir John Patteson as arbitrator in a cause wherein the Attorney General is the Plaintiff and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, a Defendant, together with a Copy of the Arbitration Award thereon will be laid on the Table of the House. It had been stated, he had withdrawn the Motion he brought forward a short time since with reference to this cause at the instance and suggestion of Lord Vivian, and he wished to say that he had had no communication whatever with that noble Lord on the subject.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he believed the papers to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be presented to the House in the course of the next week.

THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that perfect identity of sentiment still exists between the Government of Her Majesty and the Court of France, with regard to the future government of the Danubian Principalities as announced in his declaration on the 4th of May last. The announcement made by the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 4th of May gave unqualified satisfaction to a great majority of the Members of that House; but re-
  882
  ports had since been circulated which might lead to the supposition that the Governments of France and England were not in such perfect accord upon this subject as might have been anticipated from the former statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he therefore begged to put the question of which he had given notice.
  MR. HORSMANrequested the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform the House, for the convenience of hon. Members, what business would be taken on Monday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with reference to the business of the House, it would probably be necessary to proceed on Monday with the Committee on the India Bill. As the suggestion he had made had not been complied with, he could scarcely hope that such progress would be made with the India Bill to-night as to justify him in asking the House to go into Committe again to-morrow. He did not propose a morning sitting on Monday, as he believed it would be very inconvenient to many hon. Members; and, as the Government had been compelled to appeal to the courtesy of hon. Gentlemen so far as the frequency of morning sittings was concerned, he was anxious, as far as was consistent with the progress of public business, to consult their convenience. He proposed, therefore, that there should be an evening sitting on Monday, when they would proceed with the India Bill, and when he hoped they would pass the measure through Committee. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. White) as to the statement made by him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on the 4th of May, that perfect identity of sentiment existed between the British and French Government with regard to the future Government of the Danubian Principalities, he begged to remind the House that the Conference of Paris was still sitting, and that the first Resolution at which the Members of that conference arrived was that the strictest secrecy should be observed with respect to all that took place at the conference. So far as he could form an opinion that secrecy had not been violated, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect him, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to set the example of violating such a Resolution.
  The Motion for the Adjournment of the House was then withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (No.3) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Committee report progress.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the said Committee.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 19 (Duties of the Council).
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the noble Lord had acted very wisely in putting into the hands of the Secretary of State everything to be done as regarded war and peace, and concluding treaties. The words, however, of this clause, providing for the carrying on of the secret correspondence, were not, in his opinion, very definite. He thought that the noble Lord ought to adopt the words of the existing Act defining what that correspondence should be.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the part of the Bill which dealt with the powers heretofore exercised by the Secret Committee was the 27th clause, where the business to be transacted through the Secret Committee was defined. This clause merely defined what were to be the relative powers of the Secretary of State and the Council with regard to correspondence. All that was meant by this clause was, that the Secretary of State was to be the person by whom all despatches were to be written, to whom they were all to be addressed.
  COLONEL SYKESexplained the mode at present adopted by the Court of Directors with respect to despatches, and added that those Directors who were inclined to work had attended daily. He thought the noble Lord ought to expect a similar attendance from the majority of the new Council. He wished also to ask whether despatches going to India were to be signed by any of the Council.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that they were to bear the signature of the Secretary of State only.
  MR. WILLOUGHBYobserved, that he feared that this mode of proceeding would give rise to great inconvenience.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Secretary of State to divide the Council into Committees, and to regulate the transaction of business).
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that this clause would give the Secretary of State great power over the conduct of the Indian business by the division of the Council into Committees. He hoped that the Secretary of State would draw up such regu-
  884
  lations as would secure that the members of the Council elected by the Court of Directors should give up the whole of their time to the duties of their office.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As much time as is required.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that many of the present Court of Directors were engaged in most complicated business transactions, and he thought there was no rule more clear than that persons engaged in administrative government, and paid a large salary, should cease to be engaged in trade, and give up the whole of their time to the duties of their offices.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that this question had been discussed two or three times before. The Bill did not lay down an absolute rule, because the Government believed that it would be both impossible and inexpedient to lay down with precision any fixed rule. How could they say that no member of the Council should follow any other occupation? What was meant was, that he should give up as much time as was required for the duty he had to discharge, and as much time as the Minister should call upon him to give up. The clause before them did not mean more than to express the intention of the Legislature in passing this Bill, that the Minister should have the power of calling on the members of the Council for their services and time.
  MR. VERNON SMITHremarked, that the Government had never said distinctly what duties were to be performed and what time was to be given up to the public service by those gentlemen. He thought that they had a right to have a clear explanation as to what time really was to be given up to their duties by the Councillors. He wished to know what steps were to be taken to secure the adequate discharge of their duties. Was it proposed to insist upon their regular and daily attendance upon the Committees into which the Council was to be divided? If so, that would secure their attention to their duties. But if it was mainly intended that papers should be sent to them to look over at their leisure—in addition to the weekly meetings of the Council—he thought that that would afford no security for the devotion of a sufficient time to the public business, which was likely in future to fall into the same languid course which had in a great measure marked the transaction of business in Leadenhall Street,

  885
  from the circumstance that many members of the direction were engaged in other business, and did not give sufficient time to the discharge of their public duties. Perhaps the noble Lord would lay upon the table a draft minute of the regulations under which the business of the department was to be conducted, and by which the object to which he had referred was to be attained. He understood that the noble Lord had on a former occasion stated that it was probable that the Council would be divided into six Committees. He thought it would be better that it should be divided into three, which was the present number of deparments into which the business of the Board of Control was divided, although he could not say that that division was made in the most convenient way. The clause gave the power of dividing the Council into Committees to the Secretary of State. He thought the power should be given to the Secretary and Council.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that to take the last point first, he thought that the first formation of the Council was the very time when it was desirable to have some one authority to direct in what way the arrangements for the conduct of business should be made. Of course the Minister would consult the Council, and defer to the wishes of those by whom the business was to be transacted. He had sketched on a former occasion what he thought might be the probable division of business, but he admitted then, as he did now, that without some experience it would be impossible to regulate them beforehand. If he wanted further proof of the impossibility of doing this, it would he found in the admission of the late President of the Board of Control, who had had much more experience of the office than he (Lord Stanley), that the arrangements for the conduct of its business were not so perfect as he wished and could suggest. If a minute was laid on the table as a condition of the Act being passed, no doubt the Government would hold themselves bound in some degree to the arrangements there indicated. That would, it appeared to him, be undesirable. They could not, he thought, usefully now lay down regulations for the working of a body which did not exist, and which had not a precise parallel in any public office now in being. Undoubtedly, it was the purpose of the Government that correspondence should initiate in these Committees, and that all
  886
  business, with but slight exceptions, should pass through them; and, if the business of India was anything like what they were told by those who at present conducted it he did not think the members of Council were likely to have cause to complain that they did not find work enough.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that he thought the Secretary of State would have a right to expect that the members of the Council should, as a rule, attend daily.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 21, (President and Vice President.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKsaid, he thought it advisable that the Council should have the power of appointing their President in all cases in the absence of the Secretary of State. It might happen that the Council and the Government might come into collision, and in that case he thought the Council should have the power of selecting their own mouthpiece. He would therefore propose to omit all the words of the clause after the word "Council" in line 4, for the purpose of inserting —"and in the absence of the Secretary of State a member of the Council chosen by themselves."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that nothing could be so mischievous as to deal with the Council in their collective capacity with their own chairman. The object of the Bill was to bing the Secretary of State in communication with the individual Councillors acting on their individual responsibilities. He wished to know what would be the position of the Under Secretary of State for India? He ought at least to stand on an equal footing with one of the Councillors.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 22, (Meetings of the Council).
  MR. LYALLobserved, that he thought a larger quorum than five should be fixed for meetings of the Council. He would suggest seven.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that five was the ordinary quorum of a Committee of that House consisting of fifteen Members, which was the number of the proposed Indian Council.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he approved of the hon. Member (Mr. Lyall's) suggestion, for in the Court of Directors they required a majority of the Members as a legal quorum.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 23, (Procedure at Meetings).
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he would suggest the propriety of omitting that portion of the clause which authorized any one of the Council to record, not merely his dissent, but the reasons of it, from any decision of the Secretary of State and Council. If Mr. Princep were to be a member of Council, and to dissent from the Secretary for India, he had such a ready pen that he would himself fill several folio volumes with his protests. If a member of the Council had any reasons for dissenting, he should simply hand in those reasons to the Secretary of State.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought that nothing could be more harmless than to allow a member of the Council the power of recording his protest. The protests were to be entered in a book kept for the purpose, and there was nothing in the Bill to compel either the Secretary of State or any one else to read the reasons adduced in support of them.
  MR. WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he did not see anything in the Bill to determine what part of the Indian business was to be transacted in Committee and what in full Council, or to point out who was to regulate this.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the 20th clause gave the Secretary of State power to direct in what manner the business should be transacted.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive.
  Clause 27.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that this clause renewed in a new shape the powers of the Secret Committee. If the House thought that such powers were useful, they would of course agree to the clause, but if not they would reject it. The powers of the Secret Committee were of considerable antiquity in the history of the East India Company. Before the Act of 1784, when the East India Company was completely independent, they were in the habit of appointing a Secret Committee of three persons, who communicated with the Government on all matters of peace and war and of a political nature. In Mr. Pitt's Act of 1784, there was a clause enacting that a Secret Committee should be appointed consisting of not more than three persons. In 1793, Mr. Dundas's Act organized the Secret Committee in substantially its present form, and empowered the President of the Board of Control to send through it to India any orders with respect to the making of peace or war, or to the negotiations with
  888
  Native Princes, which he might deem desirable to keep secret. The powers of the Secret Committee were limited by a clause in the Act to questions of war, peace, and negotiations with Native Princes, so that legally the Secret Committee was not the proper channel through which Lord Ellenborough should have sent his despatch, as Oude was then an integral portion of the dominions of the East India Company. If the Council were smaller they might dispense with those secret powers. By the present Bill the Secretary of State would have power to send despatches to the Governor General on these three subjects without at all consulting his Council. If they were to be more upper clerks that arrangement might be satisfactory, but if they were to have a more potential authority they should not, he thought, be excluded from all interference in matters of such importance. The power of making war in India from this country was of a peculiar nature, and nothing in the Bill derogated from the power of the Crown to declare war regarding Indian or other Oriental Power; but, when the Crown directed an Indian war to be carried on, it was for an Indian object, and to be paid for out of Indian revenue; and, if there was any question upon which the advice of an Indian Council ought to be taken, it was a question such as this. He should be glad if these clauses could be omitted—and if the Council could be consulted upon questions of peace or war, or negotiations with Indian Princes. At all events, the powers of the Secret Committee ought not to be strained, as he feared they had been on some recent occasions, and he hoped, if the clauses were retained, the Government would never have recourse to the powers of the Secret Committee, except in extraordinary cases, on which it was impossible for the Council to be consulted.
  MR. MANGLESsaid that, unfortunately for the good government of India, the powers of the Secret Committee were, both legally and practically, much more than his right hon. Friend seemed to imagine. Under the Act of 1793, the Government of India had power to write home to the Secret Department upon any matter they pleased; and, unless the President of the Board of Control chose to communicate such despatches to the Court of Directors, they must be answered—as the Earl of Ellenborough answered the despatch of Viscount Canning—through the Secret Committee. By the Act of 1833, the sub-

  889
  jects on which the Home Government might transmit despatches through that Committee were extended to negotiations with Princes or States out of India, or the policy to be observed with respect to such Princes or States. For many years after the conquest of Scinde the whole government of that province was conducted by the Secret Committee, and the Court of Directors knew nothing about it. He believed that much mischief had arisen from the Secret Committee undertaking to transact business with which it had no right to interfere. The real fact was, that nine-tenths of that which came before the Secret Committee, might with safety be communicated to the whole world. He desired, therefore, that there should be no Secret Committee in future. It was a more delusion and snare, for they might as well call the General Post Office a Secret Committee, as all the business the latter had to do was to sign despatches; and even if there were matters which it was thought desirable to keep secret, those matters often oozed out through the Board of Control. On the other hand, the Court of Directors had shown themselves to be as competent to keep a secret, when there was one, as the Cabinet of Her Majesty; and he had no reason to think otherwise of the proposed Indian Council if properly selected, while the Secretary of State would reap the same advantage from the advice of the Council in those matters as he would in all other matters.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the question for consideration was the power of the Government to send out orders to India.
  MR. AYRTONremarked, that it was very desirable that the House should reconsider the question of a Secret Committee; and at the same time that the powers of the Secretary of State with respect to sending out orders on questions of peace or war should be clearly defined in the Bill. He regretted that the recent despatch of the Earl of Ellenborough, which many thought a very admirable document, should have been used as an illustration of an abuse of power on the part of the Secret Committee. His own opinion was that there was no case, except that of a declaration of war with some European Power which had possessions beyond the Cape of Good Hope, where the Secretary of State should be allowed to send a despatch to India without communicating it to the Secret Committee within the period prescribed in a previous clause. He sub-
  890
  mitted, therefore, that instead of passing this clause in general language, giving an undefined power to the Secretary of State, the noble Lord ought to bring up a new clause more strictly defining under what circumstances he might transmit despatches without giving the notice to the Council referred to in the previous clause.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was very anxious, on principle, that this clause should pass as it stood. What was the officer they were dealing with? A Secretary of State and a Privy Councillor, bound by his oath to secrecy, and yet it was proposed to oblige him by an Act of Parliament to communicate everything he did or heard in his capacity of a Privy Councillor to a Council who were not Privy Councillors, and therefore not within the category defined by his oath. That was a matter which the Committee must leave to the discretion of the Secretary of State, as this clause now left it. While it was said, there were very few things which could not be communicated, there were yet a few things which ought not to be made public. Orders might be sent out to India, or received from, bearing immediately on European transactions, and not on Indian interests, and it would be both inconvenient and injurious that such information should be given. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Guildford that the Court of Directors kept secret the recall of the Earl of Ellenborough. and well they might, until it was all complete, in order to avoid trouble and inconvenience. Their prudence was quite as much in that matter as their secrecy. As for saying that a man who could not keep a secret ought not to be made a Councillor, it was too late after he had been made a Councillor for life, and only removable upon address from both Houses to the Crown.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, this clause was the keystone of the very trumpery arch which this Bill was intended to erect. Although there was a pretence of limiting the power of the Secretary of State, the real object was to enable him to do as he liked; and the Bill as it stood, and especially by this clause, created a double Government. If this clause was struck out, the Secretary of State would have always to act with the knowledge of his Council. They knew that India could not be governed in that way. He had proposed that the whole government should be given to the Secretary of State; but they had created a Council, and, like Frankenstein,

  891
  they were afraid of their own creation—they feared lest their own Council should turn and rend them. If they did away with this clause, the Bill would be unworkable, and prove nothing better than waste paper.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that he had put an Amendment on the paper to leave out this clause, and he was disposed to take the sense of the House upon it. He agreed that only in rare instances the matters which came before the Secret Committee were other than such as might not be laid before the public at Charing Cross. These rare instances could be met by the Secretary making his Council secret for the time being. It often happened that the Court of Directors were made a secret body. When matters of finance or exchange came before them the Chairman merely said the Court was made secret, and gentlemen were immediately on their honour and did not divulge anything that occurred. There might be a similar arrangement in the Council. He did not think it safe to lodge such a power in the hands of a single man as that possessed by the President of the Board of Control by means of the Secret Committee. The Affghan war was originated through the Secret Committee, and it ended in leaving the bones of 15,000 of our countrymen bleaching in the sun, and costing fifteen millions of money. The first Burmese war was the work of the Secret Committee, which cost nine millions and half the army. The second Burmese war and the war in Scinde were originated without the legal knowledge of the Court of Directors. All those disasters arose from the powers vested in the President of the Board of Control which the noble Lord wished to perpetuate.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, two important questions had been raised with reference to this clause—first, whether the power of the Secretary of State with reference to treaties and questions of peace and war were sufficiently defined; and secondly, whether such a power should exist at all. He thought it was advisable to define rather more clearly the powers of the Secretary of State with reference to the Secret Committee. He thought that the letter of the Earl of Ellenborough on the subject of Oude was within the rule, as it was written in answer to secret despatches. His previous despatch as to the treatment of the mutineers might, perhaps, have been different, The hon.
  892
  Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) said that they hardly remembered anything of consequence that passed through the Secret Committee. Those gentlemen were the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Secret Committee when he (Mr. Vernon Smith) was President of the Board of Control, and he was glad to hear them say that he did not make much use of that Committee. [Mr. MANGLES: What you did, did not matter a straw.] He was glad to hear the hon. Member say that nothing occurred which signified a straw, as that did away with the notion that he was opposed to the Persian war. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) would not abandon the principle, that the Secretary of State ought to deal with treaties and questions relating to peace and war without the interference of the Council. That was a material point in the Bill, and its maintenance would give the Secretary of State real power; for if he were to submit to his Council every question relating to negotiations, to treaties with foreign States, and to peace or war, he would be placed completely in the power of the Council, and the government of India would be vested not in the Secretary of State but in the Council for India alone. Suppose the most of the wars in India had some European as well as Asiatic elements in them. Therefore, if the Secretary of State should have reason to believe that some aggression was contemplated by Russia upon our Indian territories, and he were required to consult the Council, they might say, "How are we to decide upon the necessity of this war? You say it is not merely an Asiatic but an European war, and we call upon you to communicate to us the secret information which you possess." There would be this absurdity, moreover, that after he had obtained the consent of the Cabinet, the major authority, he would have to obtain the consent of the Council, the minor authority. On these grounds, then, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that it was absolutely necessary to retain this clause in its integrity, and he should accordingly support it.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKsaid, that the power in question had been hitherto limited and defined, and yet Presidents of the Board of Control had often gone beyond it. He thought such a power was in some respects objectionable; but

  893
  was the Committee prepared to say that there was no case in which a Secretary of State might issue orders for peace or war in India? He shrank from joining those who wished to put such a limitation on the power of the Crown, though he would admit the evils which existed in connection with the Secret Committee. The evils which had hitherto existed had arisen mainly from the negligence of Parliament in not demanding a strict account from the Ministers who were responsible for the conduct of Indian affairs, and it would be most dangerous to transfer such responsibility to the Council. He would support the clause, although it might be possible to define more clearly the power of the Secretary of State.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he was of opinion that it would be absurd to surround the Minister for India with an able Council if, in dealing with matters affecting foreign States, and with questions of peace and war, he was empowered to act entirely without their advice or knowledge. On the other hand the House had determined on establishing a Council far too large to be entrusted with the duties performed by a Secret Committee. It would be impossible that there should be that entire confidence between the Minister and the individual members of a large Council, which would warrant his disclosing to them all the secrets of Indian policy. He had given notice of a clause providing for the appointment of a Secret Committee, consisting of the Vice President of the Council for India and of two other Members of the Council, to be selected by the Secretary of State in Council. He proposed that the Minister should not be able to send out a secret order without first laying before the Secret Committee a certificate, signed by two at least of his colleagues, that the public interest required secrecy to be observed in that particular case; and further, that with regard to such a communication, the Secret Committee should have the power of advising and of placing its opinions on record, and if the Minister differed from the rest of the Committee, then he should be required to place his reasons on the minutes. Such a secret committee as that would increase rather than diminish the responsibility of the Minister, making him more careful and cautious in entering upon a war in consequence of the warning he would receive as to the ultimate results of such a course of policy.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would refer, in the first instance, to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and he confessed that he did not think it would attain the object the hon. Gentleman intended. No effectual check would be placed upon a Minister by requiring him formally to communicate his intentions to men who had not the power to prevent him from carrying out those intentions. As to the authorization of his two colleagues, that also would be a mere matter of form, and would act rather as a screen from responsibility than as an actual check on the actions of the Minister. On the general question he had not much to add to what had been already said, and especially by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. He could understand the feeling which existed against investing the Minister with a power of this kind. In fact the Secret Committee was a necessary evil, and he thought that when you had a Council of fifteen members—elected for life, and not politically united with the Minister—that the arrangement now proposed was the best. For every purpose it would be easier to consult the Secret Committee than the whole body of the Council. If in every case you were to say that the whole Council was to be consulted it would diminish the authority and responsibility of the Minister to a point below what it had been at any time. As to defining the powers of the Secret Committee in the Act under which it was at present constituted, its powers were very accurately defined, as extending to questions relating to peace and war, treaties and negotiations. The powers of the Secret Committee might have been exceeded and abused, but excess or abuse ought not to militate against its utility. He could not consent to give up a power which for seventy years had been exercised by the Minister for India.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, he wished to make a practical suggestion. The noble Lord had referred to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton as conclusive, but the only argument he had heard, from the noble Lord, and he admitted its force, was that there might be cases in which European politics were mixed up with Indian questions, and that such matters could not be properly laid before a purely Indian body. Why then should not the Council of India be fully informed of all Indian matters and be restricted in their information in relation to all matters which involved European politics either di-

  895
  rectly or indirectly. The noble Lord did not say a word against the Council being informed on Indian matters. The Government had always allowed their secrets to leak out, but the Court of Directors on the contrary had always managed to keep theirs, so that he thought there was no fear of any being divulged by the Council.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he could imagine cases where, under the apprehension of European wars, the Secretary of State for India might act without consulting the Council. But that rather belonged to his power as Secretary of State than to any function as his of Indian Minister. But the question here was totally different. The question was this. They had been now for months endeavouring to supplant the double Government of India by something more simple and direct, and they had established a Council competent to advise the Minister for India. Then came this 27th clause of the Bill, which enacted that, with regard to all the most important affairs of India, the Council was to know nothing, but everything was to be conducted by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle and others, proposed a clause that the Secretary of State should not be able to dispose of the revenues of India without the consent of the majority of the Council. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen had said that the Burmese war cost £9,000,000, and that the expense had been incurred in consequence of an order of the Minister for India alone, and yet it was said that £10,000 was not to be spent without the consent of the Council. The clause, it seemed to him, would of necessity do away with all the efficacy of the Bill. It had been said that such power had been sometimes abused; that might have been the case, but questions of war and peace, of treaty or negotiation, and of the policy to be pursued towards the Native Princes, were questions of such importance that they ought to be deliberated on in Council, and if not he agreed with the suggestion that the whole power should be vested in a Secretary of State, and that there should be no Council. What, however, he wanted to see was a real and effective Council. It was urged that fifteen was too large a number for that purpose. Who made them that number but the noble Lord himself, though at first he was satisfied with twelve. But he (Lord J. Russell) did not think that the number was so large
  896
  that it could not be trusted with a secret. For many years the Cabinet of the Sovereign consisted of fifteen, and therefore it was not number alone on which secrecy depended. Those composing the Council would be experienced men, not rash. He thought that if in 1853 such a Council existed, and the Secretary of State went to them and said, "Government have under their consideration insults and injuries and the violation of treaties which have been made by Persia, we wish to consider it as a question of policy whether an expedition should not be immediately sent out and hostilities commenced," he believed very great good would have resulted from the advice of such a Council, and that their proceedings might have been very well kept secret. In fact, if financial questions were to be submitted to this Council, he did not see, inasmuch as questions of war always involved those of finance, how discussion in the Council could be avoided. Such questions affected the welfare of many millions of the people of India, and he could not believe that they ought to be taken from the cognizance of the Council. Even if every man in the Council were opposed to the policy of the Government, the Secretary of State ought, after all, to say it was their policy, and as such he adhered to it; that the reputation and honour of the country could not be maintained without it. He could easily imagine cases in which long afterwards it would be desirable to know the opinions of the Council with respect to the origin of wars which had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was so impressed with the importance of the question of peace and war, that he had given notice of an Amendment that the forces of Her Majesty should not, without special causes, be employed beyond the frontiers of the British possessions in India without the consent of Parliament. An effective check, he thought, was necessary, and where could there be a better one on the Secretary of State than through this Council, to whom he should submit his reasons for going to war? After such wars had been entered into Parliament had no remedy; they must pursue them and the nation was saddled with the cost. He should, on these grounds, vote most cordially with the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen against the clause. The fact, as it appeared to him, was, that in all routine business the Council were to be consulted, but on all great questions which con-

  897
  cerned the welfare and happiness of the people of India and the permanence of the empire they were to be ignored.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 119; Noes 95: Majority 24.
  Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 28.
  Clause 29 (Appointments to be made by or with the approbation of Her Majesty.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he rose to move the insertion, after the word "India," line 5, of the following:—
  "And the appointments of Lieutenant Governor of provinces or territories, and the appointments of Members of the Council of the Governor General of India and of the several Presidencies."
  The question he wished to raise was whether, now that they were introducing a new form of government with new emoluments, it would not be better to remove the great blot upon the existing system—namely, the remuneration of the governing body by means of patronage. Let them take care not to split upon the same rock as that on which they had made shipwreck for the last sixty years. The remuneration of the members of the governing body ought entirely to consist of salary, and of the high powers with which they were entrusted for the improvement of the condition of India. Forty-five years ago Lord Granville, in a statesmanlike speech, recommended the very course he was now proposing, and suggested that the choice of the young men destined for the civil service should be made by competition, and by examination in the great schools and Universities of the country; while the nominations to cadetships should be given to the sons of Indian officers. Why should the Government not throw a portion of the appointments to regiments of the line, as well as to the scientific branches of the army, open to public competition? And why should not the various public schools have each a certain number of nominations. But whatever mode of disposing of this patronage might be adopted, it ought, at all events, to be placed in the hands of the responsible Minister of the Crown, and not in the hands of a majority of the Council.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he did not think that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman had much to do with his speech. The question of first appointments in the Indian services did not arise upon this clause. When they came to that subject he should be quite prepared to discuss it.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he regretted that the noble Lord, in the Amendment he was about to propose in this clause, had abandoned the plan contained in the Bill of his noble Friend the Member for Tiverton, and in the first Bill of the present Government, that the nomination of the Councils of the Presidencies should rest with the Governor General and the respective Governors, as they would be much better able to choose the best men than the Council here. No doubt it was intended that the Secretary of State should take the advice of the Council with regard to the appointment, but it was to be regretted that he had departed from the design of the original Bill.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he must admit there was a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition. At the same time he believed that no proposition could be more unpalatable to the whole service in India than such an arrangement, inasmuch as it would destroy in a great measure the independence of the civil service by putting it absolutely under the control of the Governor General. It was supposed that such a measure would have the effect of making the officers of that service mere tools in his hands.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he wished to remind the noble Lord that the appointment of Lieutenant Governors of provinces and Members of Council was dealt with in this clause. He would also observe, that that there ought to be no distinction in the mode of appointing Governors and Lieutenant Governors. One office was almost as important as the other, and the appointments, in both cases, ought to be made by the Secretary of State absolutely.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought that these officers could most satisfactorily be appointed by the Council.
  MR. WILLOUGHBYremarked, that of all the Amendments which the noble Lord proposed to introduce into the Bill that which took the appointment of the Councillors from the Governor General and the Governors of the Presidencies was the most deserving of support.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that in reference to the noble Lord's observation, that it would be more agreeable to the Civil Service to have the appointments made here rather than in India, the intelligence conveyed even by the last mail from India proved that the very reverse was the fact. From that it appeared that the wish among the Civil Service in India was that the appointments should be made by the Governor General, so as to increase and consolidate his responsibility; and although the Governor General might not, on his first arrival in India, be able personally to judge of the merits of particular individuals, he would at once have the advice of those upon whom he could rely, and would afterwards be able to decide upon his own experience.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, he fully agreed with the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Willoughby), in favour of the alteration of the clause proposed by the noble Lord. He could not conceive whence the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) could have derived his information that the feeling in India was against it. He could assure the House that the opinion of all those who had recently come from India, as well as of the Court of Directors, was that the alteration proposed by the clause would be a very great improvement.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that mention was made in the clause of the legislative member of the Council. Had the noble Lord ever considered whether that office might not be abolished, now that by the Act of 1853 the Chief Justice was admitted to the Council? A saving of £10,000 a year would be realised to the public by the abolition of this office.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would consider the point.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would propose an Amendment to the effect that appointments to the Presidential Councils, instead of being with the Governor-General and the Governors of Presidencies, should rest with the Indian Minister and his Council.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought it better that the appointments of Lieutenant Governor of Provinces should be made on the sole responsibility of the Governor General.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Governor General would have the power of appointment. The Council would only
  900
  have a power of veto, which would, no doubt, only be exercised in cases of decidedly objectionable appointments.
  Clause as amended agreed to, as was also Clause 30.
  Clause 31 (Appointments to the Civil Service).
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, this clause related to the Civil Service, and it appeared by it that the Government meant to continue the present system of competition, for which he offered them his thanks. But the clause referred to the Act of 1853, and that Act contemplated the course at Haileybury, which was now abolished, and therefore he suggested that as this clause was really impracticable, the noble Lord should take into consideration the clauses which he had brought up on this subject.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALread the section of the Act of 1853, and showed that the clause before the Committee was only meant to bind the Secretary of State to the same extent as the Court of Directors new were with regard to this particular subject, and stated that he saw no reason for not adopting the clause as it stood.
  VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, that the Earl of Ellenborough, when President of the Board of Control, had made a most excellent change on this point, by abolishing the former regulations, and putting himself in communication with the Civil Service Commissioners. Did the Government mean to continue that course under this Bill?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he did not mean to pledge the Government on the subject, but their object of course would be to offer the widest opportunity to those who wished to compete in the examinations.
  Clause 32 (Other Appointments and Admissions to Office).
  MR. CAMPBELLsaid, he was clearly of opinion that this patronage should be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State, instead of the Council.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that he was glad that the admission to the scientific branches of the Indian army were to be thrown open to competitive examination. He should be glad, however, if the Government would go a step further, and deal in a similar manner with nominations to commissions in the other branches of the Indian army. He should at the same time prefer, if the system of patronage was to be preserved with respect to these branches of the service, that patronage

  901
  should be vested in the Minister, rather than shared with the Council.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he could not but think that the House and the country would view with great jealousy the transfer of the whole patronage of the Indian army to the Secretary of State. No charge of the misuse of the patronage of cadetship had been substantiated against the Directors of the East India Company before the Committee of 1853, and he would ask whether the services of any part of Her Majesty's forces had surpassed the Indian army. Would they, then, pronounce a condemnation upon the system which had produced such men as had fought and fallen in our service in India? It had been said that the distribution of this patronage had occupied too much of the time of the Board of Directors, and would occupy too much of the time of the Council. But it would occupy as much of the time of the Minister. The Directors of the East India Company had never used the patronage for political purposes. Was it likely that the same thing could continue to be said if this patronage was transferred to a Minister of the Crown? They should maintain the patronage in hands that would not be likely to be affected by such influences; and they should look to the working of the system that now prevailed. No doubt the Directors of the East India Company had given cadetships to their friends. But had the system worked ill? He believed that no deserving civil or military servant of the Company had ever been refused a cadetship for his son. And, while by the present Bill it was proposed to reserve one-tenth of the cadetships for the children of such persons, it was in evidence that under the old system they received one-fourth of the applicants. He believed that competition was not the best test with regard to the service of the country. They ought to have more experience of the competitive system in the civil service before applying it to the military service, and they ought to guard against promotion in India being placed in the hands of any Ministers for political objects.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the question raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon would be better discussed on other clauses.
  Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 33.
  Clause 34 negatived. Clause 35 was agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Real and Personal property of the Company to vest in Her Majesty,
  902
  for the purposes of the Government of India).
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know what the position of the Indian creditor would be under this clause?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he apprehended that the Bill would not effect any change whatever in the position of Indian creditors. There would be merely a change of trustees. The Directors of the East India Company had never been personally liable for the Indian debt; the members of the Council would not be personally liable for such debt; but the general liability of the property of which they were trustees would remain precisely as it was at present.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 37,
  MR. JOHN WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would move after "India" in page 12, line 5, to insert, "subject to the debts and liabilities mentioned or referred to in the last preceding clause of this Act." His object was to secure to existing creditors a lien over the assets of the Company.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not think the words proposed would secure the object of the hon. Member, and suggested that the Amendment should be postponed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Dividend of the Company, and existing and future debts and liabilities and expenses charged on the Revenues of India).
  MR. JOHN WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would propose, after the words "chargeable on the revenues of India," in line 26, to leave out "alone." The insertion in the clause, of the word "alone" raised the important question whether the Consolidated Fund would be liable, in case of a deficit in the revenue of India. The answer given to that question in the discussion on the East India Loan Bill was unsatisfactory. Indeed, the point was left in doubt, but it was very desirable that it should be cleared up. In his opinion, when the Crown took the Government of India it should also take upon itself the liabilities of the East India Company, and it was desirable that the position of the public creditor should not be altered. There was no analogy between an Indian loan and a Canadian or an Australian loan, for in the case of these colonies representative bodies could secure those loans upon the colonial revenues; but in India the Executive did it.

  903
  The present liabilities of the East India Company were as follows: — First, the capital of the Company, £6,000,000 stock, redeemable at 100 per cent; or £12,000,000, partly secured by the guarantee fund; called partly secured, because when they came to pay off the stock they would have a deficit of £745,000. The next item was the old bonded debt of £3,894,000, bearing 4 per cent, and quoted at from 18 s. to 20 s. per cent premium, and payable upon twelve months' notice from either party. The next item was a sum of £1,970,000 borrowed from the Bank of England. Then there was the last East India loan of £4,421,000 and the public or territorial debt of £56,518,000, which bore 4 per cent interest, a proof of how high the credit of the Company stood in India. The latter was the debt to which this clause more particularly referred, and he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the nature of the promissory note issued by the Company to the creditor on account of their loans. It made no mention of the revenues of India alone being answerable. The Company borrowed in its corporate capacity, and not only the revenues of India but every farthing of the property possessed by the Company was liable for the discharge of the money borrowed. The next class of obligations was the railway stock and debentures to an amount of £34,000,000, which might be demanded at any time within six months' notice, and which, of course, must then become a charge upon the revenue. By what means were the East India Company to be released from these heavy responsibilities? The straightforward course of the Government would be to declare the Imperial revenue answerable for the Indian deficit. The territorial debt was secured, not only on the Indian revenue, but upon the general revenue. The question of India bonds would become a very serious one after the transfer of the Government took place; and the only way out of it would be to give the public creditor Government security. The question was one which affected the public credit in the highest degree, and it ought to be remembered that three-fifths of the territorial obligation had been lent upon the guarantee of a settled trade, and a great part of the remaining portion had been advanced to carry on wars for Imperial purposes. Thus the war in Affghanistan alone added £15,000,000 to the territorial debt, the Persian and other wars being also charged
  904
  on the revenue. The fact was, that the whole of the real and personal property of the Company was liable for the liquidation of the debt, and it would be incumbent, when they abolished the Company, upon the Government to provide some other adequate security, It might be said—indeed it had been said—that the security of public creditors would not be damaged, but he could not admit any such principle. The value of the security held by creditors depended upon the good administration of India, and if the present change were an improvement, there would be no risk in Her Majesty's Government undertaking the obligations of the Company. Sir Robert Peel was clearly of opinion that if the credit of India was shaken through disturbances, the credit of England must be brought to its aid. On these grounds he thought this Amendment ought to be agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, divested of technicalities, this was a simple point, and had been amply provided for in the Bill. He could quite understand the desire of creditors of the East India Company to have better securities than they already possessed. He would not enter into any controversy whether such could be found; but when the hon. Member asked what was the remedy, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would reply by demanding what the Indian creditor would have done supposing that this great change had not been proposed, and that the Indian revenue became deficient? He could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion with reference to this subject, though his statement did not seem to carry conviction to the mind of the hon. Gentleman—that the security of the Indian creditor remained identical with what it was before, the only difference being, to express it in the popular way, that the trust was changed, and that whereas before the Indian creditor looked to the Directors, he would now look to the Council. The hon. Gentleman had entered into a catalogue raisonée of all the Indian securities, and, reading a railway bond, said, "See the engagements under which the Directors are to the holders of these bonds, which they are bound to liquidate within a certain notice; and when you destroy the Direction, to whom is the creditor to look?" Let the hon. Gentleman look to Clause 16, which, in the first place, provided that the Council was to stand in the place of the Company in relation to all suits; and then, turning to Clause 61, he would find that it was

  905
  provided that engagements as against the East India Company might be enforced against the Council in like manner as against the said Company; while Clause 62, which completed that group of clauses, provided that the Council, like the Directors, should not be personally liable. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, would find that the point he had raised as to where they should find a remedy was amply provided for in the Bill, and that every contract into which the Company had entered the Council should in like manner be liable for. Whether, therefore, they looked to the security or the remedy, the case was equally provided for. He trusted that the Committee would support the clause before them, and not put the East Indian creditor in a different position to that in which they were now placed.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he wished to point out what he considered an ambiguity in the clause. The principal of the debts incurred by the East India Company was charged on the Indian revenue alone, but nothing was said as to the interest.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was a legal maxim that if they secured the debt, they also secured the interest that might be due on such debt.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he could not regard the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as satisfactory. The creditor had now the collateral security of the hereditaments, chattels, stores, and personal property of the Company in this country. The question was, did not this Bill restrict the security for the bond debt to the Indian revenues alone?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hon. Member would find words in the clause to make all moneys, arising from any property transferred to Her Majesty under the Bill, applicable in aid of the revenues of India.
  SIR H. RAWLINSONsaid, the bonds rested on the original stock of the Company.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he rather thought that the bonds were receiving a better security under this Act than they rested on before; for, by the Act of 1833, he believed they were thrown entirely on the revenues of India; but here they were cast also on the real and personal property transferred to Her Majesty.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he thought the language of the Bill ought to be made clearer on this point. As he read
  906
  it, the security was limited to the revenues of India alone.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rose to congratulate the Committee upon the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had completely negatived the position of the hon. Member for Leominster, that the debt of India was a charge upon the taxpayers of this country, and that no hon. Member who had supported the Amendment had maintained that position. He had no doubt that the difference as to verbal construction between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. Stuart Wortley) and the Solicitor General might be arranged before the Bill was reported.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to; as were likewise Clauses 39 to 42 inclusive.
  Clause 43 (Power to grant Letter of Attorney for Sale of Stock and Receipt of Dividends).
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he rose to move the following proviso:—
  "Provided that no such general letter of attorney or order shall be executed or signed, except the same has been first authorized by a resolution passed in Council,"
  his object being to take precaution against the commission of fraud.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought that ample security would be provided in a clause to be brought up on the Report.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 44 to 46 inclusive.
  Clause 47 (Present System of Issuing Warrants for Payments Continued).
  MR. WILLOUGHBYsuggested, that it would be inconvenient to require every warrant to be signed by three members of the Council. At present warrants were only signed by two Directors.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Audit of Accounts in Great Britain).
  MR. MANGLESsaid, he did not know on what ground the noble Lord intended to appoint a separate auditor for the accounts of the Company. The audit of the East India Company had met the full approbation of the noble Lord the late President of the India Board. He did not see, therefore, why they should be put to the expense of another auditor.
  COLONEL SYKESwould move to leave out the clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it introduced a

  907
  great improvement. It would introduce a better system of audit than now prevailed. It would not necessarily lead to any increase of expense.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 49 (Accounts to be Annually laid before Parliament).
  MR. GREGSONproposed the insertion of words providing that no pension or gratuity beyond a certain amount should be granted by the Secretary of State, out of the revenues of India, without the sanction of that House.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought that the check which a majority of the Council would possess over all appropriations of money would be a much more effective control than a mere appeal to the House of Commons.
  Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.
  Clause 50 struck out.
  Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to.
  Clause 53 (Servants of the Company to be deemed Servants of Her Majesty).
  MR. WILLOUGHBYproposed to add to it these words:—
  "And the transfer of any person to the service of Her Majesty shall be deemed to be a continuance of his previous service, and shall not prejudice any claims to pension, or any claims on the various annuity funds of the several Presidencies in India which he might have had if this Act had not been passed."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that these words were the same that were inserted at the end of the clause in regard to the servants on the establishment. There could, therefore, be no objection to their insertion here.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 54 to 59 inclusive.
  Clause 60 (Council to come in place of the Company with regard to pending suits, &c.)
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he understood that this clause was intended to give the same power of suing the Secretary of State and Council that now existed with reference to the East India Company. He thought, however, that that intention was not adequately expressed or carried out by the clause. He would propose to add these words:—
  "And all actions, suits, and proceedings which, but for the passing of this Act, might have been brought against the said Company, may from henceforth be brought against the Secretary of State in Council; and the property vested in the Crown as aforesaid shall be subject and liable to
  908
  the same judgments and executions, in the same manner and form respectively as if this Act had not passed."
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, this clause only related to pending suits. The addition of his hon. and learned Friend would more properly be proposed at the end of the 61st clause.
  Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
  On the bringing up of the new clauses relating to Military Patronage,
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he intended to move the omission of one of the new clauses on this point.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he proposed to insert the new clauses pro forma to-night, and to have the Bill reprinted, so that the Report might be brought up on Monday, when it would be competent to any hon. Member to move the omission of any of the clauses.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, the subject of the clause could not well be considered, except in Committee. He moved the Chairman report progress.
  Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman report progress," put, and negatived.
  On the Question that the clause be read a second time.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he could not consent to the clause. It was impossible to go on at that late hour with the discussion of one of the most important questions involved in the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmerely wished the House to agree to the clauses pro forma, and to take the discussion of them on the Report on Monday.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwished to get through the Bill with as much speed as was consistent with decency, but there was no occasion for hurrying it through the House. There was a material difference between discussing the details of a Bill in Committee and on the Report. In Committee an hon. Member might speak more than once, whereas on the Report he did not possess such a privilege. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Chairman to report progress, with the view of going on with the Bill in Committee on Monday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that on the Report every hon. Member would have an opportunity of dis-

  909
  cussing the clauses, and of making at least three speeches on each of them. Ample opportunity for discussion would, therefore, be afforded by the course he proposed.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman in the early part of the evening contemplated going on with the Bill in Committee on Monday. There was a most important clause to come, which could only be properly discussed in Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if it were the wish of the Committee he would not press the matter.
  Clause read 2o.
  House resumed.
  Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he did not propose to prolong the discussion on this measure; but in justice to the many classes of men, and particularly of women, who from the highest to the lowest throughout England looked with horror and dismay to this Bill—a Bill which would produce confusion, jealousy, and heart-burning in thousands of families now happy and contented—a Bill which owed the support it had received to an agitation got up by a few paid agents, and to a system of petitioning the dodges and shams of which were even more transparent than was the case with most petitions — he could not allow the third reading to pass without taking the sense of the House on the subject.
  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 put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 70: Majority 30.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Election of the Earl of Caithness, as one of the Sixteen Peers of Scotland, in the Room of the Earl of Morton, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Church Rates Abolition; Chinese Passenger Act (1855) Amendment; Commissioners for Exhibition, 1851.

THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF WELLINGTONwas understood to say that he hoped the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government would furnish the House with some information as to the course they intended to pursue with regard to the monument about to be erected to the memory of the late Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral. Their Lordships would recollect that a large number of competitive designs had been sent in by various artists for this monument. These models had all been, as he understood, rejected, so far at least as those designs had been considered in reference to the original site fixed upon; but he believed that it was the intention of the Government to select one of the models, and adjust it to a new site which had been placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. This new site was to be prepared by the architect, who was to be assisted in his labours by some of the sculptors who had exhibited their designs. He thought that this plan of associating several artists with an architect in the construction of the monument was not likely to be attended by any satisfactory results, and he therefore begged the noble Earl to state what were the intentions of the Government on the subject.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was the desire of the Government and of the country to raise a monument which should, if possible, be worthy of the services of the illustrious man to whose memory it would be erected. He thought the noble Duke on the cross benches had, to a certain extent, misapprehended the state of the case, both with regard to what had already taken place and what was contemplated by his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Works. In the first place the noble Duke was in error in stating that the whole of the designs which had been sent in to the Commissioners had been rejected. With the view to obtain a fit monument, a very extensive competition was invited from artists, not only of this but other countries, and no less than eighty-three designs were exhibited. The Judges, of whom the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was one, deemed eight of those designs worthy of substantial marks of approbation; but they distinctly laid down in their award that as to Mr. Marshall's, the premium was conferred merely for the intrinsic merit of the composition, and by
  794
  no means with regard to the situation it was to occupy in St. Paul's. It was the opinion of his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Works (Lord John Manners) and upon consultation with the Dean and Mr. Penrose, the architect of St. Paul's, it was agreed that there would be more propriety in choosing as the site the old Consistory Court of St. Paul's, which was given by the Dean and Chapter for the purpose of constituting a Wellington Chapel, rather than the site originally fixed upon between two of the arches. Having selected the site—and he believed selected it with the approval of the noble Duke on the cross benches, who visited St. Paul's in company with his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Works—it was then for his noble Friend to select from the works exhibited one which, from its intrinsic merit, was best suited to the site prepared for its reception. He admitted that it was not absolutely imperative on his noble Friend to have selected any one of those designs, but at the same time he must say that when they invited competition from all parts of the world in the formation of a great national monument; when they called upon a number of artists—from eighty to a hundred—to spend their time, labour, and talents in preparing designs for the purpose, it was ungracious, to say the least of it, to throw over the artists who had competed, and capriciously, upon the authority of a single Member of the Government, select the work of an artist who had never competed at all. In point of fact unless the designs were absolutely devoid of merit, it was obligatory on the Government not to pass over the whole, but to select one for the monument. His noble Friend, acting upon that principle, did select one by Mr. Stephens, which was one of those selected by the judges as worthy of approbation. Mr. Penrose concurred in thinking that No. 18 was the best design, and he had since been told that the selection both of the design and the site had among artists created general satisfaction. The noble Duke had spoken of the combined work of several artists. There would be no combination further than this—that, having agreed upon the site on which the monument was to be erected, Mr. Penrose, as surveyor of St. Paul's, had undertaken to make such alterations as were necessary in the old Consistory Court for its conversion into the Wellington Chapel. That was the only combination which had taken

  795
  place, with this exception, that his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Works, although nothing further had been yet arranged, had been in communication with the artist to whom the first prize was adjudged, and if it should be found that there was sufficient space, and that consistently and subordinate to the monument itself other statues could be erected which would harmonize with the monument, and suit the internal arrangements of the chapel, the gentleman who obtained the first prize was to send in proposals for certain objects of statuary which would be erected within the chapel. That was the present state of things, and he confessed he thought that unless some discretion was left to the officer of the Government who was specially charged with the administration of that department, they would never come to a satisfactory conclusion with regard to this or any other great public work. The real difficulty under which they laboured was, that when a great work was to be undertaken no one would trust any one else with the performance of any portion of it. Inquiries by Commissions were succeeded by Committees, and there were fresh Committees and fresh investigations reopening the whole question, until after years and years had elapsed it generally resulted in nothing being done. He need only allude to the very savoury river in their immediate neighbourhood, with regard to which there had been no end of designs and no end of schemes. For the last twenty-five or thirty years every one agreed that there ought to be a new Foreign Office. Then came a number of plans for the erection of a mass of buildings without purchasing land. This was followed by the discovery of the impossibility of obtaining the land and purchasing such a mass of buildings. Then came the necessity of a new plan, and the complaints of competing architects that their plans had been set aside. The consequence was that for many years the great public offices had been, so to speak, kept in abeyance, because no one could decide who was the proper authority to carry into effect that which ought to be done. The proper person to make the decision in the present case was the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, who, taking the best advice, had selected out of these designs for a monument one which had been marked by the approval of the judges. His noble Friend had, he thought, done right in selecting one of the designs of the artists who had expended their talent and
  796
  labour upon this work in the hope that one of them would be charged with its execution.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, having been one of the Commissioners to whom the task of making a selection from the great number of designs sent in was intrusted, begged to say that the feelings of the Commissioners were naturally engaged in obtaining a suitable monument for the Duke of Wellington. The Commissioners who were associated with him were highly competent to fulfil the duty confided to them. The prizes they were authorized to give were divided into three classes. It might seem an ungracious act not to accept one of the designs, but it was clearly and distinctly understood on the part of the artists that at the end of the competition the Government were not in the least compromised or bound to carry into execution any one of the designs sent in. He believed that a more judicious site had been chosen in St. Paul's than was originally indicated. With regard to the designs sent in, there was not one of such commanding merit as to induce the Commissioners to recommend it for public adoption. The object of the monument was to perpetuate the memory of one of the greatest men who ever lived, either in this or any other country, and not only to preserve the merits of that individual, but to do so in a manner worthy of the glory and the taste of the country. This was a national, and not a departmental object, for they had to consider, not only what was due to the merits of the Great Commander, but also the reputation of the country for artistic taste. Every effort ought, therefore, to be made without delay to perfect and complete a monument in which the reputation of the country was concerned. A little while ago it was said, that our constitutional system was on its trial. It might be said now, with the same truth, that our national taste was on its trial in this matter. He, for one, would not be satisfied that the work to be adopted and executed should possess some degree of merit. It ought to possess merit of a very high and commanding character, and he was not content that one individual should be intrusted with the sole decision on this subject. He inclined to think that a more limited competition would be desirable. He had no great faith in this system of unlimited competition which was now so much the rage, and it had not been very successful in the present instance, because some

  797
  of the most eminent sculptors had refused to send in designs.

VICTORIA STATION AND PIMLICO RAILWAY BILL.

  STANDING ORDER DISPENSED WITH.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved—
  "That Standing Order, No. 179, sec. 1, directing that no Petition praying to be heard upon the merits against any Private Bill shall be received by this House, unless the same be presented on or before the second sitting-day after such Bill shall have been reported from the Standing Order Committee be considered, in order to its being dispensed with upon the petition of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, praying 'to be heard against The Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway Bill.'"
  The noble Earl read an extract of a letter from Sir Benjamin Hall, stating that his successor was not bound by anything he (Sir Benjamin Hall) had done in the matter. As to the propriety of waiving the Standing Order, there was no instance, he believed, in which the head of a public Department had ever petitioned Parliament before; and before the present First Commissioner became aware that he might take that step the time had passed. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would agree to the Motion.
  EARL GREYsaid, that before consenting to suspend the Standing Order, they ought to understand that there was a clear case made out for doing so. He was not able to concur with the noble Earl opposite as to the propriety of such a course in the present case. The Chief Commissioner of Works had no right in this instance to act as representing the Crown, and he was merely to be regarded as the head of a corporation, which had for one of its duties the management of Battersea and Chelsea Bridge. That Corporation was to be treated just as individuals were. The fact that the head of the corporation had been changed made no difference whatever, and what had been done by a previous head was binding on his successor. The letter of Sir Benjamin Hall, therefore, put an end to the case. He would only add, that no grounds of public interest had been shown for suspending the Standing Order, for the case which had been made out was a most trumpery one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwhile agreeing that it was most important to adhere to the Standing Orders, said that the question was, whether this was not a case in which this Standing Order should
  798
  be suspended. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) said that this corporation was the same as other corporations, and that a change of head made no difference. But there was a great difference in the character of the corporation. This was a corporation instituted not for private purposes, but for the public benefit. He thought, indeed, that there was nothing to have prevented the late First Commissioner of Works from receding from his consent to the Bill, and presenting a petition against it on behalf of the Crown. But even if he had given such a consent as to preclude him from doing so, was that to bind his successor? On the contrary, he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that, if his successor looked upon the Bill as prejudicial to the public interests, it was his bounden duty to appear and protect these interests.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought they ought to consider not only what was just in this particular case, but also how the general practice would be affected. He did not go so far as to say that the decision of the First Commissioner of Works on a point of this sort was to bind his successor; for if a case of great hardship on the part of the public were made out, no doubt the Standing Order ought not to be allowed to interfere. But no strong case had been made out, and in the absence of that he thought that they ought to adhere to their usual mode of proceeding.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that it was not at all unusual for the Standing Order to be suspended in favour of petitions which had been accidentally delayed beyond the time. The extraordinary position in which the park and bridge were placed of itself justified a suspension of the Standing Order.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought it was a monstrous thing to suspend the Standing Orders in a case of this kind, when it was well known that the Board of Works, under the late Commissioner, had no intention of offering any opposition to the Bill. He trusted their Lordships would have regard to the interests of the public and to the interests of those companies which had, at a great expense and with vast trouble, endeavoured to find accommodation for the public.
  On Question, That the said Section of the said Standing Order be dispensed with on the said Petition?
  Their Lordships then divided:—Contents 63; Not-Contents 48: Majority 15.
  Resolved in the affirmative.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the principle of the Bill was simple abolition of the church rates without providing any substitute for them. He should not have undertaken the charge of the Bill if he had not already in the other House of Parliament voted in favour of its principle, and if he had not—after hearing the question frequently discussed during the twenty years that he had sat in that House, and various schemes suggested with great ingenuity for providing a substitute—come at last to the conclusion, at which many others had arrived, that the best course in the first instance was the abolition of the compulsory rate. The great number of petitions which had been presented from all parts of the country by himself and other noble Lords in favour of the Bill showed the strong feeling which existed in the country. These petitions came, not only from the great towns, from public meetings summoned by the Mayor or the chief local authorities, but there were a great number from small villages. From the western villages they were numerous, as from the small villages in Cornwall and Devon; and, indeed, in almost every county many villages had petitioned in its favour, and he scarcely knew any subject which had excited so much feeling throughout all parts of the county. The Bill came up from the House of Commons supported by a large majority, and year after year the question had been sifted there calmly and temperately, and with an earnest desire to arrive at a solution of it. Up to this time their Lordships had not committed themselves to any opinion on the subject; they were not pledged as the other House was, and they would, therefore, be all the better able to take an enlarged view of the question. For himself he knew of no conclusion that could be satisfactory which did not commence with the abolition of the compulsory rate. He believed, too, that the Government as a whole was not pledged to any particular line, and many of the petitions which he had presented were sent under the impression that this was an open question with the Government; and when the Bill was in the other House it was supported by a leading Member of the Government, who had not only voted, but had spoken in favour of the principle.
  800
  He very much regretted, therefore, the declaration which had been made the other night by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, that he intended to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, for he supposed this must be taken as an indication of the resistance of all the Members of the Government in that House. But the present time was peculiarly favourable to the consideration of the question—no future time could be so favourable;—hereafter their Lordships would be pledged one way or the other, and in deliberative assemblies it was always difficult to bring about a change of opinions, however much circumstances may have changed.
  He would now briefly call their Lordships' attention to some of the attempts which had been made to settle this question. In May, 1855, a Bill was laid on the table by the most rev. Primate, which provided that henceforth church rates should cease for ever in any parish where they had been twice refused by the inhabitants in vestry assembled. This was an assurance to those who had petitioned their Lordships that the question would be fully and fairly considered. The measure, however, failed. Since the year 1834 almost every Government and every leading statesman in the House of Commons had declared their earnest desire to settle this question; and they had one and all dwelt with great force and eloquence on the mischief done by these parochial disputes to the interests of the Church, the cause of religion, and to the advancement of Christianity itself. Various proposals had been made to obtain this end. In 1834 Earl Grey's Government proposed a scheme, the principle of which was to abolish altogether that portion of the rate which was devoted to providing for the services of the church, and charging that part which was devoted to keeping up the fabric of the church on the land tax—in other words, to make it a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. But when that proposal came to be discussed there were found to be so many objections to it that it was abandoned. When Sir Robert Peel came into office he took an early opportunity of stating his desire to bring in a Bill for the settlement of the question; but he went out immediately afterwards, and his design was frustrated. In 1837 Lord Melbourne's Government brought in a scheme placing the charge for the fabric on the revenues of the Church, which it

  801
  was thought might be so far improved by good management as to bear it. But when that scheme came to be discussed there were found to be so many claims on the revenues of the Church that it was thought unfair to put this additional burden on them, and that scheme, too, was abandoned. Two equivalents, therefore—the land tax, or in other words, the Consolidated Fund, and the revenues of the Church—had been proposed and set aside as unfit. A great number of compromises had afterwards been suggested in the House of Commons. The first was to exempt the towns and continue the rate in the rural parishes only, but that scheme was found to be so objectionable that it was rejected. There was another scheme, to exempt Dissenters who declared them. selvers Dissenters; but there were many objections to that also, and especially that it would prevent them ever returning to the bosom of the Church. There was one point on which little or no difference of opinion existed. No person, he supposed, would wish to maintain the charges in church rates for the celebration of the services of the church. No churchman would wish that the sacramental bread and wine should be provided by the compulsory contributions of Dissenters. But to abandon that part of church rates would not produce peace. There would be the same contests about items for maintaining the fabric, the same disputes in the vestry, the same profanation of the church, and the same amount of litigation; and—no matter how the contest ended—the parish would be left in an unsatisfactory state, in consequence of the many passions—some personal and some religious—which had been called into play. It was stated by Dr. Lushington that there was no subject upon which there was so much litigation as church rates, and that in a country where the law was universally respected. They were told that there was no doubt about the justice of the principle that the majority had a right to tax the minority; but the application of that rule should be carried out with great caution, and particularly in questions of a religious nature. It was very different calling upon people to pay a church rate and calling upon them to pay a gas or highway rate. Dissenters said, "We know that gas is provided, and that it gives a good light; but we deny that the prelates and clergy of the Established Church can furnish us with light for the next world. We do not mind paying gas
  802
  rates, because we know we receive a benefit; but we hold that we ought not to be called upon to pay for that the benefit of which we deny." No doubt they were told that all parishioners were bound to maintain the fabric of the Church. But if there was a legal right to compel the people to pay for the support of the fabric of the Church, all the people had a right to be accommodated in the church—if the State, acting with the Church, had a right to tax the people, there was the concurrent duty imposed on the State of finding accommodation for all parishioners within the church. It was obvious and notorious that church rates were totally inadequate for the purpose; and, as there were thousands upon thousands of our countrymen who could not find places within the church, the Dissenters, therefore, said, "We ought not to be called upon to pay for a church which, even if we want its cannot accommodate us." The imposition of church rates was merely an arrangement suited to past times, when all men were of one religion; but it was not applicable to the present state of society, and was producing increasing discontent every day. The growth of dissent and the toleration of Dissenters had increased for the last 150 years, and opposition to church rates had increased also, until the people, calmed for a time by the prospect of church rates being abolished, now looked with great anxiety to the decision at which their Lordships had arrived. It was said that in the great majority of parishes church rates were paid; but it was fallacious to take the number of parishes and exclude the number of the population. It was idle to take parishes with a limited population, and compare them with parishes possessing an enormous population: the whole country must be looked at, and the number of petitions which he had presented showed the strong feeling which existed upon this subject. Since the Census of 1851 the importance of the question had greatly increased. That was the first report on the religious position of the people, and it showed what a vast amount of the population were totally unconnected with the Church. The spiritual wants of the people in many districts had been supplied by the Dissenters. It was stated in one of the returns that, while the number of churches was 14,000, there were not less than 20,000 dissenting chapels. These Dissenting chapels had been built without any aid from the State; yet the Dissenters

  803
  who had built so many chapels had also been taxed for the support of the churches of the Establishment. One objection to church rates was that the peace of parishes was left in a precarious condition, depending as it did upon the discretion of the churchwardens, who might propose a rate whenever they pleased, and thus create a disturbance. Was it worth while to levy a tax which only produced £300,000, and which cost so much irritation ha its collection? He undertook to say that if their Lordships looked at those districts where of late years no church rates had been collected they would find that more had been done for the Church, and that more new churches had been built in those districts than in any others. He had presented a petition from Boston, where no church rate had been levied for twenty years; no difficulty had been felt in meeting the expenses of the church, which were cheerfully raised by subscription; whereas during the time when church rates were levied, extraordinary repairs of the fabric of the Church—though greatly needed—church rates could not be obtained; but, since they had ceased, not only had the sum of £12,000 been raised for extraordinary repairs, but two new churches had also been constructed in the parish on the voluntary principle. A few years ago Parliament voted a sum of £1,000,000 for church building; but there had been given by the subscriptions of the public a further sum a £1,500,000 for the same purpose. Let their Lordships look at Scotland. In thirteen years the Free Church of Scotland had raised £3,000,000, being at the rate of £300,000 a year; and yet the advocates of church rates in this country were struggling to keep up a fight in every parish sooner than give up these rates. A statement of the existence of great spiritual destitution was not long since made by a right rev. Prelate, and a Committee had been appointed by their Lordships to consider the question. That Committee unanimously agreed that there were no adequate means of relieving the existing spiritual destitution, except by appealing to the voluntary principle. But, then, if the Church made such an appeal, let their Lordships look to the condition in which she was placed. She held out one hand for the munificence of the zealous and the other for church rates; showing that she distrusted her own principle, and was ready to fight and wrangle in every parish in the country for this miserable sum. In many
  804
  country parishes the return showed that the church rates varied from £18 to £15 and £7. Was it not idle to discuss whether the power of raising such a sum should be retained, when large numbers of our countrymen conscientiously objected to the mode in which these rates were levied? But then it was said the abolition of church rates would relieve the landowners from a charge which they now paid. In 1834, when a Bill was brought in to relieve the land, it was strongly supported by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby); but nothing was said then about the unfairness of relieving the landowner. Indeed, if he wanted a strong condemnation of church rates, he had only to turn to the speech of the noble Earl on that Bill. He had, however, determined to give their Lordships no Hansard. In the present day no one defended church rates, and the only ground for opposing their abolition was that they did not know where to find the money anywhere else. He was speaking in an assembly of landowners, but he must say that the liberality with which their Lordships had given sites far schools and churches rid them from the imputation of wishing to get rid of church rates for the sake of relieving themselves. He did not believe there would be any difficulty in making that portion of church rates which had been applied to the maintenance of the fabric a charge upon the land. This must be a voluntary charge, because if Parliament made it compulsory the town populations would object to the charge: but as a voluntary charge he believed it might be raised. He believed that many landowners would willingly subject themselves to such a charge. But it might be said that this was only the first of a series of attacks that would be made upon the Church, but he was not of that opinion. Though many who now sought the repeal of the church rates might, from their feelings having been roused, be hostile to the Church now, be believed that when the cause of agitation was removed they would return to their good temper and good sense. With regard to the sentiments of Dissenters towards the Church, he believed that many misconceptions prevailed. The grievances which they complained of and the remedies they sought for were laid before the House of Commons in 1835, and they then stated that what they asked for was the abolition of church rates, a registration of births, deaths, and marriages, the celebration of

  805
  marriages without the intervention of the Church, admission to the Universities, and National education conducted in a fair and liberal spirit. Most of these things had been conceded. Parliament had of late years done much in the way of legislation for the great mass of the people of this country, and the people had reciprocated the benefits conferred upon them by their loyalty, their industry, and their obedience to the laws. He might refer to the recent Royal progress at Birmingham as a convincing illustration of the loyalty and good feeling with which the great body of the people were animated, and as one proof among many of the beneficial results which had flowed from past legislation. He asked their Lordships to deal with the church rate question in the same spirit in which they had dealt with other grievances that pressed upon Dissenters, and to make the removal of that impost the crowning act of their legislation in the direction of concession. There were other reasons why it was desirable at the present moment that they should settle this question. They were told on both sides of the House that a new Reform Bill was in progress. Any Reform Bill that was proposed must give the Dissenters, who were an active class of people, great influence with the constituencies. They were a class of people who were to be found in all the centres of our commercial, mineral, and manufacturing wealth, and they could have no Reform Bill that would not give to them great additional power. Was it wise, then, to leave this question pending as a source of bitterness and religious animosity in the minds of a class whose influence was sure to be very materially enlarged. On the contrary, it was most desirable that it should be settled, and he maintained that they would never be in a better position to settle it than now. They might find themselves in a much worse position hereafter. He would propose that their Lordships should adopt the principle of this Bill, but delay the period of its coming into operation, and he would enable landowners to charge their lands with rates, a thing which would be willingly done in many rural parishes. In regard to other parishes, where the great mass of the population were opposed to church rates, there the rates must go, and be regarded as a bad debt. In such places they were very much like some old manorial rights that existed in the country, which were of no use to the lord of the manor, and only
  806
  served to torment his neighbours. It was of no use to talk of church rates in such parishes as these. He was exceedingly anxious that this religious question should not be permitted to remain to embitter future controversies, and he asked their Lordships to remember that almost all great commotions of which they read in history had been mixed up with religious questions. He regretted, therefore, that the Government meant to meet his Motion with an Amendment to read the Bill that day three months. Before sitting down he would read a few words from a speech delivered by Lord Stanley in 1855 on this subject. He said:—
  "I have voted for the abolition of church rates, and shall do so again. When the matter was first brought forward for discussion, in the Session of 1853, I thought, and many others thought, that a compromise would be possible, which, while equally relieving Nonconformists from the unjust burden to which they are subjected, would serve to mitigate, in no small degree, the opposition and the dislike to any change which were felt by the great body of churchmen. That plan was proposed by another member of Parliament; I supported it in writing, and I voted for it in the division; it was fully and fairly discussed; and the result of the discussion which then took place upon my mind was to convince me that, fair and equitable as that compromise might be in point of principle, it was encumbered and embarrassed with so many practical difficulties in the working as to make it difficult for it to be carried through the House of Commons, and to make it quite impossible for it to be successfully carried out. Well, then, I had only to choose between maintaining the law in its actual state, or voting for its total repeal. I thought it was a question, not merely of policy—not merely of expediency—but of justice and right; and I, therefore, could have no hesitation as to the course I should take. I am quite aware that in some districts, especially in the rural districts, inconvenience would be caused for a time by the withdrawal from parishes and congregations of that compulsory legal support to which they are at present entitled. I do not overlook that objection, and I do not underrate its importance; but I think the inconvenience in question would be only temporary: I think it would be more than counterbalanced by the termination of that strife and dissension which we have so long witnessed in connection with this question; and I think that the change is doubly important, not only on account of the intrinsic merits of the case, but because it will afford us the first trial, the first practical experiment of that principle of self-support in religious matters which, whether we like it or no, whether we approve it or no, whether we think it the best possible system or no, seems likely, perhaps certain, in the inevitable progress of public events, to be the principle of the next generation."
  Their Lordships saw what was to be expected from the next generation. Without going so far as the noble Lord from whom he has just quoted, he would still

  807
  say that it was in the highest degree desirable to terminate the controversy about church rates, and he trusted that they would hear from the Government some definite plan for the settlement of the question. If the question were not now settled, the result would be that the people throughout the country who were in favour of the abolition of church rates would continue to agitate it year after year, and eventually some other Government, finding itself pressed and hampered by it, would say to their Lordships, as had been said on a very recent occasion, that the feeling of the country was so strong upon the subject that it would be advisable for them to give way. This was no party question, and he would urge their Lordships, for the reasons he had adduced, to try and settle it now, once for all, in a calm spirit and in the best way they could.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, in order to satisfy himself upon what grounds he could give his vote on this question, he had considered what really was the position in which they stood in reference to it in point of law. The noble Duke had pressed on their Lordships the necessity of settling the question once for all. Nobody desired to see the Legislature arrive at a fair settlement of it more than he (Lord St. Leonards) did; but the noble Duke's Bill was the most singular mode of settling it of which he had ever heard. It was literally a receipt without payment. The noble Duke said in effect —"I come to settle your bill; give me a receipt for it; but I decline to pay the money." That was the noble Duke's mode of settling this question. He (Lord St. Leonards) contended that there was not a man in their Lordships' House who held any species of property, the enjoyment of which was more sacredly guarded by the law of England than was the obligation to pay church rates. By the law of England church rates were a charge upon the land of England, and that law, at this moment, bound every man's property throughout the country. For centuries this had been a charge on the property of the country, and their Lordships were now asked to go back to the voluntary principle, and leave it to every man to pay church rates or not, just as he chose. Everybody admitted that the fabric of the Church must be preserved, but to maintain the fabric of the Church money must be
  808
  found, and who was to supply it? For ages the poor of this country had been furnished with regular and stated opportunities and facilities for hearing the Gospel preached without being called on to pay a single shilling, but now it was proposed entirely to alter that beneficent arrangement. It is the right of the poor at the expense of the rich: not depending upon bounty, but on an actual legal liability. He who improperly withholds his assent robs the poor. Your Lordships are asked to commit this spoliation for your own benefit. If their Lordships had now to provide for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church for the first time, he asked how they could do it more easily and effectually, and at the same time less objectionably, than by the system of church rates, which was now established by law. They did not want any new law for providing for the preservation of the fabric of the Church. It was an axiom of law that there was no right without a remedy. Here there was an incontestable right, but in many cases the remedy was gone, because the Church had no longer the means of enforcing it. Upon the general question he held it to be the duty of every good subject to give effect to the law as he found it for the benefit of the whole community. Their Lordships' estates were all charged with the payment of church rates for the benefit of the poor as well as the rich, and they were not at liberty to divest themselves or their property of that obligation. If they did, they, the landowners of England, would put millions of money into their own pockets at the expense of the poor throughout the country. Nobody disputed that the fabric of the Church should be maintained, and it could be maintained under the existing system of church rates. What was now proposed in lieu of it? Various propositions had been suggested. One was the voluntary system; another was the system of pew rents; and a third had been hinted at—namely, that the landed interest should be enabled voluntarily to charge their own estates for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church. As to the voluntary system, he would only say that it was entirely adverse to the Established Church as it now stood; and if their Lordships wanted to abolish the principle on which the establishment was founded, let them begin by putting an end to church rates. He regarded the present agitation as a mere

  809
  passing storm, such as was often raised, and which might fairly be met by a proper compromise. He hoped their Lordships would resist the demand, but at the same time would declare themselves open to a fair and reasonable compromise. With respect to the voluntary system—good enough in itself—he would remind the House that property had been bought and inherited subject to the charge of church rates, and why should that charge now be remitted upon the chance that those relieved would hereafter subscribe voluntarily? It was like asking a creditor to give a release from a debt upon a promise of future voluntary payment. Voluntary payment might be made for some time after this charge had been remitted; but in the course of a few years those payments would become unpleasant to many, and would entirely cease. The noble Duke had alluded to the large sums raised by voluntary subscription in Scotland during the last thirteen years, but it must be remembered that was done under peculiar excitement and was done in antagonism to the Established Church of the country. The noble Duke had also referred to the large sums raised in England for building churches, and he (Lord St. Leonards) admitted the voluntary system to be an admirable system when called in aid of an established rate. It came, like God's gracious gifts, to supply wants which we could not otherwise meet. The suggestion of pew rents to supply the deficiency that would be caused by the abolition of church rates he did not like at all. Estates were now charged by law for the maintenance of the Church, and their Lordships were asked to remit that charge altogether, for the benefit of the landowners. The charge was of a fluctuating nature, the extent of which was always in the breast of the majority of the vestry. It was suggested to repeal a portion of the Mortmain Act, and to allow landowners to charge their estates for the support of the Church. That would be introducing new difficulties into the titles and transfer of land, and the amount to be so charged could not be properly ascertained, because the amount of the rate was fluctuating from year to year according to the necessities of the time. Then they would be thrown entirely upon the voluntary system. Dissenters were said to object to church rates upon religious grounds, but he could not see what religion, in a proper sense, had to do with the matter. Church rates
  810
  were a charge upon property which Dissenters had bought, subject to that drawback. At present the rector was bound at least to keep the chancel in repair, and the vestry were bound to keep the fabric of the church in repair. Did their Lordships intend to relieve the vestry from their responsibility, and leave the rector still liable to his? Now, let their Lordships consider for a moment how the question stood with respect to Dissenters. In seeking to abolish church rates, the Dissenters must be regarded as desiring to introduce the voluntary system which prevailed among themselves, and which, so far as they were concerned, worked well, but which could not operate otherwise than disadvantageously in the case of the Established Church. To the Dissenter who made such a proposition he would say, "I am not disposed to impose upon you anything which is degrading, but if you demand the abolition of church rates and the adoption of the voluntary system you cannot expect to exercise the right of voting for a churchwarden or to be allowed the privilege of being eligible for appointment to that office." Dissent was allowed by law, and Dissenters leaving the Church had to provide themselves with another place of worship, and perhaps it was only fair that they should be released from the obligation of paying these rates; but the Motion of the noble Duke was a different thing from this altogether. It was a unilateral sort of thing—it was a sweeping measure for getting rid of church rates altogether. What right had Dissenters to ask the members of the Established Church to abolish church rates? Dissenters had a right to say there was a grievance, but they had no right to ask that church rates should be abolished. When they asked for what did not concern them, he knew they meant mischief. It was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but it was a question of damaging the Establishment. The present measure was an attempt to introduce the thin edge of the wedge. While making that statement he must not be understood as entertaining towards Dissenters any other feelings than those of the utmost goodwill, and he might add that, in his opinion, the wisest and best members of that body had always shown themselves most anxious to support the Established Church. He objected strongly to any measure the tendency of which should be to introduce the voluntary system, which must damage that Church;

  811
  but, while he should, for the reasons which he had stated, oppose the second reading of the Bill, he was as willing as any man could be to meet in a spirit of the utmost fairness any proposition which, while maintaining unimpaired the rights of the Church and the privilege of the poorer classes to attend at divine service, should remove any conscientious difficulties by which the question was attended.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid the arguments which had been advanced by the noble and learned Lord against the Bill were not, in his opinion, of much intrinsic weight. The noble and learned Lord had stated that by law church rates constituted a charge upon land; but how, he would ask, could that be the, case when it was shown by a return which lay upon their Lordships' table that there were five hundred parishes in which the rate was not paid at all? The fact was that it was a charge which the majority of the inhabitants of a particular parish might or might not impose upon the land as they pleased, and of which the owners of property might rid themselves, provided they could get the majority to accede to their views. It could not, therefore, be a legal charge upon the land. But, passing for a moment from the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, he should contend that the reason which, above all others, should recommend the Bill to the notice of their Lordships was that which was founded upon the interests of the Church of England itself. If, in his opinion, it were calculated to operate in a manner prejudicial to those interests he should be the last to say a word in its favour, and it was because he thought that the contrary would be the result, and that it would be most inadvisable that the contest with respect to church rates should be any longer protracted, that be should give to it his cordial support. The noble and learned Lord who had just sat down seemed to think that Dissenters would always be Dissenters, and that occasional conformity had gone completely out of fashion. His own experience, however, did not tend to confirm the justice of that view, and he might add that one of his main objections to the continuance of the church rate was that occasional conformity was thereby rendered less common than would, under other circumstances, be the case. It was not for the interest of the Church that a broad line of demarcation should be drawn between Churchmen and Dissenters. He could not see that there
  812
  would be any danger of churches being neglected by the abolition of these rates. In many large towns where they were abolished—the churches were not only maintained, but built by voluntary subscriptions; and in many of the rural parishes the land was owned by one or two proprietors who would always have influence enough to raise voluntary subscriptions for the repair of the fabrics. In some rural parishes there might, perhaps, be a difficulty in finding money for that purpose, but there was an equal difficulty now; and where an ancient structure had fallen into ruin, either from the poverty of the parish or because it was too large for the wants of the parish, it was not by levying a church rate that it was repaired, but by the success of some zealous clergyman in raising voluntary subscriptions from the public at large. As the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had clearly shown, all the compromises which had been proposed were entirely inapplicable. He hoped their Lordships, therefore, would take a large view of this question and not look merely to the petty sum now produced by these rates. By putting confidence in the voluntary principle and abolishing this obnoxious impost at once, they would attain an end which was of even greater importance than the sustentation of the material fabric of the Church, for they would do more than by any other measure to strengthen the Church in the affections of the people.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid; that this question was now in a very extraordinary position; he had listened with very great attention to the discussion, and it appeared to him that the main topic which ran through the speech of the noble Lord (Lord St. Leonards) was nothing else than a plea ad misericordiam for Dissenters, while, on the other hand, the main argument on which the noble Duke who had moved the second reading of the Bill was upon the ground that it was unjust to tax Dissenters for the maintenance of the Established Church, and of tenets and opinions in which they did not concur; and the remedy he proposed for that was the introduction of a Bill which proposed to abolish church rates altogether. A cry was raised that a certain class of our fellow-subjects ought to be exempted from an impost that was obnoxious to their feelings and Contrary to their inclinations; and then, for the purpose of relieving them, it was proposed to sweep away the impost altogether, to exonerate a large class of persons and

  813
  a widely-extended sphere of property, including a vast number of persons who had never raised the slightest objection to it. He did not think that their Lordships' House, amongst whose high functions were comprised the remedy of evils and abuses, should be called to adopt a mode of redressing a grievance so unprecedented as this. He could not but think it a most extraordinary thing that the other branch of the Legislature should have passed a measure, not only doing that which was necessary to accomplish the object, but going even further. They had been told that they should be careful lest the question of church rates should become one of the Established Church; but it had already assumed that phase. If their Lordships were to pass a measure for the abolition of church rates, it would be nothing more nor less than to give a successful commencement to an attempt which had long been made with greater and greater pertinacity and encouragement of hopes of success on the part of those whose main object was to promote the separation of Church and State, and to place the Church on the same voluntary basis of support on which the Dissenting communities of this kingdom now stood. He would illustrate this by certain proceedings at a meeting of the "Liberation of Religion Society," on the 5th of May last, at the Milton Club, as given in their organ, the Liberator. The presentation of the report of that Society was followed by the remarks, among others, of a Mr. Robinson, of Bristol, who, having inquired
  "Whether, in the event of Parliament proposing to abolish church rates, on the agreement that the fabrics should be kept up out of the funds now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Society would assent?"
  was answered by Mr. Miall that—
  "In his judgment the Society might consistently do so. Such a change of the law would extinguish the taxing power of the Establishment, and dry up one of its sources of revenue, while the Ecclesiastical revenues applied to the purposes for which church rates are now levied would still be national property, and be capable of appropriation to secular purposes at a future time. As yet the Society could not secure such an appropriation, but in the meantime it was a gain if the application of the Ecclesiastical funds was so altered as to remove the burdens now imposed on the Nonconformist body."
  And that this was not the language alone of the Society in question, he would produce to the House a declaration of the policy of the Dissenters, as it appeared in their
  814
  organ, the Nonconformist, more than a year ago:—
  "Of course we do not expect that our convictions on this matter can be safely thrust into a programme of policy. But, as we said before, a fundamental truth or two, stopping short of our ultimate aim, and yet broad enough to answer present need, will be found an indispensable feature of any manifesto which is designed to serve as a banner to the radical party, and as a source of inspiration and a bond of union to its members. They will never gain either unity, discipline, or courage, until they can dare to face the greatest anomaly of the age—the Established Church. It is the only remaining enterprise capable of inspiring enthusiasm. The policy which ignores that is but the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out."
  These were the sentiments of a numerous and influential party, which exercised considerable influence in the House of Commons, and who were likely to increase still more after the passing of another Reform Bill, to which the noble Duke appeared to look forward with considerable apprehension. The real question for their Lordships' consideration was this—Was the Church of England to be placed upon a voluntary basis? He was surprised to hear the remarks which fell from the noble Duke as to the feelings and sentiments which he assumed to pervade the Committee of their Lordships' House that was now sitting to consider the question of spiritual destitution. He (the Duke of Marlborough) was a member of that Committee, and it was certainly true, as the noble Duke had stated, that the general feeling of the Committee was, that a large portion of those funds which were necessary to meet the increasing spiritual necessities of the country must come from voluntary sources. But the funds which were expected from that quarter were for purposes of a permanent character, such as for the building of churches—expenses that would not occur again—and for these it was thought that an appeal might he made for voluntary aid. But with regard to those expenses that were temporary and transient, and continually recurring, voluntary efforts were clearly inappropriate; for them recourse must be had to an assessment that was fixed and constantly to be depended on. Let them consider what were the real rights of the question. He would not go into the question which had been argued with se much force by the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards), whether or not church rates formed a legal liability upon property. He admitted there was

  815
  difference between tithes and church rates—upon a permanent impost like tithes, and a rate which might be imposed or not by the action of a majority,—they could not be said to be precisely in the same position. He would also ask their Lordships to consider that the Dissenters had rights with regard to the Establishment, and which they could enforce by law. They had the right to call upon the clergyman to perform for him the offices of religion, and the clergyman was mulcted in heavy penalties if he refused. They had a right to sepulture in the churchyard, and this right they often enforced. As was so eloquently expressed by a right hon. Gentleman in "another place" (Sir James Graham), "At the time of death the voice of Nature cries 'let my bones lie beside his bones.'" Another right which was used by those very Dissenters who refused to contribute to the expenses of the Church, would strike their Lordships as extraordinary. He held in his hand a letter from a clergyman in a populous town, which stated that every householder in his parish claimed, but without any legal right, the possession of a pew; but their pews were let by Dissenters for considerable sums—from £1 to £3 per annum; and yet the same parties refused a church rate for the maintenance of Divine service. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the opposition to church rates had not, in all cases, arisen from Dissenters, but sometimes from members of the Established Church. Churchmen themselves had in former times great reason to complain of their operation, as in those cases where an outlying district from a parish church was erected into a separate parish; but the inhabitants of that district were, until a recent period, still required to pay rates for the mother church. He quoted from the evidence of the vicar of Stoke-upon-Trent, given before the Commission for the subdivision of parishes, that he was unable to levy a rate in his parish, not from the opposition of his parishioners properly so called, but because the inhabitants of some outlying districts, which had chapels of their own, would have to pay to the mother church, while their own chapels would receive no benefit. An Act was lately passed, chiefly through his (the Duke of Marlborough's) instrumentality, which exonerated these new parishes from rates from the mother church, and applied the rates of each district to its own chapel; and he was happy to find that in this very
  816
  district not only did the parishioners of Stoke now raise a rate for the mother church without opposition, but the inhabitants of these outlying districts, without hesitation, raised a rate for their own purposes. These circumstances made him feel that it was unadvisable to rush to a hasty conclusion, for he thought causes were in operation that would diminish the opposition to church rates. This question was not new to their Lordships. The matter had already come before them in their judicial capacity, and nothing could be fairer to all parties than the position in which their decision had placed it. That the question should be decided by a majority in the parish was in accordance with all the constitutional maxims of the country, and he believed that the effect of this decision, by leaving the matter to the vote of the majority, would be to popularise church rates. No doubt here and there the rate met with opposition; but he believed the noble Duke had greatly exaggerated the agitation to which the question gave rise. There had been church-rate contests in his own neighbourhood; but when they were brought to a close little or nothing more was heard of them. Even where the rate was carried, and the churchwardens proceeded to collect the rate, if a few refractory individuals were met with, it was found better to pass them over than to incur the trouble, expense, and of putting their case into the Ecclesiastical Court. He strongly condemned the proposition made by the late Government to extinguish church rates wherever the rate had been refused for years in succession, and characterised the scheme as a premium on agitation. He thought the advantage of the present scheme was this—that even after the rates had been refused for years a change of circumstances might occur, a more popular clergyman might be appointed, or one with more tact and wisdom than his predecessor, and under his auspices the collection of the rates might be resumed. But by the proposition of the late Government, the parishioners were agitated by being told that if they persevered in refusing the rate for five years the impost would be abolished altogether. He for one was quite willing to exonerate Dissenters, and that without branding them as Dissenters. As the noble and learned Lord had stated, he thought it would be quite enough that a man should come forward and state that he contributed to the support of some other church

  817
  or chapel, and that that should constitute his exoneration from the payment of the church rates. To this he would be disposed to add that such a person should not vote in vestry upon the levying or distribution of the rates, or for the election of churchwardens. In fact, he would introduce into the vestry the rule which obtained in every other assembly, that a man should not vote who did not pay rates. The reason why this plan of exemption had so often before failed was this, that it was usually coupled with exclusions which amounted to a virtual excommunication from the Church, to which he did not wonder that Dissenters objected. He trusted that the time was not distant when some reasonable and satisfactory arrangement of this question would be come to; but he trusted that their Lordships would always be resolved to maintain intact and inviolate the rights of the Established Church.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the noble Duke who had just sat down said, he feared this question was one which already affected the stability of the Established Church. He (the Duke of Newcastle) was happy to say he differed entirely from his noble Friend; but if he had unfortunately arrived at the same conclusions as his noble Friend, he should indeed tremble for the Established Church. However, so far from concurring with him in that part of his speech which was founded upon quotations made from what passed at some meeting intended to show that the opposition to the church rates had its origin in a spirit of hostility to the Established Church, he (the Duke of Newcastle) felt confident that a very large proportion of Dissenters who objected to the payment of church rates were not hostile to the maintenance of the Established Church. He thought the noble Duke had, in the course of his own speech, given the strongest possible reasons for believing in the impossibility of maintaining church rates, for though the whole of his speech was directed to the maintenance of a compulsory rate, he yet maintained the policy and propriety of preserving a difference between town and country; and he even went so far as to say that in places where a church rate was levied, and every man was liable to payment of the rate, those who objected should be allowed particular exemption, and should not be cited before the Ecclesiastical Courts, and made to pay. It was clear, therefore, that the noble
  818
  Duke himself had no confidence in the preservation of church rates as at present constituted. Exaggerated arguments were maintained equally on one side of the question as on the other. On the one hand, the question was treated by many—as, for instance, by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), who had introduced the measure in a most powerful and able speech—as a question of religious liberty; on the other hand, the Bill was opposed by others who believed it to be a violation of the law of property. He (the Duke of Newcastle) could not believe that it was a question of religious liberty. Last night he had voted in favour of a measure he had uniformly supported, because he believed that the spirit and principles of their present system of toleration was in favour of every man enjoying the same civil rights: but he could not agree that that principle could be applied to the measure then before the House. In his opinion no man had a right to refuse payment of taxes on religious grounds; and the Dissenter had no more right to refuse to pay a church rate, legally imposed, than a Quaker had to refuse to pay a tax levied for the maintenance of a war to which he might be conscientiously and religiously opposed. But if this were not a question of religious liberty, it was a question which strongly interested the feelings of a large portion of the community, which their Lordships were disposed to respect. It might not be a question of right and justice, but it was a question of policy and wisdom, and upon these grounds it ought to be considered. It was in some respects a double question; first they had to settle the point whether they would maintain the present system of church rates; and secondly, if they maintained them, whether they would compel Dissenters to pay them. As regarded the second point, all seemed to be agreed that in some shape or other Dissenters were to be exempted from the payment of church rates. But how far his noble Friend could maintain the absolute exemption of Dissenters from church rates, and yet say that church rates stood on the same footing as other kinds of property, he (the Duke of Newcastle) could not understand. The two doctrines were irreconcilable. It was said that if they abolished church rates, tithes must follow; but that was pursuing a line of argument which he could not understand. How could he call that his property which any noble Friend had a right to give or withdraw at his option? How

  819
  could that be property in the Church which it was equally in the power of vestries to give one year, and to withhold the next? He maintained that there was a wide distinction between church rates and tithes. He now came to the question in which they found themselves, in reference to the Bill before the House. His noble Friend, who moved the second reading (the Duke of Somerset) seemed to feel that this was not quite the measure to satisfy himself or the House, and therefore he said he hoped the operation of it would be suspended for two or three years, if it should be read a second time. Now, he (the Duke of Newcastle) could see no good in such a proposition. No good could accrue to the Church by any such suspension; but, on the contrary, it would not be a compromise, it would create further difficulties, and would increase the irritation that already prevailed. It was not a fair way of dealing with the question, and some other measures providing some substitute for the church rates were necessary to be passed before, or at least concurrently with, this measure. If this Bill had come up to their Lordships two months ago, and there had been time to refer it to a Select Committee, he, for one, would have consented to vote for the second reading; but believing that it would be a delusion to suppose that it could become law in this Session, any attempt to pass the Bill this Session would only complicate matters, and therefore, he should not vote for the second reading. But, in consenting to vote against it, he hoped it would be one of the first questions which would be taken up by the Government at the earliest period in the next Session of Parliament; and, moreover, that it would be introduced in their Lordships' House. The question had been discussed over and over again in the House of Commons, and, though necessarily some irritation had been created, there was so much that was conciliatory in the speeches even of many of those who might be regarded as opposed to the Church, that he had the highest hopes of an arrangement being come to which would be satisfactory to all parties. He would briefly refer to some of the propositions that had been made for settling this question. In 1834, it was proposed to throw a portion of the church rates on the Consolidated Fund; but that was not a scheme that ever would be accepted by the country. As regarded the substitute of pew rents, he agreed with the noble Duke who spoke last that that was a most objectionable one. It would
  820
  act most unfairly on the poor; in the rural parishes it would be intolerable under any circumstances, and it would be, in his mind, a violation of the principle on which the Established Church was founded. As regarded anything like a registration of Dissenters, he knew that was proposed some few years ago with the best possible spirit; but he rejoiced that it was not adopted, as well in the interest of the Established Church as of the Dissenters; because he believed if they once imposed on a Dissenter the necessity of writing down his name as a Dissenter, from that time it would become a matter of honourable pride with him no longer to frequent the church or participate in its ordinances, and thus the breach already existing between the Church and the Dissenting body Would be widened; whereas he (the Duke of Newcastle) looked forward to the day when many of the Dissenters, now separated from the Church of England by comparatively slight differences of opinion, would be brought back to the fold. As to maintaining church rates in rural parishes and abandoning them in towns, that, he thought, was an impracticable and unstatesmanlike suggestion. What their Lordships wanted to do was to get rid of the heart-burning to which church rates had long given rise; but by abolishing church rates in towns and maintaining them in rural parishes they would be continuing the grievance in many parishes—for instance, those in Wales—where it had been especially felt all along. He now came to the proposition for permitting a charge to be imposed on the land by a relaxation of the laws of mortmain. He could not imagine that any man's title to his estate would be so complicated as the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonard's) had said it would by a proposition of that kind, and he, for one, looked to it as one way of providing a fund which would be, to same extent, an equivalent for the system of compulsory church rates. He had every confidence in the voluntary principle, and that not merely because it had been found successful in those cases where church rates had been refused, but also because there was a better understanding and feeling in many provincial towns on the subject. But it was in the rural districts where, if they abolished church rates, the greatest difficulty would be experienced in providing a substitute. He would be perfectly ready to abandon them in towns, because he knew the Church would not there suffer from

  821
  their abolition; but in the rural parishes the case was different, and there, he repeated, the difficulty would be found of finding a substitute. He looked at this measure more in the light of an abstract proposition that church rates should be abolished than as a practical measure for providing a substitute for them, and it was for that reason, and that reason only, that he should vote against the second reading of this Bill. He entirely disbelieved that, as had been stated by his noble Friend (the Duke of Marlborough), the agitation for the abolition of church rates was an agitation for the abolition of the Church of England. He believed that those who supported the abolition of church rates looked on it, not as a stepping—stone to the abolition of the Church of England, but as a grievance from which they desired to be relieved; and he was confident that it was the interest, as he believed it to be the duty of the Church of England to meet them and endeavour to effect a settlement of this long-pending dispute.
  LORD WENSLEYDALErose to be speak the attention of their Lordships, for only a few minutes, whilst he stated his strong objection to the measure proposed by the noble Duke, the total abolition of church rates. It had been suggested tonight, and on other occasions, that some other measure might be adopted, to provide for the support of churches. He thought it possible that some provision might be made that the repairs of the fabric of the church might be charged on all the owners of the lands in the parish—leaving the congregation who frequented the church to provide the sacramental elements and all other things necessary for Divine service. The repairs to be from time to time made and the charge for them imposed by an equal rate; not by the churchwardens, for they might be Dissenters, and possibly leave the church unrepaired, or, on the contrary, might be members of the Church of England, who had a taste for expensive renovations. Perhaps some body of elected ratepayers, analogous to the Board of Poor Law Guardians, might have the power safely delegated to them. But the measure proposed by the noble Duke would entirely put a step to every chance of a compromise. Whether the abolition was immediate or suspended till the end of two, five, or seven years, as suggested by the noble Duke, what possible hope was there that the House of Commons would ever con-
  822
  sent to an intermediate measure? It is entirely out of the question. Not so, if the law remains unrepealed, and an opportunity be thus given to devise some reasonable plan for effecting this object. The noble Lord said, that it was highly desirable that their Lordships should clearly understand what the existing law was. I have necessarily, said his Lordship, paid to this subject the greatest attention, having had, as a Judge, the duty of giving my opinion in all the several cases which have occupied the Courts for several years past, with respect to the Braintree church rate. I assisted as a Judge in the Court of Exchequer Chamber when it was decided, on a writ of error from the Court of King's Bench, that the churchwardens had no power to make it, if the vestry would not; and again, when that Court of Error held, by a majority, that a minority of the vestry could make it, if the major part refused to do so; and lastly, when this House asked the opinion of the Judges, and finally reversed that decision. On the argument of the first of these cases, I sat with my late lamented Friend, Lord Chief Justice Tindal, who delivered the opinion of the Court, and laid down and explained the whole of this branch of law in the clearest and most satisfactory manner. I may take upon myself, therefore, to state with perfect confidence what that law is. With all deference and respect to my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord St. Leonards), he is not perfectly accurate in stating that at common law every man's estate is subject to the burden of church rates, though, practically, from very early times it has been so: but that remark induced a noble Friend of mine, who spoke after him (Lord Wodehouse), to state that the burden of church rates was not imposed by the common law, but by the voluntary act of the vestry. My Lords, it was undoubtedly a mistake of my noble Friend. In the full and satisfactory judgment to which I have referred it was distinctly laid down that there was at common law not an option but an absolute and binding legal duty on every parish to repair its church; and no Judge, in the course of the long discussions which have taken place in these late years, has even intimated a doubt on this subject. This legal obligation is analogous to that of parishes to repair all highways within their limits, save such as individuals are bound to repair ratione tenurœ, or a township by custom, or others

  823
  specially exempt. It is analogous to that of counties who are bound to repair bridges, with similar exceptions, and the mode of performing this duty, in every one of these three cases was the same. The inhabitants of the district so liable were to meet, and by common consent make a bye-law, which, when reasonable, was binding on all. It might be, in early times, by providing that the repairs were to be made by one contributing carts or horses or materials, or personal labour, so that the burden of repairing a road or bridge should be equally distributed. So in the repair of churches, a like bye-law might be made; and instances are to be found in the old books of special provisions of the same nature, but for many centuries the only mode adopted at the vestry meetings, because the only mode now practicable, is by an equal pecuniary rate, With respect to roads and bridges, the mode of performing the common law obligation by parishes and counties, has, from the more frequent occurrence of the necessity, been regulated by the statute law. But, as to churches, the common law liability, in almost all cases, continues. In all cases of roads and bridges, if the common law obligation to make repairs was disregarded, the remedy was by indicting the inhabitants for a misdemeanor, and in imposing an adequate fine on them to secure the repairs. But in the case of a parish not performing its duty in repairing the church, no indictment was maintainable—an interdict was the remedy, which, before the Reformation, was all powerful; but after that event, as is pointed out in a pamphlet published some years ago on the question of church rates by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, this remedy became idle and useless, In the time of Lord Kenyon, an attempt was made to enforce the making of a church rate by mandamus; but it was held, and it must now be considered, that the non-repair of churches is not only matter of ecclesiastical cognizance, but exclusively so; and the Court of King's Bench has no power to enforce the obligation by mandamus, unless the rates have been pledged for money borrowed by virtue of an Act of Parliament, in which case that Court will enforce the payment of the rate by applying that remedy. If it had been decided that the repairs of the church could be enforced by the common law remedies, I believe that the payment of this rate would have been regularly made, and we should
  824
  not have had those disputes which unfortunately in late times so extensively prevailed. But, my Lords, notwithstanding the want of these means of enforcing the performance of the undoubted legal obligations, attaching to every parish, it is not to be assumed that there is no remedy. The Ecclesiastical Court will proceed to punish those who are contumacious, in refusing to concur in making a church rate. Upon a clear case presented to the Court, showing that the party complained against totally refuses to perform his duty, the offender may be punished by writ de contumace capiendo, and imprisoned for six months; and there are instances of the exercise of such jurisdiction since these disputes began, and within a very few years. But this remedy is expensive, and beset with difficulties; and how can it be effectual where in some populous parishes five or ten thousand would have to be proceeded against? Practically, therefore, the legal obligation, though undoubtedly existing, may be said to be more capable of being enforced; but still every one ought to obey the law, and is not morally excused from obedience by the chance of impunity, any more than a person would, who should commit a more serious crime, when he knew it would be easy to escape punishment. It has happened on more than one occasion that I have had to attend meetings convened for the purpose of raising a church rate, where I reside in the country; they were attended by some very respectable Dissenters; a few objected to church rates, as contrary to Scripture; others, who did not feel that objection, yielded to the argument that there was a legal obligation, and that they ought to obey the law, though there was a difficulty in punishing the offence of disobedience. I cannot help thinking, that if it was generally well understood, that there is an absolute legal duty to contribute to repair the church; and that there is not, as a great many suppose, a mere voluntary power by law which the vestry may perform or decline, at their discretion, to provide for the repair of the church, there would not be the difficulty which in many places, unfortunately, occurs.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords—I confess I looked with some anxiety and some curiosity to see which of your Lordships would have the courage to press upon our acceptance a Bill the effect of which would be to deprive the Church of England of a large amount of property to which she is entitled—not by virtue of any

  825
  law, but by a prescription older than any law, dating from the earliest history of the Church in this country—and to prevent a majority of the inhabitants of any parish from rating themselves for the purpose of a great national as well as personal object, and to make the Church of England, as far as regards the maintenance of its fabric and the support of its worship, entirely dependent upon the voluntary principle. My Lords, I must confess the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) exhibited as much ability as courage in undertaking the hopeless task—for hopeless I trust and confidently believe it will be—of seeking to induce your Lordships (although, unfortunately, the other House has been induced partly to sanction it) to deprive, without compensation and without equivalent, the Church of England of that which I believe to be essential to her maintenance, and which is unquestionably one of her most indisputable rights. Upon what principle or plea does this Bill proceed? The preamble states that,
  "Whereas church rates have for some years ceased to be made or collected in many parishes by reason of opposition, and in many other parishes the levying thereof has created litigation and ill-feeling."
  What then?—
  "Therefore be it enacted that in the vast majority of parishes where there has been neither resistance, nor opposition, nor ill-feeling, but, on the contrary, a general readiness to pay rates, it shall not be lawful for the inhabitants in vestry assembled to discharge that which by law is a solemn duty and obligation upon them."
  It was said, I think by the noble Duke who spoke last but one (the Duke of Newcastle), that there was a broad distinction between the question of church rates and that of tithes, inasmuch as the former was a voluntary, while the latter was a compulsory payment. For my own part, however, I can see, so far as the principle involved is concerned, no distinction whatever between both those charges—with the exception, perhaps, that the church rate is fluctuating in amount while the amount of the tithe is fixed, and that the latter is recoverable by means of any easy legal process, while there is considerable difficulty in enforcing the payment of the latter. It is quite true as had been stated by the noble and learned Lord who has just addressed the House, that although practically speaking church rates do not constitute a direct tax upon land, yet that their payment involves a personal obligation in the case of every inhabitant of a parish,
  826
  which obligation can be enforced only by having recourse to the means which a person may happen to possess in the parish; in other words, to the land of which he is the occupier. The rate is, therefore, to all intents and purposes, as much as the poor rate or any other rate, or as tithe itself, a charge upon property. It is, moreover, a charge which when one buys or sells property always enters into the question of the value at which it is to be estimated. My noble Friend behind me stated a case in which some generations ago a member of his family purchased the tithes of a particular parish. Those tithes were estimated at a certain amount, and he obtained them at a lower price than he otherwise would, because, in virtue of his becoming proprietor of those tithes, and therefore the lay rector of the parish, he would have to defray the expenses connected with the repairs of the chancel of the Church. Now, let me suppose that my noble Friend's ancestor had paid a sum of £2,000 less than their real value for those tithes, in consideration of his having to devote a sum of £100 per annum to the maintenance of the chancel, and that, being a Dissenter, he should, after the bargain had been concluded, turn round and say, "To keep up this chancel would be to act in opposition to my conscientious feelings. True, I have purchased those tithes for a sum lower than the estimated amount because I undertook this obligation, but I beg to be excused for adhering to the terms of our bargain, because I do not happen to be a Member of the Church of England." What, I ask, would your Lordships say to conduct such as that? Would such a plea be listened to either upon the principles of law or morality for a single instant? Church-rates, then, I contend—a charge though it may be fluctuating in amount, yet capable of being estimated by striking certain averages—one a distinctly recognized charge, which the Church of England has a right to receive upon the one hand, and which every landlord throughout the country is bound to pay upon the other, as a debt upon his estate from the liquidation of which he must not hope to escape upon the plea of conscience. For my own part I must confess that, while disposed to look with the utmost indulgence upon the claims of Dissenters in relation to this as well as to other questions, I am nevertheless inclined to look with very great suspicion upon those conscientious scruples,

  827
  the result of yielding to which would be to effect a saving of money in the case of those by whom they are put forward.
  My Lords, it is nevertheless a matter which admits of no doubt that the circumstances in which the Church stands to the great body of the people have undergone considerable alteration since the period—if, indeed, the period can be fixed—at which church rates were originally instituted. In the early days of our history the parochial system was in itself complete and entire. All the persons in a parish being of the same religious persuasion, every inhabitant was by ecclesiastical authority, which was then all powerful, obliged to contribute to the due performance of Divine service and to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church of which he was of necessity, a member. Unfortunately the increase of the population in many parts of the country has greatly out-grown the parochial system and the parish churches have become in many instances inadequate to the accommodation even of that portion of the community who may be considered as desirous of frequenting them. This inability of the Church to receive those who might otherwise be drawn to her has no doubt been one of the great causes of the propagation of dissent. Then, again, partly out of consideration for the feelings of Dissenters, and partly influenced by other motives, the course of our recent legislation has tended very much to break through that bond of union which, in accordance with that system to which I have adverted, subsisted between the Church in each parish and its inhabitants in earlier times. The Church in its original intention was connected with every individual in the parish, not only for the purposes of weekly or daily worship, but for the celebration of the three most important events which are bound up with human existence. In the parochial church every individual received the rites of baptism. Under its sanction he entered into the solemn obligations of married life. Within it he received, or was entitled to receive, the rites of sepulture according to the service of the Church of England. As dissent, however, has increased, and the population of the country has outgrown the means of religions worship afforded by the Church, recent legislation has tended to diminish the closeness of that connection in relation to all those ties which formerly prevailed. We have recognized the scruples of Dissenters, and have admitted the celebration of the
  828
  rites both of marriage and of baptism to take place in places of worship other than the Church, provided they be duly licensed for that purpose. We have partly upon sanitary grounds, partly from other considerations, constructed cemeteries and public burial-grounds, apart from the grave-yards attached to the parish churches, thereby removing one of the closest and most sacred of these bonds which bound the population of a particular locality to the parish church. I do not mean to say, my Lords, that each and all of those changes might not have been called for by the interests of the community—that remark I should especially apply to the case of constructing new cemeteries, a measure which sanitary considerations render essential, more particularly in large and populous towns. But while I make this admission, the fact remains undisturbed, that the operation of recent legislation tends to dissociate the bulk of the members of the community from their respective parishes, and, as a consequence, to render them disinclined to contribute to the support of the Church. I am, my Lords, very far indeed from saying that I look upon the law relating to church rates as being at the present moment in a satisfactory state. I must at the same time observe that the right of the Church to receive those rates and the obligation of the parishioners to pay them, in my opinion, admits of no question. That being so, it would, I cannot help thinking, be an act of gross injustice by a single sentence in an Act of Parliament, without equivalent and without compensation, to deprive the Church on the one hand of its rights, and to exempt the parishioner from his obligation upon the other. I have said, however, that I do not think the question of the payment of church rates is in a satisfactory position. There are two classes of difficulties by which it is surrounded. The one involves the the ill-feeling with which payment of church rates is attended, and the legal obstructions which stand in the way of levying the tax when it is proposed. The other class comprises the still more serious question of how those parishes are to be dealt with in which the majority of the vestry is unwilling to impose a church rate. In the latter case no practical remedy can be provided, no rate can be enforced; but does not that fact, I would ask, considerably weaken the case of those who advocate the abolition of church rates, inasmuch as the tax does not depend upon an arbitrary levy to be paid by all the

  829
  inhabitants of a parish, but upon the voluntary choice of the majority, who assess themselves? If their Lordships were to sanction the principle that no individual should be subject to any charge of which he himself did not happen to approve—if you were to say that no majority is to have the power of imposing any pecuniary obligation on the minority—you strike at the root of the whole system of taxation of this country. Within certain limits and for certain purposes of importance the majority as to taxation must have the power of binding the minority, and I have not heard any one—not even the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset)—contend that the maintenance of the fabric of the church and the celebration of Divine worship are not objects of paramount national importance, and that it is not necessary to raise at regular and stated periods sums of money for the purposes to which church rates are at present applied. On the contrary, he frankly admits that, but he says that these objects may safely be entrusted to the voluntary principle. The noble Duke went on to enforce his views by referring to what took place in Scotland upon the disruption of the National Church there, and in London, when, upon the earnest remonstrance of the late Bishop of London, a great effort was made for the increase of church accommodation here. I have a great respect, my Lords, for the voluntary principle. I would trust to it willingly for any sudden and immediate effort which the wants of a particular district might call for; but I have not at all the same confidence in that system when the object to be achieved is one which will require regular and steady funds, year after year, to the amount required for the maintenance of our churches. I am sure that all those who have had to deal with public subscriptions, either for the building of a church, the establishment of a hospital, or any object of that sort, will bear me out in saying that, while there is comparatively little difficulty in obtaining large sums for an immediate and pressing object, there is the greatest difficulty in keeping up a steady list of subscriptions. If a great effort is to be made under a great stimulus, such as arose from the jealousies caused by the disruption of the Church of Scotland, and the eagerness of the Free Church to place itself at once on a level with the Church of Scotland, and to provide kirks and manses for their clergy; or such as that which took place when the late Bishop of London raised
  830
  great subscriptions for building a large number of new churches in London, the voluntary principle may be fairly relied on; but you cannot trust to it with the same confidence for the purpose of maintaining steadily, year after year, an object which you may have had little difficulty at first in setting on foot. No one contends that there is in itself any injustice in calling upon any one to discharge the obligation into which he entered when he inherited or bought his property, particularly when there is this further security—that he cannot be called on to discharge it unless by the decision of a majority of those parishioners who, equally with himself, are interested in maintaining the church. The case of Dissenters has been put prominently forward in support of this Bill. I am quite ready to admit that in this crusade against church rates there are not only many members of the Church of England combined with the Dissenters, but also many Dissenters who are not influenced by any feelings of hostility to the Church so much as by an hostility to an impost which they look upon as a grievance. Nevertheless, I cannot conceal my firm conviction that a large proportion of those who are carrying on this agitation against church rates are doing it from a political-religious principle, and for the purpose of shaking the power and influence of that Church to which, as Dissenters, they are opposed. I know that there are many Dissenters who are not only not hostile to the Church, but who would be sorry to see her weakened; and, on the other hand, I know there are large masses of political Dissenters, the leaders in this crusade, who are animated by a spirit of the most deadly hostility to her, and who, relying on the support of conscientious Dissenters and honest but deceived Churchmen, are endeavouring, under the pretext of getting rid of an obnoxious impost, to lower and despoil the Church, and to compel her to rely on the voluntary principle only. As I said before, I conceive that the payment of church rates has always been a matter of positive obligation, to be measured by a pecuniary sum, which was inherited or acquired with the property which any man possesses, and I cannot, in point of principle, concur with those who contend that a Dissenter, as a Dissenter, has a right to be relieved from it. No doubt it may be annoying—no doubt it is—to have to contribute to an object from which one conceives he derives no personal benefit, or to

  831
  which one may be personally opposed; but it is an annoyance to which a great many other persons besides Dissenters have to submit. To use a personal illustration—at this moment I pay tithes to a Roman Catholic—on a portion of my own property the great tithes are owned by a Roman Catholic; but what would be said if I were to declare that I had conscientious scruples against paying tithes to a Roman Catholic, and should therefore refuse to discharge my legal obligation to him? The result would be, that I should put the tithe into my own pocket; and, under the pretext of preserving my own conscientious scruples, I should reap the benefit in my pecuniary interests. But what is the difference in principle between the two? None at all: but the tithe can be by law enforced against me, and the church rate cannot be practically enforced against the Dissenter. I admit, though not as a question of strict right, that I should be willing to stretch a point, and if possible to come to some arrangement which would relieve the honest, conscientious Dissenters, who pay for the maintenance of their own places of worship, and who, though they do not sit in our parish churches are compelled to contribute to their maintenance, from the obligation of contributing to church rates. But, then, surely, I may ask for some equivalent. I may ask, in the first place, that the person who claims that exemption should claim it on the ground that he desires no benefit from the services of the Church, to whose support they refuse to contribute. But then you turn round and say, "Oh, that is what is called 'ticketing' the Dissenter—it is obnoxious to the Dissenter and prejudicial to the Church." But if The Dissenter claims exemption as a Dissenter, how can I possibly give him that exemption except he proclaims himself to be such? He must either have exemption because he is a Dissenter, or he has no ground whatever in point of conscience to stand on. If every person were exempted from payment of church rates on the simple ground of entertaining conscientious objections to them, I am afraid that the list of the exempted would be very much extended, and that it would include many who had no possible claim to exemption. Again, if Dissenters are exempted, have we not a right to require that they should cease to have any voice in levying the rate—that they should forego any claim upon the services of the Church, and that they should have no voice in the election of
  832
  churchwardens? And how are we to give Dissenters the exemption on the one hand, or subject them to these restrictions on the other, unless they put forward their claims? My Lords, it appears to me that the question has now gone through the process of exhaustion. The noble Duke has gone through every proposition connected with the law on this subject from the most distant day, and has shown that, conclusively to his own mind, there are serious, if not insuperable, objections to each of them. He has put aside payment out of the Consolidated Fund; he has put aside the question of the Land Tax, which, in point of fact, is the same thing; and he has put aside calling on Dissenters to claim exemption as Dissenters from the legal and legitimate payment of a legal obligation on their property. I have heard it suggested that there should be levied in every parish not a church rate, but a worship rate, to be applied according to the option of each person to any place of worship within the parish. To that proposition there are objections of a various and conflicting kind. There is naturally, on the part of members of the Church, an objection to become contributories to places of worship different from their own, and which they are not under any legal obligation to maintain. But there is also the objection raised against this proposition, which I should have thought would be most unobjectionable to Dissenters—that there is a class of Dissenters who object to any compulsory payment at all, and who consequently would as strenuously resist levying a rate for the maintenance of their own as of any other place of worship. Because they desire to rely upon the voluntary principle they repudiate any notion of a general rate, to be levied on the land of the country to maintain all descriptions of religious worship within the district, according to the wish of the person subscribing. No doubt, the objection may be raised on the part of the Church of England, that it is placing it on a level with any other sect and denomination—a position they would not willingly take up, and one not very consistent with the position of an Established Church. Such, however, is the principle which prevails in many parts of the United States of America, and I believe no difficulty arises in regard to it. A worship rate is levied, and every person is at perfect liberty to say to what denomination he desires his quota, which he is compelled to contribute, to be applied. In

  833
  this country, however, those who advocate the voluntary principle would refuse to levy any rate, even though it were impartially and indiscriminately raised.
  My Lords, in the speech with which the noble Duke opened this discussion, after supporting the principle of absolute and Unrestricted abolition, he somewhat surprised me, first by a proposition that the operation of the Bill should be postponed for a period of four or five years, which I think is more objectionable than the Bill itself; and in the next place by a proposition that a charge should be voluntarily levied upon land equivalent to the amount of church rates. Undoubtedly, if the noble Duke were able to carry a proposition that there should be a fund levied in the first instance by voluntary subscription of charges on estates, equivalent to the average amount of the existing church rates, it would require the most serious consideration of your Lordships and of the other House of Parliament. But such a proposition is wholly at variance with the object of the present Bill; and, moreover, if the noble Duke ever looks forward to such a result, the surest and most certain mode of defeating it is by passing the present Bill, which abolishes unconditionally the existing payment. According to the proposition which the noble Duke makes, we should really be recurring in a short time to the same difficulties under which we at present labour. The noble Duke proposes that we should have power to charge a certain portion of our estates with a certain amount of money for the payment of church rates in each parish or district. Be it so. But supposing that the noble Duke or I were to sell that portion of our estates, and the person who purchased were a Dissenter, we should come back to precisely the same position in which we now are. We should come back to it, I grant, with this advantage, that it would be a fixed and positive charge, and there would be no possibility of a refractory vestry refusing to levy the amount, because, being a charge upon property, it would require no interposition of a vestry, and could be enforced by law. I do not say that the difficulties could not be overcome. On the contrary, I think if there be a mode in which it is possible to come to a practical solution of this question, the only mode in which I can conceive it is to be looked for is in some such proposition as that shadowed out by the noble Duke, but extended and carried further than the noble Duke proposes; that is the only mode
  834
  which I can see—namely, by voluntary action, in the first instance, imposing a permanent liability, and not trusting to the permanent operation of the voluntary principle. Every other proposal that I know of has been already refuted in the course of this discussion. The supply from the Consolidated Fund, the exemption of Dissenters on their declaring themselves to be Dissenters, the levy of a general rate for the services of all religious denominations—all these have been brought forward and refuted and summarily repudiated. I confess that, anxious as I am—and I ant most anxious—to see the present law put upon a different footing and made more satisfactory both to those who have to receive and those who have to pay, I am too sensible of the difficulties which surround this question to venture to give to your Lordships any distinct or decided pledge that I will undertake to produce a measure upon a subject which has baffled some of the ablest statesmen. It is a question which must be approached with the greatest caution and deliberation. It is a question, moreover, in which some advances must be made both on one side and the other, and before we proceed to offer some suggestions for a compromise there ought to be fair and reasonable grounds for believing that the compromise so offered will be accepted. But if there be a mode in which it is possible gradually but permanently to put an end to the present system—I do not mean to say in every place, for there are places, particularly in large towns, where it would be impracticable—but as regards the bulk of the country, if there be any effective means of providing for the abolition of the church rates, it must be by a voluntary commutation. I see no other possible solution. There would be difficulties, no doubt, in fixing the amount of average upon which the commutation should be based, because from their nature church rates are fluctuating. But of this I feel confident, with regard to a great number of rural parishes especially, where the sums levied are not very various in amount or very extensive in character, there would be a great prospect of extensive commutation taking place if the option were given to landowners within the parishes to commute either by means of a permanent charge upon their property, or by payment down of a certain sum towards a fund of sufficient capital to meet the annual charge. The amount required in the rural parishes would be comparatively small. Take the average parish of

  835
  £6,000 a year. The average rate is 2d. in the pound. Consequently it would amount in a parish of £6,000 a year to 1,000 shillings, or £50. And I cannot but think that, looking to the great number of parishes which are on this small scale, there would be found a large number in which the proprietors and inhabitants would be willing to contribute either by subscription of capital or by charge on their property to give security equivalent to the annual value of church rates. I think further that many persons who object to church rates, many persons even who dissent from the Church, would be willing to contribute once for all for the purpose of raising capital to redeem church rates. I do not say this with entire confidence with regard to all the great towns and all the parishes of this country, but I believe the principle of voluntary commutation is the only system to which you can by possibility look with the prospect of escaping from the great difficulties which surround this question—with the prospect, on the one hand, of removing the dissatisfaction caused by the present system, and, on the other hand, of maintaining, as we are bound to maintain, the rights of the Church, not for the benefit of the Church itself, but of the community at large, and more especially of the poorer part of the community, upon a stable and permanent basis. I may refer in illustration to the several new parishes which have been formed under the Church Building Acts. By 1 & 2 Will.IV., c. 38, it is competent to persons to build district churches, but one of the conditions is that, apart from the endowment for the payment of the minister, there should be a repair-fund of 5 per cent upon the cost of the church charged upon the lands, buildings or houses within the district, and another 5 per cent charged upon the pew rents in the church. There is, therefore, a capital suns of 10 per cent upon the outlay on the church, which is invested as a permanent sum for the repairs of the church. Whatever course may be adopted I am quite sure it will be necessary carefully to consider and to limit any alteration in the law as to the precise objects to which church rates are applicable. But the limitation of these objects., or any commutation of church rates, or any less objectionable mode of carrying out a great national object, would be utterly hopeless if your Lordships should accept the Bill of the noble Duke; because it is clear to demonstration that if you loot to the prospect of a commutation, or to
  836
  voluntary payments, or if you rely upon yourselves or your neighbours, or the districts, your motives will be defeated if you do away with the legal obligation for which that commutation is introduced. If there. fore you have any hope or expectation that we may come to a compromise or agreement upon this most difficult question if you think it possible to introduce any terms that may be satisfactory to the Church and conciliatory to the Dissenters (and I am most anxious to do that which is conciliatory to them on this question)—if you have any hope that we may place this matter upon a satisfactory, and above all upon a just footing, it will be incumbent upon your Lordships to reject the proposition of the noble Duke for the absolute and unconditional repeal of church rates. I know not whether it may be possible to come to some arrangement. I cannot pledge the Government to introduce a measure upon a subject on which so many Ministers have failed; but I should gladly hail any indication of a desire on the part of the Dissenters to meet the Church half way upon this subject. As long as they stand aloof and say they will be content with nothing but the absolute and unconditional repeal of the church rates they tie up our hands. It is impossible for us to propose anything if they are immediately to repudiate it as a partial, unjust, and unsatisfactory instalment; and we are then compelled, in self-defence, to fall back upon that which, however imperfectly, does maintain that which it is most important to preserve—the maintenance of the fabric of the church and a due provision for its services. I think that in the interest of the Dissenters themselves, and in the interest of those who desire to see this question settled upon fair and natural grounds, it is most important, not only that the Bill of the noble Duke should be rejected by a considerable majority, but that it should be rejected by so large and overwhelming a majority that it should be clearly hopeless to carry a Bill for the unconditional and absolute repeal of church rates. Your Lordships will therefore hold out the best inducement to all parties to come to an understanding by rejecting this Bill. I will venture to say to the Dissenters on the part of the Church—and I believe I may add on the part also of the Government—that we will meet them with the most conciliatory and friendly; feeling, but that unless some prospect is held out to us that we shall be met by them in the same spirit, we must maintain

  837
  the law as it stands. I will only again remind your Lordships that the larger the majority against this Bill the better prospect there is of bringing all parties to a reasonable, fair, and impartial consideration, of this most important and most dimcult question. My Lords, I move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, after what has already passed in this debate, and especially after the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, I feel that I not only rise under great disadvantage, but that it is superfluous for me to rise at all. Still, I believe your Lordships will allow that in the situation which I have the honour to hold, I could not be silent on this occasion, or hesitate to bear my testimony and my belief that it is essential to the permanent welfare of the Church of England that there should be a legal provision for the sustentation of its fabrics and the maintenance of its services. I believe, moreover, that with regard to nine-tenths of the parishes in England, nothing more would be necessary than to render such a payment legally assessable and practically recoverable. A great deal has been said and written on the voluntary principle. The Church, it was said, would be no loser by what it gave up. It would gain in good will what it lost in money. My Lords, this sounds very plausibly in theory, but it would be very unsatisfactory in practice. It may be good rhetoric, but bad policy. For what is the voluntary principle in practice? What is it but the dependence of the clergyman upon his parishioners for the repair of his church and the expense of his services? He is at once reduced to a servile and unworthy position, a position which must materially weaken his influence and his usefulness. I do not believe that it would affect his faithfulness—that he would be less ready to correct error, or to rebuke with all authority and doctrine,—but it must be owned that his faithfulness might often become very inconvenient, and subject him to great embarrassment. My Lords, it would be unwise, even if it were not unjust, to render the condition of the great majority of the clergy less desirable than it is. As regards its worldly advantages, its temporal remuneration, in three cases out of four it offers a less prospect of recompense than any other profession in which the same amount of education or of talent is employed. Certainly they are not
  838
  temporal advantages which are expected by a large proportion of those clergymen who are now labouring in the cause to which they have devoted themselves with a zeal and diligence unknown at any former period; because the inadequacy of their recompense in a worldly point of view is compensated by the sacredness of the object in which they are engaged and by the general respect in which the great body of the clergy are held. My Lords, most of your Lordships, in your respective neighbourhoods, must have known and experienced the value of such a class of men, in which the United Church of England and Ireland, I believe, stands alone of all the Churches of Christendom. My Lords, we little know the risk we run if we sanction any measure which may tend to lessen the respect, to destroy the independence, Which the clergy have hitherto enjoyed; and we shall do this if we make them dependent upon the voluntary offerings of the people for the decent sustentation of their church and their church services. Your Lordships are not unacquainted with the class of characters with which they would often have to deal in those many rural parishes where no resident proprietor is to be found to set an example of liberality, or to supply the deficiencies of others. My Lords, I hold it to be certain that such a change of system must continually tell upon the class of men who devote themselves to the ministry of the Church. Men will be content to be inadequately paid for their labours; they will be content to be more poorly provided for than many of those who are, in education and station, far beneath them; but they will not be content to be habitually begging of their people for what their people will be ready to believe is, in fact, to benefit themselves. My Lords, I think it certain that if no legal provision is left for the repair of our churches, another generation will see many of those churches in a state of dilapidation and ruin. But I confess that I think that the lowering of the character of the Christian ministry no less certain and no less to be deprecated. I fear that this may not be a cause of anxiety to many of those who have excited the present agitation; but it ought to be well considered by your Lordships, who are guardians alike of the religious as of the temporal interests of the land. Still, my Lords, I am by no means of opinion that church rates should remain as they are, I believe that I speak the opinion of those around me when I say that we should gladly welcome any proposal which would be

  839
  likely to settle this difficult question, and consider any offer of compromise which was not entirely on one side, and was not merely concession. There are matters respecting the distribution of church rates, and the charges laid upon them, which require to be regulated, and which have tended to excite a feeling against them among many who are not dissenters from the Church; and that Government will deserve well of the Church and of the country which shall devise and carry into effect a measure which may restore harmony to our vestries and tranquillity to our parishes, and at the same time establish what is indispensable to the maintenance of our religion—a legal provision for the fabrics and the services of our Church.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it has been said, and said very truly, that the great majority of your Lordships are not committed to any opinion on this question; but there are some exceptions to that statement. Those who have been connected with almost any Government that has existed during the last twenty years, have been so far committed to the opinions of some of their colleagues in "another place," as that they may be said to have agreed that the present state of the law upon this subject is indefensible, and ought to be altered. But the question has now assumed another phase. We find now, for the first time, that the other House has declared by a large majority in favour of the total abolition of church rates; and a Bill, having that object in view, has been sent up to your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships that I have carefully and conscientiously considered the course which it is my duty to take on this question, not merely with reference to the public advantage, but with regard particularly to the advantage of the Church of England, with which the interests of the public are intimately bound up; and I have come to the conclusion to vote for the second reading of this Bill, believing that the passing of the measure will be most advantageous to the Church itself. I think it hardly necessary to go into any abstract discussion as to the mere justice or injustice of church rates—I look more to the state of the law, and to the practice as it exists under that law. The law has been laid down to-night by a great authority on all such questions—the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards); but I must confess that I was somewhat surprised at the definition of the law given by
  840
  the noble and learned Lord. He told us that the right of property in church rates stood exactly in the same position as the right of property which your Lordships have over your estates, or anything else that you may possess. Now, there is something serious in such a definition as that. There appears to be no doubt whatever that, by the common law of England, there is a right on the part of the Church to the maintenance of the fabric of the churches, and that the mode of such maintenance is by the means of church rates; but, on the other hand, if the rate is not granted, there appears to be no practical remedy whatever; and the result is that the right possessed by the Church is, in many places, utterly inefficacious for any practical purpose. [A noble LORD: In not more than 5 per cent.] The noble Lord refers to the number of parishes; it is not so in reference to population. I must say I can conceive nothing that would give an uncompromising opponent of church rates greater pleasure than to be dragged into the Ecclesiastical Courts for non-payment of his rates; but the truth is, that practically such measures for enforcing payment are never resorted to. This being the state of the law, what is the case with regard to facts? These are in many respects most unsatisfactory. In an enormous number of parishes church rates are practically abolished. [A noble LORD: No!] The noble Lord says "No;" but I must repeat, nevertheless, that in a large number of parishes church rates have, to all intents and purposes, been abolished, and the number of such parishes increases every day. Do any of your Lordships believe that things will remain exactly as they are now? It cannot be denied that there is an active movement against church rates, and that this movement has been a spontaneous one. ["No, no!"] A noble Lord seems to doubt the accuracy of this statement, but there can be no doubt that the movement has been to a great degree spontaneous, and at this moment an organization is applied to the question which, whether right or wrong, is likely to increase the number of parishes in which church rates are not levied; and this not only in the large towns, but among the rural parishes also. I think therefore that the longer your Lordships delay in settling this question, the more difficult you will find it to deal with. Printed papers have been circulated, showing the best means of getting quit of the rate in parishes where it is levied, and a calculation has been made to show that on an average

  841
  something like three years will suffice to bring opposition to a successful issue. Now, is this a state of things which you ought to encourage by leaving matters as they are? Different proposals have been made to meet this evil, and the one proposed in the Bill of my noble Friend is to abolish church rates altogether, and leave the fabrics of the church to be maintained by voluntary efforts. I confess I am not so much afraid of this reliance on the voluntary system as some noble Lords who have spoken on this occasion. The noble and learned Lord said voluntary effort might be equal to one great occasion, but was not fitted for permanence; but I do not think the noble and learned Lord was very happy in his illustrations. It is rather extraordinary that no one instance has been mentioned of churches falling out of repair in those numerous parishes where church rates have been abolished. I believe it is the case that churches are better maintained in those parishes where rates have been done away with, than in those where they continue to be levied in the old way. For these reasons I cannot believe that in a great and wealthy establishment like the Church of England—comprising among its members the most wealthy in the land—it would be found, except in rare instances, that the fabric of the church would he allowed to fall out of repair if left to the operation of the voluntary system. At the same time I think it would be much more desirable if some arrangement could be made, or some machinery devised, for effecting a compromise. I will not go into the various attempts that have been made to settle this question. The most rev. Primate himself brought in a Bill that went to a great extent to the extinction of church rates without compensation; but in that Bill there were provisions which must have led to great agitation in parishes. The noble Earl has to-night thrown out hints of a plan on which I do not wish at this moment to give any decided opinion, but which I fear could not lead to any satisfactory result. Much stress has been laid on the character of the opposition to church rates. It has been admitted that hostility to the Established Church does not characterize the whole of the opponents of church rates, and that, with regard to a great number of Dissenters, that hostility does not exist. The noble Earl has sought to discredit the motives of the Dissenters in their opposition to church rates, by stating that there were cases in which conscientious objections were mixed up with
  842
  pecuniary zeal. I believe that the infinitesimally small portion of the £250,000 a year which the Dissenters have to pay does not in the slightest degree influence them in their opposition to the church rates. I am ready to admit that there is a portion of the Dissenters who are on principle diametrically opposed and hostile to the Established Church, and that some of the advocates of this measure support it with the view of weakening the Church. But is it quite certain that by rejecting this Bill your Lordships will be taking the best course to neutralize that opposition? I do not agree with my noble Friend that it is advisable to pass this measure and suspend its operation. The speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) shows that he has carefully considered this question; and what I would wish to see would be this—that your Lordships should give a second reading to this Bill, and then, whether you went into Committee here or referred it to a Select Committee, where no party feeling would be observed, if the Government would introduce Amendments which might meet the question, your Lordships might come to a more satisfactory conclusion than by hastily rejecting the measure, without even a pledge front the noble Earl that he himself will bring in a Bill on the subject next year. I shall, therefore, vote for the second reading of this Bill; and I do so most conscientiously, believing that it is of the greatest importance for the Established Church and the peace of the country generally, and that the sooner we can arrive at a settlement of this difficult question the better for all parties concerned.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the great exertions made by his revered predecessor towards the building of churches in London had been alluded to, and a noble Earl (Earl Granville) who had spoken, stated he fully believed that exertions of that kind were not merely such as were made once for all, and then collapsed, but might be continued easily from year to year. Now as a matter of fact there was no great difficulty in building those churches, but there had been infinite difficulty in maintaining them. At this very moment the clergy of Bethnal Green were obliged to have recourse to every means of supplicating the community to provide supplies for keeping the churches in that part of the metropolis in repair, and some of those churches were not in good repair even now, though so shell a time had elapsed since they were built. It would

  843
  be in the poor districts especially that the greatest difficulty would be experienced in maintaining the churches without the assistance of the law. He conceived this to be a question which materially concerned the poor. Their Lordships had heard it said during this debate that the objection to the church rates was one raised by the poor; but he was there to contend, on the contrary, that the real poor of this country—the labouring poor—were not the persons who made any objection to church rates. And if the question were put to them it would be found that the really poor well understood that it was not their pockets, but the pockets of the classes above them, that would be relieved by the proposed abolition. He knew the noble Earl who had just spoken was perfectly sincere when he said he believed the measure before the House would be conducive to the welfare of the Established Church. He could not doubt that the object of all who had taken part in the debate was to bring about as speedily as possible a settlement of this question; and he was sure that their revered Primate expressed the sentiments of the whole Church when he said they were all anxious to have the question settled. It certainly was expedient that it should be settled. Year after year the Church saw the secession of friends who had, in past times, supported church rates. Some of these secessions, indeed, were not easily to be accounted for. A right hon. Baronet, formerly a near neighbour of his in the north, and kind friend, professing himself much attached to the Church, had lately elsewhere somewhat astonished his friends by voting for the total abolition of church rates, and assigning as his reason what certainly appeared a somewhat strange ground, namely, that he (the Bishop of London), had announced at a meeting at Islington, that the prayers of the poor were acceptable to God whether offered in a cathedral or in the open air. He could not exactly see the logic of his right hon. Friend's argument. He thought it rather hard that the clergy should be exposed to this dilemma. If they were careless, of course their means of maintaining the Church ought to be done away with—if they were zealous, they ought still to be done away with, for their zeal might prove mischievous. Probably the right hon. Baronet had been reading Hume's Essays, and thought of that philosopher's argument in favour of Church endowments, that they were to be maintained, that by them we might bribe the
  844
  useful indolence of the clergy. And therefore the right hon. Baronet thought that if the clergy could not be indolent, but ventured to descend into the arena with the Dissenters, and preach the Gospel to the poor, therefore, the support of the State ought to be taken away from them. He (the Bishop of London) could not say whether such were the arguments that had influenced his right hon. Friend, but whatever influenced him, his sudden conversion to the principles of total abolition was ominous. It showed that there was no time to be lost in settling the question, for there was no saying who might go next. But there were various ways of settling the question. One, for instance, was that of totally doing away with church rates, without providing any substitute for them. But surely it was only common sense to keep what they had got, until they found something better. Far be it from him to say that it was the wish of those who petitioned for the abolition of church rates to destroy the church. He believed that a large body of the Dissenters had no hostility towards the Established Church which they knew to be now, as in time past, the bulwark which defended them against what they feared far more than the Church itself. There had been, some time ago, a good deal of discussion on Papal aggression, and upon that occasion the Dissenters felt they must rally round the Established Church in order to protect themselves against the power which that Church was then engaged in repelling. There had been times when the Dissenters, with the Established Church, had to take strong ground against those who would have subverted our constitution and our liberties, and especially our religious liberties. The Dissenters, he believed, did not forget 1688, nor were they unwilling now to support a Church which was regarded by them, by the Presbyterians of Scotland and the north of Ireland, by the Protestant communities of the Continent and of America, as the great bulwark of Protestant truth throughout the world. There was a kindly feeling, he was happy to say, on the part of a great body of the Dissenters towards the Established Church. There could be no doubt, however, that this question did unite political as well as—if he might say so—religious Dissenters. He could not himself see why any man should object to pay taxes because he did not approve the mode in which those taxes were applied. He paid willingly his quota towards the support of Maynooth, and there were many large pro-

  845
  prietors in the northern part of this island who paid without scruple towards the maintenance of a Church of which they were not members. But, although there was no claim of justice for the abolition of church rates, people might work themselves into the belief that they had such a claim, and such he believed was the case at present. It was important to separate religious from mere political Dissenters—those who conscientiously, though without good ground, thought church rates unjust, from those who regarded the question of church rates as a convenient ground on which to assail and weaken the Church: therefore it was desirable to settle this question. He regretted much that it would be impossible to effect such settlement during the present Session. The Bill now before the House did not appear likely to conduce to any settlement. It was as the Church of the poor that he appealed for the Church of England, and he besought their Lordships, for the sake of the poor, not to take a step which would injure that Church. The Bill would cause to the Church a loss of £300,000 a year; and although the Committee to which the noble Duke had referred had come to the conclusion that the assistance of voluntary efforts was necessary to meet the spiritual wants of the country, yet that assistance was required not in substitution but in aid of the legal provision now made. It was a strange misrepresentation of the decisions of that Committee to say that it advised the Church to depend altogether on voluntary support. Voluntary support was needed to aid, not to supplant other means. The fact forced on the attention of the Committee was the laborious manner in which the clergy exerted themselves, in spite of the discouragement of very slender means. Would they now diminish those means by throwing so heavy a burden on the clergy? This Bill would deprive the Church of England of £300,000 per annum, the greater portion of which would pass into the bankers' accounts of the landed proprietors of England. It was quite certain that the mere occupiers would not benefit by the abolition of the charge, and he was sure that there was not the slightest desire on the part of the landed proprietors of this country to relieve themselves of this charge, but rather to assist the Church in the great duties it had to perform.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I wish to say a few words, chiefly in reply to what has fallen from my noble Friend (Earl Granville). Having listened to the whole of
  846
  this protracted debate, I must express my great satisfaction at finding that, even among those noble Lords who support the second reading of this Bill, there has not been one who has ventured to say that it is a just course to pursue that a provision which has been made from a time beyond legal memory for the maintenance of churches should be swept away to the profit of the landowners of England. It is quite true, as the right reverend Prelate who has spoke last (the Bishop of London) has said, that the labouring poor are not in favour of this Bill, for it is they who are chiefly interested in the maintenance of our churches. We have heard it said that this Bill is an injustice towards the Church of England. That is not a proper way of describing it. I should describe it as a measure of injustice, a measure of robbery, against the labouring poor of the land. The labouring poor of this country are entitled to have their churches maintained by the land of the country, and yet that legal obligation is now proposed to be swept away without any compensation or substitute being provided. What is this but undisguised spoliation of the poor by the rich? The poor do not pay these rates, but they profit by the result, and their highest interests are concerned in the maintenance of the churches of the land. In none of the speeches which I have heard this evening has it been contended that if church rates were abolished it would be unnecessary to provide a substitute for them by some new scheme of legislation. But what, let me ask, my Lords, is our prospect of having any such scheme carried into effect if we should pass this Bill? The noble Duke near me (the Duke of Newcastle) advises us to introduce a clause into the Bill to suspend its operation for a certain number of years; but as that proposition has been conclusively disposed of by the noble Earl opposite I need not further advert to it upon this occasion. The noble Earl who spoke last but one (Earl Granville) has also a project by which be seems to think the difficulties of the case may be met. He does not ask your Lordships to pass this Bill; he merely desires that it should be read a second time, and then referred to a Select Committee. I confess I do not see what advantage would be likely to arise from the adoption of that course, while it appears to me to be open to the serious objection that, by assenting to the second reading of the Bill, we should, as it were, be passing sentence upon the existing state

  847
  of things, and thus cause the levying of church rates to be beset with greater difficulties than at present exist. Indeed, my Lords, I think we seem to be admitting somewhat too easily that there is an absolute necessity for doing something in this case. I entirely concur with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) that it would be highly desirable to place the law of church rates, if it were possible to do so, upon a satisfactory footing. There are many objections, I am ready to admit, to be urged against the law as it stands; but I am not very sanguine as to the feasibility, if we abolish that law, of finding an alternative. The only scheme, indeed, upon which I should be at all inclined to place any reliance is that which was shadowed forth by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Marlborough) who proposed that all persons should be exempted from the payment of church rates who could prove that they paid something in the shape of an equivalent to some other place of religious worship to which the poor could resort, while they at the same time were prepared, in case they claimed the exemption, to waive their right of voting with respect to matters connected with the affairs of the Church. By acceding to that plan we should not be robbing the poor, while we should not at the same time be depriving the adherents of the Church of the right to rate themselves for its support. But while this scheme appears to me to be less open to objection than any of the others which have been submitted to our notice, I must confess I for one am not prepared, at all events until I see more clearly than at present the way to obtain an adequate substitute for church rates, to surrender the position which we now occupy. Let us for a moment consider the objections which are urged against the continuance of this tax. The question of its justice has been so ably argued in the course of the discussion, that I shall not trouble your Lordships with any observations upon that point. But it is said that although the charge may not be absolutely unjust, yet its payment is productive, in many instances, of considerable hardship. Now, in what does that hardship consist? Some years ago I admit the levying of the tax involved a real hardship, inasmuch as it was formerly supposed to be the law that when the majority of the ratepayers of a parish refused to impose a church rate, it might be levied by the authority of the churchwardens, with a minority of the rate-
  848
  payers. Now, however, it is clearly laid down that no such tax can be levied if the majority of the ratepayers should be opposed to its imposition. If, upon the contrary, the majority should approve such a proposal, they might levy the tax; and was it or was it not, he would ask, reasonable that they should possess that power? In order to supply an answer to that question, he should wish their Lordships to bear in mind what took place with reference to the imposition of taxes for other purposes. A few years ago a Bill was passed into a law enabling two-thirds of the ratepayers of particular districts to levy rates for the establishment of public libraries. To those libraries many persons objected, upon the ground that the Act under the operation of which they were established contains no provision for carrying out in connection with them a system of religious education. Those persons are, therefore, placed upon the same footing with those who object to the payment of church rates, and would be equally justified in resisting the will of the majority of the ratepayers. Again, it is said that church rates give rise to much dissension; but that is inseparable from the system of local self-government, which has a necessary tendency to produce party spirit and difference of opinion on every subject to which it is applied, although beyond question it is upon the whole, a most invaluable principle. The objections to church rates are chiefly in great towns, where, in fact, the maintenance of them is of little importance. But if the rates were abolished in country parishes, there would be great difficulty in obtaining a regular annual provision in place of them by voluntary subscriptions. Every one who has had anything to do with annual subscriptions in country places will readily acknowledge the truth of this. But, my Lords, I have been led into saying more on these points than I had intended. I rose originally simply for the purpose of declaring my opinion that this is a Bill to which your Lordships ought not to assent. I acknowledge that the present state of the law is defective, and I would willingly share in any attempt to amend it, but I cannot consent by a summary and unconditional abolition of church rates to forego the advantages which we at present possess, and for that reason I shall give my vote against the second reading of this Bill.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that when he was in the House of Commons no one dreamt of abolishing church rates without providing some equivalent, and it appeared

  849
  to him that to adopt a different course now would be most unjust and impolitic. It would, in short, be setting a most alarming precedent. There was no doubt whatever as to the obligation of the parishioners to keep their church in repair; but the means of enforcing that obligation had failed. Before the Reformation the parishioners who refused to do their duty were cut off with bell, book, and candle; but the remedy provided by the civil Courts had not proved so efficient as that mode probably was. He was not prepared to say that church rates were property in the sense that tithes were; but they exactly followed the analogy of an obligation to repair a road; and to pass the Bill, therefore, would materially weaken the security of property. The noble Duke admitted that some further legislation would be necessary; but surely legislation ought to precede the abolition of the rate, and not to follow it. He (Lord Campbell) hoped the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government would take the whole subject into his consideration, for he could not agree with the noble Earl who had last spoken that the law was at all in a satisfactory condition, and he was anxious, therefore to see a remedy provided at as early a period as possible.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that he had listened with attention and interest to the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) who had introduced the subject before the House, which had appeared to him able, temperate, and judicious, according to the views of the noble Mover, though he differed from them. He (the Earl of Galloway) only wished to remark on one of his observations. The noble Duke, when advocating the voluntary principle, had adverted in its favour to the great success which had attended the Free Church movement in Scotland after the disruption, and had quoted the large sums which had been collected by the voluntary zeal of those who had left the Church. Over that success, he (the Earl of Galloway) was enabled to rejoice—to the extent to which it had been used to make up for the deficiencies of the Establishment—for the Christian good of the people. But the noble Duke had made no reference to the Established Church of Scotland. That Church was in a very different position from the Established Church of England. In Scotland, a very large proportion of the cost of the building and repairing of the churches of the Establishment, and of the manses and parish schools connected with
  850
  it, was borne by a dissenting body—namely, the Scotch and English Episcopalian proprietors of that country. He had never heard of their objecting to the rate which by law was payable by them for the maintenance of the Presbyterian Establishment, with whose system of church polity and form of worship they differed. But once let Parliament enact the abolition of the church rate in England—on the admitted plea of relief to the Dissenters—and he could not conceal from himself that the ground of an argument would be laid for similar relief to Dissenters from the Establishment in Scotland. He wished the House not to misunderstand him, or suppose that in saying this much he was desiring for himself relief from the rate in Scotland, which, as a legal charge. he had ever cheerfully paid; but he did think that what he had said was material to the question before the House, and to the consideration of time religious good of the country, being certain that defalcations in the Establishment would not be adequately supplied on the voluntary principle.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, he was strongly of opinion that the time must soon come when this question must be settled. He thought the best mode of arriving at this conclusion was by dividing the church rates in reference to the two purposes to which it was applicable—the expenses attending the services of the Church, and the expenses of maintaining the fabrics. For the former of these he was satisfied the offertory, or other periodical collection, would provide sufficient funds; but for maintaining the fabrics the church-rate system had proved ineffectual, and it was necessary to have recourse to some new system. The property of the country was liable by common law for the maintenance of the old parish churches, but it was not liable for the maintenance of the new district churches. And the ill-considered recent statutes had led to great injustice. Before any new law can be passed, all these Church Building Acts must be studied. At that late hour it would be too wearisome to recount their varieties. He believed that sufficient funds would be forthcoming if some such system as that which had been hinted by the noble Earl at the head of the Government were adopted—namely, a system of endowment for the maintenance of the fabrics of the churches, and he thought it would be well if such endowments were connected with the diocesan system; but the plans of the noble Earl would not be sufficient, He (Lord

  851
  Portman) believed that the Churchmen and the Nonconformists would easily agree as to the maintenance of the fabric, if the objectionable charges for washing surplices and such paltry details were provided by Churchmen; for the churches are generally regarded as works of local value, to say the least of the feeling, and are often restored by money subscribed freely by Nonconformists, who will not pay compulsory church rates spent on the service Of the Church. He believed that in settling this question, not only was it necessary to consider the differences between Churchmen and Nonconformists, but also between different sections of Churchmen. If he saw any hope that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) would bring in a Bill next year embodying some such principle, he (Lord Portman) would vote against the present Bill. He did not at all desire to see the church rates abolished without provision being made for the maintenance of the churches, but he voted for the second reading because he thought that some pressure was necessary both on the Government and on the right rev. Bench to induce them to move towards a settlement of the question.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, his noble Friend who had just sat down had completed the cycle of those remarkable arguments by which this Bill had been suported. The noble Duke who moved the second reading was in favour of the total abolition of church rates, but shrunk back from putting into practice his own principle, and so proposed that when the total abolition had been carried, it should not take effect for some years to come. The noble Earl who followed him was also for the total abolition of church rates, but then he was so merely that those rates which were abolished might be remodelled in some new form, in which they might be more easily collected.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I said nothing of the sort, I vote for the second reading, in the hope that, when in Committee, the Government may propose Amendments.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: That was precisely what he said. The noble Earl supported this Bill abolishing church rates, in order that when in Committee a plan may be introduced for their easier collection. Then his noble Friend who had just sat down supported the Bill, but still he would keep up the church rates for the support of the fabric.
  LORD PORTMAN: Not by church rates.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: Well, at any rate, his noble Friend would keep up some rate, though he voted for a Bill which abolished all. He did not mean to enter into the main question at that hour, but he believed that unintentionally there had been a misstatement of the real grounds of the objections entertained in some places and by some persons against church rates; and as their only hope of a real adjustment of the question lay in their right understanding of it, he was anxious that what were the true objections should be plainly and thoroughly understood by the country. He believed there were many Dissenters who had no desire for the destruction of the Established Church: they were men who, from lack of room, or it might be from the lack of all clear statements of Gospel truth, and from the absence of all manifestation of Christian warmth, in their parish church, had been led to wander to other places, and to other pastors, and who, finding elsewhere that support of their own spiritual life for which they craved, had learned to love those bodies, external to the Church's visible communion, to which they owed so much. These men were often counted amongst Dissenters, and esteemed themselves as such, because, unhappily for themselves and for us, they had thus become separatists; but these were not the Dissenters who were now leading the attack upon church rates. They, too, might be drawn in and take part in such opposition, but they did not originate it, and, if left to themselves, they would not continue it. But those Dissenters who led this assault on church rates did, and many of them he believed quite conscientiously, object to a Church establishment altogether. Far from thinking it unkind to say so, he believed it was the only justification of their conduct. They believed conscientiously in the sight of God that an established religion prevented the up growth of true, pure, and vital religion, and that in over-setting the established religion of the land they were honouring the cause of God and of godliness. In alleging this he wished it to be distinctly understood that he brought no charge against these men, They were many of them men of great reasoning powers, and just as much entitled to hold their opinion as he was to hold his. He had no unkindly feeling against them. He differed widely from them, but such difference need not breed ill will, and ought not to do so. He honoured the open, straight. forward, and ingenuous manner in which,

  853
  without subterfuge or disguise, they stated their opinions. They were gathered into a Society with the professed purpose of putting down the Established Church in this country as an established religion; and their views were exposed in a pamphlet he held in his hand, in which the course of the present agitation was indicated. It was written twenty years ago, at a time when there was some intention on the part of the Government of the day to commute church rates into a charge upon other ecclesiastical revenues; and as he read the following extract which it contained from a newspaper representing the views of the political dissenting party at that time, let the House remember these were not his views, but theirs; they were the candid, open statement of what their real object was in fighting against church rates.
  "Let no one mistake the church-rate question for the church question. The church question is not yet mooted. But we give notice to Churchmen that as far as we are concerned, we shall not the less earnestly seek for the separation of the Church from the State, because we have got rid of church rates. We are quite aware that the separation question will be put to sleep for years among Dissenters by granting that measure—but we shall not be quiet if they are. It is neither the abolition of the church rates nor the exclusion of the Bishops from the peerage, that will content us—we require the Church of England to be reduced to what she is, one of the Sects, because we believe it will diffuse a greater amount of truth and righteousness."
  For this extract he was indebted to a pamphlet written at the time, and containing much important matter of the same character. But, whilst he gave these men credit for the honesty and courage of their avowal, was it wise or just, he would ask their Lordships who differed, as he himself differed, from those who had this destruction of an established religion as their leading object, was it wise or just in them to yield to the demands of such men, who honestly stated that in demanding the abolition of church rates they only meant to use it as a stepping-stone to the further demand for the separation between Church and State? He was as anxious for an adjustment of this question as any man. But then it must be a fair and reasonable, and not a mere one-sided adjustment, which would necessarily be full of injustice; and he would at once say that he held it would be the height of injustice to allow those who refused to maintain the Established Church to take part in the distribution of her funds, to elect her office-bearers, and to claim a share in those secular offices which exclusively belong to her members. Nor did he belive that any difficulty would
  854
  be found in discovering the proper terms for such an adjustment, if men only set themselves honestly to the work. He thought a practical lesson might be learned on this subject from the sister country of Scotland. There, in spite of all the heartburnings that had been caused by the secession from the Church, the payment of the Church cess had never been disputed, because it was paid by the heritors of the parish, who taxed themselves, and who managed the fund themselves. He thought something of the same kind might be done in this country, if the vestry for church rates was made to consist only of the owners of property, and of occupiers holding proxies to act for them. One word more. If this Bill were passed, and church rates abolished, the proceeds of those rates would go into the pockets of the owners of property. He knew their Lordships did not desire for their own benefit any such confiscation of funds which now went to maintain Churches and services for the poor; but in the nature of things it must be so, for the rent would be increased by the amount of the church rate saved; so that the farmer would be doubly taxed; he would first have to pay his church rate in increased rent, and then he would pay his share of the voluntary subscription, by which alone, under the proposed plan, the churches could be maintained. One word only he would add, and that was a warning to all Protestant Dissenters from our Church, that if the Establishment were destroyed the Dissenters would be the first to suffer. The various sects were held in peace with one another by the overshadowing influence of the Establishment. All the Protestant sects of England would suffer by the destruction of the Establishment, and the only body that would profit by it would be the intrusive Papacy. In saying this he begged again to say that he would heartily rejoice in any proposition conceived in the spirit of Christian love and Christian fairness, by which this question might be amicably and for ever adjusted.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he could not allow the discussion to close without protesting against the ungenerous and unfair imputation of the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken, that the agitation of the Dissenters of this country on this question did not arise from a conscientious objection to church rates, but that this question was put forward as a covert and indirect attack on the Established Church, If the abolition of church

  855
  rates was robbery, as some had contended, the noble Earl at the head of the Government was guilty, for he had abolished the church cess in Ireland, and that abolition, far from injuring the Irish Church, had contributed to its greater stability. With the single exception of the noble Earl near him (Earl Grey) there was hardly a noble Lord who had spoken to-night who had not expressed his serious anxiety with regard to the present state of the law, and almost every one of them had proposed some great or important alteration in it with a view to relieve the Dissenter from this impost. But finding that almost every proposal for a compromise was impracticable, he thought the best course he could take was to give his assent to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in reply, said that, seeing the course which the majority of their Lordships seemed inclined to take, and that there must be another Bill introduced next Session, he felt that it was unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with another word.
  On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—
  Contents—Present, 30; Proxies 6:—Total 36.
  Not Contents—Present 109; Proxies 78:—Total 187—Majority 151.

  CONTENTS.

  (PRESENT.)

  Somerset, D. [Teller.]

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Abingdon, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard)

  Albemarle, E.

  Cowper E.

  Londesborough, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Manners, L.

  Durham, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Granville, E.

  Portsmouth E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Portman, L,

  Belper, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife)

  Camoys, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Carrington, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Vivian, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Ebury, L.

  (PROXIES.)

  Dorchester, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Dormer, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Lovat, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  (PRESENT.)

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Beaufort, D.

  Cleveland, D.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Marlborough, D.

  856

  Newcastle, D.

  Durham, Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Hereford, Bp.

  Camden, M.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Exeter, M.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  London, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Bathurst, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dartmouth E.

  Abinger, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Derby, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Bateman, L.

  Berners, L.

  Boston, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Grey, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Campbell, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Crew, L.

  Hchester, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Digby, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Downes, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Farnham, L.

  Pomfret, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Powis, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Grinstead, L.(E. Ennis-Killen.)

  Shrewsbury and Talbot E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)

  Strathmore, E.

  Westmoreland, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Clancarty, V. Clancarty.)

  Raglan, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Combermere, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Sheffield, L. (E Sheffield.)

  Dungannon, V.

  Exmouth, V.

  Sondes, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Southampton, L.

  Hill, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore) [Teller.]

  Templemore, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Melville, V.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

  Torrington, V.

  Willoughby, de Broke, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Willoughby de Eresby, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  (PROXIES.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Belmore, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Beverley, E.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Tweeddale, M.

  Winchester, M.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Cathcart, E.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Aylesford, E.

  Desart, E.

  857

  Ellenborough, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Erne, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Essex, E.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Ferrers, E.

  Ardrossan, L. E. Eg'intoun.)

  Guilford, E.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Ashburton, L.

  Bayning, L.

  Home, E.

  Blayney, L.

  Howe, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Clanbrassill,(E. Roden)

  Manvers, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Mayo, E.

  Mount Cashell, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley)

  Onslow, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Orford, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Poulett, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Romney, E.

  Denman, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Seafield, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Forester, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Verulam, E.

  Gray, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Doneraile, V.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Maynard, V.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Middleton, L.

  St.Vincent, V.

  Sandys, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Sinclair, L.

  Cashel, &c., Bp.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Wenlock, L.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Rochester, Bp.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 2a on this day three months.
  House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock, A.M., to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.