Sitting of 22 August 1860

MINUTES.
POBLIC BILLS.—1o County Surveyors (Ireland); Fisheries (Ireland) (No. 2). 3o Militia Pay; Metropolitan Police Force (Dockyards) (No. 2); Roman Catholic Charities; Court of Chancery; Party Emblems (Ireland); Debtors and Creditors Act Amendment; Coast of Africa, &c. Act Amendment; Offences within Her Majesty's Possessions Abroad.
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, when it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to call for Tenders for the Aus-

  1693
  tralian Postal Service via Panama, pursuant to the notice recently issued by the Colonial Office when calling for the Australian Overland Postal Service; and in what state are the negotiations between the Treasury and the Colonial Government of New South Wales as to the proffered subsidy of the latter Colony for a Postal Service so essential as is that via Panama to the interests of the said Colony, and of New Zealand, Vancouver's Island, and other important portions of Her Majesty's Colonial Dominions?
  MR. LAINGreplied, that he was not aware that there was any intention at that moment of advertising for tenders for the Australian Postal Service via Panama. There was already a postal service by way of Suez, under a contract to which this country was bound for a term of years. The Panama route could not be substituted for that of Suez under any circumstances, because the advantage of sending overland to Marseilles gave to the Suez route a great superiority over that of Panama. The parties principally interested in the adoption of the Panama route were the colonists of New South Wales, because in that case Sydney would be the first port touched at, whereas by the eastern route Melbourne was first made. He did not conceive that this country would be justified in doubling the amount of its present subsidy for a purely colonial object, or in order to secure a second and a decidedly inferior means of communication. There had been no negotiations on the subject between the Treasury and the Colonial Government; but if the Australian colonists wished to establish a line of their own between Australia and Panama, no doubt the Imperial Government would be quite ready to meet them in a spirit of liberality, and to give them facilities for the conveyance of letters and papers as far as Panama.

THE HIGH SHERIFF OF SURREY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I rise, Sir, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the question, of which I have given him private notice, respecting my friend Mr. Evelyn, the High Sheriff of Surrey. I wish to know, Whether, taking into consideration the high character of Mr. Evelyn, and the universal respect entertained for him in the county of Surrey, and also the misapprehension under which he issued the placard, desiring the officers
  1694
  not to close that portion of the Court assigned to the public, in opposition to the commands of the Judge presiding in that Court, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will advise Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to remit the fine of £500 which has been imposed on Mr. Evelyn.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I have no doubt at all of the high character of Mr. Evelyn, the High Sheriff of Surrey; but I must take the liberty of remarking that if it is his wish to approach Her Majesty with any petition for the remission of the fine imposed on him, the proper mode of making the petition is to address it, in the first instance, to the Home Secretary, and not to ask any friend of his, however respectable, to put a question in this House. Not having received any communication from Mr. Evelyn, and not knowing from his statement that there had been any misapprehension, it is impossible for me to give any opinion whatever as to the advice which I might, in the event of such a petition being presented, tender to Her Majesty on the subject. I will only say that I have seen the handbill which Mr. Evelyn caused to be placarded in the town, and which, I believe, he also caused to be distributed by the Sheriff's Officers in the Court, and it certainly appears to me that that placard was of a highly objectionable nature for a High Sheriff, under the circumstances, to distribute. Until I receive some information which leads me to a different conclusion it seems to me to be clear that the Judges were fully justified in taking serious notice of the proceedings of the High Sheriff.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 14 (Scheme may provide for Erection of new Church or Parsonage, Removal of old Church or Parsonage, Sale of Site, &c).
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, it appeared to him that the public were not aware of the great powers which would be conferred by this Bill, empowering the pulling down of fifty-four churches in the City of London, which were at the present time amongst the greatest ornaments of the City. No one could come up the river without admiring the architectural effect they produced. He must again condemn

  1695
  the way in which measures of such importance were brought forward at such a late period of the Session, when it was impossible to give them a proper discussion.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had given notice of a Motion to add, at the end of Clause 14, a proviso to preserve the churches of St. Stephen's, Walbrook; St. Martin, Ludgate; St. Peter, Cornhill; and St. Swithin, Cannon Street; and the towers and steeples of any of the churches within the City of London, and specified in a schedule. When he named these churches he did not mean to imply that these were the only churches in the City which ought to be preserved; and since he had given notice of this Amendment he had received a communication from the Society of British Architects, enclosing him a still further list of those churches which, from the ornaments they were to the City, ought to be preserved. He had mentioned only four churches in his Amendment, believing that the others from their importance in the City would he able to take care of themselves; but he had since ascertained by the statement he had received from the Society of British Architects that many of those churches which he believed would be preserved were to be taken down. Therefore, instead of moving his Amendment, he would ask the Government to give a pledge that none of those churches should be taken down which were enumerated in the memorial of the Society of British Architects.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to add to the clause these words,
  "And the scheme for the removal of any church or parsonage shall provide for the erection of another church or parsonage within the limits of the Metropolis."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. POTTSsaid, he would move an Amendment to the effect deferring the sale of the churches until two years after the completion of the scheme for the drainage of the Metropolis, and not even then, unless the populations of the parishes in which the churches were situated have not increased. He was persuaded that the City churches were admirably adapted for the purposes for which they were intended. He had recently attended several, and he had found in some of them fifty or sixty persons, and the churches well cared for, while the little children who attended them ought certainly to be recollected. These buildings had been erected for the service of the Almighty, and unless the Almighty
  1696
  by some casualty destroyed them he did not think that man had any right to pull them down. Perhaps, when the main drainage scheme was carried out, and the Thames became again a pure and limpid stream, London might become once more a place of residence to these who carried on their business within its limits. Again as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would in a few years have £60,000 a year from the prebends of Finsbury and Mora, which could be applied to the building and endowment of churches in the vicinity of the Metropolis, it was unnecessary to sell the sites to raise money for that purpose; and he thought they should first try the experiment of taking down the pews and throwing the churches open for a few years. He protested, therefore, against their destruction at this moment. In a matter of such importance there ought to be no undue haste. The House had recently voted a large sum for temporal fortifications, and they ought to remember that spiritual fortifications were still more necessary.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he looked upon the Bill as one of common sense, for the population had left the City of London, and the 109 parishes into which the City was divided were now hut a shadow of what they formerly were. In many of the parishes there were neither poor nor poor rates, and in some of them there was no residential population whatever. He therefore thought that, whatever might be said about despoiling the churches, it was competent for the House of Commons to consider whether a great many of the churches in the City had not become useless in consequence of the people having gone to live elsewhere. It was very well to talk of the children attending some of the schools in the City parishes, but they were attended by children whose parents did not reside in the City, and were attracted there from other parishes. He (Alderman Sidney) had resided for twelve months in the City, whilst holding the office of chief magistrate, and having attended the churches every Sunday, he could bear witness to the fact that those churches were very thinly attended for public worship. Therefore, to keep up these edifices, costing thousands a year, with only a few persons attending, he could not but consider as had legislation, as they ought not to be maintained when they had lost their worshippers. He gave his hearty consent to the Bill, and he hoped the Amendment would be negatived.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsupported the Bill, as he believed that the children were attracted to the City schools by little presents which were given them in the churches. He considered that the arguments which had been used against the removal of these churches were altogether untenable.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHremarked that the Bill should specify the particular churches which were to be taken down, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of some unknown person.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that if he had any voice in the matter, he would have all the pews abolished. They were not only unsightly, but prevented numbers of persons attending the churches. Before the public services commenced at Westminster Abbey the ordinary attendance was but about 200, but as soon as it became known that the best seats were open for the first comers, a wonderful increase took place. No man was a greater opponent of pews than Sir Christopher Wren in an architectural point of view, so that, upon both grounds, he thought they ought to be done away with.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he entirely concurred in the opinion stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee. He wished to see these churches freely thrown open to the people; but he saw no reason for their destruction at a time when it was thought advisable to employ theatres, and other purely secular buildings, for the purposes of Divine worship.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he must remind the Committee that they were discussing the principle of the Bill, rather than the particular clause. The question upon the principle had been raised upon the last occasion by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford; and the Committee, by a large majority, had decided in its favour. He could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnstaple.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that although upon a former occasion he had divided the Committee upon the principle of the Bill, yet he did not desire to retain all the churches in the City. He did not think the Bill was a good one, as he was of opinion that a settled scheme should be laid before Parliament. However, as the Committee had decided to go on with the Bill, he hoped that his hon. Friends would confine themselves to the discussion of the clause.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was inconsistent in urging the Committee to go on with the Bill, while he deprecated the absence of any settled scheme. If the Bill passed in its present shape, no one could tell what churches would be pulled down; and he, for one, objected to leaving the matter in that uncertainty. He could not support the Amendment, which was perhaps waggishly intended to defeat the Bill altogether, by deferring its action until two years after the completion of the main drainage scheme—a period most remote and uncertain. Unless some assurance was given as to what churches were to be pulled down, he thought the Committee should reject the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he must congratulate the Committee that there were yet several days of the Session left to discuss the Bill; for it seemed to him that they should not get it through Committee before the end of the next week, at the rate they were going. It would be useless to repeat all the arguments used in the former stages of the Bill with respect to the depopulation of the City, and the removal of the churches. The truth was, that the City was losing its inhabitants; not from the poverty, but the great wealth of the citizens; who wanted every inch of room they could obtain for warehouses and offices, which fetched enormous rents. The consequence was that, at the present day, it would be the greatest possible extravagance to have a large place of residence in the City. In truth, it seemed to him the only objection which might fairly be made to the Bill was, that too many consents were required before a church could be pulled down; and that, in fact, over security was provided. With regard to the Order in Council, his belief was that a bond fide discretion would be exercised by the Government with regard to any scheme which might be brought before the Privy Council.
  MR. CRAWFORDremarked, that a union of benefices had taken place at York in the time of Edward VI.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that taking a common-sense view of the case, there could be no doubt it was high time many of the churches were removed from the City. As for people going miles to attend service in them, he would ask his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for South-wark, whether he had ever walked down from his aristocratic abode in Belgravia to

  1699
  attend church at Garlick-hill? The truth wag, that the City folks were all devoted to money-getting, and they wanted no churches there. He might say, in the well-known words of Mr. Burke, that "the citizens had made their counting-houses their churches; their desks, their altars; their ledgers, their Bibles; and their money their God." All those who wanted to attend public worship, would, of course, do so in the suburbs where they lived.
  MR. HENLEYdid not think it was fair to charge the Committee with re-debating the principle of the Bill. There were two subjects in the Bill—one the union of benefices, and the other the pulling down of churches. Benefices might be united without pulling down churches. There were now about 27,000 seats in the various churches in the City for a resident population of 55,000; and he did not think that was prima facie an unnecessarily large provision. But because the people did not go to those churches, it was proposed to pull them down. He had been much struck by two pamphlets which he had read, referring to this subject; one emanating from Sion College, from which he found there was little consideration for the requirements of the people; but a good deal of consideration was given to the question of patronage and the arrangement of benefices. He thought it was a very questionable proceeding to pull down all these churches. The time might come when they would be again wanted, and they would have no funds to rebuild them.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that if there was to be a union of benefices at all, some measure must be taken with regard to the churches.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he had spent a good part of a Sunday in going through these churches; and his opinion was that the poor would never be induced to enter them as they now were. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: There are no poor.] If there were no poor in the City of London, there were plenty in its immediate neighbourhood; but they would never enter these grand City churches. In some that he visited, there were a few large square oak pews, stuffed and padded, with magnificent velvet cushions in them. Before these could be reached, there was a grand vestibule to pass through, guarded by a great Bumble—a magnificent-looking fellow, with a cocked hat, and covered with gold and lace. How could any ill-dressed person presume to pass through such impediments and take a seat
  1700
  in the church? He thought some effort should be made to adapt these churches to the cases of the poor. Let the fine pews be taken away, fit up a few deal sittings, remove the beadle from the door, and then the poor might be induced to enter. By adapting St. Paul's to the wants of the general public, there was now no difficulty in getting large audiences to attend there. If the churches must be disposed of, why not allow them to be sold by public auction, so that other religious communities might have an opportunity of acquiring, and perhaps filling them?
  MR. POTTSsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of any proposition for taking down the pews in the churches, and leaving them open to the admission of the poor.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had told them there were no poor in the City of London. Now, he had visited some of these churches since this Bill was introduced, and between Cheapside and Thames Street; while walking from one of them, he had seen plenty of poor people. Not only so, but he saw two street preachers addressing congregations of poor people drawn from the lanes and alleys. He would recommend that the doors be taken off the pews in the churches, and that the beadles should go for Sunday amusement somewhere else; so that no cocked hats might be seen about, and then there would be some chance of getting the poor to attend.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, no effort seemed ever to have been made to adapt these churches to the use of the poorer classes. Poor persons did not like to be put out of face at church by being brought into neighbourhood with the richer classes, who were better dressed than themselves; but he believed that if the churches were adapted to their condition, they would attend. It would be found that those churches were pulled down the sites of which were most valuable. In fact, the prospect of doing this gave the stimulus to all this movement. The fingers of some people itched to get the funds that would be derived from this Church property; and hence the eagerness to appropriate it to secular purposes, to the neglect of more important considerations.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That Clause 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 38; Noes 26: Majority 12.
  Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 15,
  Clause 16 (Site of Church pulled down not to be sold or let without certain consents).
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHwished to know what was the intention of the Government with regard to the removal of these remains of mortality. The removal appeared to him to be very loosely provided for.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he also thought there should be some provision against the unnecessary removal of the bodies of persons who had been interred in the City churches.
  MR. HENLEYobserved, that some means ought to be adopted for serving the representatives of those who were interred in the churches with notice of the intended removal of their remains.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that in many cases it would be very difficult and even impossible to find out who those representatives were. But he would promise to reconsider that subject before the bringing up of the Report.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 17 and 18 were also agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Estates, Property, Liberties, &c. to remain distinct, although Parishes are united, and Vestries to form a joint Vestry for Ecclesiastical Purposes).
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, this clause provided that,
  "Notwithstanding any union of parishes under this Act, the parishes to become united shall, as to all estates and other property, and all rates, taxes, parochial rights, and all privileges, liberties, and respects whatsoever, other than such as are affected by this Act, continue and remain distinct, in the same manner as they were before such union."
  There were thirteen parishes in the City of London liable to the payment of tithe under an old statute of Henry VIII. After the great fire of London an Act was passed, in the reign of Charles II., and enforced by subsequent Acts, placing these parishes the churches of which had been destroyed by the fire on a new footing as respected the payment of stipends to the clergy; but there were thirteen parishes which escaped the fire, and these remained liable, under the statute of Henry VIII., to a tax of 2s. 9 d. in the pound. This enormous tax of 2s. 9d. in the pound had been obsolete for a great number of years, but it had recently been revived in the parish of St. Martin Outwich, the church of which was situate in Threadneedle Street, the rector of which was the Rev. Mr. Deanc. Mr. Deane had a son-in-law, an attorney, who
  1702
  in 1856 looked into the legal rights of his father-in-law, and the result was, that in December of that year a circular was issued, announcing that in future the rector would levy tithe on the property of the parish under the law of Henry VIII. In the parish there were many large banking and other establishments of enormous value, so that, the Committee would see, the revival of this old charge involved the payment of sums absolutely stupendous. The rector and his predecessors for 70 or 80 years had been in the receipt of £550 a year, but it was now resolved immensely to increase it by the revival of an obsolete charge. He would direct the attention of the Committee to one case in particular—that of the proprietor of the Baltic Coffee House, to whom a circular was sent, which concluded in the following terse language:—
  "The simple question between you and the incumbent is, whether you will agree to the liberal terms he proposes—namely, to compound for tithe on the Baltic premises by a payment of 2s. in the pound on £2,500 a year, in lieu of 2s. 9d. on £4,000 a year, or £250 instead of £500, which is the tithe that, in lay hands, would be enforced. We have to state in conclusion that, unless we hear from you in the course of a few days accepting the offer in our letter, and receive a cheque for the amount, we shall consider that you have declined it, and we shall withdraw the same, and enforce payment of £500.
  He wished to know whether by this Bill it was meant to continue, with regard to these thirteen parishes, the rent-charge imposed by the Act of Henry VIII., and which had been abrogated in the case of all the other London parishes. If the rent charge was to be levied on the principle laid down in the Act of Henry VIII., then he gave notice that he would bring up a clause on the Report repealing the statute of Henry VIII. altogether.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman would find that in Clause 11 words were inserted to secure the inhabitants of the parishes to which he referred from having an increased rent-charge levied upon them. It was provided that the consent of the vestry must be obtained to the scheme for creating the rent-charge to be paid elsewhere under this Act, and consequently the vestry would have full security for the protection of the interests of the parish in their own hands.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that as the object of the Bill was to divert the funds, it was desirable to give the parishioner the right to dissent from that part of the scheme. This had been provided for by requiring the

  1703
  consent of the vestries. He had been told that the parishioners would not assemble together, and that the rector could always secure a preponderance of votes. This, however, was the fault of the vestry.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYremarked that the Committee were greatly indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. E. James), for calling attention to the extraordinary tithe which might be enforced under the statute of Henry VIII. The magistrates were frequently appealed to for relief against the enormous claims of the rectors of these parishes; but the stringency of the law was such that the magistrates were powerless, and could only recommend adjustment or conciliation. If the rector insisted upon his demand the magistrate was bound to commit the parishioner to prison if the demand were not paid, and there could be no release from prison until it was paid. This barbaric power of the rector ought to be annihilated. The Committee ought to receive an assurance that that should be done.
  MR. ALDERMAN CUBITTsaid, he thought no one in the City of London would be content to pay for the support of a church elsewhere than in his own parish.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill was sincerely opposed to the enormous exaction allowed by the statute of Henry VIII. His object was that the inhabitants of these thirteen parishes should not be compelled to pay more tithe than they had been paying for a number of years, and should come in, pari passu, with the inhabitants of the other parishes of the City. At present he would not move any Amendment; but on the next stage of the Bill he would propose a clause which would prevent rectors from enforcing the exaction of 2s. 9d. in the pound.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he should be glad to confer with his hon. and learned Friend, but he could not ask the House to interfere with the rights of these clergymen and parishes, except in so far as they were affected by the Bill.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he hoped that in any arrangement which might be come to nothing would be done to affect the legal incidence of this charge.
  SIR JAMES DUKEsaid, he had raised a good property in Mark-lane where an inferior property formerly stood, and thereupon his tenants had been made to pay an increase of tithe. According to this Bill
  1704
  the Commissioners seemed compelled to raise the highest legal lithe.
  MR. TITEsaid, that in one parish, of the City, in which he had been churchwarden (St. Helen's, Bishopsgate), the stipend of the clergyman was only £20, paid by the lay impropriator, who had purchased the tithe not many years since for £5,000, and drew, as he was informed, £1,000 every year out of the parish for tithes under the Act of Henry VIII., although, it appeared he did not take half so much as he was legally entitled to. The tithe of a house of his was raised from 15 s. a year to £10 10 s. When he told the collector of that gentleman, who was a solicitor, that £10 10 s. was a great deal to pay, he replied, "If you were to pay 2s. 9d. in the pound you would pay twice as much." This was, he believed, the fact. He thought that the average income of the last few years might be adopted, whereby this charge of 2s. 9d. would be at all events diminished. The parishioners raised £200 a year in this parish for the clergyman by voluntary contributions; but with such an amount of tithe that burthen hardly seemed reasonable. In an adjoining parish £1,700 was raised by another lay impropriator, and in that parish there had been long-continued and most costly litigation.
  MR. MELLORsaid, the claim of 2s. 9d. was monstrous. The rectors were not entitled to credit if they had foreborne to exact the full amount. The impost was so monstrous that even a lay impropriator dare not exact it, because he knew that if he did public attention would be called to the matter, and a remedy would be provided by Parliament. He hoped that his right hon. Friend, who was now so much engaged with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, would bring in a Bill which would limit the impost to the amount which had been actually levied in these parishes during the last four or five years.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 20 to 26.
  Clause 27 (Appropriation of Seats in Church of united Parish).
  MR. HUBBARDmoved to leave out "one-third" and to insert "one-half," so that one-half the sittings should be left unappropriated and free to the poor.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that the Bill gave a minimum of "not less than one-third." Parishioners were very tetchy about their rights to pews, and it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, that the appropriation of seats in a church was very odious, and the want of accommodation for the poor very great. He should insist on his Amendment.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he was willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Property to be sold to vest in Ecclesiastical Commissioners).
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHmoved as an addition to the clause, that all sales under the Act should be by public auction and not by private contract.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, it was desirable that some of the sites should be acquired by public bodies, for the sake of widening streets and other public purposes. It would not always be advantageous that the sale should be by public auction, because if a private speculator, wishing to build upon the ground, bid more than public bodies, the inconvenience arising from narrow streets, &c, would be continued.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, the Amendment was hardly applicable to the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 29.
  Clause 30 (Act not to interfere with Powers of 1 &, 2 Vict. c. 106, &c).
  MR. VANCEmoved the insertion of a clause to the effect that no scheme contemplated by the Bill should be submitted to the Queen in Council, unless it had been laid two months previously before Parliament. He thought that no church ought to be demolished without due notice to the Legislature and the public generally.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was under the impression that the clause which was now proposed had been discussed at an early stage of the Bill, and disapproved of. If the Committee thought it was desirable that the Bill should be put in the form of a local Act of Parliament, the whole machinery would have been unnecessary. He did not think any advantage could arise from laying the scheme upon the table of the House, unless it was expected that the House should interfere by means of local legislation. The whole plan and scheme of the Bill proceeded upon the assumption that securities were to be taken for an efficient subordinate legislation, if he might so denominate it. If they relied upon the interference of Parliament, they cleared away a very large portion of the Bill. He strongly advised the Committee not to agree to this clause.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, there was a great deal of value in the clause proposed I by the hon. Member for Dublin. He (Mr. James) entertained very great distrust of the administration of the enormous power which the House was about to commit to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and he thought the clause proposed provided a very proper and necessary safeguard. The parties who drew up the Bill had taken care that the Bishop should have the nomination of three of the parties to prepare this scheme, so that there was an inevitable majority reserved to him. He should cordially support the clause.
  MR. VANCEsaid, his object was to have some check upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. A strong opinion had been expressed a few days ago in the House of Lords that upon any occasion for increasing the income of the dignitaries of the Church a statement of the intentions of the Commissioners ought to be first laid before Parliament.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he would vote for the clause. The salary of the Dean of York could not have been increased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners £1,000 a year if they had been obliged to submit to Parliament their unjust proposal to make that increase. Feeling there was not confidence in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he thought the scheme should be submitted to the House before they were called upon to sanction it.
  MR. MALINSsaid, the object of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Dublin was, that the scheme should he first laid before Parliament; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought not to object to it. He looked with great jealousy on the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he would never be one of the Members to increase their powers.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that he was anxious to state his views on the subject. Although he was a Member of the Ecclesiastical Commission, he certainly could not ask the House to place unlimited confidence in that body. If the Bill passed without the clause now proposed, Parliament would lose all control over the future measures that would be taken for the pulling down of churches in the City. He would not conceal that he was unfriendly to the Bill. He had joined in several votes which, if successful, would have been fatal to its progress. He thought that the clause now proposed would have a most salutary effect. Parliament was not aware what

  1707
  plan was to be adopted with regard to these churches, how many were to be pulled down, and how many left. It was most reasonable that both Houses should have the opportunity of considering any scheme for the removal of churches in the City, and of expressing their opinions in regard to it. Therefore, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not exhibit any jealousy of the intervention of Parliament by opposing the clause.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he regretted to have to differ from his right hon. Friend, although he had less hesitation in doing so, as from the part he had taken in various divisions, he could not be deemed friendly to the Bill. If it were proposed to give additional power of a substantial nature to the Ecclesiastical Commission he thought the House of Commons might very naturally, after what had lately happened, be disposed to view it with considerable jealousy and to put some check on it. But if his right hon. Friend had read the Bill, he would have seen that the functions of the Commission were to be simply of a ministerial order, and that there were already so many checks and safeguards that it was almost doubtful whether the Bill would not be inoperative. First, the bishop had to appoint a Committee to investigate the case; the Commission made an inquiry and recommended a scheme; the scheme had to be submitted to the patrons, the bishop and the vestry, and then to the Queen in Council, the Ecclesiastical Commission acting merely as the medium of communication between the various parties. The House was very jealous of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and with some reason, as far as certain past transactions were concerned. But in the present instance he could not see what object would be obtained by laying the scheme before Parliament. He could understand a proposal to submit it to Parliament in the manner of a turnpike scheme, embodied in a Bill; but what would be the use of merely laying it on the table of the two Houses? The only effect would be that some hon. Member might move an Address to the Crown not to carry out the scheme. He did not think that a scheme of that kind, affecting some half-a-dozen parishes in the City, would be a fit subject for an Address to the Queen. He held that it would be much better for the interests of all concerned that the arrangement should be made by the parish, the bishop, and the
  1708
  patrons, than that it should be left to the catch vote of the House of Commons. The House was overwhelmed with business already, and yet was constantly wanting more. They had at present infinitely more work to do than they could dispose of in a proper manner. It was not a matter of great importance, but he preferred the Bill as it stood.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the clause or not. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman, whenever he was at a loss for an argument, declared that hon. Members had not read his Bill. He had read it himself and believed other hon. Members had also. The right hon. Gentleman told them the only thing that could be done with regard to the scheme when laid on the table, would be that some one would move an Address to the Crown not to proceed with it. He believed that it was by no means improbable that that would be the course adopted in regard to the very first scheme of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the danger of trusting such a matter to the "catch" vote of the House, whatever that might mean; and pointed to the consideration of the matter by the vestry as an important check to any abuse. But might there not be a "catch" vote in the vestry as well as in the House? Surely more reliance could be placed on the two Houses of Parliament than on a Garlick Hill vestry, composed of two or three bakers and a few common-councilmen.
  MR. HENLEYremarked, that the principle of the clause was no novelty. It had worked very well in the case of the Enclosure Commission. People took much more pains with their work when they knew it would be submitted to the jealous eye of Parliament. He hoped the clause would be agreed to.
  MR. BUTTremarked, that even the rules for the regulation of practice in the Court of Chancery had to be laid before Parliament; and, therefore, if Parliament refused to trust the Lord Chancellor with the power of making rules for his own court, he thought the House should not put entire faith in a parish vestry.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISapprehended that the schemes proposed by the Enclosure Commissioners did not form a case in point, as they were appended to Bills which had to pass both Houses. All that was now proposed was that the scheme should be laid on the table, so that, unless there was

  1709
  an Address to the Crown or any extraordinary interference, the powers of the Act would proceed as a matter of course. He did not think any great advantage would be derived from the clause, but as there appeared to be a general feeling in its favour he would not oppose it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished for a moment to advert to the Bill which had been brought in many years ago for the abolition of "peculiars," as he was aware of a case in which that Act had caused considerable hardship. He referred to a parish in the county of Middlesex, containing 1,500 people, which was left totally unprovided for except by the payment of £23 to a clergyman, and there was no parsonage house. The parish was first of all stripped of its revenues and its rights, and then all redress to it was refused by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEconsented to the clause in deference to the wish of the House, although he retained his opinion that the Bill would be better without it.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  On the Preamble,
  MR. HENLEYmoved the insertion of certain words, to the effect that whereas the church accommodation in the City of London was too large for the requirements of the inhabitants, there being one clergyman to every 100 parishioners, and whereas the attendance in the churches was limited, it was necessary to pull down the churches, disinter the dead, and apply consecrated ground to secular purposes.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that formerly the preamble of a Bill was often longer than the Bill itself, but he believed it was better to adhere to the modern practice of making the preamble as brief and formal as possible.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, be only wished to put his own views on record.
  Amendment negatived.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 332.]

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Consideration, as amended [2nd August], read.
  MR. TITEsaid, that he rose to move that the order for the consideration of the Bill be read in order to be discharged. Although the opposition to the Bill had assumed a different form since the early stages, it was still such as to render it impossible for him to proceed with the measure successfully at that period of the Session. He felt that it would be more becoming to withdraw the Bill at once than to enter on an ineffectual struggle. The object of the Bill was simply to apportion the assessment of the rate for certain works in the various parishes in proportion to the benefit derived by each. Before the Act constituting the Metropolitan Board passed in 1855, former Commissioners of Sewers had borrowed money to the amount of £300,000. This money had been spent in making sewers in different districts or levels, and the duty of making rates and collecting this money was cast upon the Board. By the Act of 1855, the apportionment of this debt appeared to the Board to be unreasonable, and they brought in the present Bill to change that apportionment—they also proposed to pay £50,000 of their debt of £300,000 out of the main drainage rate, as it applied to sewers now forming part of that great system. The Metropolitan Board had no interest in the matter, save to do justice to all parties concerned. He (Mr. Tite) had originally brought in this Bill in August 1859. In this year it had been referred to a Select Committee, and the Bill itself was so little objected to, that in the Committee in the House only one clause was altered, and though it was three weeks before it was considered in Committee, there was not a single Amendment proposed to any clause in it. The Bill had been fifteen days before the Select Committee, and the expenses were at least £15,000. The opposition to the Bill at this moment was to obtain a reversal of the decisions of the Select Committee, and in point of fact, to rediscuss the whole matter. For this there was no time, and therefore he withdrew the Bill. He had to return his thanks to the right hon. Member for Bury, Chairman of the Select Committee, for the attention he had given to the subject; and he had himself endeavoured to do his best in order to give the Board an opportunity of standing well with the House on the occasion of the introduction of a similar Bill in the next Session. He (Mr. Tite) concluded by saying that in "another place" the Metropolitan Board had been charac-

  1711
  terized as an oppressive Board. But that was at once disproved by the fact, that the Board consisted of forty-five members chosen by thirty-seven vestries and district boards, and therefore if they oppressed any one it must be themselves. But they were compelled by the Legislature to levy and assess rates amounting to not less than from £300,000 to £400,000 per annum; and therefore it was not very easy to please all those who had to pay this enormous amount of taxation. He now moved that the Order be read and discharged.
  After a few words from Mr. BRADY and Mr. SHERIDAN expressing their satisfaction at the course taken by the hon. Member for Bath,
  Order discharged. Bill withdrawn.

ENDOWED CHARITIES BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. AYRTONmoved a Clause providing for the payment to official trustees of charitable funds such salaries, not exceeding an annual sum of £200 each, not exceeding in the whole 6d. in the pound of the annual income of the charitable funds received by the said trustees as should from time to time be allowed by the Commissioners of the Treasury.
  Clause brought up and read 1o.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered that if they added to the labours of the secretary his salary ought also to be increased.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that since the day be fore he had put himself in communication with the Charity Commission, in order to ascertain how the clause of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had given notice, would work. There were, he found, in the hands of the official trustees of charities stock of various descriptions, amounting in the whole to £740,000. That stock was increasing, on the average, at the rate of £21,000 a year. It was invested in sums of every variety of amount, ascending from £8 6s. 8d. to £12,000. The dividends were equally varied in amount, from 2s. 6d. upwards. A great part of that money was paid into the hands of the official trustees, either by order of the Court of Chancery or of the County Courts. It was not a fund that the trustees could retain compulsorily in hand, although substantially it was at their disposal. The
  1712
  clause before the House required that an assessment not to exceed 6d. in the pound should be made on those stocks, out of which not more than £200 a year should be paid to each of the official trustees. Now, there were many difficulties in the operation of that provision. There were 1,628 different charities, each of them involving incomes of very different amounts. It would, therefore, be a very difficult matter to fix the amount of the assessment, and to apportion it among the numerous charities. It must be borne in mind, also, that the fund was constantly fluctuating. It was being added to at the rate of £21,000 a year, and sums were always being paid out for investments in land and other purposes. At what moment, then, was the calculation to be made? Was it to be made on sums which remained only for a day or for a year? Again, how was the surplus to be dealt with? It was impossible, in a fluctuating fund of this kind, to get the exact amount of surplus. The greatest difficulty of all, however, remained behind. The fund was of a voluntary character. It was not one which the official trustees could retain against the will of those who placed it in their hands; and it had been created under the express assurance that no deduction should be made from it whatever, and that the management should be gratuitous. Of course it was in the power of Parliament to alter that, hut if a tax of 2½per cent, which appeared to him a serious amount in the case of small charities, were placed on it, in all probability a considerable portion of the fund would be withdrawn. And the more that was withdrawn the heavier would be the pressure, up to the limit of 6d. in the pound on that which was left. He had no wish to influence the Vote of the Committee, but he would suggest that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced his intention of revising the whole subject, he suggested that it would be better to let it stand over till next Session.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that they were all agreed on the previous day that the trustees should not he paid by salary granted out of the public revenue. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman in his official capacity, said that the clause which he proposed was not workable, it was not for him to press it. They were told that a scheme for the payment of these officers would be proposed next Session, and, for the sake of saving six months, it was not desirable

  1713
  to begin a system which they could not at present complete. He should not, therefore, persist in pressing the clause on the House.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he hoped that the services of the trustees in the interim would he considered, as the House had affirmed the principle that they should be paid.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had given notice for the re-commitment of this Bill; and he would say a few words in support of the course he proposed to take, but would not press it, unless the House agreed to it. What took place last night would be in the recollection of the House when the Bill came on to be considered as amended. Now lie felt sure that a Protestant House of Commons, a House consisting of a majority of Protestant Members, would feel very tender in dealing with any scruples entertained by Roman Catholic Members. The Bill had been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) as a relief for Roman Catholics. But the hon. and learned Member now believed that the 1st Clause, as amended, instead of being a measure of relief for Roman Catholics, had been turned into a penal clause against them. That he believed on two grounds; first, that whereas several Courts of inferior jurisdiction in Ireland had held that no change had been effected of late years in the law of superstitious uses, the Bill proposed to give legislative sanction to such decisions, although they had not yet been confirmed by the highest judicial tribunal. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] The hon. and learned Baronet also said that the clause as it stood would oblige litigation in the case of every Roman Catholic charity. To some little extent he shared those apprehensions, but he must say he thought the hon. and learned Baronet had been placed in this difficulty by misunderstanding the spirit and feeling of the Government and of the majority of the House, who were ready to do everything to meet fairly the wishes of the Roman Catholics. The misunderstanding which had occurred
  1714
  I was, however, no reason for doing injustice to the great mass of the Roman Catholic people, and he thought it worth while to retrace their steps, and, in order to avoid that injustice, to adopt a clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, which he believed would have been accepted by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, and acceded to by the Attorney General. In his opinion the time was come when they might safely give up the law of superstitious uses, which pressed hardly on Roman Catholics, and leave gentlemen of that persuasion to dispose of their property for charitable purposes as they pleased, subject, of course, to the law of mortmain and other limits to which Protestants were subject. It was said that this was a question between the Roman Catholic laity and the hierarchy; but he maintained that there would be sufficient independence among the Catholic laity to resent and resist any encroachment on their liberty by the hierarchy without the necessity of a Protestant House of Commons interfering between them. With these feelings and views he moved that the order for the third reading be discharged.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Order be discharged."
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I believe the recognized and orthodox number of courses usually presented to the House of Commons is three; but, with regard to this clause, looking back to what has taken place in Committee, I think some six or seven have been proposed; and the hon. and learned Gentleman presents us with two more courses, because he has given notice of one Amendment, and has spoken of another and quite a different one.
  MR. BUTTexplained that he did not intend to move his proviso, but to move the clause of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has given notice of one Amendment, and he wishes to propose another. I point this out to show the great variety of alternatives which are presented to us. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment on the paper, is to omit part of the clause, and to add a proviso. Now, in his speech he has said nothing about that Amendment, and has referred exclusively to a clause of which my hon. Friend, the Member for Hertfordshire, gave notice on a previous occasion. I confess I do not think that any advantage will be derived

  1715
  from a proceeding of a very unusual character—that of recommitting this Bill, and attempting to reverse a decision to which we came by a large majority, no longer ago than late last night. I regret extremely that the hon. and learned Baronet, the Member for Dundalk, should think that this is a measure aimed against Roman Catholic charities. After having heard, both in this House and in private conversation, an immense number of arguments upon this Bill; and after having examined it with all the care of which I am competent, I confess I do not believe that his apprehensions are well founded. My belief is, that the clause which stands in the Bill simply reduces into a written form the existing law and practice of the Court of Chancery, and that it will not be found to produce the effects which the hon. and learned Baronet anticipates. If it should produce those effects, I am sure this House will be willing in a future Session to listen to any suggestions which are derived from practical experience. It certainly is not their wish to confiscate the property of Roman Catholic charities, or to interfere in any undue manner with them. The House will remember that this Bill is intended to put an end to a provisional state of things. Every one admits that the annual suspension of the law cannot be continued. This Bill places Roman Catholic charities under a permanent state of legislation. That legislation is exceptional in its nature. As far as it goes, it relieves Roman Catholic charities from many of the provisions of the existing law. It is, therefore, an entire mistake to represent this as a penal Act against Roman Catholic charities. It is a very intricate subject, and I am bound to say it has been discussed in this House by hon. Gentlemen whose minds seemed in a state of incandescence. I must say that Gentlemen who represent extreme Protestant opinions, appear to me as remote from the influence of reason, as Gentlemen who represent extreme Catholic opinions; and those whose unhappy fate it has been to attempt to mediate between these two extremes, have found themselves, as my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will bear witness, in no very enviable position. I think that if this Bill is allowed to pass, it will place Roman Catholic charities in an intelligible and perfectly secure condition; and if the persons concerned find that any slight inconvenience is created, I am satisfied the House of Commons will always be ready to
  1716
  give these complaints fair and patient attention.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, it gave him great pleasure as a Catholic Gentleman to thank the Attorney General for the great time and labour which he had devoted to the subject.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he felt that a few words were due from him upon the subject. He spoke yesterday with what some hon. Members called "excitement." He certainly was excited very much by the importance of the subject, and the responsibility which he felt weighed upon him. He decidedly understood the arrangement between the Attorney General and himself as he had stated it last night. He would not go into that question, but if in the heat of argument he said anything in any manner to wound the feelings of the Attorney General or any person whatsoever, he regretted it. He was sure the House would be ready to acknowledge that whatever he did say, he said with a good motive—desiring to serve to the be3t of his ability the interests of those who had placed their interests in his hands. If he exhibited warmth upon the subject it was because he felt warmly, and because he felt he could not discharge the duty he had to perform without throwing his whole soul into it, and using all the energy which he could command.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am sure many of those who would have felt, under other circumstances, that expressions of the hon. and learned Baronet were such as to cause offence, must have been convinced, from the invariable courtesy which he displays, and the extreme good nature with which he usually treats every subject, that they were exceptional and arose from excitement, which was not unnatural under the circumstances which he has explained, I am quite sure the Attorney General and other Members of the Government will feel that nothing unkind was intended. I think the House will do best to maintain the decision to which they came by a large majority yesterday. It appears from legal opinions expressed on this and the other side of the House, that this Bill actually protects the interests of these Catholic charities—that it prevents their being made the subject of particular restrictions, and at the same time secures the application of the funds to the objects which the donors intended.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that nothing which had passed would at all

  1717
  diminish the friendship between himself and the hon. and learned Member for Dun-dalk.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYremarked that the House would do much better if the Protestant portion of it interfered less with matters which exclusively concerned the Roman Catholics.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. VANCE,referring to the several clauses and provisions of the Bill said, he had many objections to the measure. He considered it also a very objectionable feature that it gave to the Commissioners power to increase the income of the small livings at their pleasure, and it treated the augmentation of benefices as of the same importance as the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church. This was an innovation on the settlement that had been made, and which ought to be faithfully adhered to. But what he chiefly wished to direct the attention of the Committee to was the miserable stipends of the clerks to the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission, and the refusal of the ecclesiastical members to increase them, on the ground that many curates had less. He maintained that, as curates might become bishops, the parallel did not apply, and that the clerks were entitled to a gradual increase, according to the length of their service. The average income of first-class clerks in the public service was £374 a year; of the same class clerks in the English Ecclesiastical Commission, £350 to £500 a year; and of the same class clerks in the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission, only £J20 a year. There was the same disproportion in the other classes. He had, therefore, given notice of an Amendment which would enable their salaries to be regulated in the same way as the salaries of similar officers under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be appointed).
  Mr. CARDWELLsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Freeland) had given notice of his intention to propose
  1718
  Amendments which would effect changes in the constitution of the Commission materially different from those which were proposed in the Bill. He thought, however, that at so late a period of the Session the House would not be inclined to enter into a discussion on the best mode of re-organizing the Commission, and he had therefore made an arrangement with his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his plan for re-organizing the Commission, and that he (Mr. Cardwell) should propose to strike out Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 in the Bill which he had himself introduced for a similar purpose.
  Clauses 1, 2, 3 struck out.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 8 struck out.
  Clauses 9 to 30 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Powers, &c, of Acts herein recited, extended to leases of Lands, &c. in which Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland are interested).
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that by the existing law the tenant of a Corporation sole in Ireland was enabled to obtain a renewal on certain terms, but not when the estate had been transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission, which was a corporation aggregate. The 31st Clause had been intended to give the same statutory right of renewal in the latter case, but as some parties interested in it had petitioned against the change, it did not appear desirable to persist in it now.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he thought he should fail in his duty if he opposed the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Clause struck out.
  Clauses 32 to 37 inclusive were then agreed to.
  MR. VANCEproposed a clause providing that the amount of the salaries of the secretary, treasurer, and other subordinate officer or officers should from time to time be regulated by the Lord High Treasurer, or the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, or any three or more of them.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion, as it was intended that in parishes where Protestants were few they might be at liberty to hire other buildings for the celebration of Divine service. In that way the Commissioners would have a larger fund at their disposal for the augmentation of small livings.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he felt satisfied that the clerks of the Commission were

  1719
  underpaid, but he preferred that the question should be left in the hands of the Commissioners.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANstrongly urged the inadequacy of the clerks' salaries, which he believed would only be remedied by this House taking the matter into their own hands. Complaints had been made to the Lord Lieutenant and the Commissioners, but entirely without success.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he quite admitted that the worst possible policy was to underpay their servants, but he hoped it would be left in the hands of the Commissioners.
  MR. LEFROYalso urged that the matter should be left in the hands of the Commissioners, who, he bad no doubt, would be stimulated by this discussion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were the most unfortunate persons in the world. A few nights ago there had been a run against the English Commissioners for paying too large salaries, and now, at the other side of the Channel, they were found fault with for underpaying their clerks. He thought it was a matter with which the House had as little to do as with the salaries of railway officials.
  Motion withdrawn.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, that in assenting to the arrangement referred to by his right hon. Friend, that the clauses in the Bill and his (Mr. Freeland's) proposed Amendments for re-organizing the Commission should be withdrawn, he wished it to be understood that he did not thereby preclude himself from raising any questions as to the re-organization of the Commission at a future day. He wished also to state that in the proposals he had made he did not intend anything disrespectful to the Irish Prelates. He was acquainted with one of them—Dr. Knox, the Bishop of Down and Connor—and had often talked over with him matters relating to the English Ecclesiastical Commission. A more fair and impartial man he had never met. His only fear was, that if the proposals in the Bill were carried out and all the Bishops were placed on the Commission, the ecclesiastical element would unduly preponderate, and that the measure would not work satisfactorily. He then proposed the following clause, the object of which he said was to enable the Crown to appoint a second lay Commissioner without imposing the burthen of an additional salary on the funds which were now available for Church purposes.
  1720
  Of late years, much to the credit of several Governments, only one paid Commissioner had been appointed by the Crown, but he (Mr. Freeland) thought it important that the proportion of the lay element should be kept up, though not at the cost of an additional salary. The hon. Member then proposed the following clauses:—
  "If after the passing of this Act Her Majesty or Her successors shall, under the powers of section two of the Act of the third and fourth years of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-seven, appoint two Ecclesiastical Commissioners, one only of the said Commissioners shall be a paid Commissioner."
  "The term Episcopal Commissioner, in section seven of the said Act of the third and fourth years of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-seven, shall be held to include not only any Archbishop or Bishop acting as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner under the said Act or this Act, but also any Commissioner appointed by the said Lord Primate and Lord Archbishop of Dublin in manner in the said Act or herein provided."
  "In any case in which the said Commissioners shall have under consideration matters specially affecting the interests or property of any Bishop, Dean, or Chapter of Ireland, such Commissioners may, if they think fit, request the attendance, at any meeting at which such matters are to be taken into consideration, of any Bishop, Dean, or member or members of a Chapter whose interests or property such matters shall or may affect, and he or they shall be at liberty to attend at any such meeting, and to assist the said Commissioners with information and advice, but shall not vote or, except as aforesaid, take any part in the proceedings of the said Commissioners—"
  which were severally agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Six o'clock.