Sitting of 11 July 1862

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

  [BILL NO. 144.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 14 (Committee may enlarge Time for making Valuation Lists, and may give Directions concerning Valuations and Valuation Lists, and may appoint Persons to make the same).
  MR. ASPINALL TURNERsaid, the Bill was one of the greatest importance, and had caused much excitement throughout the country, and the fact that they were about to discuss it in a Committee of only about twenty Members was perfectly monstrous. He therefore begged leave to move that the Chairman do report progress.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that almost every one who had taken a part in former discussions had been in favour of the principle of the Bill. That was the third time the House had gone into Committee on the Bill; and as the remaining clauses only

  235
  involved the machinery of the Bill, he trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he was of opinion that the fact of so few Members being present, showed that the Bill had created no excitement in the country, and that the absent Members were satisfied with it.
  MR. ASPINALL TURNERsaid, he should persist in going to a division.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 7; Noes 29: Majority 22.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he objected to the power given to the committees to appoint valuers without specifying the exact amount of remuneration, and also to the mode of valuation. There was only one way of mitigating the injurious operation of the clause, namely, by making the cost of the valuation payable out of the common fund of the union. He thought the whole of the clause so objectionable that he was inclined to move the omission of all the words in it after the words "The union," at its commencement.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the clause contained the pith and marrow of the Bill; and he hoped after it had been agreed to there would be no further objection to the progress of the measure, which had been thoroughly examined in the Select Committees.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that there could be no doubt that the real difficulty was that which was felt by the hon. Member for Manchester, when he moved to report progress—namely, that the Bill was being discussed by a mere fraction of the House; and, as far as the opinion of the Members were concerned, he was thoroughly convinced that the seven who voted for reporting progress fairly represented the opinion of the absent Members.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Member was making mountains of mole hills, and that the real cause of the absence of Members was because the absentees were thoroughly satisfied with it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the clause was one of the most important of the Bill; and believing that it was neither fair nor decent to go on with the discussion in such a House, he had voted in the minority
  236
  in favour of reporting progress. The Bill was in a very curious state, because when a Committee had sat two years upon it, and, as they said, settled the whole matter, they found that even the Government that supported it and Members of the Committee who sat upon it differed widely with regard to the clauses. Two things were wanted in such a measure as the present—first, to secure equality between occupiers in the same parish; and, secondly, to secure equality between parish and parish in the same union. With regard to the first, if the system were to come into force, the occupiers of houses in a particular parish in a union ought to have power to go to the committee to say, that as a parish they were satisfactorily valued, but that they required to have the valuation more fairly apportioned among themselves. With regard to the second point, the common fund was so important an item of expenditure that the Bill ought to have contained some more distinct provision that all those parishes should be rated on the same basis. He thought that the power of appeal given by the hon. Member for Bridgwater would not cure those difficulties, because they could only deal with the appeal as to those parishes which happened to be in the county to the quarter sessions of which the appeal would go. At the same time, he quite admitted that he did not see how it was possible to remedy the existing defects.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that enormous evils and great irregularities existed in regard to parochial assessments, and the Bill contained an improved machinery for correcting some of those evils. It provided effectually for remedying inequalities between occupiers in the same parish. As between parish and parish, there were no means of establishing a uniform rate. The assessment committee, however, would have a sort of jurisdiction over the whole union, and they would be able to rectify any inequality between different parishes. Something like a principle of rating was established in the 6 & 7 Will. IV; but it was not always acted upon, and it would be the duty of the assessment committee to gee that that principle was fairly carried out. The object of the Bill was to prevent expense, and to obtain a correct and uniform valuation of different parishes. He proposed, however, to insert a provision against the assessment committee correct-

  237
  ing the valuation without referring the subject to the whole of the board of guardians. With respect to the parishes forming part of a union situated in two counties, there would be the same remedy as in the case of an appeal against a county rate.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not at all met the case he put. The union which he had in his mind was situated in two counties, and it might happen that the parishioners of one might appeal to the quarter sessions of another county, and those two courts of quarter sessions might come to contrary decisions. The inconvenience which might arise from such a state of things was not provided for in the Bill, and in his opinion it was a capital defect.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, the case might be carried still further, because some unions were situated in three counties.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Bill aimed at remedying certain inequalities in regard to tenements, and also at establishing uniformity of rating between parish and parish; but it appeared to him that the Bill proposed to accomplish those two objects in a very inconvenient manner. He proposed to omit the words "correctness of such list," and to insert "for ensuring a uniform and correct valuation of every parish in the union."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not see any advantage in the Amendment, as it merely substituted words the meaning of which was exactly the same as the words already in the clause.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he thought the Poor Law Board should have the power of confirming the appointment of the surveyor, in order to provide against the appointment of an incompetent person.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that under the present system, where a new valuation was required, the Poor Law Board agreed to such new valuation being made, and left it to the board of guardians to appoint the surveyor. As the object of the Bill was to effect a correct and uniform rating in every parish in the union, of course he should have no objection to the insertion of any words which might attain that object more conveniently than would the clause if passed in its present shape. He had no objection to permit the representatives of different parishes to come before the assessment committee to complain of inequality.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, he thought the first thing the assessment committee would have to do after the passing of the Bill, would be to direct a new assessment of the whole of the property in the union. It might cause some extra expense, but it would prevent a vast deal of litigation.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, if the slightest idea had existed that there was to be a new valuation of the property in the unions, the greatest objection to the measure would have arisen throughout the country, and the result would be that no Bill of the sort would be passed through either House.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the clause should stand as it was, and that parties should be left to do as they liked with regard to a new valuation. If a new valuation should be made compulsory, the anticipated expenses would create much opposition to the Bill, and it would be their duty to resist the passing of it altogether.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 15 (Valuation Lists to be deposited for Inspection, and afterwards transmitted to the Committee).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it sometimes happened that a surveyor valued the property in a parish too high by 20 or 25 per cent. If the surveyor made a valuation of that kind, he wished to know whether the assessment committee were to have any discretion in the matter, or were they to send the valuation to the parish to be appealed against? He thought the assessment committee ought to exercise their own judgment before they sent the valuations to the parish. He thought also that some provision should be made by which parishes should have an opportunity of seeing, at the board of guardians, how other parishes were rated, so that they might appeal if they considered themselves aggrieved.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the suggestion was deserving of consideration. If an alteration of the clause were thought desirable, it might be made on the report.
  MR. DEEDESwould prefer that the valuation should be sent at once to the parish, instead of being cavilled over by the assessment committee.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, words which would provide that a copy of the valuation lists should be sent to the board of guardians, and be there open to inspection of the ratepayers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he could not allow the clause to pass without taking a division against it. The Bill would cause great expense, and much objection would be felt to it in country districts.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that the clause had nothing to do with taxation. If the hon. Member wished to raise the question whether the expense of the valuation should be defrayed out of the common fund or out of the rates of each parish, the proper time for so doing would be on the 34th clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Objections to Valuation Lists).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, to the effect that any overseer of any parish in a union should have the same right as any person to object on behalf of the parish to the valuation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 19 also agreed to.
  Clause 20 (If on Appeal a Rate is amended, the Valuation List to be altered).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Committee to consider whether it was wise, on a simple question of value, to give an appeal to a couple of justices in petty sessions, as well as an appeal to quarter sessions.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the Select Committee were desirous to disturb the existing law as little as possible.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he trusted that the right of appeal to petty sessions would not be taken away.
  MR. AYRTONsuggested that the ratepayers should be able to appeal against the assessment and the valuation as well as against the rate.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 23, inclusive, were also agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Committee may from time to time direct new Valuation and new or supplemental Valuation List).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to the provision giving power to the Committee to require a person applying on frivolous or insufficient grounds for a new survey to pay the costs of the new valuation.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the words were inserted by the Select Committee; but if the right hon. Gentleman had no fear of any frivolous application, he was willing to strike out the proviso.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the assessment committee need not be at any expense,
  240
  as they were not obliged to order the survey unless they thought it necessary.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 25 was also agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next at Twelve of the clock.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH BELGIUM

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made in the negotiations for the long-promised Commercial Treaty between Belgium and this country?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he had been obliged to ask the indulgence of hon. Members before upon this subject, and he was afraid he should have to do so on the present occasion also. Her Majesty's Government were most desirous to bring the matter to a successful conclusion, but they could not consent to give any details on the subject while the affair was still pending. M. Rogier, the Belgian Minister, who took a deep interest in the subject, was now in this country, and was engaged in negotiations which he hoped would be brought to a favourable termination.

CHINA—THE TAEPINGS.—QUESTION.
LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to the accounts which have appeared in the public journals of the horrible atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated by the Chinese upon the Taeping prisoners who had been given up for execution into the hands of the Mandarins by the English and French authorities; and whether the Government has received any official intelligence on the subject?
MR. LAYARDin reply said, his attention had been called by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) to a letter, without date, which appeared in an Indian newspaper, and which did not state where the alleged events took place. The letter was anonymous, nor was there any clue whatever to its writer. The letter appeared to him to bear internal evidence of being untrue, or, at all events, to have grossly exaggerated the facts. That part of the letter which

241
referred to the English prisoners who fell into the hands of the Chinese was entirely untrue, and he trusted that the rest was equally false. He felt confident that no Englishman would be a party in any way to the barbarous executions which were alleged to have taken place. The letter appeared to be a reply to certain statements in the Saturday Review. He had written to China for all the explanations that could be obtained on the subject, but he had a strong conviction that the letter was a series of gross exaggerations.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL No. 43.]—QUESTION.
MR. POWELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill in the present Session, or merely to renew the existing Act upon the subject; and, in the event of the Government proceeding with the Bill before the House, whether it is intended to insist upon the last clause, which provides for the disfranchisement of the whole body of electors in constituencies in which corrupt practices are reported to have existed?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to proceed with the Bill, but was obliged to postpone it, owing to the Parochial Assessment Bill, and Lunacy Law Amendment Bill, of which he was in charge, not having made greater progress. Next week he should be able to say whether he should be able to
proceed with the Bill or not. As to the last clause, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in the view he had taken of it. It did not disfranchise the whole body of electors, but merely sanctioned the suspension of the writ in the event of corrupt practices being proved.

TROOPS IN CANADA.—QUESTION.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether information has been received of any measures having been introduced by the new Canadian Ministry for the embodiment of a Militia or Volunteer Force; and if so, what is the nature of such measures; if not, whether he intends the 12,000 British troops now there to remain during the winter wholly unaided by the Canadians themselves; and whether he will lay upon the table Copies of the Correspondence which has passed between
242
the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Canadian Government on the subject of a guarantee from the British Treasury to a loan of £3,000,000, on certain conditions, for the proposed Railway?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the new Canadian Ministry had carried an Act amending the Militia Law of the Colony. It was less extensive than the measure introduced by the late Ministry and rejected by the Canadian Parliament. But it increased the power of the Governor General in respect to calling out the Militia, and raised the active portion of that force from 5,000 to 10,000 men. With respect to the correspondence asked for, it was laid before Parliament a week ago.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in the present state of things it was not the intention of the Government to withdraw any portion of the troops from Canada. At the same time, he would say he could not entertain a doubt, if there were any occasion for the defence of the country, there would not be simply 10,000 Militia to undertake that duty, but as many men would be ready to take arms as the circumstances of the case might require.

RECOGNITION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, in consequence of an apparent discrepancy in the statements of the noble Lord and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Correspondence between the Governments of Russia, France, and Italy, relative to the recognition of the Kingdom of Italy by Russia, has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government; and if so, whether there is any objection to such Correspondence being laid upon the table?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that no such correspondence as that referred to had been communicated to Her Majesty's Government.

AMERICAN CRUISERS AND THE BRITISH FLAG.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any Despatches have been received from the Governor of the Bahamas relating to the capture, by United States Cruisers, of vessels sailing under the British flag; and, if so, whether

243
he has any objection to produce them; and whether any complaints have been made by the Governor of the Bahamas of the blockade, by United States Cruisers, of the port of Nassau? He also wished to know, in case of such Despatches having been received, whether they have been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown; and if so, whether they have pronounced any opinion upon the question at issue?
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, before the hon. Gentleman answered the question, he hoped he would be kind enough to say whether he has communicated to the department of the Admiralty of this country, or to the Government of the Bahamas, any information in reference to the capture of the Bermuda, and whether that vessel was captured in British waters.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that Despatches had been received from the Governor of the Bahamas, but the Government could not produce them at that moment, as the correspondence on the subject was still going on. The case of the Bermuda was one of those referred to in the Despatches. The circumstances attending the capture of the Bermuda and other vessels had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, but they had not as yet pronounced an opinion upon the matter. The Government had received no information as to anything that could be called a blockade of the port of Nassau. The Governor of the Bahamas reported that American cruisers had stopped certain vessels, on the ground of their intention to run the blockade of the American ports.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

  ORSERVATIONS.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he rose to make a statement regarding the supply of food, and to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury with reference to the collection of agricultural statistics. If he had no other reason for calling the attention of the House to the subject before the close of the Session, he might find an argument for so doing in the unfavourable character
  244
  of the weather during the last two months. The cold state of the atmosphere was unprecedented at this period of the year, the Registrar General having reported that the temperature during the month of June was four degrees lower than it had been at any time during the previous forty years. Such continued cold, accompanied as it had been by wet, could hardly fail to be prejudicial to the crops, though he hoped that no serious damage had yet been sustained which might not be repaired, at least on the well-cultivated lands, by a few weeks of sunshine and heat. His information from several of the largest corn-growers led to that conclusion; but it had generally proved in England that a season characterized by cold weather was an unfavourable one for wheat. The question was one of growing importance, from the increasing dependence of the country upon foreign food. Since 1847 about one-fourth of the population, on the average, subsisted on foreign corn. But in the last three years that proportion had been gradually increasing, and within the last harvest year probably not less than one-half the population of the kingdom were fed on imported corn. That was partly the result of very deficient harvests in 1860 and 1861, but partly also, he believed, it arose from a diminished breadth of corn. The high price of labour, and the increasing value of live stock and animal produce, concurred, in his opinion, in tending to diminish in the United Kingdom the extent of land in corn, and to increase that of pasture. The farmers in Ireland had been adopting that system to a large extent. Between 1849 and 1859 the extent of corn land in Ireland had diminished one-fifth, whilst the number of live stock had increased one-half. Such a change would be perfectly legitimate and proper, and would be productive of little inconvenience, if they had any means of knowing with accuracy the extent to which it was taking place. But how vast the results which such a change might be silently working! If one farmer found it his interest to lay one-fourth of his corn land to grass, the probability would be that the same circumstances might influence all others. Now, one-fourth of the corn-crop of these kingdoms might be taken at 10,000,000 quarters. A deficit so vast, coming suddenly and without warning, would agitate every market, and unhinge all monetary operations. To some extent, he believed, they were experiencing the effects of such

  245
  a change. The deliveries of home-grown wheat, as shown by the corn returns for the last sixteen weeks of that and the previous year, were 50 per cent less than the average of preceding years. The crops of 1860 and 1861 were, no doubt, most defective, but he could not help believing that so vast a decrease, especially in the present year, was partly caused by a diminution of the breadth sown. Now, a return of the acreage under each crop would give timely warning of any serious change. It was important to consider the principal sources of the supplies. Last year North America gave us three-eighths of our whole supply; Russia, one-eighth; Turkey and Egypt, one eighth; or five-eighths in all were thus drawn from distant sources of supply. The remainder was got from the nearer parts of Europe; but, as the large proportion came from a distance, it was important that early notice of our probable requirements should be obtained. Moreover, we might have formidable competitors in the world's corn market. France, which in 1858 and 1859 gave about one-fifth of our foreign supply, imported last year upwards of 5,000,000 quarters of wheat and flour. It would be a great mistake to treat the question as one solely affecting the farmers. He believed them to be fully as much interested in obtaining reliable information as any class, for they had the earliest command of the market, and might take advantage of that position if they had any means of accurately anticipating the course of prices. But the vast importance of the question as affecting the supply of food ought to override every objection in a country which so largely subsisted on foreign corn. It also most materially affected both financial and commercial proceedings. The payments for foreign corn in the last year amounted to the vast sum of £35,000,000 sterling, and that was £15,000,000 more than in any one year before 1860. But if they extended their calculations, and made a comparison of the cost of foreign corn and provisions for 1860, 1861, and 1862 (calculating the remainder of the present year in the same ratio as it had hitherto maintained), and compared it with that of 1857, 1858, and 1859, they would find the most startling result. That which cost £66,000,000 in the former three years, was increased to £118,000,000 in the latter. So that we had been paying in the last three years not less than £17,000,000 a year more for foreign corn and provi-
  246
  sions than we had been accustomed to do. Agricultural statistics would not prevent that, but they would give us timely warning of what was coming. Again, in regard to commerce, the transport of such vast supplies was a matter of immense importance. Upwards of 3,000,000 tons weight of corn were imported last year, and must have employed that amount of shipping. And if they calculated three months as the average voyage, the conveyance of that supply would occupy for the whole year one-fourth of our foreign-going ships. Surely a question thus vitally affecting the supply of food, and the financial arrangements of the country, and giving such vast employment to the mercantile marine, ought not to be treated as solely a farmers' question. What had been done by the Government? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Card well) some time ago suggested the employment of the county police as the most economical machinery for collecting the Returns. But whether they employed the police or any other machinery, they must pay for the additional duties they imposed upon the persons employed; and, in his opinion, therefore, the employment of the police would be just as expensive a method of obtaining the information as any other that might be resorted to. The Home Secretary had sent a circular to the different counties to ascertain what the feeling was with regard to the collection of agricultural statistics, and the employment of the police in that duty, and the result was as follows—Thirty of the counties were favourable to the collection of statistics, but only fifteen of that number were favourable to the employment of the police; twenty-one expressed no opinion as to the advantage of the collection of statistics, but objected to the duty being performed by the police; six deferred the question for further consideration; and only two objected to the collecdion of agriculture statistics altogether. In his own opinion the Office of the Registrar General afforded a machinery by which agricultural statistics might be most effectually, most economically, and most easily obtained. He did not say that they might not be obtained through the Office of Inland Revenue; for he knew that in Scotland the machinery existed in that office, by which the duty might be performed without any difficulty whatever, and he knew also that the Inland Revenue Office in England believed itself quite capable

  247
  of performing the duty, and that the work could be done by that office and its sister office in Scotland for a sum not exceeding £20,000 a year, but there were reasons which induced him to give the preference to the Registrar General's Office. As the acreage was the only fact that could be ascertained, the inquiry should be limited to that, and it might be completed before harvest in each year. No Act of Parliament was needed—only an order of that House, and provision made for the necessary expenses. He was at a loss to know who really were the opponents of the measure. He believed that much of the former opposition to it on the part of certain farmers had died out, and the great body of them was not against it; for it had been most successfully done in Ireland and Scotland, and in several English counties. The great landlords were not against it, for the House of Lords had already passed a Bill on the subject. The Returns he asked for were not of an inquisitorial nature. He should have been extremely glad to have included in them the live stock bred and reared in England; but as that was of comparatively minor importance, and the farmers looked upon a return of live stock as exceedingly inquisitorial, he should not propose to enter into that part of the question. He would venture to adduce one opinion which, he believed, would have the greatest weight with both the House and the country. It was that of the lamented Prince Consort. In July, 1860, as President of the International Statistical Congress, the Prince, in his opening address, referred to agricultural statistics in these words—
  "The Registrar General of Ireland has proved by his success in obtaining these Returns, at a comparatively moderate expense, and by the voluntary assistance of the landowners and cultivators, as well as of the clergy of all denominations, that the apprehension was groundless that it could not be done without inordinate cost, or without injuring individual interests. We must hope," he added, "that considering its importance with regard to all questions affecting the food of the people, this inquiry will not only be extended to England and Scotland, but also to the continent generally, wherever it may not already have been instituted."
  He trusted that such an opinion would have its full effect on Her Majesty's Government, and he begged to ask the noble Viscount whether the Government would take the matter up seriously, and themselves bring forward a plan for obtaining Returns of the acreage under the various crops in Great Britain.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had substantially answered the question of his hon. Friend at an earlier period of the Session. He was far from denying the advantages to be derived from the publication of accurate agricultural statistics; but he thought that such Returns would be unsatisfactory if they did not include live stock. At the same time, he agreed with his hon. Friend that to include Returns of live stock in the first instance would add to the difficulty of obtaining agricultural statistics, and it might be more prudent therefore, to confine the Returns at first to the quantity of ground on which corn was actually grown in this country. It had been rather assumed that there was great objection in that House to the production of such Returns; and no doubt there was some time ago a feeling against enforcing the collection of such statistics, but the opposition had, he believed, very much diminished, and the Returns from the quarter sessions, to which the hon. Member had referred, showed that there was no indisposition on the part of the owners of land to furnish the information. There was still some apprehension on the part of tenant farmers that the effect might be to increase their rents; but that objection might be met by avoiding the publication of individual Returns and giving the Returns for the district only. He felt that the publication of such information as the hon. Member desired could not do the farmers any possible injury, while the commercial interest might derive from it great advantage. The result of the inquiry addressed by his predecessor to the different counties was certainly not such as to justify the employment of police in collecting agricultural statistics. His hon. Friend, after ascertaining what the general nature of the replies was, had communicated with him with referenee to the practicability of obtaining these Returns through the Registrar General; and he had had an interview with the Registrar General upon the subject. The Registrar General did not think it impracticable, but he saw more difficulty in the matter than his hon. Friend appeared to think existed. He (Sir G. Grey) was not, however, without hope that that office might be made available for the purpose, and that if Parliament would sanction the expense, the Returns might be obtained through its machinery. In his opinion, that agency would be better than the Inland Revenue Office, because he doubted whether the excisemen going to the

  249
  houses of farmers, for the purpose of obtaining the necessary information, would be looked upon with much favour. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think it necessary that an Act of Parliament should be obtained to carry out the object in view. No doubt an Act of Parliament would not be necessary if the making of the Returns were not to be compulsory; and it was not intended, when it was proposed that the police should be employed, that the measure should be compulsory in the first instance. He would communicate further with the Registrar General upon the subject.
  MR. BASSsaid, he wished to thank the hon. Member for Stirling for the clear, able, and comprehensive manner in which he had brought the subject before the House. Still, he was somewhat at a loss to know how the hon. Member obtained his information with regard to the amount of food consumed in this country, for the most remarkable differences of opinion existed amongst agriculturists upon the subject; and the consumption had been variously stated in the Mark Lane Express at from 15,000,000 to 30,000,000 of quarters. It was as important to have statistics of food as of population, and only the most ignorant amongst the farmers could have the smallest objection to giving the best possible information upon that very interesting subject. Certainly, when his hon. Friend brought forward the question on a former occasion, he did not receive any great amount of encouragement, but he trusted that there had been a change of feeling since then, and that there was no longer any objection on the part of those who represented agricultural constituencies in that House to the information being supplied. He hoped that the Home Secretary would at an early period next Session bring forward a measure upon the subject.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down might, perhaps, include him and other Members on that side of the House amongst the most ignorant class of farmers, because they happened to differ from him in opinion. Although many of the persons engaged in agricultural pursuits might not possess an amount of intelligence equal to that of the hon. Member for Derby, and although, perhaps, they might entertain some prejudices, their prejudices were entitled to respect, and it was not by stigmatizing them as ignorant that those who
  250
  desired this information would be likely to effect their object. He doubted very much whether the farmers would derive any benefit from these Returns. There was no doubt, however, that they would be very beneficial to corn merchants and persons engaged in trade, and the large and intelligent class of farmers in Scotland, who might be described as large capitalists; but he believed that the ordinary class of tenant farmers would derive no advantage whatever from them. As to knowing when they had best dispose of their corn, he believed that the old principle of threshing the corn as soon as it was ready, and selling it when threshed, would be found in the long run to be more advantageous to the farmer than speculating for high prices. It had been said that a great willingness had been found on the part of landowners to forward the production of agricultural statistics; but that fact, if it were a fact, might lead to increased unwillingness on the part of occupiers. He believed the feeling of farmers generally was, that the Government Returns would be acted upon in some way to their disadvantage; and as long as that feeling existed, great difficulty would be found in inducing them to consent to any compulsory system, even though their refusal might expose them to the attacks of the hon. Member for Derby.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that his noble Friend (Lord Hotham) had so well expressed the feelings with which he (Mr. Henley) viewed this question that he should not have thought it necessary to address the House but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass). If anything could have been done to render the collection of agricultural statistics impossible, the hon. Member for Derby had contrived to do it. The hon. Gentleman appeared to have forgotten what had previously taken place on the subject some fourteen or fifteen years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. A Bill was brought in for the purpose, which was not very favourably received by the agricultural interest, who were in no very pleasant humour in consequence of the legislation which had taken place shortly before that period. That Bill, however, might probably have passed if those who wanted the information had been ready to pay for it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to do so. The course pursued on that occasion

  251
  roused a strong feeling in the country, and to use a common expression had the effect of "putting their backs up." They said, "You are introducing an inquisitive measure for the advantage of a certain class of persons, and want us to pay for the information." He was not prepared to say whether any advantage could be derived from the modified system proposed, but he was satisfied that the difficulty experienced in getting it adopted was owing to the course pursued on the occasion to which he had referred.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for. Derby, who was a large buyer, should be in favour of agricultural statistics. They all knew that the hon. Member, being at the head of a great establishment, which required to know the extent of the growth of barley, was obliged to obtain the information sought by these statistics, no matter at what cost; it would therefore, no doubt, be a great advantage to him if he could acquire that information at the public cost. But, when the hon. Member talked of the ignorance of those who might oppose these Returns, he must say he could not see how the farmers in any shape or way would be benefited by them. If there was any good in such Returns, it would be something which gave a fair average, on which they could depend; but there were such variations from one year to another that even the acreage would involve all sorts of difficulty. The business of the hon. Member for Derby was, no doubt, a very good one, and he could afford to buy the information he required; for himself, he protested avainst the public money being expended to enable a few wealthy men to obtain information at the expense of the community.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he thought the information, whether as to barley for malting, or wheat for the bread of the people, intimately concerned the general welfare. It was of great advantage that the earliest possible information should be had on the subject, and in case of a deficiency purchases should be made abroad as speedily as possible. It was quite true that a person in the position of the hon. Member for Derby, was deeply interested in acquiring the information; but he could command it sooner than any one else, and might sweep the markets of the produce he required; but if these statistics were supplied by the Government, every one would be as well informed as the hon. Member himself, and
  252
  would have the same advantage in the market. He therefore hoped that no petty prejudice would prevent the Government from taking up the subject in a vigorous and determined manner.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he did not believe there was as much prejudice as was represented in the agricultural districts against the production of information; but as the benefit was to be general, the expense at least ought not to be charged on a class. Returns on the acreage sown would be of value, because the season would always indicate the prospects of harvest. In other countries such information was collected, and in France special pains were taken to obtain it; and, speaking generally, it had of late years been remarkably correct. It could hardly be that in this country the only subject on which information should not be furnished should be the subject of the food raised for the people. The expense of obtaining the information, however, ought not to be thrown on the county rates.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he must deny that the tenant farmers could justly be termed ignorant. They were generally a most intelligent as well as a most respectable class, and they deserved to have their opinions fairly considered. If a Bill were brought in upon the subject, he should feel himself at liberty to support or oppose it, as the character of the measure might appear to justify. He thought, however, that the proposed returns would mislead the tenant-farmers, from their necessary incompleteness. What was really wanted was more accurate information as to the statistics of foreign grain.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he thought the opinion of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), from his great information on all such subjects, was deserving of the greatest weight with the House. He also trusted that next year the Government would take up the question, and secure the same information regarding agriculture in this country as they were all so anxious to obtain respecting everything that affected the corn-markets abroad.
  MR. PULLERsaid, there might be a considerable class of farmers who were obliged to thrash their corn as soon as they got it in, in order to pay their rent; but it did not follow that they were not interested in the result of the harvest, particularly in years of scarcity, being made known to all the world at the earliest moment. Any

  253
  attempt to obtain from the farmers throughout the country the amount produced per acre would be entirely hopeless; but that was not at all necessary to enable us to judge of the probable amount of the harvest. By taking note of the sales by auction of farm produce in July and August the means of reckoning probable averages would be afforded. The Government might obtain all the particulars they required without any inquisitorial process.
  MR. PAGETsaid, he believed that it would be advantageous to the whole community if the best information were collected on these matters. In 1854, England, from her want of accurate knowledge of the state of the markets, sold to France an enormous quantity of corn at a very moderate price, and rebought it afterwards at a great enhancement. The loss of money thus sustained would have paid the expense of collecting these statistics ten times over.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONdenied that there was any obstinate prejudice against the taking of agricultural statistics among the tenant farmers in his part of the country.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he thought there was an almost unanimous opinion in favour of the collection of agricultural statistics in some form; the only objection was to their being obtained in an inquisitorial manner. He trusted the Government would, by acceding to the views of the hon. Mover, endeavour to wipe away from this country what he considered to be a disgrace to it.

STATE OF THE VENETIAN PROVINCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FREELAND,* rose to call attention to our relations with Austria, and also to the present state of the Venetian Provinces, as a source of danger to the Peace of Europe; and to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any Communications have been received from our diplomatic or consular Agents in Austria or Italy, with reference to the present state and proposed increase of taxation in the Venetian Provinces, and with reference to the number of Emigrés from those provinces, and to the sentences of illegal emigration which had been notified in the usual manner by the Austrian Government; and to move for Copies of any such Communications which Her Majesty's Government may have received. He said:
  254
  Sir, if I thought that any discussion which, may arise on the Motion which I am about to make, and particularly on that portion of it which relates to the Venetian provinces, could do harm to the best interests of the Venetians, or the Italians, or to the cause of order and peace in Europe, I would never have yielded to the urgent solicitations which have induced me to submit this Motion to the consideration of the House. I believe that, on the contrary, good may be done. I believe that, to some extent at all events, by means of frank discussion in this House, and perhaps in other Representative Assemblies, a danger to the cause of peace may be removed from the chapter of passions and of accidents to the domain of reason and of public opinion in Europe. On those higher grounds which influence, or ought to influence, a Christian people—on those lower grounds which specially affect the British taxpayer, it is, I think, our bounden duty to do all that in us lies to promote a peaceful settlement of the Venetian question, and to avert, if possible, the outbreak of another war in Italy. If war broke out in Italy, it would soon, I think, involve Europe. Europe narrowly escaped from it only a few weeks since; and I trust that Europe will take warning from the occurcnces at Sarnico and at Brescia. I will not pretend to penetrate the mystery of those occurrences; but if an attack on the Tyrol was intended, an attack on the Tyrol would have been an attack, not only on Austria, but on the territory of the Germanic Confederation. It would have given to Austria, at all events, a pretext for calling Germany to her aid. If Austria had marched to Milan—if Austria had reconquered Lombardy—France might have been drawn into the field to defend the results which were obtained by the victories of Magenta and Solferino, and Europe might have seen the legions of four Powers contending upon the plains of Lombardy. If the Continent were engaged in war, it might be difficult for England to keep clear of its entanglements; and even if England did keep clear of those entanglements, she would soon feel in the diminution of her exports, involving a large increase of local, and, perhaps, ultimately of imperial taxation, the pressure of the calamity which had occurred. Under these circumstances, the Government, I hope, will be able to tell us that they are seeking earnestly to arrive at a peaceful solution of the Venetian difficulty. I hope, too, that

  255
  they will have the courage to lay boldly and unreservedly on the table of the House the information which they must have received with regard to the present state of the Venetian provinces—information which will enable Parliament to appreciate the existing danger in its full extent and bearing.
  Sir, I will not detain the House with any lengthened remarks with reference to our present relations with Austria. Austria has long been one of the leading European Powers. The wishes and policy of England point, I think, with sufficient distinctness to this, that Austria, if she will but march with the age, ought to continue to be a leading Power, and an element for maintaining the balance of power in Europe. That policy, I think, was well expressed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in a speech made so far back as 1849. In that speech he referred to those considerations which ought to render the maintenance of the Austrian empire an object of solicitude to every English statesman. Again, Sir, I cannot forget that Austria is, as regards this country, a friendly Power; and not only is Austria a friendly Power, but Austria is the ancient ally of England. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, so recently as March in last year, that during many contests in Europe for two centuries past, we had often contended in the same cause, and against the preponderance of other Powers, with Austria. Well, but then, Sir, the alliance of Austria with England means, in these days especially, if it means anything, an alliance with the principles of justice—an alliance with the principles of liberty and progress. It means, at home more free institutions for Austria; and I rejoice to think that she is obtaining them. It means abroad, if not absolute free trade, a liberalized commercial policy. Apart from these, the alliance of Austria with England has no great moral or material significance.
  Prince Napoleon, in his speech made in March of last year, spoke of the alliance between his country and England as being not an alliance with this or that minister, but with the great liberal English people. By that alliance, he said that France, though she might have to make concessions on secondary points, could defend the great principles of liberty and progress. Monsieur Billault said, in the same debate, that this alliance had already ac-
  256
  complished great things, and that still more remained to be done. Let us hope that Austrian statesmen will emulate these sentiments. If they do so, they will meet, I am persuaded, with a very cordial and hearty response here. England honours old alliances, but there are some things which England honours even more; and these are the principles of justice, the principles of liberty and progress applied in practice to the government of populations, whether they live beneath a native or an alien sway. I have alluded, and I am glad to have been able to allude, to the political changes which have taken place in Austria. Those changes cannot, I think, but tend to a greater community of political sentiments, and to greater harmony of political and commercial action between the Governments and the people of Austria and England. There cannot be a doubt that, in a commercial point of view, an alliance with a country like Austria, whose natural resources and producing powers are capable of large development, might, under a wise commercial system, be of great and growing importance to a country like England, which is the seat of a vast manufacturing industry. In the pathways of commercial reforms, indeed, Austria, as in the case of other reforms, moves slowly. Still Austria made some modifications in her prohibitive system in 1851. In that year, too—for I wish to be just to Austria even where Venice is concerned—she restored to Venice the privileges of a free port, of which Venice had been deprived on account of the part she had taken in the revolutionary movements of the preceding period. Austria took a further step in the right direction by concluding, in 1853, a commercial treaty with Prussia and the Zollverein. The changes it effected were productive of great benefit to Hungary, to Germany, and to Austria herself. As between the parties to the treaty, the duties, I believe, are generally three-fifths less than those which are levied on the productions of other countries. The more free access which English goods have obtained, and will obtain, to the Continent under the new commercial relations subsisting between England and France, combined with those which France is endeavouring to bring to completion with Prussia and the Zollverein, and the provisions of which will, it is said, be extended to England, will probably soon force Austria to modify still further her commercial system,

  257
  or to sacrifice an even larger amount of customs revenue on English goods than she at present sacrifices to the smuggler. Every month's delay in the conclusion of the treaty between France and Prussia is, we are told, a source of positive loss to England, yet our old ally Austria is instigating the southern States of the Zollverein to oppose its conclusion. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, will be able to tell us that the Government is directing its earnest attention to the extremely important subject of our commercial relations with Austria.
  I pass now, Sir, from Austria in her relations with this country to Austria in her relations with Venetia; and the subject is, I feel, a delicate and painful one. But no regard for old alliances ought, I think, to make us blind to the necessity of examining with care a question which, disguise its real character as you may, is undoubtedly a question full of danger to the peace of Europe. On this ground, and on other and more special grounds, we are, I think, clearly entitled to consider it; and this too, without offence to Austria. Austria has more than once solicited our mediation in the affairs of Italy, and England was a party to the Treaty of Vienna. That treaty reassigned to Austria the Venetian Provinces, upon the implied promise, at all events, that those provinces should be equitably governed. England, therefore, is bound to feel a special interest in everything which affects the material and political welfare of the inhabitants of those provinces. Before I refer to the state of Venetia, I am anxious, if the House will kindly permit me, to say a few words on the difficulties with which Austria, it is said, has to contend in considering what I believe to be the only real and final solution of the Venetian question—I mean the cession of Venetia to the Italian kingdom. Those difficulties have, I think, been overstated. It is said, I know, by some, that Austria cannot give up Venetia; because, if she does, she must give up Trieste also. Now, although my sympathies are with Italy, I could not, if I thought that Trieste must follow the destiny of the Venetian Provinces, honestly stand up in my place and say that Austria ought to listen for a single moment to any proposals for a cession of Venetia to the Italian kingdom. But I cannot, I confess, see that the cession of Venetia involves the cession of Trieste also. It is true that in
  258
  Trieste—drawn thither by commercial and other considerations—the Italian element preponderates. But in Trieste the Italian element is, at all events, the foreign element; it is the national element in Venetia. Again, Trieste, as a port, has greater natural advantages than the port of Venice, and it is of immense maritime and commercial importance to Austria. The shipping of Trieste, too, I am informed, comprised upwards of two-thirds of the entire shipping of Austria. Trieste, moreover, has been called the Hamburgh of Southern Germany, and it owes everything to Imperial favour. So far back as 1719 it was declared a free port by the Emperor Charles VI. It received important privileges from his daughter, that great Sovereign and virtuous woman the Empress Maria Theresa. Still later, in 1818, it acquired the title of "the most faithful city," and became a member of the Germanic Confederation. Again, thirty years later, in the time of the Italian and Hungarian revolutions, Trieste continued faithful to Austria, and it gave proofs of its Germanic predilections, if I remember rightly, by sending a representative to the German Parliament at Frankfort. For these reasons, Sir, I cannot see in this argument which relates to Trieste the force that some attribute to it. If I were an Austrian, I would not sacrifice a single shilling or a single man in order to maintain possession of Venetia, but I would sacrifice my last shilling and my last man rather than listen to any proposal for the cession of Trieste to the Italian kingdom. Then, again, it is urged by many that in a strategical point of view the possession of the Quadrilateral by Austria is necessary in order to enable her to defend the southern frontier of Germany. This point, with many others, has been ably, but not, I think, conclusively urged by Mr. Bonamy Price in his pamphlet on Venetia, to which Mr. Grenfell has published a pamphlet in reply. Without attempting to follow Mr. Price, I may say that his strategical arguments have, it seems to me, been answered by anticipation, by the Austrian Archduke Charles. The Archduke is a great military authority, and his principal work is published I believe, by the Government of Austria for the use of Austrian officers. A summary of the views of the Archduke has been so clearly and concisely given by Mr. R. Macdonnell, in an article in Macmillan's Magazine on "Venetia and the Peace of

  259
  Europe," that the House will, I hope, allow me to read the extract concerning it. It is as follows:—
  "In the introductory chapter of his History of the Campaign of 1799, the Archduke Charles enters into an elaborate consideration of the various possible theatres of war between France and Austria. He describes their geographical characters, and discusses at length the advantages and disadvantages to each of the belligerents presented by each scene of operations; and he comes to the conclusion that the valley of the Danube is the vital point in every war between France and Austria. He lays down distinctly that a march from Milan through Venetia upon Vienna is hopeless, so long as Austria holds the defiles of the Upper Danube; and he advises his countrymen, in every war with France, to devote, without hesitation, the bulk of their forces to the valley of the Danube. He refers to possible diversions on the side of Italy as little to be dreaded, and (what is not least important) he takes for granted that the advance of a French army on the Danube necessitates, as a matter of course, the evacuation by Austria of the Tyrol and of Northern Italy."
  And, Sir, not only have we the authority of the Archduke Charles as to the true points of defence for Austria, but in February of last year the Prussian Chamber of Deputies decided on the Motion of Von Vincke, in opposition to Baron Schleinitz and the whole power of the Government, that it was not in the interest of Prussia or of Germany to place any obstacles in the way of the consolidation of the unity of Italy. That, at all events, was a strong expression of opinion on the part of a majority in the Prussian Chamber, that the Quadrilateral was not wanted for the defence of Germany. It was equivalent to an abandonment of Venetia. Let us hope, Sir, that it will pave the way for the recognition by Prussia of Victor Emmanuel as King of Italy. I am sure, Sir, that we are all delighted to hear that the Emperor of Russia has recognised Victor Emmanuel, and that such recognition has not been purchased by any unworthy compliances on the part of the Italian Government. Well, but then, Sir, if the Quadrilateral is not wanted for the defence of Germany in the hands of Austria, it will be looked upon as a menace to the new kingdom of Italy. And, Sir, this brings us to the real question, which is, "Can peace be maintained if Austria is to continue to occupy in the Quadrilateral a position menacing to Italy?" I believe, Sir, that it is absolutely impossible. I believe, too, that the character of Austrian rule in the Venetian provinces, and still more the proposed increase in a taxation already crushing, must tend inevitably to
  260
  precipitate a crisis dangerous to Europe. The cries of suffering in Venetia become more audible; the sympathies of the party of action in Italy grow more impatient from day to day. Let us hope that peaceful means may be devised to avert a crisis, which the organs of opinion both in this and other countries assure us is impending.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Inclosure (No. 2); Indemnity; Merchandise Marks.
2a Harbours Transfer; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation; Coal Mines.
3a Lunacy (Scotland); Naval and Victualling Stores; Highways.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BROUGHAM, referring to what he had stated yesterday, said, he had done injustice to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Langdale) in not citing his authority for a Department of Justice. He had strongly recommended it more than once, and the last time he spoke in that House, a short time before his lamented decease, was to urge the adoption of this measure, which he pressed as the more requisite since the establishment of county courts. He (Lord Brougham) wished to move for a Return, placing side by side the Resolution and Address of the Commons of the 12th February, 1857, and the Answer of

  215
  Her Majesty to that Address, promising to give directions that the desire of the Commons should be taken into immediate consideration as its importance demanded. Formerly the mode of obtaining knowledge of what passed in the Commons was by the cumbrous process of a Committee to search the Commons' Journals. But of late the courtesy of that House had placed the Minutes of their Proceedings on our table; so that his Motion for the paper would at once be effectual, and it would appear how long there had been an entire neglect of this subject, whose importance the Royal Answer fully admitted.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as some doubt existed how far the leave of the Commons extended to any matter beyond their own proceedings, such as the Royal Answer to the Address, his noble and learned Friend would, perhaps, leave the Motion in his hands, as he was about to leave town, and he (Earl Granville) would take care, that the necessary forms being complied with, the object of the Motion should be obtained.
  LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his entire concurrence in this course, which ensured the production of the paper.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose, according to notice, to move an Address for—
  "Copy of a Representation of the Inefficiency of the Irish Constables to prevent or detect Crime, in consequence of the Military System by which they are organized and governed, made to the Irish Government by the Grand Jury of the County of Tipperary assembled at the Assizes lately held in Clonmel:
  "And to ask whether Constables are required to communicate with their superior Officers in Dublin, or elsewhere, before executing a Warrant signed by a Justice or Justices of the Peace in Irish Counties?"
  The noble Marquess said that his contention was that the Irish constabulary were, in consequence of their military organization, however suitable it might render them for the defence of the country from a foreign foe or an insurrection, materially detriorated in their efficiency for the prevention and detection of crime, and in that opinion he was supported, not only by the opinions of the Judges, but by those of every one who was connected with Irish affairs, except the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Chief of the Constabulary. No
  216
  men could be better conducted or more meritorious than the members of the force, but the faults of the system prevented their discharging the duties the performance of which was required of them. He did not believe that there was a general Ribbon conspiracy throughout the whole of Ireland, but cases of Ribbonism occurred here and there; yet it was very significant, that if an extensive society of that nature existed, the constabulary had not succeeded in convicting a single man of that crime of late years, and made no mention of it in their returns. It was also a very startling fact that, according to the last returns, out of 324 cases of malicious incendiarism, for which 61 persons were arrested, only 17 were convicted. It was well known that several murders of the most grievous description had lately been committed; the criminals were generally well known, and yet in many cases they escaped apprehension. It was the fault of the police system that justice was thus defeated. Twenty-three gentlemen of the grand jury of Tipperary had deliberately expressed their conviction that since a military character had been given to the constabulary their usefulness as a domestic force had been impaired. They pointed out that military arms and accoutrements deprived the police of the free use of their limbs, and rendered impossible for them to pursue delinquents over a close or hilly country. To equip the men in that way was as absurd as it would be to send a regiment of dragoons to search for a pickpocket in the alleys of St. Giles's. He had to complain also of the manner in which warrants were executed. It was absurd to require warrants to be sent to Dublin to be backed before being executed in an adjoining county, although the magistrate who had signed them held the commission of the peace for that as well as his own county; and he knew an instance in which the two days' delay thus caused had enabled a malefactor to escape. The motive for maintaining the present kind of force was to have a second army in Ireland; but that was not the original object of Parliament, and if they wanted a body as part of the fighting power of the country, they ought to put it under military law. He wanted to see a constabulary in Ireland which would detect crime, and prevent such a disgraceful scene as was asserted to have recently occurred, where a bonfire was lit upon the very spot on

  217
  which M. Thiebault was murdered, in order to celebrate the acquittal of Halloran. It was due to the peoble of Ireland to say that but for their good conduct there would be ten times as much crime in the country as there was, and that in criminal statistics they would bear comparison with any other population. The Irish constabulary were a fine body of men, but they had been spoilt as constables, and hence the evils of which he complained. He trusted the Government would pay some attention to the complaints of the magistracy of Ireland in this matter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested two or three trifling alterations in the wording of the Motion, and said that if these were assented to, the Government would not object to the Returns asked for. With regard to the charges which had been previously made against the constabulary, information which he had received went to show that they were unfounded; and the opinion of the Crown lawyers was in favour of the efficiency of the constabulary as police. As to the question raised by the noble Marquess whether it was requisite that the constabulary should communicate with their superior in Dublin before executing in one county a warrant signed by the justices of the peace in another, he had to state that this was done not in accordance with any police regulations, but pursuant to an Act of Parliament, and he was informed that this practice effected a great saving both of time and expense.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, the whole system of government in Ireland was dangerous and unconstitutional to the last degree. The Lord Lieutenant was an autocrat, and the police, his servants, were not governed by the laws of the country, but by what is called a police code, which was a sealed book. If the orders contained in that code were to be acted upon, they ought to be published. As it was, the constabulary were now looked upon as Zouaves rather than as police and it had been shown that they would not act against a foreign enemy, for during the Crimean war not one man of the force, when appealed to, would volunteer for the Guards. In point of fact, the police acted as spies upon the magistrates; their whole demeanour was offensive; and if some change were not made, disastrous consequences would ensue. They would report anything they were
  218
  desired to report; and, for his own part, he would not attach any credit either to their statements or their figures. The whole system was a system of falsehood and lying. He begged their Lordships' pardon for the expression, but he did feel that it was a gross and abominable system of corruption—he did not wish to mince matters—and he declared, that if the system was not changed, it would not be his fault, for he would do his best to make these official crimes known, for it was a crime to charge all sorts of evil to the people of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped the Government would consider what steps could be taken to improve the police system; but he did not concur in the sweeping condemnation to which they had just listened.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  Address for—
  "Copy of a Resolution agreed upon by the Grand Jury assembled at the late Special Commission held at Clonmel for the County of Tipperary, relative to the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant: And also,
  "Copy of Correspondence relating thereto:"
  —agreed to.

LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL No. 152.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving the third reading of this Bill, said, that a notice of Amendment given by a noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Montrose) rendered it necessary to give a description of this Bill. By the present law the Lunacy Board of Scotland, appointed five years ago, would expire in the course of a few weeks. The Board consisted of two medical paid Commissioners, two legal members (who unfortunately were not paid), and of a chairman; and considerable powers—though as he should proceed to show hardly sufficient powers—were conferred upon that Board, analogous to those conferred on the Board of Lunacy in England. At the time the Act was passed it was thought doubtful whether it would be necessary to continue the Board, and it was therefore provided that at the expiration of five years the Board should cease to exist, but the two medical gentlemen were to be continued permanently, no longer as members of the Board, but as Inspectors General of Scotland, communicating with the Home Se-

  219
  cretary. The powers of the Board with regard to the inspection of asylums were continued to the Inspectors; but the larger powers of the Board, as to the inspection of asylums, was no longer to remain in their hands but in the hands of the Secretary of State. The House might ask, why come to Parliament at the end of five years to continue those powers which Parliament had intended should expire? Various difficulties had been found in the wording of the Act, and principally one which it was intended that this Bill should remedy. It was intended by Parliament that the Board should have very large compulsory powers with respect to the erection of asylums, and nothing could be more distinct or emphatic from the clause of the existing law, which provided for the case of counties or boroughs being recalcitrant or obstinate in providing these asylums, than that it was the intention of the Legislature that the Board should have power to enforce the erection. Parliament, however, did not provide the necessary machinery for enforcing their requisition, and this was one reason why it was thought that increased powers should be given to the Board, and that its existence should be prolonged for a short period. There was, however, one other point. It was obvious that no Lunacy Board could be established without running counter to many local interests, and hence it had called forth great opposition. It had been one duty of the Board to report as to pauper lunatics; and though he believed that the Board had fairly performed their duty upon this subject, a considerable feeling of objection had been raised against them, for it was said that the medical Commissioners acted as Inspectors, and they reported to themselves as the Board. It was further objected that in consequence of there being no payment provided for the legal members the Board substantially consisted of the two medical men, so that the Inspectors reported simply to them. It was, however, but just to the legal members to state, that when any legal point arose, those gentlemen had not shown any remissness. He might observe that this state of things also existed in England, where some of the Board were Inspectors likewise. A Bill had been brought in early this Session by the Lord Advocate; and he must say that the composition of the new Board which the learned Lord proposed was not entirely satisfactory. It had been much objected to, and the
  220
  Lord Advocate had therefore announced that he would abandon his first measure, and bring in simply a continuance Bill, with the sole addition of clauses with regard to the erection of asylums. That was the state of the case at the present time; and it was not till this Bill had reached its last stage that the noble Duke opposite had proposed a clause which would sweep away the medical inspection altogether. He saw no objection to the second Amendment, which he now understood was to be proposed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Montrose) as to the continuance of the Board, though he must observe that the Amendment, if carried, would be in violation of the privileges of the House of Commons, and therefore there was no chance of it being agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEintimated, that he should propose his original and not his second Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: That was to the effect that not only the Board, but the office of Inspectors General should cease at the end of two years; and in fact, that the whole system of lunacy in Scotland should at that period come to an end. He was of opinion, that if their Lordships agreed to such an Amendment, it would be injurious to the public interests, and also a breach of public faith; for one of the Inspectors General (Dr. Brown) had given up a more lucrative situation which he held at the head of one of the largest asylums in Scotland, and he had done so on the distinct understanding that his appointment should be a permanent one. If the noble Duke simply wished to have the subject brought forward again at the end of two years, his object would be secured without his Amendment being agreed to, for there was no doubt that they must before long appoint deputy inspectors.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a.
  On the Question, That the Bill do pass,
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, his Amendment was in form that the 22nd and 23rd clauses of the first recited Act should be repealed. It was felt to be a monstrous thing that the whole of the lunacy affairs of Scotland should be left to two medical men, without any appeal except to the Secretary of State, and it was therefore wished that there should be some arrangement which would render it necessary that this matter should be reconsidered within a short time. His second Amendment, that

  221
  the Board should continue until Parliament otherwise determined, would have virtually secured this; but as that Amendment would be in breach of the privileges of the other House, he would propose his other Amendment in lieu of it.
  Amendment moved,
  At the end of the Bill to add the following Clanse:—"Sections 22 and 23 of the first recited Act and such other of the provisions of the recited Acts as are inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed."
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that if these two clauses continued in force, the two Inspectors would, at the end of two years, have all the power possessed by the Board.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, what he feared was lest anything should occur which would throw them back on the parochial boards. Nothing could be more horrible, and he should oppose anything which would have a tendency directly or indirectly to bring about that result. They must have a body altogether independent. The subject must again come under the revision of Parliament, which was the object of the noble Duke who moved the Amendment; but inasmuch as the Bill as it stood would also have that effect, he hoped the noble Duke would withdraw his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the Lord Advocate had given him the most positive assurance that he had never given it to be understood that he would introduce a clause which would render the appointments of the Inspectors merely temporary.
  On Question, "Whether the said Clause shall be there added?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 40; Not Contents 31: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Ailsa, M.

  Romney, E.

  Bath, M.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Normanby, M.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Airlie, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Dungannon, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Cathcart, E.

  Derby, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Desart, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Bagot, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Churston, L.

  Nelson, E.

  222

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Lilford, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Redesdale, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Sondes, L.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Crewe, L.

  Dunfermline, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Fortescue, L. (E. Fortescue.)

  Somerset, D.

  Harris, L.

  Ailsbury, M.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Granville, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Grey, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Everaley, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sydney, V. [Teller.]

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Taunton, L.

  London, Bp.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was inclined to think that with that Amendment it would be better that the Bill should not be passed into law. But as it would come again under the consideration of the House of Commons, he would not then oppose its passing.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Duke's argument might be very conclusive, but it was quite incomprehensible. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had paid great attention to these matters, had expressed his belief that a revision of the present system would become necessary before two years were passed, in consequence of the abuses of the system. The noble Duke himself (the Duke of Argyll) had also acknowledged, that as the measure contained no provision for the continuance of the deputy inspectors, its revision would be inevitable in a couple of years.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbelieved that the Amendment would bring to a termination not only the Bill, but the system of inspection, which would be a most unsatisfactory result.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEhoped th noble Duke would reconsider his opinion, and proceed with the Bill.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BISHOPS FOR HEATHEN COUNTRIES BILL— [BILL No. 129.]

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the Bill which he had now to ask their Lordships to read a second time was a very brief one, consisting of a single enacting paragraph. He would shortly state the circumstances which rendered it desirable in his opinion that they should give their sanction to such a measure. In the 26th year of Henry VIII. an Act was passed requiring that there should be the licence of the Crown to fill the office of bishop, and the mandate of the Crown to enable the Archbishop of Canterbury to proceed to consecrate the bishops so named. The object was to prevent the intrusion into sees within the dominions of the Crown of Bishops named by the Pope; and it seemed perfectly clear that it was not the intention to limit the power of bishops and archbishops of the Established Church to confer the merely spiritual office of bishop, as separate from exercising the office in one of the sees in the United Kingdom. But when it was thought desirable to appoint now bishops for the United States after the severance of their connection with this country, it was found that the terms of the Act of Henry VIII. were so extensive, that a new Act had to be passed for the purpose of enabling the archbishops and bishops in England to proceed to the consecration of the American bishops. The preamble of that latter Act was the immediate cause of the difficulty which he proposed to remove by the present measure. That preamble declared that it would be unlawful for the archbishops and bishops without the licence of the Crown to proceed to consecrate; and the consequence was that, in the opinion of lawyers, that amounted to a Parliamentary declaration that the power of conveying even the purely spiritual authority of a bishop, without holding a see within the dominions of the Sovereign of England was thus limited. It was, consequently, necessary to pass a new Act with respect to the consecration of the Bishop of Jerusalem, which recited the old one, and gave the form of licence to proceed to the consecration. It was a great exception to the ordinary law of nations, and the result of an arrangement between the Government of England and the Mohammedan Govern-
  224
  ment, by which the consent of the latter was obtained. The whole collective legal powers of a bishop, as distinguished from the spiritual powers, were derived from the Crown, and could only be granted within its own dominions. The Crown could not, he apprehended, grant them externally except by arrangement with the governing power of the foreign country. Of late years the desire of the English people had been to favour all attempts of the Church of England to spread the blessed truths which it had itself received among heathen people. At first there was no wish to subject missions to the control of bishops. No bishops were granted to America as long as it was united to this country. But an alteration of opinion had occurred, and it was found that nothing so effective to spread the truth could be devised as placing over the labourers of the vineyard their own proper head, a bishop of their own Church. The result was that colonial bishops had multiplied until they now exceeded in number the bishops at home. The same spirit led Churchmen to desire to place over the missions abroad bishops of the Church of England, who would lend the whole strength of their authority, and the advantage of their direction to the difficult task of converting the heathen. There was nothing in the words or intention of the Act of Henry VIII. which touched the question. The object of the Legislature was to prevent the intrusion into the sees of England and Ireland of bishops to occupy those sees not named by the Crown. It had nothing to do with the spiritual office or authority. But the Act of Uniformity required that no person should be consecrated to the office of bishop in England or Ireland except by the archbishop and bishops using the office of consecration provided in the Common Prayer Book. One part of that office was a rubric which directed that at a certain point the Queen's licence and mandate should be demanded by the officiating archbishop, and should be read; and it was held by lawyers that the rubric was taken up into the Act of Uniformity by the words in the Act referring to the form of consecration wherein the rubric was contained. There was no intention whatever to limit the power possessed by bishops of the Church of England any more than the power of bishops in every country in Europe. But, as an incidental effect, their power was limited, and they were under restrictions to which Wesleyans and Roman Catholics were not

  225
  subject in regard to sending out missions, with a proper head, perfect and complete. By favour of the Government, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been obtained upon the question whether a colonial metropolitan (such as the Bishop of the Cape of Good Hope and the Bishop of New Zealand), with two other colonial bishops, could consecrate missionary bishops without the licence and mandate of the Crown, and their opinion was affirmative. But it was inconvenient to be forced to have recourse to that mode. There must be two bishops present with the metropolitan. They were placed at great distances, sometimes 400 and 500 miles apart. Great expense must be incurred, and often a delay of one or two years before consecration could take place. It was, further, a great safeguard to bring the bishops sent into heathendom as much as possible into connection with the mother Church, and they were far more under influence and control when consecrated by the archbishop and bishops than when sent out from these colonial centres. For these reasons it was desirable that the difficulties in the way of consecration to the purely spiritual office should be removed. Even within the dominions of the Queen recent legislation had set free the colonial bishops themselves from these requirements, and at this moment the Canadian clergy and laity elected their own bishops and proceeded to consecration without the licence or mandate of the Crown. If the Church was thus set free within the Queen's dominions, how much stronger was the case when, as he submitted, no conceivable evil could arise from putting an end to the restriction. His reason for making this proposal was no theoretical setting free of the Church—he had a direct practical object in view. Two years ago a large sum of money was raised in order to establish a mission in Central Africa, follow up the discoveries of Dr. Livingstone, suppress the slave trade, and propagate Christ's Gospel there. A bishop was consecrated, a settlement formed on the high grounds of Central South Africa, with a great gathering of people round; and in a letter which he had recently received Dr. Livingstone stated that all his expectations were being fulfilled; and that if the mission could only be maintained for a short time longer, the slave trade would be stopped, and the whole settlement would become entirely self-supporting. But the bishop died of a fever, not having lived in vain, and Dr.
  226
  Livingstone earnestly urged the importance of losing no time in appointing his successor. There was other testimony to the same effect; but it would not be possible to comply with these wishes unless the existing difficulties in regard to consecration could be surmounted. This matter touched not the supremacy of the Crown. The Church of England was incidentally prevented from exercising a purely spiritual power, which for every reason she ought to be at liberty to use, in order to enable her to discharge her duty as a missionary Church, and set her free for the great work before her. The Bill which he now proposed to their Lordships to read a second time had, for its object, to remove from the Church of England those shackles which at present so much impeded her usefulness.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORfelt it his duty to give the most earnest opposition to this Bill, which was not requisite for the purpose of enabling the Church to perform the great work of piety and charity mentioned by the right rev. Prelate. There was no need of any enactment beyond those already in existence for the purpose of constituting bishoprics in heathen or foreign countries; and he regarded this Bill as one of the first steps taken to assail and remove the supremacy of the Crown, and as a serious attempt to affect the relations between Church and State. He begged their Lordships to oppose the first commencement of any such legislation, which might otherwise be drawn into a most dangerous precedent. The 25 Henry VIII., alluded to by the right rev. Prelate, was one of the most important laws on the statute book—it placed the Crown in the position in which, constitutionally, he hoped it would always remain—as head of the Church. Now, as head of the Church, the Crown arrogated to itself no power of determining matters of faith, further than they were involved in the Articles and in the Liturgy; but the Crown claimed the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction which was exercised by the ecclesiastical courts. The statute of Henry VIII. had another object, which was not only to place the Crown in that position, but further to enact that no dignitary in the Church should be created within any part of the Queen's dominions without the sanction of the Crown. The object of the present Bill was to do away with that necessity—this, at all events, was its effect;—and it would give what many were

  227
  so desirous of obtaining—an independent action of the Church, as they called it—an emancipation of the Church from the obedience which the constitution required from her to the Crown. This obedience was one of the distinct objects of the statute of Henry VIII., the principle embodied in which had always been adhered to in subsequent legislation. It was perfectly true that the Act was directed to everything which should be done within the realm or any other of the Queen's dominions; and what their Lordships were now asked by this Bill to do was to empower the archbishops, without the authority of the Crown, to consecrate a bishop within the realm, although the mission and the duty of the bishop would lie more particularly in foreign countries. Now, the first occasion on which it became necessary to consider the propriety of appointing bishops to exercise their office not within the realm, was shortly after the separation of the United States from this country. At that time application was made to Parliament to enable the bishops of the English Church to institute persons as bishops to act in that capacity for the benefit of the large congregations of individuals attached to the English Church who were to be found in the United States. But what were the conditions with which the power was accompanied? Power was given to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with such bishops as they should call to their assistance, to consecrate persons, being subjects or citizens of countries out of Her Majesty's dominions, without the Queen's licence or the Royal mandate under the Great Seal. But, then, it was also enacted that no person could be consecrated a bishop in the manner thus provided until the Archbishop should first have applied for and obtained His Majesty's licence by warrant under his Royal signet authorizing and empowering the performance of such consecration and expressing the name of the person to be consecrated. Thus, although the Royal mandate was dispensed with, the supremacy of the Crown was preserved, and authority from the Crown was required before consecration was permitted within the realm. The next occasion on which this subject was discussed was upon the appointment of the Bishop of Jerusalem. It was then provided that any archbishop or bishop should consecrate any British subject or subject of a foreign state to be a bishop in any foreign country. The Bill now proposed
  228
  to give power to create bishops to act in foreign countries; but the power and authority were already given, and therefore there was no necessity for this Bill. But the present Bill went beyond that. When the general power was given to dispense with the Queen's warrant it was also provided that no person should be consecrated a bishop until the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York should have applied for and obtained Her Majesty's licence to perform such consecration. Those conditions had been required as necessary compliances with the law and the constitution, because it was necessary, to maintain the Constitution of the country in Church and State, that no act should be done by which dignity is conferred, except under special authority emanating from the Sovereign, as the source of all authority, temporal and spiritual. It may be said that the object of the licence was to give spiritual jurisdiction; but if the right rev. Prelate looks to the Act of Parliament to which I have referred, he will find that the second clause provides that any bishop so consecrated might exercise, within such limits as might from time to time be assigned for the purpose in such foreign countries by Her Majesty, spiritual jurisdiction over the ministers of British congregations of the Church of England and Ireland, and over such other Protestant congregations as should be desirous of placing themselves under his authority. The Bill before the House was limited to the object of consecrating bishops to officiate in heathen countries with a view to evangelize the heathen. He sympathized with that, and he thought the right rev. Prelate would receive with satisfaction his assurance that the Bill was unnecessary, although he might regret that he had been induced to delay in responding to the appeals that had been made to him. But to get rid of the necessity for the licence of the Crown, to dispense with the acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Crown, to give independent action to the Church, to lay a foundation for the severance of Church and State, to emancipate the Church from the control of the State—all these objects, although properly disclaimed by the right rev. Prelate, might be effected by this Bill. It would, he believed, lead—no doubt, unconsciously on the part of its proposer—to a putting aside of the Crown in the consecration of bishops by the archbishops. That was opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and opposed to precedent, and he

  229
  hoped the proposition would not receive the sanction of their Lordships. There was no reason to depart from precedent, because there was no difficulty in obtaining the licence of the Crown. Therefore there was no object or necessity for this Bill, which had been introduced under an erroneous belief, and which he hoped would not receive the sanction of the House.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the Bill as originally laid on the table of the House contained a distinct clause requiring the assent of the Crown to the consecration of a missionary bishop; and so far as he had had an opportunity of discussing the Bill with his right rev. Brother, he believed that the Royal permission for the consecration formed a part of the scheme he desired to see adopted. He did not know why his right rev. Brother had withdrawn that clause. If the Bill were proceeded with, he should think it his duty to move its re-insertion. From the conversation he had had with his right rev. Brother, he did not think he would object to such a proposition; and if it were acceded to, he believed there would be no difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and his right rev. Brother on that point. The noble and learned Lord had stated how much could be done under the existing law; but there were difficulties which this Bill was intended to meet which were not provided for by the existing law. As a matter of fact, in December last, a bishop had been consecrated for Honolulu, for a country over which Her Majesty had no dominion. The appointment was made at the request of the independent Sovereign of the country, and the consecration took place under the Jerusalem Bishopric Act. Having taken part in the consecration, he was bound to say that there were serious difficulties in proceeding under that Act. The law was that the bishop to be consecrated under Her Majesty's licence should act as a bishop of the Church of England. The request of the Sovereign of Honolulu was that the Church of England would send out a bishop who should become the founder of a Church of his own in that part of the world, and therefore phrases had to be inserted in the licence which were felt to be out of place. Hence it was felt that some change in the existing law was required. Again, there was another
  230
  reason for the present measure, that persons ordained by the bishops consecrated under the Jerusalem Bishopric Act or the American Act could not exercise their functions within Her Majesty's dominions except for two days. No such restrictions applied to the bishops who, without the Queen's licence, had of late been consecrated at Cape Town and in New Zealand. The missionary bishops consecrated under Her Majesty's licence were, therefore, in a far more disadvantageous position than those consecrated without any reference to the Royal licence. These were the reasons which led him to think that there was a necessity for some alteration of the law; first, that the law, as it at present stood, was not well applicable to cases which actually arose, because incongruities occurred in applying the American Bishops Act and the Bishop of Jerusalem Act; secondly, that the law as now administered put those who were consecrated at home by Her Majesty's licence under these Acts in a more disadvantageous position than those who were consecrated in the Colonies without any referenec to Her Majesty. One thing he was perfectly certain of, that those of his right reverend Brethren who had assented to the introduction of this Bill contemplated nothing whatever that would interfere with the Royal supremacy, and that they valued the blessings which arose to the Church of England from that supremacy. It might, perhaps, be well to ventilate the subject a little longer before legislating, but there was a growing feeling of the necessity of some change, and and he could not but think that his right rev. Brother had only fulfilled a simple duty in bringing the subject under their Lordships' notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down referred to a clause in the first edition of the Bill requiring the assent of the Crown. Now, what was the effect of that clause? It required that before any consecration of a bishop should take place the assent of the Crown thereto should be duly signified to the Archbishop, thus making the Crown a mere assenting party, and the office to emanate from the Archbishop. Now, he would consent to nothing, and he hoped their Lordships would not consent to anything, by which the licence, the authority, and the office would not come directly from the Crown in the manner provided for by the existing statutes.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDhoped their Lordships would permit him to trouble them with a word or two in explanation. The Lord Chancellor spoke with grave authority; but the graveness of his authority should lead to very great exactness. He thought the noble and learned Lord had used high-sounding words of very huge import, but had given no reference to the facts which he had asserted. He would prove that the noble and learned Lord had asserted what was not the fact. For instance, he said that an Act was passed in the reign of Henry VIII. to secure the supremacy of the Crown, by which the Crown was made the head of the Church; and he proceeded to argue from that, that the power to issue a licence for the consecration of a bishop was an inalienable power of the supremacy, and was guaranteed by that Act. What was the fact? It was perfectly true that the 25 Henry VIII., c. 2, enacted that the King's Highness should be head of the Church of England, and that he should have all power of suppressing heresy, and setting right doctrine; but surely the noble and learned Lord should have been aware that that Act was repealed in the reign of Mary; and when at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth the Acts bearing on this matter repealed under the reign of her predecessor were re-enacted, that Act was specially not re-enacted. Therefore the Act which the noble and learned Lord had cited
  in proof of the Queen's supremacy as head of the Church had no bearing on the subject under discussion. The Act that did bear on it was the 20 Henry VIII., which recited that express licence should be necessary for the filling of any bishopric within the King's dominions, That Act expressly stated that the licence should be necessary for filling any bishopric or see within the King's dominions. The whole legislation of Henry the Eighth's reign was very exact, and it did not claim what the noble and learned Lord had claimed for the Crown—namely, that it was the source of the spiritual authority of the Church; on the contrary, it disclaimed it. What it claimed was that the Crown was the source of the jurisdiction appended by law to the exercise of the authority which came from the foundation of the Church. The two things were as different as possible. The supremacy of the Crown was the supremacy of the law. The Act required that all jurisdiction exercised by the ecclesiastical courts should be derived from the Crown.
  232
  It never stated that the spiritual authority of the bishops, the power of conscience governing the souls of those in communion, was derived from the State. This would be to do all that Romanists had put forward in their worst forms of attack against the Church of England.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, those noble Lords who had listened to him attentively must have observed that he entirely disclaimed for the Crown any authority in spiritual matters, except as regarded the Articles and Liturgy. To say that he had sought to invest the Crown with spiritual authority was merely to play on the double meaning of the words "head of the Church," and to attribute to him a claim on behalf of the Crown to a spiritual headship which in the language of Queen Elizabeth's statute was Christ's.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he did not perceive that that explanation made the slightest difference. The whole point turned on the words in the 20 Henry VIII., enacting that the King and his successors might grant a licence, as had been customary of old time. He asked the noble and learned Lord to point out any statute of the realm that contemplated any other licence prior to the Act for consecrating the American bishops and the Bishop of Jerusalem Act. When the noble and learned Lord talked about the danger of the thin end of the wedge, it seemed entirely to have slipped his memory, that so far from this being the beginning, in the case of two bishops within the Queen's dominions this liberty had already been conceded. It was not the jurisdiction, but the authority, of which the noble and learned Lord spoke in relation to the Crown.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said "all spiritual authority exercised by any ecclesiastical courts." There is again an attempt to play on the double meaning of the word "spiritual."
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I am very glad to have drawn from the noble and learned Lord a limitation which was not in his speech. ["Order!"] In what way am I out of order?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The right rev. Prelate asks in what way he is out of order. Why, has not the right rev. Prelate given a direct contradiction to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack?
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYobserved, that he had heard the noble and learned Lord use the words he had just repeated to the

  233
  House, after he had first spoken of the supremacy of the Crown.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was sitting close to the Lord Chancellor, and he believed he had used the very words he had just repeated.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONwas proceeding to state to their Lordships his recollection of the Lord Chancellor's first statement, when
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose, and expressed a hope that this kind of discussion would not be persevered in. There was a Standing Order of their Lordships' House to the effect that a Peer's own statement as to words which had been used by him should be accepted by the House.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDaccepted the noble and learned Lord's statement—accepted it thankfully. He should be happy to make any additions to the Bill which legal sagacity could point out, in order to avoid those dreadful evils which the noble and learned Lord had foreshadowed, but which he had not shown their Lordships any ground for apprehending. He therefore hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the right rev. Prelate would not press the second reading of the Bill. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that more time was required for a consideration of the subject; and he thought the argument of the Lord Chancellor, with regard to the constitutional question, remained unweakened by that of the right rev. Prelate who had charge of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he would not press the Bill to a division, especially as there was so small a representation of the episcopal Bench present.
  THE EARL OF DERBYunderstood that one main object of the Bill was that no time should be lost in filling up two vacancies which had occurred. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had stated that under the existing Act there would be no difficulty in applying immediately for the licence of the Crown, which, under the circumstances, would not be refused. Considering that fact, and seeing great inconvenience in continuing a discussion which might lead to no result, he would recommend the right rev. Prelate not to press the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was contended that he had made a mistake in using the word "spiritual." Now,
  234
  what was the oath of allegiance? It said that—
  "No Foreign Prince, Power, Prelate, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, civil or ecclesiastical, in this realm."
  And another declaration contained an acknowledgment of Her Majesty's supremacy in all spiritual matters—not spiritual with regard to matters of faith or doctrine, but spiritual as to jurisdiction.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, the noble and learned Lord had again been guilty of an inaccuracy. He had said that Her Majesty was supreme over all matters. That was not the case; it was in all causes and over all persons. That Her Majesty was supreme in all causes he allowed, but her supremacy over all matters would greatly alter the case. After what had been said he had no hesitation in withdrawing the Bill.
  Amendment and Original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Eleven o'clock.