Sitting of 25 April 1865

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 24] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Mortgage Debentures [Stamps] *; Land Debentures [Stamps.]*
Ordered—Greenwich Hospital *; Union of Benefices Act Amendment *; Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment *; Railway Clauses.*
First Reading—Greenwich Hospital * [113]; Railway Clauses * [114].
Second Reading—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) * [101]; Charitable Trusts Fees [65] negatived; Oxford University (Vinerian Foundation) [107].
Committee—Local Government Supplemental [58]; Mortgage Debentures (re-comm.) * [72]—R.P.
Report—Local Government Supplemental * [58].

METROPOLIS SEWAGE AND ESSEX RECLAMATION BILL—(by Order.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill further considered.
  SIR WILLIAM RUSSELL SIR WILLIAM RUSSELL moved that the following clause be added to the Bill:—
  "Article 15 of the said agreement scheduled to this Act is hereby annulled; and if the main culverts are not completed in the manner defined in Article 8 of the said agreement within the time prescribed in that behalf by this Act, then, notwithstanding anything in the said agreement or in this Act, the concession made by the said agreement shall at the expiration of that time absolutely cease and determine; and Article 25 of the said agreement scheduled to this Act is altered by extending the power of the Board to inspect the vouchers to the books of account therein mentioned."
  He thought the clause would meet the objections that were raised to the passing of the Bill before the Easter recess.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that this clause was intended to carry out what was understood to be the wishes of all parties—namely, that in the event of the promoters of this scheme not being able to complete it within the time allowed by Parliament they should have no claim upon the ratepayers for indemnity, and they should proceed upon the merits of the scheme and at their own risk. The clause also provided that the Metropolitan Board should have full liberty to inspect the books and papers of the promoters. With this additional clause he did not think the Bill was further objectionable.
  Clause added.
  Bill to be read 3°.

EXHIBITION OF REFORMATORY CHILDREN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TAVERNER MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a proposed Exhibition of Reformatory Children, to be held at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, from the 19th to the 25th May next, and whether it meets with his sanction and approbation? He might, perhaps, be allowed to add that the children had all been criminal offenders.
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, his attention had not been drawn to this subject, nor had he heard of any intention to hold such an exhibition till yesterday, when the hon. Gentleman was good enough to inform him of the Notice he had placed on the paper, in order that his attention might be called to it. This morning, however, he had received by post a printed paper, stating that the exhibition, about to take place, was an exhibition of the products of the industry of children in Reformatories, and that on a certain day one thousand of the children would perform certain pieces of music, such as the Morning and Evening Hymn. He certainly entirely agreed with what he understood to be the feeling of the hon. Gentleman, that it was most inexpedient that children who had been convicted of crime and sent to Reformatories should be made a public exhibition of in this manner. He had, therefore, sent to Mr. Turner, the Inspector of Reformatories, to know whether he was aware of the intention to hold such an exhibition. He had not been able himself to see Mr. Turner, but he understood from him that no child who was an inmate of any Government Reformatory would he present—the children proposed to be present at the exhibition were wholly unconnected with Reformatories certified by the Government or receiving any grant from Government.
  MR. TAVERNER MILLERsaid, that it had been announced that two hundred children would be present from the Middlesex Industrial School.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that was not a certified Reformatory. It existed under an Act which there was a Bill now before Parliament to amend; but it was not a certified Reformatory, and received nothing from the Government.

OBSOLETE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, When he intends to bring in a Bill to repeal Obsolete Acts of Parliament in continuation of the Act of 1863?
  MR. ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that the Bill was in preparation. He could not state positively that it would be introduced during the present Session, because accuracy in such a matter was of primary importance; but he had every reason to hope that he should be able to introduce it.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL— [BILL 113.]

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the better government of Greenwich Hospital, and the more beneficial application of the revenues thereof. Towards the end of last Session, in a debate raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), he had stated in general terms what were the views of the Government with respect to the future management of the Hospital and the application of its revenues. In a few words the position of the Hospital at that time was this—it was enjoying an income of £154,000 per annum, and the expenditure in connection with it was about £134,000, so that there was a surplus, real or apparent, of about £20,000. He said "real or apparent," because the real surplus was not so large; a portion of the income was only of a temporary nature, and provision was made for investing it. He stated the expenditure of the Hospital in connection with seamen and marines at £107,700, or £70 per head. He said that the Commissioners, in their Report, had stated that an endeavour should be made to increase the numbers in the Hospital from 1,600 to 2,300; but, in spite of every endeavour to increase the number by additional gratuities, additional advantages to married men, additional comforts in the Hospital and otherwise, instead of an increase, when he spoke in the beginning of June last year, there were only 1,508 inmates. He stated that the Admiralty had very carefully considered the whole subject, and the evidence taken by the Commission; and, having in view the opinion indicated by the Commissioners themselves—in the event of

  1003
  their plan to attract more men into the Hospital failing—the Government had come to the conclusion that, instead of endeavouring to attract a larger number of seamen into Greenwich Hospital by additional gratuities and the greater comforts that might be given to them, and thus only making more expensive an institution which, however suited to a past age, was of a quasi-monastic character, and not so well adapted to the exigencies of the present time, it would be better to ascertain whether the very large funds at the disposal of the Hospital might not be expended in a manner better calculated to meet the wants of the old sailors to whom those funds belonged. He stated, with reference to the recommendations of the Commission, and the notorious evils of the double government of the Hospital, that the Government had taken up the question as a whole, and as they were proposing to make a very great change with respect to the admission of seamen into the Hospital, the whole management should be treated de novo, and established on a more satisfactory basis. It was then proposed to limit the admission to infirm and helpless seamen, and to pensioners who require medical assistance of a temporary character, making the Hospital serve for pensioners as Haslar did for seamen in the service, as well as an asylum when they were unable to take care of themselves. The number estimated to be provided for would be thus reduced to 600 seamen and marines. They then proposed to apply the large and increased funds at the disposal of the Hospital to increasing the out-pensions of seamen after certain ages, and giving additional retirements to officers. The government of the Hospital should henceforth be under the same system that prevailed at Haslar; and the management of the Hospital revenues would be entirely distinct from that of the expenditure. With respect to the officers and clerks employed, the Government proposed to compensate them liberally. A great variety of details were involved, but he had promised that during the recess a joint Committee of the Treasury and Admiralty would be appointed, and that he hoped at an early period in the present Session a measure would be proposed to carry the scheme into effect. The Admiralty had complied literally with the engagement he then made. In the first instance, they had altered the regulations with regard to admissions to the Hospital,
  1004
  limiting them to wounded and maimed or infirm and helpless seamen and marines, and those who were in want of medical assistance. Later in the year a joint Committee of the Treasury and Admiralty was appointed, consisting of Mr. Hamilton, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Richard Bromley, and himself; and though the serious illness of Sir Richard Bromley had caused some delay, they had made a Report in February which had been carefully considered by the two Departments, and the measure he now asked leave to introduce was founded on that Report. He need not say that that Committee did not inquire into, nor were they responsible for, the general features of the scheme. The principles had been laid down for them in the Admiralty Minute, in which the Treasury concurred. He would lay on the table all the papers on the subject, which would show what difficulties had been experienced with respect to some of the details; as to which, however, nothing would be kept from the House. He would now state to the House what they proposed to do with respect to the management of the income of Greenwich Hospital, That income was now about £154,000 a year, and it arose first from the interest on certain invested moneys; next from a grant of £20,000 from the Consolidated Fund in lieu of the old deductions from merchant seamen's wages called seamen's sixpences; and lastly from rents of estates in the North and in the neighbourhood of Greenwich amounting to about £40,000 a year. The Government proposed that the management of this income should be kept perfectly distinct from that of the expenditure of the Hospital, and should be placed under the guardianship of that House. The entire expenditure connected with Greenwich Hospital would appear in the Estimates, so that the House of Commons would have complete control over it. With respect to the income, they had considered it most necessary to provide that, under no circumstances, should the income of Greenwich Hospital be regarded as part of the general revenue of the country. That income was applicable to certain specified purposes which had been defined by law, and would continue to be so applied; and although the House would be able to object to any part of its expenditure, it should not have the power of applying the income to other purposes. At the same time, it was rather difficult

  1005
  satisfactorily to constitute a department for the management of this income. To retain three Commissioners, a Secretary, and Treasurer, with all their paraphernalia, would be absurd, nor would it be proper to leave to a single Commissioner the entire management of estates of such magnitude. It had been, indeed, proposed to associate unpaid Commissioners with a paid officer, but the experience of boards so composed was not favourable. What the Government proposed was that an officer should be appointed by law, to be called "The Controller of the Greenwich Hospital Estate," and that the estates themselves should be vested in the Board of Admiralty, and should be managed by this Officer, who would be placed under its direction. By this means they anticipated that they would obtain, on the one hand, economical management, for he need not say that the department which would be required would be a very small one; and, on the other, complete security that the estates should be kept altogether separate from other public estates of the country by being vested in a body specially responsible for the affairs of the navy. Passing from the management of I the income, what they proposed as to the expenditure was, that in the first instance the whole expenditure on account of Greenwich—that was, on account of the Establishment at Greenwich itself, and the out-pensions and retirements, which would be a charge upon the Greenwich Estate—should be provided by a Vote of Parliament, and that the arrangements as to pensions and the Establishment at Greenwich should be subject to Orders in Council, in the same way that other j arrangements under the direction of the Admiralty were subject to such Orders; that the income of Greenwich should be carried to a separate account in the books of the Paymaster General, and that at the end of the year, when the actual expenditure on account of these services had been ascertained and certified by the Commissioners of Audit, that amount should be transferred to the credit of the Consolidated Fund from the Greenwich Hospital account, so that if there was a balance in favour of that account the balance might be invested for its benefit; and if, unfortunately, there was a balance against it, the deficiency should be made up out of the capital. In that way the account of the income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital would be kept entirely
  1006
  separate from that of the other income and expenditure of the country; and that House would have entire control over every shilling expended in connection with Greenwich. They also proposed very largely to extend the functions of the Commissioners of Audit. At present the details of the landed income were not audited by those Commissioners. It was proposed by this Bill to impose upon them the duty of auditing both the income and expenditure of the Hospital; the former being audited in the same way as the income of the Crown estates, and the latter like any other naval charges. The amount of the income, as estimated by the Commissioners for the present year, was £154,600. The Bill proposed that in the first place this should be devoted to the maintenance at Greenwich of a Hospital and Infirmary, providing for the accommodation of 600 seamen. A detailed estimate of that expenditure had been prepared, and it showed that the amount required for that purpose, including gratuities and all expenses of management, would be about £45,000 a year. The Schools would be maintained as at present. They now cost £22,000 a year, and the future expenditure had been estimated at £23,000, making a local expenditure at Greenwich of £68,000. It was next proposed to grant special additional out-pensions, to be called "Greenwich out-pensions," to all out-pensioners exceeding a certain age, according to a scale which he would describe to the House. The pensioners at present varied in age from about forty to about eighty years of age. The Government proposed to take fifty-five as the age at which pensioners should be entitled to some additional boon, and to provide that, at that age, an additional pension of 5d. a day should be granted to them, provided that they had been on the list for five years. At seventy they proposed that the pensioner should receive 9d additional instead of 5d., but that this addition should be given to those only who had been on the pension list for ten years. The total number of out-pensioners, according to a Return which the Admiralty received from the War Office at Christmas last, was 11,909. Of these there were over seventy years of age, who had enjoyed their pensions for more than ten years, 1,352, and over fifty-five years of age, who had been in the receipt of pensions for five years, about 2,965; so that the number of out-pensioners who would receive the additional

  1007
  Greenwich out-pensions would be 4,317. To that must be added a sufficient allowance for those who, under the present system, were in-pensioners of Greenwich. There were at present in Greenwich Hospital 356 men over seventy, and 429 over fifty-five years of age, who would be out-pensioners if they chose to leave the Hospital. Altogether, they calculated that provision should be made for 5,000 out-pensioners, at a cost of about £48,000. In addition it was necessary to make a fair provision for the loss which the officers of the navy would sustain from the change in the arrangements. He was aware that he was here treading upon disputed ground. The members of the Commission rather tended to the opinion that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were intended solely for the benefit of seamen, and that it was unjust to apply any part of them to the relief of officers. The Admiralty did not entertain that view, and they therefore proposed that fair consideration should be given to officers as well as to seamen. There were at present out-pensions to officers—called "out-pensions of Greenwich Hospital," formerly chargeable on the Hospital funds—payable to ten captains, fifteen commanders, fifty lieutenants, and fifteen masters, in all ninety. They proposed to add to these, pensions to six captains, nine commanders, thirty lieutenants, and five masters. They also thought that it would be fair, considering what other ranks would lose by the change, to add fifteen pay-masters and nine warrant officers. This, altogether, would give out-pensions to seventy-eight additional officers, at a cost of £3,990, and they proposed to charge these on the Hospital funds. In addition to that they proposed to make the following arrangement with reference to flag officers. At present flag officers were in receipt of considerable advantages from Greenwich Hospital. The Governor and Deputy Governor were distinguished Admirals, and he need not say anything of the great merits of those very distinguished officers. If Greenwich was to be managed like a hospital there would be no necessity for having these officers, and they proposed to make the following arrangements. There was a list of reserved flag officers called the "A" list, upon which no officer was placed unless he was seventy years of age or had received some great injury in the service. These officers were in receipt of an extra good service pension of £150 in addition to their half-pay. It was
  1008
  proposed to increase the present number by six. On the other hand, whilst making this addition to the "A" list, it was proposed to reduce the "active list" by six flag officers. There was also attached to the "A" list, and in one sense forming part of it, the reserved flag list of Greenwich Hospital, which contained at present four names. As vacancies occurred in this list it was intended to add to the "A" list, so that in the end that list would consist of twenty instead of ten. The addition, however, of the six would be spread over three years—that is, two a year; and the reduction of the active list would be of four Rear Admirals, one Vice Admiral, and one Admiral, beginning with the Rear Admirals. The whole plan would make provision as follows—for flag-officers £1,500 a year; for 78 officers, in the shape of out pensions, £3,990; and for 5,000 seamen in a similar manner. £48,000. It was also their duty to make an equitable arrangement between the Treasury and Greenwich Hospital, because, as the House was probably aware, a sailor, on entering the Hospital, resigned his out-pension so that from the entry of each sailor into the Hospital the Treasury received a certain advantage They now proposed, therefore, that the Treasury should receive out of the funds of the Hospital £15 a head for the number of inmates falling short of an average of 1,400, so that when the numbers were ultimately reduced to 600, the credit to the Treasury would amount to £12,000 This would act as a set-off against the £20,000 which the Hospital received from the Treasury. With respect to the widows' gratuities, they proposed to continue the present system, under which the widows of seamen drowned or killed in Her Majesty's service were entitled to gratuities from the Greenwich estate; but instead of setting aside a fixed sum to form a fund, those gratuities would be paid out of the Votes by Parliament, but charged in the same way as other charges in the settlement of the account with Greenwich Hospital. The result of these charges would leave a surplus on the total income of the Hospital, amounting to £154,000, of something over £13,000 a year, which would be left for accumulation in precisely the same way that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were at present left to accumulate. He must point out to the House that during the first two years of the new system they did not anticipate that the number of men in the Hospital would be reduced to

  1009
  the 600 for which provision was made, as the ultimate establishment. In order to meet this, they proposed the first year to limit the number of extra out-pensions to seamen to 3,000, and in the second to 4,000, bringing the number to the maximum of 5,000 in the third year. In the same way they proposed that only two of the six additional flag officers' out-pensions, and twenty-six of the additional officers' out-pensions should be granted the first year, similar additions being made in each of the two following years. The anticipated saving from this arrangement would, in the first year, amount to nearly £30,000, and in the second to nearly £15,000, and as the whole expenditure of the Hospital would be £45,000, he thought that would be a quite sufficient sum to provide for the gradual reduction of the seamen in the establishment. There could, he believed, be no doubt that the reduction would take place very rapidly. He had watched very carefully the change which had been effected by the regulation of last year. When he addressed the House in June 1864, upon this subject there were over 1,500 pensioners in the Hospital, but the number was now about 100 less. That change had been effected merely by restricting the admission to infirm and helpless seamen, and he had no doubt that the increased out-pension would bring about a far more rapid reduction. He also proposed under this Bill to give power by Order in Council to the Admiralty to grant to those now in the Hospital who might elect to leave not only the amount of the new out-pensions, but also something in addition, not to exceed the amount of the money gratuity they receive in the establishment, with respect to the future numbers. The total number of infirm and helpless men in the Hospital was now something under 450; and he did not expect that, under ordinary circumstances, 600 would ever be exceeded. He might add that they proposed leaving the Commissioners and the military officers in the enjoyment of precisely the amount of salary and emolument which they now received. He believed that it would be unadvisable to swell the superannuation list for this purpose, and they therefore proposed to purchase at the Government Annuity Office, out of the capital fund of the Hospital, annuities equal in value to the amount of the salaries paid to those officers, including of course the value of their residences, and other allowances. The Governor and the
  1010
  Lieutenant Governor would both have the option of leaving the Hospital on these terms, or of remaining in the enjoyment of their titles and of the residences in which they at present dwelt. The compensation would be made by the investment in annuities of about £170,000 or £180,000 out of the capital stock of the Hospital, which amounted altogether to nearly £3,000,000. With respect to the clerks, many would continue to be employed, either at Greenwich or elsewhere, and provision would be made for the superannuation of the rest. He had now gone through the general features of the measure. Some of those arrangements would be provided for in the Bill, others were within the competence of the Admiralty. The Bill provided for the management of the income of the Hospital; it gave power to the Queen in Council to make the necessary orders with respect to the establishment and to the additional pensions to officers and men; it charged those pensions on the Hospital funds, but provided that they must first be voted by Parliament. It also provided for the auditing of the accounts. He believed that the proposal which he had detailed to the House would be regarded by the service as advantageous. If the House would consider the general effect of the measure—that, instead of the advantages of the Hospital being confined to 1,400 men, their enjoyment would be extended to 6,000, he believed that the proposed alterations would generally be deemed satisfactory, and suitable to the present condition of affairs. As they had striven for the attainment of only one object—the best application of the funds to the purposes for which they were intended, he hoped that the measure would he received by both sides of the House with the favourable consideration which had been exhibited on a former occasion. The hon. Gentleman then moved for leave to introduce the Bill.
  Moved, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the better government of Greenwich Hospital and the more beneficial application of the Revenues thereof.—(Mr. Childers.)
  MR. LYGONsaid, that with a great deal of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman every body must agree. Having himself had an opportunity some time since of examining into the affairs of Greenwich Hospital, he had arrived at the conclusion

  1011
  that in order to effect the most good with the funds at the disposal of the Hospital a larger number of out-pensions should be granted. Circumstances and habits had greatly changed since the time when the Hospital was first established, and pensioners were able to obtain a greater amount of comfort in their own homes than they could obtain at the same cost in the Hospital. He had listened with some anxiety to the statement of the hon. Gentleman in order to obtain some information upon two points. He was desirous to know what the duties of the Controller of Greenwich Hospital were to be, for if it was intended to make the establishment merely a Department of the Admiralty, and that the administration of its affairs was to be yearly considered by Parliament, he thought that was a subject upon which much difference of opinion might be expected. He also wished to know what was to be the ultimate destination of the magnificent building at Greenwich. It was proposed to retain only 600 pensioners there, and he wanted to know how the remaining accommodation, which was sufficient for 2,000, was to be employed. He thought it would be a useful application of the surplus accommodation to provide naval barracks, which were much wanted, and by so doing set Haslar free.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that representing the landed property which formed the bulk of the Hospital estate, he felt a great interest in this subject, and was glad to be able to express his approval of much that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). At the same time, while approving generally of the scheme, he must guard himself against approving all the complicated details until he had an opportunity of considering the Bill. As to the future use to be made of the buildings at Greenwich they must not overlook the possibility of a future naval war, when a necessity for extra accommodation for wounded seamen would arise. It would therefore be necessary to keep many of the wards in a state of preparation for such contingency. With regard to the present surplus of the Hospital funds the amount of £11,000 a year did not exactly represent the real amount, as £2,000 was expended for insurances, and the remainder was funded to meet the contingency of an exhaustion of the minerals upon the Hospital estates. He understood that the future surplus under the proposed scheme would be only £13,000. The margin of £2,000
  1012
  between the two surpluses seemed to be rather a narrow one to provide for the increased accommodation that would be required in case of our being engaged in a naval war. With regard to the very large extra amount of allowances which it was intended to bestow upon officers under the new scheme, he thought they were entitled to participate in its advantages, but it did not appear to him to be just that the State should profit by throwing upon the revenues of the Hospital any greater amount of retiring allowances than the officers would have been entitled to had the institution been kept up in its entirety.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to give his general concurrence to the scheme, but he agreed with some of the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell). It seemed to him that the Treasury should not be relieved to the extent of £14,000 a year out of the £20,000 how paid by the country towards the maintenance of the Hospital. That would be appropriating charity money to State purposes, which he thought the House would not sanction. He thought the reduction in the flag list of officers was in the right direction, but he did not think that the cost should be paid out of the Hospital revenues. The sum to be paid back into the Treasury ought, in his opinion, to be funded in order to meet the possible increase of accommodation that might be required for wounded seamen in time of war. All these, and other points which had been referred to, were matters of detail, and could be better considered at a future stage of the Bill. He was glad to find that the monastic seclusion to which seamen had been condemned in Greenwich Hospital would be done away with, and that they would be allowed to enjoy their pensions at their own homes.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he thought it would be convenient to defer any explanation of details until the Bill had been printed. He would only observe in answer to the question that had been asked about the disposal of the building at Greenwich, after the reduction in the number of inmates, that, as had been remarked by another hon. Member, in case of a naval war additional hospital accommodation would he needed, and the building would be reserved for that purpose. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir John Hay) seemed to think that the revenues of Greenwich Hospital were to be saddled with allowances to flag officers,

  1013
  but what was intended was to grant a certain number of out-pensions from the Hospital funds, and the officers would receive their half-pay as before. There would be a certain reduction in the active flag list and an increase in the reserved flag list on half-pay.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he had not risen to offer any opposition to the first reading of the Bill, indeed he should have thought any BUCII intention unseemly—he, however, though abstaining from entering into the details of the measure, which had been with such clearness and succintness set forth by the hon. Member (Mr. Childers), could not refrain from expressing the surprise and regret he felt at the proposition for displacing the Governor and Lieutenant Governor from the positions they now held. The position of those officers, in his opinion, added greatly to the comfort and advantage of the Pensioners and the general resources of the Asylum. The inmates had immemorially been accustomed to regard these officers with reverence, either in having gallantly led them into action or from having been disabled or maimed like themselves in their country's service, and to maintain discipline and ensure the efficiency of the Institution. He would further observe the public had always associated these officers with the names of distinguished and successful Naval Commanders. He therefore trusted this matter would be re-considered before the Bill was submitted for a second reading.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that those officers were expressly excepted; that they were to have the option of remaining where they were, and that that exception was mentioned in the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for the better Government of Greenwich Hospital, and the more beneficial application of the Revenues thereof, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHILDERS, Lord CLARENCE PAGET, and Mr. ADAM.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 113.]

UNION BENEFICES ACT AMENDMENT.

  LEAVE.—BILL ORDERED.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE MR. E. P. BOUVERIE moved for leave to introduce this Bill. He said that on a former occasion he had made a statement as to its objects, but as, unfortunately, there were an insufficient number of Members present he was not then successful in obtaining leave. It would,
  1014
  therefore, be unnecessary for him now to do more than make the Motion of which he had given notice.
  Moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend an Act passed in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled 'An Act to make better provision for the Union of contiguous Benefices in Cities, Towns, and Boroughs.'"
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he had no wish to oppose the introduction of the Bill, but, as a friend of Archdeacon Hale, and on his authority, he wished to state that what was said of him on a previous occasiou—that he was obstinately opposed to the clearly expressed wish of the Legislature as to these benefices—was an entire mistake. The facts were these. A scheme had been submitted to and approved by the Lean and Chapter of St. Paul's for the taking down of St. Benet's Church, and the sale of its site by tender. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when the scheme came before them, altered it so that the sale was to be effected by public auction. Archdeacon Hale would doubtless have preferred that it should not have been taken down at all; but, at any rate, he did not consider that the sale of a church by public auction was a becoming thing, and he objected to that part of the scheme, but he had no intention whatever of setting himself against the declared will of the Legislature, and of the other bodies whose consent had been gained. Instead of altering the scheme and removing this objection, the right hon. Gentleman thereupon introduced a Bill for dispensing entirely with Archdeacon Hale's consent, thus not only placing the Archdeacon in an unfair position, but doing away entirely with one of the securities provided by the original Act. Before leave was given to introduce the Bill he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether it contained any provision for the sale of the church by public auction, and also whether it contained a provision for dispensing with Archdeacon Hale's consent.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he had no doubt that this Bill was introduced with the best intentions towards the Church, but he did not look with much favour on a piecemeal legislation such as this to provide for the scruples of one individual. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to amend the scheme of 1860 he ought to bring forward a general amending Bill. The Act of

  1015
  1860 put many persons in a very uncomfortable position. For instance, the consent of the rectors of these churches was to be asked for the sale of their graveyards, but the rectors naturally objected to consent to the sale of the graves of people over whom they had been appointed guardians, and to give an opportunity of erecting a public-house on the site of those graves. When the original Act was passed, it was generally recognized that it was not likely to be very effective, considering how many consents were required, and if any interference of the Legislature were needed the right hon. Gentleman should have introduced a general amending Bill. It was throwing too much responsibility on the clergy in many cases to ask their consent, and if public policy required the sale of a church it ought to be done by a compulsory enactment decided on by Parliament not by a permissive one.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he had to complain that the right hon. Gentleman had not explained what the provisions of the Bill were. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) could have but little confidence in his Bill when he sought to introduce it almost by taking the House by surprise, and without giving any information at all respecting it. He supposed, however, that it might be taken for granted that it was directed against a particular ecclesiastical dignitary. When the original Bill was passed numerous safeguards were provided; but when, for the first time, the conscientious scruples of one man came into play, a Bill was introduced pro hâc vice to do away with him altogether. Certainly, they ought to have some explanation of the character of the measure.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he thought that when a Bill was brought forward which would act as a Bill of Pains and Penalties to a dignitary of the Church its unusual character alone required something more than a cursory statement like that of the right hon. Gentleman on the other evening to induce the House to permit its introduction. Since then there had been placed on the table of the House the correspondence on the subject with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and others concerned in the matters at issue, and those documents were an entire and complete justification of the course which he (Mr. Hubbard) had taken on a former occasion. One of the points for which the House had expressly provided had arisen. The House determined that as the Archdeacon was the per-
  1016
  son specially authorized and empowered by his office to protect the fabrics of the Church, his consent should be requisite upon the proposed removal of any of them, as well as that of the other authorities. The correspondence on the table showed that it had been arranged by the Bishops' Commissioners that on the union of the parishes mentioned in this Bill the church of St. Benet, Gracechurch Street, should be sold by tender; but the scheme was afterwards altered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, so as to sell the materials by public auction. It was to this that Archdeacon Hale took objection, and in doing so did the very duty put on him by the Act of Parliament. It was certainly a queer thing that because a man did the duty for which he was expressly inserted in an Act of Parliament, another Act of Parliament should be brought in to scratch him out of the first Act. In making these remarks he wished it to be distinctly understood that he was not an opponent of the Act for the Union of Benefices. It was an Act which he believed would be found conducive to many purposes of utility, piety, and public benefit. If the present Bill were now a genuine proposition to amend that Act, he should be willing to support it; but if, as he could not help inferring from what had passed, it was one of pains and penalties against the Venerable Archdeacon of London—a man of high character and universally respected—he should oppose the Motion. To give the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) an opportunity of giving more explanation on these points, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, he believed that the safeguards provided by the Act were necessary, and ought to be preserved, except some very good reason could be given for doing away with them. When he was Lord Mayor it came to his knowledge that the beautiful church which stood at the end of Lombard Street and King William Street was about to be taken down under the Act, because, as it was alleged, it stood in the way of a street improvement. An arrangement had been made with the officers of the church, and a large sum was to be paid in order that the building might be sold. That church was well filled every Sunday, and he believed there had been no intention to pull it down. The excuse made was that it was habitually empty, and the whole thing was cut and dried. It was to have been put up

  1017
  to auction in order that it might be converted into a post office. He, however, made it his business to call upon the parishioners, who availed themselves of the power given them under the Act of Parliament, and they gave their unanimous vote against the desecration of their church, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) ought to give some further explanation before he asked them to read this Bill a first time.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he had said nothing because he had already made a statement on the subject. He had no objection to give hon. Gentlemen opposite any information on the subject of this Bill, though they seemed to be already in possession of what they asked for. Under the Act certain consents were necessary before a church could be sold. It was requisite to have the consent of the parishioners, and that had been unanimously given in this case. The consent of the patrons was required, who, in this case, were the Deans and Chapters of Canterbury and St. Paul's, and that also had been given, as had likewise been the consent of the Bishop of London, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that of the Secretary of State. He thought that all those safeguards very amply secured the interests of the Church and of the public. But in addition to the consents which he had just enumerated, and which had been re-acquired in the Bill as it came from the Lords, the consent of I the Archdeacon was foisted into the Bill by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) during its passage through that House. The hon. Member said he was not opposed to the Union of Benefices Bill, He had thrown every obstacle in its way. After he (Mr. Bouverie) had undergone severe labour during the whole of two Wednesdays in his endeavour to get that Bill through, the hon. Member (Mr. Hubbard) proposed that the consent of the Archdeacon should be required. Thinking it likely that the reverend gentleman would take the same view as his Bishop, the Archbishop, the Capitular Bodies, and the Secretary of State, he did not deem it worth while to divide the House on the proposal, and not wishing to fight every point to the death, in an unguarded moment he had agreed to introduce the Archdeacon. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Buckingham was more knowing than he bad been. He wanted to put a spoke in the wheel and stop the whole proceeding, and had succeeded in doing so. He
  1018
  hoped he was not doing an injustice to the hon. Member when he said he believed that to have been his object. In the two parishes with which it was proposed to deal by the scheme now before the House there were 805 souls, and one of the churches alone was capable of containing 800 people. The parishioners consented to the amalgamation, the main object of which was to raise a large sum of money, it was said £40,000, which could be realized by the sale of the site of a church not required for the purposes of public worship in the City. It was proposed to apply part of the money so raised to the building of a church in a populous place in the outskirts of London, where a church was much needed, and the people were in a state of spiritual destitution, and also to the erection of a residence for the clergyman in the united parishes. Removing a church was no great novelty now-a-days—the Bank of England and St. Katharine's Dock had each swallowed up the sites of old churches; but this was not to be taken for a bank or a dock, but to erect another church in a part of London where the people were in a state of spiritual destitution. That was the scheme, and all the parties interested in it, the parish, the patrons, the Bishop, the Archbishop, the Home Secretary, had all consented, and then the Archdeacon stepped in and stopped everything, because he did not approve of the sale being by public auction. The hon. Member for Buckingham bad told the House that the Archdeacon objected to the church being sold by auction. He had himself no particular fancy for the sale by auction, but in such matters they must be guided by the circumstances of each case. H the hon. Member for Dundalk had been told that the Archdeacon only objected to the sale of the church by auction, he had been misinformed. The Archdeacon had had an interview with his Colleagues of the Estate Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commission and himself, and they had asked him this very question; the rev. gentleman had then stated distinctly that he objected to the principle of the Act, and declined to give his sanction to the scheme, even if it were agreed not to sell the church in that manner. Thus it was quite evident that the Archdeacon had other reasons than the one suggested by the hon. Gentleman for his opposition to the measure, and was prepared to stop all Union of Benefices under the Act. Was such a scheme, which would prove most bene-

  1019
  ficial to the parish, to the City of London, to the Church generally, and to the spiritual wants of those outside the City, to be stopped because the Archdeacon of London did not choose to approve it? Having had charge of the original Bill in that House, and knowing the opinion of its author in another House, he had no hesitation in asking the House to pass the proposed Bill, which would have the effect of allowing a very useful project to be carried out. The hon. Member for Buckingham talked of the Bill as one of pains and penalties against the Archdeacon; but he (Mr. Bouverie), in introducing it, was not proposing to drag the rev. gentleman to the stake and burn him, but merely to relieve him from a responsibility he had found inconvenient. Three years ago Parliament, without the consent of the Archdeacon, directed that his sanction should be obtained before the sale of a church could be proceeded with, and it was quite competent for the Legislature, upon further reflection, to say that in future his approbation should not be necessary in matters of the kind. Under these circumstances he trusted the House would support a measure so beneficial to the City of London and to the Church generally.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) must have misunderstood the Archdeacon on one point; for about a month ago, in a conversation which took place in the lobby of the House, the Archdeacon had informed him that, although the Union of Benefices Act was not a measure he should have originated, still he did not object to assist in carrying out its objects, and he would have given his sanction to the sale of the church in question provided it were not disposed of by public auction. The real question, therefore, before the Hou3e was not whether or not the sale of the church was to be stopped, but whether the name of the Archdeacon was to be expunged by the Bill merely because he differed from the other trustees and from the hon. Gentleman as to the mode in which the sale was to be effected. Personally he (the hon. Member) thought a great boon would be conferred upon the City of London by the union of the benefices, but he thought it would be preferable if the House were to take the reasonable scruples of the Archdeacon into consideration, and direct that the sale of the church should not take place by public auction, and that at least they
  1020
  should not take the strong measure of striking out his name.
  MR. KNINAIRDsaid, the Archdeacon, in his interview with the promoters of the scheme, had expressed his entire dissent from the scheme, and more particularly from the proposal for the sale by auction. After the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London had been given to the scheme, if an insurmountable obstacle were raised which would prevent its being carried into effect it was but reasonable that Parliament should remove the impediment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, they were being plunged step by step into greater difficulties. The right hon. Member who had carried the original Bill through the House had made a most extraordinary observation when he stated that one of the provisions of the Bill had been foisted into it. After that Bill had received the approval of both Houses, and had become an Act of Parliament, were they now to deal with it in accordance with the preconceived notions of the person who brought it in? Neither the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) nor the hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Kinnaird) had ventured to assert that any offer had been made to the Archdeacon to carry out the scheme without the sale by auction. That would have been a very simple thing to do, and he could not understand why, when a person objected to what he considered an indecent mode of carrying out a scheme for the public good gentlemen, honestly wishing to carry it out, should not have made an offer to remove the cause of objection. Instead of adopting that most reasonable and easy course the right hon. Gentlemen had brought in the present measure for the purpose of snuffing out the Archdeacon, who had chosen to refuse his sanction to an indecent mode of carrying out a good scheme. That was not a prudent mode of effecting an object of this kind on which there was sure to be great difference of opinion. Were the present Bill carried the next thing would be that an endeavour would be made to snuff out in like manner the Archbishop of Canterbury, and then the Bishop of London, and so, one after another, by disqualifying Bills, all those whose sanction was now required, until at length somebody or other would pull the churches down and put the money received from their sale into his own pocket. The right hon. Gentleman, instead of giving them any information re-

  1021
  lative to the Bill, had merely availed himself of the opportunity to indulge in a violent tirade against the Archdeacon and to state that some thousands of pounds would be applicable to do good elsewhere. Before bringing in a Bill upon which they had very imperfect information, it was but reasonable that the Commissioners, who had the carrying out of these matters, should put it to the Archdeacon whether he would consent to the scheme in question if the indecent mode of carrying it out were given up.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the original Act originated with a large number of the most influential and intelligent of the clergy of the metropolis, who thought it a scandal that there should be such a large number of richly endowed churches without congregations in the City, and he had stated at a meeting to take into consideration the spiritual destitution of the City that they had no case on which to go to the community while such a scandal existed in the metropolis. The Bishop of London, upon whom the matter was pressed by the clergy, then laid the question before the other House. It was a great misfortune that the right hon. Member (Mr. Bouverie), in his eagerness to pass the measure, should have permitted the introduction of a provision by which a subordinate functionary received power to interpose in such a manner that his veto might supersede the wish not only of his own bishop, but that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. If the Archdeacon entertained the opinion that a church once consecrated should never be devoted to any other purpose—a view which was not so generally recognized by the Church of England as by the church to which the hon. Member for Dundalk belonged—the House ought obviously to relieve him of a duty which did not harmonize with his opinions, and which he found it unpleasant to perform. It was remarkable that whenever an attempt had been made to get rid of a church in London for purposes of commerce or private profit there had never been any difficulty in the way. If a railway wanted the ground, churches, graves, and bones were got rid of with the greatest facility. This was the only occasion on which an attempt had been made to remove a church for a religious purpose, and it seemed to provoke a vast amount of animosity and opposition. In the present case, nobody was to make any money out of the removal, but spiritual wants alone were to be provided for and every
  1022
  possible obstacle was raised to the proposed change. There was in law a doctrine applied to property that cujus est solum ejus est usque ad cœlum, and he would not say how far they acted upon that doctrine who placed obstacles in the way of such sales as that to which the Bill related, and who, while priding themselves on being supporters of the Church of England, objected to a change which was in accordance with the spiritual wants of the community. It was, indeed, contended on their behalf that there would be something indelicate and indecent in selling a piece of land which was ecclesiastical property for the highest price that could be got; but, for his own part, he could not perceive the force of that objection. Seeing that the proceeds of the sale were to be applied to meeting the spiritual necessities of the poor, he thought it was desirable that they should be as large as possible, and the best way to secure that result in the City of London was to put the land up to auction. What, he should like to know, was the spiritual distinction between selling a piece of ground by auction and by private tender? He did not know which Article of the Church of England enunciated it. Looking at the matter either in a temporal or in a spiritual point of view, it appeared to him, he must confess, that what was to be sought after was the highest bidder, and he trusted refined scruples, which had really no foundation in reason, would not be allowed to interfere with the practical aim of his right hon. Friend by whom the Bill was promoted. Those hon. Members who stood so zealously by the Established Church ought, he thought, to have some faith in a Bishop and Archbishop of that Church, and ought not to discredit those high functionaries by setting up a subordinate to protest against their proceedings when they had simply sanctioned that which was reasonable and proper.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that the Archdeacon in his letter to the Bishop of London used the following words:—"I have no objection to the taking down of the church, and disposing of the site; but there are different ways of doing the same thing." The Archdeacon did not there state that he objected to the principle of the act; on the contrary, he was ready to assent to the sale; but he disapproved of the proposal that it should take place by means of a public auction. The scheme, as prepared by the Bishop of London, was, that upon the union taking place, the Church

  1023
  of St. Benet should be taken down and sold by tender, and that was the proposal, which was sanctioned by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. When the matter came before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, however, they took upon themselves to alter the proposal so made, and it was from them the proposal came that the church should be sold by public auction. It appeared to him; that, when the principles of the Bill had been agreed upon, the Archdeacon was specially charged with the responsibility of seeing that the manner of giving effect to them was in accordance with ecclesiastical rules and precedents. In his (Mr. Lygon's) opinion the Archdeacon had exercised a very wise discretion, and there was no reason why he should on that account be deprived of the power with which he was at present invested. So far, he might add, as ecclesiastical sanction went, it was clearly in favour of having the church sold by tender.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) that no Nonconformist body had any intention of obtaining for itself possession of the site in question. It was true that on a former occasion he had proposed that a clause should be introduced into the Bill then before the House to the effect that the Nonconformists might secure one of the sites in question for a church whenever the Church of England was not in a position to purchase it. Perfect horror seized the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) when he made that proposal, and he believed that some fear existed in this case that the Nonconformists might be the purchasers. The Bishop of London had written asking him as a favour to withdraw the clause he had referred to, inasmuch as its insertion would peril the passing of the measure. And having mentioned the name of that right rev. Prelate he could not abstain from saying that he felt the most unbounded admiration of his career as a bishop, for, since he first came to fill the position which he now occupied with so much advantage to the Church, no man had done more to provide for the spiritual necessities of the metropolis. He entirely sympathized with the Bishop of London in the present case. The best way to obtain the largest sum for the same object was the question that evening before the House; and he, for one, was quite surprised to hear the objections made to the
  1024
  proposed scheme by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), seeing how frequently the sites of Roman Catholic churches abroad were turned to other than their original uses—churches which had been used for centuries as places of worship, and which contained magnificent paintings, having even been used as stables. For his own part, he hoped his right hon. Friend would persevere with the Bill. With regard to the Nonconformist body, he desired to say that they were not jealous of the progress which the Church of England might make, provided that that progress was made in the right way—namely, by simply relying on the Christian Willinghood of their own people, and using the property of the Church to the best advantage.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend an Act passed in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled "An Act to make better provision for the Union of contiguous Benefices in Cities, Towns, and Boroughs," ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE and Mr. GOSCHEN.

  SALMON FISHERY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT.—LEAVE.—BILL ORDERED.
  MR. T. G. BARING, in moving for leave to introduce this Bill, said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the Act of 1861 was founded on the Report made in 1860 by a Royal Commission, which had been appointed to inquire into the causes of the diminution in the quantity of salmon in the different rivers of England. Those who had read the Reports of the Inspectors under that Act were aware that it had been successful to an extent which could hardly have been expected considering the short time it had been in operation. There had been a considerable increase in the salmon since that time. But while the Act of 1861 had succeeded to a very considerable extent, those who had in different localities in England taken rivers under their protection found considerable difficulty in collecting funds for the purpose of carrying out to the full the provisions of the Act. It had been suggested frequently that some amendments should be introduced into the Act, in order to give power for the formation of bodies for the protection of salmon, and to give these

  1025
  bodies jurisdiction over the whole of a river. Also that there should be a licence duty on rods, nets, and other engines for the capture of fish, so that means should be provided for the protection of fish during the spawning season. With this view he had at the end of last Session of Parliament laid upon the table of the House a Bill which had been during the recess circulated, and had been generally approved. The Reports of the Inspectors of Fisheries for the year 1864 contained an account of the meetings which had been held in different parts of the country, and it appeared that the concurrence of nearly all those interested in the fisheries had been given to the principles which were sought to be embodied in the Bill. Besides these two objects—the establishment of Boards of Conservancy and the furnishing them with funds by means of licence duties—there had been other suggestions made for the amendment of the Salmon Fisheries Act of 1861. A very important subject connected with salmon fisheries was that of "fixed engines" They were defined in the Act of 1861 in two separate places, but these definitions were not consistent one with the other, and a very considerable doubt had been entertained with respect to the application of the term, "fixed engine." There had been a decision upon an appeal before the Court of Queen's Bench, from which it might be inferred that a net held stationary across a river was not a fixed engine. Under the Irish Fisheries Act such a mode of fishing would be clearly illegal, and it was perfectly apparent to every gentleman that a net held across a river by men on each side, ought to be considered as a fixed engine. It was, therefore, intended to make the definition the same as that adopted in the I Irish Act. It was not intended to interfere with the Act of 1861, with respect to the reservation of the ancient rights of catching salmon. The House had determined that those who had exercised these rights at the time of the passing of the Act should continue to do so; but since then it had been found that these fixed engines had greatly increased. The expense and difficulty, of prosecution, was such that he thought the House would feel it necessary to take some steps in order to prevent the increased number of salmon with had been secured by the operation of the Act of 1861, being taken by these engines.
  1026
  He proposed to introduce into the Bill clauses which would establish for England the same tribunal as that which existed in Ireland—namely, a Commission to inquire in every district into the legality of these fixed engines, and whether they were in use at the time of the passing of the Salmon Fisheries Act of 1861. There would be power of appeal from the decision of the Commissioners to the Court of Queen's Bench. There would be other points of minor importance connected with salmon fisheries which would be introduced in the Bill, but which it would be better to discuss in Committee. He would be sorry to conclude his short statement without expressing an opinion which he believed was shared in by all who had paid attention to the subject, that the country was greatly indebted to the Inspectors of Fisheries, Mr. Ffennell and Mr. Eden, for the great ability which they had displayed in carrying out the intentions of Parliament, and the valuable advice which they had given to all parties consulting them.
  Moved, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Salmon Fishery Act (1861).—(Mr. T. G. Baring.)
  MR. LYGONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down how he proposed to constitute the Board of Conservancy. He quite agreed with what had been stated as to the beneficial working of the Act of 1861, but while it was desirable that Boards of Conservancy should be established, the House must bear in mind that there was another great question affecting our principal streams now under public consideration, and some comprehensive measure of legislation might be introduced, having reference to the drainage of towns into rivers, and perhaps giving powers to some public Boards to preserve them from pollution. It would, therefore, be wise to avoid imposing duties upon these Boards of Conservancy which other bodies might be appointed to carry out. It would be most inconvenient to have two public bodies having separate jurisdictions over the streams; and it might lead to similar confusion to that which we now saw in the streets of London. He concurred in what had been said as to the valuable services which had been rendered by the Inspectors of Fisheries.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the Bill which he introduced last Session fully explained the way in which these Boards would be

  1027
  constituted. They would be appointed at the Quarter Sessions of any county which contained a salmon river, and a joint fishery Committee would be appointed to determine the constitution of a Board of Conservancy extending over more counties than one.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Salmon Fishery Act, 1861, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING and Sir GEORGE GREY.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS FEES BILL.

  [BILL 65.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he had no intention to wage war upon the charitable institutions of this country, or to impugn the conduct or attack in any way the character or efficiency of the Charity Commissioners, than whom no body of public officers had fulfilled their duties with greater benefit to the country. But he believed that the expenditure entailed by the working of that Commission ought not to be borne entirely out of public taxation. Those who applied to it and benefited by it should contribute. The nation at large was not interested in the business done on behalf of local charities; and it was, therefore, contrary to sound policy that the nation should bear the expense, especially as a large portion of the business which the Commission discharged was formerly transacted at great expense in the Court of Chancery. Some fees were attached to nearly every court, but on the part of the Commission no fees whatever were required upon the large business that it conducted. He quite admitted that no fees ought to be imposed which would act as a check upon persons bringing their accounts under inspection; but a great many cases of a totally different nature came before the Commissioners. Orders were made in 1,700 cases, of which a certain number were for authorizing applications to the Court of Chancery, to the County Courts, or to the courts of common law; others for the appointment and removal of trustees; some had reference to the issue of certificates for the information of the Attorney General, with a view to the institution by him of ex officio proceedings; and there were a great variety of other matters of a nature totally different from the mere registering of accounts of the annual working of any
  1028
  charity. When, therefore, the business which the Commissioners now transacted entailed, under the former system, the payment of sums amounting in some cases to £100, he did not see what injustice there would be in the establishment of a small scale of fees. The Commissioners, when he applied to them on the subject, pointed out several cases which they held to be parallel. They said that the Drainage Commissioners, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the Poor Law Commissioners all discharged their duties free of any such charges. The last he could not hold to be a case in point at all, for in the duties which the Poor Law Commissioners discharged the whole country, as distinguished from any single district, was interested. He could not see why, if trustees or others wanted advice for their own guidance, and which, but for the existence of the Commissioners, they would have to obtain from their own solicitors, fees should not be payable in the granting of such information. At present the information was supplied by the Commissioners gratis. Why, he asked, should the nation be bound to pay for an advantage conferred on private individuals, those individuals escaping scot-free? It might be urged as an objection to his proposal, that any imposition of fees would have the effect of discouraging charities from freely sending in their accounts to the Commissioners; but if the principle of the Bill were approved by the House, he was willing to insert a clause limiting the fees to sums so small that they should not prove such a drawback as was anticipated. The principle for which he contended was not at variance with that on which the Commission was originally established. Lord Lyndhurst contemplated at the time that it should pay its own expenses; but some observations having been made upon this head, it was thought better not to imperil the fair trial of so great an experiment by the interposition of any pecuniary difficulties, especially as it was then believed that the expenses of the Commission would never exceed £5,000 a year. They had risen, however, to £20,000 a year; and, as the benefits of the Commission enjoyed a more extended range, the costs of working would, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in his speech in 1863, go on increasing. The Commission was doing good, but why should not the expenditure be borne by the parties who were benefited? It was to meet what he regarded as a growing evil that he asked

  1029
  the House to assent to this measure, which would not entail any personal charges on trustees, and which would not, he believed, lessen the real efficiency of any public charity.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Thomson Hankey.)
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he thought the hon. Member had succeeded in making out a very strong case against the Bill; for he had shown the House that the question was whether the expenses of a Government Department should be paid by the State at large, or out of charitable funds. There was a strong feeling in this country against the taxation of charities, and this was not the first time that a similar attempt had been made. In 1845, and again in 1846, Bills were introduced to establish Boards of Charitable Commissioners, and to provide for their payment by means of taxation upon charities. These Bills, however, were on each occasion successfully resisted by the great charitable interests of the country. In 1851 and 1852 similar Bills were introduced, but they met with the like fate, and the Government were at length compelled to concede that the expenses of the Charity Commission should he met out of the public Exchequer. It was not until the Government yielded to the general wish that the expenses of the Commission should be defrayed out of the public purse that the House passed a Bill sanctioning the appointment of the Commission. It was proposed by this Bill that all the former legislation on the subject should be revised. His hon. Friend should have left the Government to deal with this question, which was one of considerable importance to the charities. Being a question of taxation, it came within its province, rather than within that of a private Member. Many of them made returns of very small amount, and the tax now imposed would be practically and in the aggregate a large one, being directed against the poorest classes of the community. The expenses of the Education Department, of the Poor Law Board, and other similar Departments, were paid out of the public funds, and why should a different rule be established in the case of charities? He wished his hon. Friend had tried his hand on a more popular measure, and he trusted that the House would unanimously support him in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, that having himself given notice of a similar Amendment, he had no hesitation in seconding that of the hon. Baronet, He objected to the details of the measure, to the manner in which it had been introduced, and still more to its principle. With regard to the details, a glance at the Bill would show how vague and unsatisfactory its provisions were. It was, therefore, unnecessary to trouble the House further on this point. With respect to the circumstances under which it had been introduced, the hon. Member deserved some credit for the ingenuity with which he had managed to evade the constitutional rule that no Bill to impose taxation should be introduced except by the Government. About six years ago, and during the present Parliament, he (Mr. Selwyn) brought in a measure in which he proposed to do away with the exemption from probate duty then existing in favour of estates exceeding one million, under which exemption in the case of a man who died worth £2,000,000 his representatives were not called upon to pay upon the second million, while a man who died worth £200 was called upon to pay probate duty on the second hundred. He was then told that a private Member ought not to bring in such a measure, and it was afterwards brought in and passed upon the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With respect to the principle of the Bill, a tax upon charities was really a tax on those who received the benefits of those charities. The present Bill did not impose a tax on the governors or trustees, but upon the poor inmates of almshouses and hospitals and other recipients of the charities. He had recently been told by a governor of one of the largest and best managed charities in the metropolis—King's College Hospital—that it was in such want of funds that the governors were unable to pay their weekly butchers' bills. Yet the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey) proposed to put an additional tax upon charities of that kind, at a moment, too, when the House expected to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer such a flourishing account of the state of the public revenue, as would enable him considerably to reduce the burdens of the country. But if the present Bill had been brought in by Her Majesty's Government he should have objected to it on principle. The very question at issue had been four times previously decided by the House—in 1845, 1846, 1851, and 1852, and that

  1031
  formed another reason why a private Member ought not to ask the House to reverse its repeated decisions. The Bill appeared to be founded upon the principle set forth in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Charities in 1863, which contained two fallacies. The first was that charities enjoyed certain peculiar exemptions from taxation, while in truth the exemption was that common to poverty; the exemption enjoyed by a legacy under £20, an income of less than £100, or a house of less than £20 rent. The next fallacy was that, because some charities were useless or mischievous, and because the trustees of some other charities had been guilty of misdeeds, it was right that all charities should he mulcted. That proposal of the right hon. Gentleman signally failed, notwithstanding the eloquence and ability with which it was supported. The hon. Member for Peterborough said that the Charity Commissioners conferred benefits on these charities, and that it was, therefore, just to impose upon them a corresponding burden. Parliament had already imposed upon Charity trustees the trouble and expense of making out two copies of their accounts—one for the Commissioners and the other for the Churchwardens—and now the hon. Member wanted to impose a tax upon a tax, and sought to levy a stamp duty upon these Returns. The Act of Parliament prevented the trustees of charities from granting leases or going before the Courts of Law in certain cases without the consent of the Charity Commissioners, and now the hon. Gentleman proposed to levy a tax upon the obtaining of this leave and consent. He (Mr. Selwyn) was a Governor of the Charity of "the Sons of the Clergy." The hon. Member proposed to tax that as well as other charities but it would not be a tax on the governors, but on the widows and orphans, who received the scanty pittance distributed by the governors. The governors acted on the opinion of their own officers, and did not want the advice of the Charity Commissioners, but they could not grant a lease for more than twenty-one years without their consent. The Bill sought to add an additional burden to this restriction, and it was, in these respects, even a worse measure than that produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago. He thought that the feeling of the House had been sufficiently manifested against the measure, and he trusted that it would not be pressed to a division.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Morton Peto.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he concurred in the observations made in praise of the Charity Commissioners, who discharged their onerous duties most admirably. But the proceedings it the office were subject to great delay, and one of the grounds upon which he objected to the present Bill was that it would increase that delay which now formed a valid subject of complaint. He regretted that the hon. Member who introduced this Bill had not made his meaning more clear in reference to the charities which would be affected by this measure. That vagueness was not confined to mere figures, but extended to the language of the Bill itself. It was a great mistake to suppose that the charities of the country were of such a nature as justified the denuncialtion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had employed in the now historica-speech which had been referred to. From the 11th Report of the Charity Commissioners, published last year, it appeared that the total revenues of the charities in ten counties amounted to £430,000, and of that sum upwards of £150,000 was devoted to schools. The endowed schools of the country were now suffering under great pressure in consequence of the action of the Privy Council; yet this was the time selected by the hon. Member for trying to impose a heavy burden upon them. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) would hardly support the second reading of the Bill, seeing that there were no less than £5,200 a year belonging to Dissenting schools and chapels which would fall under the operation of the measure. Another objection to the Bill was, that it would to a great extent involve a breach of trust, because upon the faith of what had been said in that House, and believing that no great change in the law would take place, the governors of charities had vested no less than £1,634,045 in the hands of the official trustees for various purposes. For these and other reasons he hoped the House would unanimously reject the Motion for the second reading.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, though he joined with the rest of the House in urging his hon. Friend not to press the Bill, he could

  1033
  not entirely concur with what had been said in opposition to it. There was much in the measure which had already received the sanction of the greatest authorities on both sides of the House. When Lord Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor, under Sir Robert Peel, he had introduced Bills for the appointment of Commissioners, whose expenses were to be defrayed by the taxation of the charities themselves; and a Commission composed of the most eminent and competent persons expressed a decided opinion that a permanent Commission should be appointed, the expenses of which should be borne by the charities. In accordance with that recommendation a Bill was introduced by Lord Cranworth in 1851, the principle of which was somewhat similar to that of the present measure. In was a very intelligible proposition that the expenses of that which tended so much to the improvement of the charities should be borne out of the funds of the charities. But as to the question of expediency, after so many Governments had failed in their attempts to deal with the subject, and seeing that the action of the Commission had been of so much use in increasing the property of the charities and improving the application of their funds, the House would hardly consent to make any alteration in the present system unless it could be satisfied that the proposed economy would be made without danger to the improvement which was being gradually introduced into the administration of charities. Against the principle that the charities should pay for services rendered in the improvement of their property, nothing could be said; but the Bill of his hon. Friend proposed that by far the larger portion of the expenses should be borne not by the charities which might profit by the management of the Commissioners, but by those which, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, sent in returns of their balance-sheet. During the last year some 1,700 orders, dealing with the property of charities, had been issued, but no less than 14,000 returns had been sent in by the charities for the purpose of mere statistical information; so that by far the largest proportion of the cost would, by the Bill of his hon. Friend, be thrown upon the charities for supplying information to Parliament and the country. That such information should be given was of the greatest possible importance; but the effect of the Bill would be that it would cease to be afforded. Again, the machinery by which the Bill proposed to enforce the returns on which
  1034
  the percentages were to be levied, were the same as that now in force, which in practice was only employed in few and extreme cases. The orders sent down by the Commissioners for returns were in many cases disregarded, and it was only by an application to the Court of Chancery, and bringing the pressure of that Court to bear upon the trustees, that they could be forced to make the returns. The consequence was that out of some 50,000 charities only 14,000 sent in their returns. The principle involved in the Bill was one which would have to be dealt with by that House before long in a comprehensive spirit. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Finsbury in his estimate of the importance of these charities. No doubt many of them usefully applied the funds committed to their charge; it was equally true that a great many of them were useless, and some worse than useless. They were positively mischievous. Looking, however, at the measure as it stood, though by no means agreeing in much of the criticism which had been passed upon its details, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Bill.
  Question, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL BILL— [BILL 58.]—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the Bill proposed to take away an exemption in respect of rating at present enjoyed by houses of a certain small annual value in Sheffield. Two petitions had been presented against the repeal of this exemption, and though he approved the Bill generally, he thought the proper course under the General Local Government Act would be to refer the subject of this exemption and the right of the persons claiming it to a Select Committee, before whom they might be heard. He accordingly would move to this effect if the Speaker was of opinion that he could do so.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that, according to the Act, the proper course was to move that the Bill petitioned against should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member to move, when in Committee, the omission of Sheffield from the Bill. He would then insert it

  1035
  in another Bill which was to contain certain opposed Orders, and which was to be introduced to-morrow, and then the question might be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. HADFIELDdeclined the responsibility of moving the omission of Sheffield from the Bill. He had no objection to the principle of the Bill, which he wished should be proceeded with; what he wished was that the petitioners should have an opportunity of appealing against the application to Sheffield of the clause he had referred to.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the effect of opposing the going into Committee on the Bill would be to postpone all the other provisional Orders mentioned in the schedule.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with amended Title; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolutions [April 24] reported.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he wished to ask for information respecting certain Votes for shipbuilding in the Royal Yards and by contract. It was just now a question of great interest whether vessels should be built of the same size as formerly, or of a smaller class; and he should like to know whether it was proposed to have small armourclad vessels combining great speed with the carriage of heavy guns. He was prepared to say that vessels of that kind could be built, and foreign Governments were providing themselves with vessels of 1,100 or 1,200 tons to carry the largest class of guns and steam at the rate of eleven or twelve knots. Other Governments were also preparing to provide vessels of 2,000 tons to carry two 600-pounders or four 300-pounders, steaming at the rate of twelve or thirteen knots. Vessels of that class, propelled by double screws and drawing a moderate draught of water—seventeen or eighteen feet—would run where our ships could not, and would be more formidable than anything we had. This was a subject which had excited a great deal of attention, and it was his distinct opinion that the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) could really be carried out—namely, that a vessel of about 1,600 tons could be built to carry a 600-pounder gun or two 300-pounders.
  1036
  Four vessels of that kind, with a speed of fourteen knots per hour, might be had for the cost of one Warrior. They could be worked with fewer hands in proportion and at less cost to the country, and would be fit to go to any part of the world as seagoing ships. He wished to know whether anything was being done in the construction of such armour-clad vessels. It had been stated that five or six vessels were being built of wood, of the Amazon class, and something like the Alabama, and he should be glad to know the size and the speed of these vessels. The great advantage of the Alabama was her sailing qualities, and her capability of going for weeks at a time without the aid of steam. He hoped that the noble Lord would be able to state that these vessels would be able to carry heavy guns and keep out of the range of armour-clad vessels, or a large shell would destroy them in the same way as the Alabama.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to refer to the employment of pensioners in the War Office. Many of them were men of high character and some of literary attainments. A little addition to their pensions would keep them in their status, from which they would otherwise fall, and therefore he expressed his hearty concurrence in the proposition for their employment as emanating from the War Office. It was equally politic and philanthropic.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the noble Secretary to the Admiralty had informed the House at an early stage of the discussion of the Navy Estimates that by the end of the year the country would have thirty-nine iron-clad vessels, and he wanted to know of what, in the opinion of the Government, the future British navy was to consist, because it was generally admitted that a wooden vessel could not compete in action with an iron-clad vessel. There was a large number of vessels belonging to the navy in various parts of the world, but those ships were, by the admission of all conversant with the subject, condemned as useless, and he therefore wished to know what class of vessels the country was in future to depend on for the defence of its commerce. Did the Government contemplate any further construction of iron-sheathed vessels than that which had been already announced, so as to place the British fleet in a position to entitle it to the name of a navy? There was another point on which

  1037
  he desired information. Supposing that the country possessed those vessels which were necessary, in his opinion, to make the navy such as it ought to be, where could the guns be found with which they should be armed? He was given to understand that even if a sufficient iron-clad navy existed at present the guns requisite for arming them did not exist.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that it was unfortunate the hon. Member (Mr. Laird) did not appear to have heard his statement when he brought in the Navy Estimates, as he then endeavoured to state the description of ships both built and building. He understood the hon. Member to express an opinion that it was desirable to combine small tonnage, armour-plating, heavy guns, and great speed. That was the very point which, as had been stated over and over again, the Admiralty considered to be fraught with great difficulty. A vessel of small tonnage might be made of great speed by giving her fine lines; but if made of great speed her buoyancy was, of course, by so much reduced, and therefore her power to carry heavy armour-plates. It was his duty to repeat this, notwithstanding that the hon. Member stated that some foreign nations were going to build vessels of 1.OOO tons, with full armour-plates, heavy guns, and with a speed of fourteen knots. [Mr. LAIRD: Vessels of 2,000 tons or, upwards.] Well, on the first night of the discussion on the Navy Estimates he stated that the Government hoped to build a vessel of about that tonnage on the twin-screw principle. He then said—
  "We propose to build at Pembroke an armour-plated corvette. She will be a vessel of about 3,000 tons, with a very light draught, or 16ft., and with twin screws, and we propose to make her at the water-line of a thickness of 6in. of iron and 10in. of wood, besides a ¾-inch inner skin of iron. We hope that she will be able to carry eight of these 12-ton guns."—[3 Hansard, clxxvii. 1158.]
  If that succeeded, he asked whether anything which any foreign nation was going to build would he likely to offer a better prospect of efficiency. [Mr. LAIRD: What is the speed of the vessel to be?] His impression was that he had stated it would be thirteen knots. With regard to the vessels of the Amazon class, which the House was aware was an improvement on the Alabama, he understood the hon. Member to object to their being built of wood, and to say that the Alabama was built for a particular purpose, and that
  1038
  being a good sailer, with great stowage, speed was not of so much importance.
  MR. LAIRD: I said that she combined sailing and steaming qualities, so as to enable her to hold her position with other sailing vessels.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: That was precisely what the Admiralty deemed to be necessary for their cruising vessels. Those vessels remained a considerable time absent from our ports at foreign stations; they performed a great part of their duties under sail, and it was of great importance that they should possess good sailing and stowage qualities. They proposed to arm the Amazon class with the 100-pounder 6¼-inch rifle guns. It had not been ascertained that they could have a better gun than that for the navy; for, although the 12-ton guns would be very powerful, it was yet a question how far they would answer for seagoing cruisers. That was a matter of experiment still; and the Admiralty would be greatly to blame if they sent small ships of the Amazon class to sea, and put on board of them guns which they could not probably carry, and which might strain and damage them. What they were doing was done for the purposes of trial. They were giving to all the ships they built heavier guns and fewer of them; that is to say, they were reducing the number of guns in a ship and increasing their range and calibre. The vessels of which he was speaking would carry four guns on the broadside, whereas the ships built a few years ago carried nine. Nevertheless, the weight of iron thrown from the vessels with four guns would be 328lb., whereas their sister ships threw only 296lb. So, again, with respect to armour-ships. They were limiting the area of the armour-plating of their ships, but making it thicker. They might hereafter be able to place these armour-plates on a smaller class of ships; but as to what the hon. Member said about ships for foreign nations, they were always going to be beaten out of the field by some foreign nation. He had heard that story over and over again; but he was not aware that any foreign nation was much ahead of us in the construction of their ships, nor did he think they were likely to be so. He believed that this country would do as well as foreign countries in that respect.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he believed the noble Lord had expressed one or two opinions which he might venture to cal

  1039
  heretical, and that were not in accordance with the knowledge which he himself would possess if he were outside of the Admiralty. It appeared to him that those who were in the Admiralty shut their eyes to facts which all the rest of the world knew. The vessel of 2,300 tons being built in this country for another nation, with two cupolas, each of which was made to carry a 600-pounder gun, was a vessel against which any ship in the English navy would be unfairly matched, because those 600-pounder guns on a turntable would be a more formidable armament than any we possessed. He was given to understand that the Admiralty had sent to Lisbon a very fine squadron including the Royal Sovereign, which had been sent to Lisbon without masts, and that she had been sent to make an experiment which would probably result in an unfavourable Report, because she would not be steadied in a sea-way by the amount of masting necessary for a vessel of that description. The noble Lord said it was intended to build vessels of the Amazon class with the 200-pounder broadside guns, but what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and other Members of that House had urged upon the Government was that these vessels should not be armed with broadside guns at all. They had no knowledge that the 12-ton gun could be used on the broadside principle, nor did he believe it could be used without having machinery adapted for the purpose, and that machinery would be much more easily worked on the turn-table principle. It was of the highest importance that the Admiralty should cease to rely on a principle which ought to be regarded as obsolete, and should avail itself of the mechanical ingenuity which could give them the means of carrying heavy guns at sea. He could confirm what the hon. Member for Birkenhead had said as to vessels of such a description being built in this country for foreign Powers. He wished to ask from the hon. Member for Pontefract an explanation of an item under Vote 10.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the items in question were sums paid for armour-plates for the Royal Alfred, which had been altered. In a Parliamentary paper giving the details of those sums, it was stated that the cost of 460 tons of 6-in. armour for the Royal Alfred, at £26 17 s. 6d. per ton, was £12,362 10 s., whereas the charge for 470 tons of 4½ in. armour, sup-
  1040
  plied in 1862–3, at £35 per ton, was £16,480. The price of iron had increased.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  RAILWAY CLAUSES BILL
  On Motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Bill for consolidating in one Act provisions frequently inserted in Acts relating to Metropolitan and other Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. HUTT.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 114.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.