Sitting of 18 July 1866

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Standing Orders, Mr. Edward Egerton discharged; on Public Petitions, Mr. Bonham-Carter added; on Railways (Guards' and Passengers' Communication) nominated; on Railway Companies' Securities and Railway Debentures, &c., Registry, Sir James Fergusson discharged, Sir Stafford Northcote added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution [July 17] reported—Navy and Army Expenditure (1864–5.)
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Fees (Public Departments); Constabulary Force (Ireland) [Pay, &c.]; New Zealand Guarantee.
Ordered—Poor Law Amendment.*
First Reading—Poor Law Amendment* [221].
Second Reading—Compulsory Church Rate Abolition [143], debate adjourned.
Committee—Elections (Returning Officers) [161] [R.P.]
Considered as amended — Hundred Bridges* [178]; Charitable Trusts Deeds Enrolment* [199] [Lords].
Third Reading—Rochdale Vicarage* [196]; Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland)* [175].
Withdrawn—Legitimacy Declaration, &c. [51]; Elective Franchise [101]; Fellows of Colleges Declaration* [26].

SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FILDESsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for York, as this Bill stands on the paper for to-morrow, Whether he intends to limit its operation to Joint Stock Banks and Joint Stock Discount Companies? An answer in the affirmative would, he thought, tend very much to limit the discussion upon the second reading.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, that it was his intention to adopt the Amendment of
  1002
  which his hon. Friend had given notice, and which would limit the operation of the measure to joint stock banks.

  LEGITIMACY DECLARATION, &c., BILL.
  (Mr. Chambers, Mr. Edward Craufurd.)
  [BILL 51.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he rose to move that the order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged on account of the lateness of the Session, and the pressure of business. The Bill was intended to clear away an ambiguity in the Acts of 1857 and 1858, and to ensure the rights of parties to a trial by jury in all questions affecting a declaration of legitimacy. The Bill was simply declaratory, because it was quite clear, from what had taken place during the passing of the Bill, that the Legislature had had no intention of leaving any doubt on the subject. He believed that the whole profession were in favour of the above Bill; but, to his surprise, he found the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), although his name was on the back of the Bill, had changed his mind, and intended to oppose the measure. Although there were overwhelming arguments in favour of the Bill, what he believed to be unfounded objections were taken to it, and as at this period of the Session he could not hope that it would pass into a law, he should now move that the order be discharged.
  MR. E. CRAUFURDsaid, that his name certainly appeared on the back of the Bill, but in reality he was entirely opposed to it, and had in deference to the legal abilities of his hon. and learned Friend, tacitly permitted the use of his name under a misapprehension. When the Bill was printed he recognized in it a measure which had been repeatedly pressed upon the House of Commons by the present Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) and repeatedly rejected. In his opinion, the doubts which were said to have arisen as to the state of the law did not exist at all, and Parliament intended, not that the parties should have an absolute right to a jury trial under the Act, but that it should be at the discretion of the Judge to grant or withhold such a trial. If that were so, what was wanted was, not a mere declaratory Bill, but one to alter the law. But he entertained the strongest objection to any change in the law, and

  1003
  thought that, under the circumstances, his hon. and learned Friend would exercise a wise discretion in withdrawing the Bill.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

  ELECTIVE FRANCHISE BILL— [BILL 101.]
  (Mr. Clay, Mr. George Clive, Mr. Gregory.)
  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [30th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CLAYsaid, that although he could not hope to carry the Bill to a successful issue, the House would, he trusted, bear with him a short time while he proceeded to reply to some objections which had been urged against the measure on the first day of the debate, and to which, owing to the form of the House, he had had no opportunity of replying. He was more desirous of making the House and the country aware of the nature of his proposal because he was aware it was open to one serious drawback—that of novelty. It was, perhaps, too much to expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), amid his occupations as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the anxieties attending the progress of his own Bill, would have given to the measure before the House the attention which he could have wished. Whether he had a right, however, to expect that or not, the right hon. Gentleman certainly failed to comprehend the nature of the proposal, or to obtain a mastery over its details; and on this account he (Mr. Clay) the more regretted the haste which had attended the introduction of the Government measure. When it first became notorious, last autumn, that the Government purposed introducing a measure of Parliamentary Reform, he gave his constituents a pledge that he would bring his proposal before the House; and in doing so he had hoped that it would be received as a supplemental franchise to any lowering of the property qualification which might be proposed by the Government. He still thought that it would have been a very excellect adjunct to the Government measure, and if it had
  1004
  received the attention at the hands of the House, which he believed it merited, he thought it would also have facilitated the passing of the Government Reform Bill, because it would have given to the latter the character of permanence, the absence of which contributed, in his belief, more than anything else to the miscarriage of that measure. He had not shared in the opinion that the introduction of any Reform Bill by the Government during the present Session was necessary. He had thought that it would have been best if the Government had contented themselves with promising to introduce a Reform Bill on the first day of next Session; and had that course been adopted he would probably have been able, in private conversation at all events, to make the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer thoroughly acquainted with the nature of his proposal. That hope, however, was disappointed, and he confessed that he listened with regret and astonishment to the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed the small mastery he had obtained of the details of his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman ridiculed the idea of any working man being able to pass the examination which he proposed. Now, he confessed that his only fear was that the examination was too easy. The examination he proposed was less severe than that passed by the lowest grade of the Civil Service, and by the officers of Customs, and in which little difficulty was generally found. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, spoke of the vast trouble which would be imposed upon those who desired to obtain the franchise by means of the examination; but the only trouble imposed upon the candidates was the necessity of submitting themselves to a test occupying about half-an-hour, or at the most about an hour in a room in the town in which they resided. The right hon. Gentleman further objected to the plan because of the expense it entailed upon the candidate; but he (Mr. Clay) could not see that the exaction of a shilling from those who failed and half-a-crown from those who succeeded was the slightest drawback to the merits of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman as Chancellor of the Exchequer was naturally —and rightly enough—jealous of any scheme which tended to burden the public purse, and in his proposal he (Mr. Clay) had therefore suggested these trifling charges, which he had been informed by those fully competent to judge upon the

  1005
  subject would be ample to meet all the expenses incurred. The expense, therefore, to the candidates would be extremely small, while to the country it would be absolutely nothing. The right hon. Gentleman again objected that this was a young man's franchise. That objection, however, was one which might easily be obviated. The Bill proposed that candidates should not be examined before they were twenty-one years of age; but if the House had thought fit the age might easily have been altered, and twenty-five or any other age substituted for that adopted in the first instance. It was urged again that a man at fifty might have forgotten what he had known at twenty-one or twenty-five; but such forgetfulness was not confined to those who were likely to be candidates under this Bill. He did not believe, for instance, that any of those who had formerly taken degrees at the Universities would be able without any preparation again to pass the necessary examination. The objection, however, was futile, unless it was acknowledged that education was necessary to fit a man for the possession of the franchise. It should be remembered that his proposal would embrace two classes. The first comprised those who already possessed the necessary information and who had nothing to do but to walk in from the street and pass their examination. This class chiefly consisted of clerks, small shopkeepers, and the very best educated and the pick of the working men, all of whom hon. Gentlemen had unanimously expressed their willingness to enfranchise, and for whose benefit all sorts of forms and franchises had been suggested. The other class comprised those who did not possess the necessary knowledge, and who, therefore, would be put to some little pains to acquire it. With regard to that class he had always said that he did not desire to admit them simply on account of the small scrap of education which they managed to pick up; but if a man would take the trouble which was necessary to obtain the right of voting, he believed that man would be a fit and proper man to be intrusted with the franchise. One great advantage, therefore, of this franchise was that it gave proof of earnestness; his proposition would enable a man who possessed the necessary information to prove it by a short examination, and thus commercial clerks and shopkeepers' assistants might acquire the franchise by the
  1006
  process which had been called lateral extension, while it might stimulate the man who had not the necessary knowledge to take pains to acquire it. It was on the ground of the proof of their earnestness that he had asked the House to admit these classes to the franchise, and if the crossing-sweeper at his door would put himself to such trouble to acquire the franchise, he (Mr. Clay) should consider him a fit person to enjoy its exercise. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had also, to his great surprise, opposed the Bill; but the arguments of the hon. Member were to his (Mr. Clay's) mind, at all events, destitute of their usual cogency, for the hon. Member asked what knowledge of constitutional history would be acquired by a man in the course of his preparation for the examination. But he would in return ask the hon. Member for Birmingham what knowledge of constitutional law was obtained by a man through the simple occupation of a £10 or a £7 house? If the objection could reasonably be urged against the one plan, it could at least with equal reason be urged against the other. The hon. Member, too, spoke disrespectfully of the University constituencies, and instanced them as constituencies which were the most learned of all, and were at the same time the most wrong-headed of all. But if the argument were good for anything at all, it simply went to show that education was a disadvantage and not a benefit. The hon. Member also made use of another argument which showed how little he knew of the working classes. He said that the sons would, through their superior education, get the franchise which the father could not obtain, and that this would lead to jealousy. But all experience showed that the contrary was the case. The feeling more prevalent than any other in the mind of the working man was the desire that his sons might know more than himself, and occupy a superior position in life to that which he himself filled. "I am no scholar myself, sir, but I have managed to give my son a decent education," was what was constantly said by many working men. Of all the objections which had been urged against his proposal that one was, he believed, the most futile. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Goschen), in a very pretty antithesis, characterized the proposal as the maxi-

  1007
  mum of the Liberal profession and the minimum of the Liberal perfromance, because it would be of no service to the working man, and that few would come in under it. All he could say was that if that were the case, it would only show that the working men did not care for the franchise, and that they did not deserve to receive it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), on the other hand, thought that it was nothing but universal suffrage in another form. He might, perhaps, well leave the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton to settle between themselves the difference in their opinions, for it seemed to him (Mr. Clay) that in making a proposal which had provoked two such exactly opposite criticisms, he had exactly hit upon the happy medium. The hon. and learned Member for Tiverton also complained that the Bill had been introduced without any statistics; but he (Mr. Clay) maintained that in this matter statistics were not at all necessary, because it was impossible by statistics to gauge the anxiety of the non-electors to form part of the elective body. The hon. and learned Gentleman also complained, as did several other hon. Gentlemen, that by this proposal the worst members of the working classes would not be excluded; but neither were they excluded under the £10 or the £7 test. In support of that argument his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had instanced the case of the clever housebreaker Caseley, whose description of the way in which he carried on his operations excited the astonishment, and even the admiration, of those who heard him. His noble Friend contended that by the present proposal that housebreaker would probably exercise the right of voting. But it should also be remembered that he would not be excluded under the present system, and as one of the characteristics of ability was the admiration of ability in others, he should not be surprised had Caseley lived in a £10 house in Haddingtonshire to have found him among the most ardent supporters of his noble Friend. He would further say that his object in this proposal was to create a double title to the franchise. He was perfectly willing to allow that property qualification—and a low property qualification—should be one test; but he also maintained that intelligence should be another; and as they did not re-
  1008
  quire that property should be joined to intelligence he could not see why they should demand that intelligence should be joined to property. He strongly objected to one thing in the late Government Reform Bill; but when he said he objected to one thing he hoped it would not be understood that he objected to any lowering of the franchise. He had voted for the Government Reform Bill in every stage, in spite of which he was told—for he had not seen it himself—that The Star, with the fairness which they all expected, when they remembered the influences under which that journal was supposed to labour, had gibbeted him as one of the opponents of the measure. He had always been in favour of a great reduction in the franchise, but he thought that its lowering by £2 at a time was unadvisable, because it could only tend to keep the subject in a perfect fever of agitation. There could be no permanence in the change from £10 to £7—another change from £7 to £5 would be demanded, and so on, and he would rather see the subject dealt with permanently. For his own part, he should prefer to go down at once to household suffrage in accordance with the views of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer). He had been all his life in favour of household suffrage as held by the late Lord Durham, as whose political disciple he had started in public life. One of his objects, therefore, was to introduce into his proposal the element of permanence, and he believed that with the adoption of his proposal agitation would be at an end, because it could not reasonably be urged that there was any ground of complaint on account of any exclusion from the franchise. He might be told that there were not many petitions presented in favour of the measure; but, considering the circumstances and the novelty of the proposal, he did not regard that fact as anything surprising. As it was, the most bonâ fide of all the petitions presented in favour of Reform was one signed by 7,000, chiefly working men and clerks, in support of his proposal—a petition to which the signatures had been obtained without the expenditure of a single sixpence. There would have been many more petitions forthcoming in favour of the Bill, but for the general impression that a private Member could not possibly succeed in carrying a Reform Bill. While that impression generally prevailed he felt bound to acknowledge that an equally general impression prevailed that the Government could

  1009
  carry a Reform Bill. The latter impression, at all events, was a mistaken one. But that many more petitions would have been presented but for the feeling to which he had alluded was proved by hundreds of letters which he had received from mechanics' institutes, working men's associations, and similar institutions, while the newspapers representing the feeling of the working men bore testimony to the fact. He could only add that if at any time it should be his good fortune to succeed in carrying his proposal into Committee he should be willing to adopt any reasonable suggestions which might be needed. He could not, however, possibly assent to any raising of the standard of examination, because he believed that the result of such an alteration would be simply the destruction of the Bill. If they carried the arithmetic into fractions and required some knowledge of history and geography, they might, no doubt, render valuable additions to the present constituencies, but they would at the some time fail to remove the present cause of complaint which rested on the score of exclusion. He would now, with the consent of the House, withdraw the Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was desirous of offering a word or two in explanation. He wished to state that in the speech he made in opposition to the Bill of his hon. Friend he never delivered or intimated any opinion whatever upon a question which he did not conceive to be before the House at all—namely, whether there ought or ought not to be a franchise founded upon education or examination as a part of or an extension of another Reform Bill. He drew a broad distinction between a proposal so made and a proposal standing in the position in which he conceived and still conceived his hon. Friend's proposal practically stood—though he was quite willing to acknowledge that that position was due more to circumstances than to intention. His hon. Friend's proposal appeared to him to be one either in substitution or in limitation of the proposal of the Government, and not a proposal in extension of it. He need only further say that he believed his hon. Friend was exercising a very wise discretion, under all the circumstances, in not proceeding to a division upon the Bill, as the effect of such a division would, he believed, only tend to prejudice the consideration to which the subject under other circumstances might possibly be entitled. He could only add in reference to the suspicions which his hon.
  1010
  Friend had said had been aroused by the introduction of the Bill, he (Mr. Gladstone) might say that he had used language as clear as he could for the purpose of doing the fullest justice to the proceedings and intentions of his hon. Friend, and to the temper and spirit as well as the zeal with which he had brought the subject forward.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL— [BILL 161.]
  (Mr. Goldsmid, Mr. Huddleston, The O' Coner Don.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GOLDSMID,in moving that the House go into Committee, said, the law in regard to returning officers was different in different parts of the kingdom. In Ireland, when there was an equal number of votes recorded for two candidates the returning officer was bound under the penalty of £1,000, and of being incapacitated for ever after from voting at an election and from serving in Parliament, to give the casting vote whether he had previously voted or not. In Scotland, if there was an equality of votes, the returning officer was bound to make a double return, and he was not allowed in any case to vote as an ordinary voter. In England there was no law on the subject, and hence great confusion had arisen. In some cases the returning officer had given a casting vote; and this had been done recently by the mayor at the recent election for Helston. The practice then was that on the presentation of a petition the Election Committee disallowed the vote and proceeded to inquire into the other votes, as if no such casting vote had been given. As far, however, as he (Mr. Goldsmid) could see, the returning officer was only doing his duty in giving a casting vote, because the writ commanded him to return "one fit and proper person to serve in Parliament," and this injunction he could not be said to obey when he made a double return. There were six objections to a double return. The first was, that it was not in accordance with the writ or precept which required the returning officer to return one Member to serve in Parliament. The second objection was, that for the time a double return disfranchised the constituency, because only one could sit, and until

  1011
  it was determined which it was to be, neither of them could sit. The third objection to the double return was that it conferred on no one the right to sit and vote in Parliament. The fourth objection was that it necessitated an appeal to an Election Committee, and it thereby greatly increased the expense and trouble of elections. The fifth objection was that it pre-supposed that some of the votes given were bad. The sixth objection was that if none of the votes given were bad, it necessitated another election; and this might go on indefinitely. He thought these six objections showed that a double return was exceedingly undesirable. The Bill, upon which he now moved that the House do go into Committee, provided that the returning officer should not be allowed to vote as an ordinary elector; but, as there ought to be some one on the spot, in the case of an equality of votes, to settle who should be the Member, in accordance with the writ or precept, and as the only person who must of necessity be on the spot was the returning officer, it proposed to give to the returning officer the power to give a casting vote. The proposal was, in fact, to give to the returning officer the same privilege that was possessed by the Speaker of deciding the question when the votes were equal. It had been argued that this would cast an unpleasant duty on the returning officer; but he did not think that that was an argument to which the House would be disposed to attach much weight. Then it was said that this would practically give the returning officer the power of returning the Member. But it did not give him any more power than that possessed by any other elector, except that his vote turned the scale. Lastly, he might be told that the returning officer might not be legally qualified to vote; but he did not think there was any force in that objection, for the Irish Act gave the returning officer the right to give the casting vote if there was an equality of voices, whether he was legally qualified to vote or not. He was not aware when he drew up his Bill that in the year 1850 Sir Erskine May—a great authority—wrote a pamphlet on this subject, in which he contended that the most simple arrangement to meet the case of a double return would obviously be, to restrain the returning officer from voting as an elector, but to let him give a casting vote in case of an equality of votes. This was exactly the method proposed by the Bill before the House;
  1012
  and this method had obtained the approval of the present Judge Advocate General (Mr. Mowbray) as well as of his predecessor (Mr. Headlam); and the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had told him that before he had seen the Bill he had intended to propose a clause in the Reform Bill, giving the returning officer the power in question. He trusted that the House would approve this attempt to make the law uniform in the three countries, and would now consent to go into Committee on the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. LOWTHERagreed that recent events seemed to show that some alteration of the law was necessary to set this question at rest, and that an assimilation of the law in the three countries was a desirable portion of such a measure, but beyond this he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the only way of assimilating the law of the three countries was by adopting the law of Ireland, and did not seem to have any idea of extending the Scotch law to the other two kingdoms. Now he (Mr. Lowther) thought that, instead of extending the Irish law over the whole kingdom, the Scotch law, which prohibited the returning officer from giving a casting vote, and called upon him to make a double return, was much fairer. The hon. and learned Member was, he thought, in error in stating that there was no law in England on the subject, because he believed that the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 21, specially provided for the case of a double return. He could not agree that there was the slightest similarity between the casting vote possessed by the Speaker and that given by a returning officer; because the casting vote of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair was usually given on some broad principle—such as that it was desirable that the House should have an opportunity of considering the subject on another occasion—and no question of a political character was usually involved. But the casting vote of the returning officer would prevent the reconsideration of the question, for the opportunity of reconsideration was specially provided by the Act he had quoted. He should like to know what would become of the impartial character of the returning officer if this Bill passed?

  1013
  He must say that he did not think the Bill would diminish the number of election petitions. Since the Reform Act of 1832, there had been about half-a-dozen double returns. Out of this number, in two cases— the election for the Montgomeryshire District of boroughs in 1847, and the last election for Dumbartonshire—there had been no panel struck by a petitioner; whereas in Helston the casting vote of the returning officer had not prevented a petition. He gathered, indeed, from what he had read of the proceedings, that the casting vote of the returning officer had been the sole cause of the petition. The inconvenience which the proposed measure would entail upon the returning officers themselves would be excessive. It was, he believed, very unusual for the high sheriffs of counties to avail themselves of the privilege of voting as electors, and it was by no means the invariable rule of the returning officers of boroughs to vote for one or other of the candidates. Such a vote, however, given at an early period of the day was a very different thing, as affecting their character for impartiality, from a casting vote at the close of the day. There was a penalty for non-compliance with the Act, and the Act would be so formidable a grievance to returning officers, would so greatly aggravate the difficulty of discharging their duties, and was in other respects so objectionable, that he hoped the House would concur with him in the Amendment he now moved, that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
  MR. DUTTONseconded the Amendment. In reference to the saving of expense, his opinion was, that in the event of the votes being equal at an election, it was almost certain that there would be a scrutiny, whether this Bill passed or not. Another objection to the Bill was, that it would deprive the returning officer, who was frequently the mayor or other leading inhabitant of a town, of the right to vote as an elector, although his fellow-townsmen looked up to him as an example, and his vote would have great moral influence.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"— (Mr. Lowther,)—instead thereof.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he believed it to be of great importance that this question
  1014
  should be settled, and there could not be a better time than the present, when there were no election petitions on hand, and when the Bill could be discussed in a fair and unprejudiced spirit. Whatever the law might be, it was desirable it should be the same in the three kingdoms. These double returns were most inconvenient things, for they necessitated a scrutiny, and thus caused delay during which the constituency was unrepresented. If the mayor of Helston had made a double return, there must have been a scrutiny and a petition. If his hon. and learned Friend who now sat for Helston (Mr. Brett) had been in a minority instead of a majority he would not have been aggrieved, because the rights of the real majority were not prejudiced; whereas if it had been the duty of the returning officer to give a casting vote, the real minority would not petition at all. The provision restraining the returning officer from voting except when he was required to give a casting vote, was advantageous, as it relieved an official who ought to have the impartiality of a judge from the character of a political partizan. The returning officer might say, for example, he would always give the casting vote with the show of hands. That would be an easy way of settling the question, and preventing the casting vote from being canvassed in any unpleasant sense.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought that Gentlemen who advocated this measure omitted the consideration of two or three obvious matters. They argued as if the returning officer were somebody who happened to be in that position by the accident of his holding some other office, and that this furnished a sort of pledge of impartiality. They forgot that in boroughs which had been made by the Reform Bill and which were not municipal, the returning officer was appointed annually by the high sheriff, who was himself usually a party man, and if that officer were set up as an arbiter of the elections the selection itself would be a matter of hard canvassing with the sheriff, while the names selected would always expose him to great suspicion. If they passed this Bill there must be a new method of appointing returning officers. A double return was no doubt a bore and a trouble and an expense, but so was a contested election. It was necessary for the general good that elections should be troublesome and costly, but people went into them with their eyes open, and they ought to foresee a double return as a possible

  1015
  contingency. If two candidates received an equality of votes, tant pis for the two people who were tied up together, but they must go before a committee to see which was the right or the wrong man to have the seat. The hon. and learned Member for Tiverton was not quite correct in saying that in the event of a double return a Committee was a matter of course. There had been two cases of virtual equality of votes in the present Parliament. In the case of Helston the returning officer gave the casting vote and there was a petition. In the case of Dumbartonshire, which had hitherto been forgotten in the debate, the returning officer made a double return, but there was no committee. The two candidates set their heads together like men of common sense, and the man who knew he would come off worse saved his pocket and that of his competitor too. But there was another consideration. Supposing an election ran so close that under the present law there would be a tie, under the proposed law there would not be a tie, because the returning officer, who might be the most substantial voter in the town, would not have a vote, and therefore one of the candidates would be left in a minority of one and thus the wrong man might be returned. Consequently this absurd disenfranchising Bill would, in the very first step, alter the relations of the parties, and might very often produce the return of a candidate who would not otherwise have been elected. Finally, he would remark that the proposition was not likely to conduce very much to peace-making, by preventing petitions as its supporters contended. How, in the name of common sense and common ambition, would that Bill prevent one single petition? The man who thought he could knock off a few votes by finding that there had been a little too much treating or bribery would not be deterred from attempting to do so by his opponent having been returned by an official casting vote. They must change human nature if they supposed they could by that Bill prevent one single petition where there was the least chance of obtaining the seat. And in order to produce this no-result it was proposed to give up the high privilege of Parliament to be the judge of its own affairs, and to delegate to an external authority, to some single returning officer, whoever the man might be, the duty of deciding who was the right person to sit in that House. This might be the case in Ireland but it was a very Irish way of doing business, and he
  1016
  did not wish to see that Irish method introduced on this side of St. George's Channel. He trusted the Amendment would be carried, and that the time of the House would be no longer taken up by an attempt at amateur legislation such as was now before it.
  MR. WALPOLE: My hon. Friend complains that for the first fortnight of the new Parliament no Member was able to sit in this House to represent Dumbartonshire. Now, I think that that was a great grievance to the constituency as well as to the representative himself; and it might have been a serious inconvenience, considering that most important questions have arisen on the first meeting of a new Parliament—questions in which the deepest interests of the country generally were involved, and which demanded the attention and assistance of every Member of this House. There is no doubt that under the present law a constituency may be deprived for a considerable time of the advantages arising from having a representative in Parliament in the case of a double return. It appears then to me that recent events supply an ample justification for bringing in this Bill. With regard to the case of Helston—where, indeed, under the existing law there ought to have been a double return—that particular case raises the whole question as to what the law should be on this subject. The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in saying that there is no law on the subject in reference to England. There is a law upon the subject, but the difficulty of interpreting it is so great that I confess I do not know how it is to be acted upon. What the House has done with regard to England is to establish the usage of Parliamentary precedent as the law of Parliament. The first Act that relates to the case of a double return is the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 7. The preamble of that Act recites that a double return is not only an injury to the individuals duly chosen to represent a constituency in Parliament, by depriving them both of the power of giving their service as Members of the House of Commons, and putting them to great expense, but it is also an injury to the particular constituencies by whom they have been chosen, and an injury to Parliament itself, because the business of Parliament is disturbed and delayed thereby. Well, that being the principle laid down in this statute, it seems to me to be clearly intimated what should be the guiding rule which it should be

  1017
  sought to establish. The reason, I apprehend why that Act of Parliament has not been carried out is this. There are certain words in the chief clause of the Act making officers who shall wilfully, falsely and maliciously return more persons than are required by the writ subject to the same penalties as those who wilfully and maliciously made a false return. The Legislature evidently looked upon the inconvenience of a double return as being almost as bad as that attending a false return; and I suppose that the difficulty of showing that the return is wilfully and falsely made is the reason why the statute had not been generally acted upon. With regard to England, what the Committees of the House have generally done in a case of this kind is this. They have taken the last decision—indeed, they were bound by the Act referred to to take the last decision under the Act as a precedent—and upon that decision they have framed the rule which the returning officers are bound to observe in reference to the case of a double return occurring in England. What, then, they have invariably done is to declare that the casting vote of the returning officer shall not determine the election of a Member of this House, inasmuch as it had been already laid down by a Parliamentary Committee that such a proceeding is against the usage of Parliament. In Ireland the case is different. The first statute on the subject was passed in the reign of George II. If we are called upon to choose between the law and practice of the two countries, it appears to me that that of Ireland is that which we ought to follow. The statute to which I have just alluded says that the returning officer is wholly disqualified from voting, but that nevertheless that he must vote in the case of a "tie" at an election, and thus prevent the inconvenience of a double return. No doubt that enactment was recognized again in the statute of George IV. In Scotland, neither the sheriff nor sheriff's clerk, nor any person in any way connected with the election, can vote at all. The hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice that fact in his Bill. If he intends to repeal that Act, I think he ought to repeal it altogether, because there is as little reason for the sheriff or his clerk having a vote in Scotland as persons holding similar positions in England or Ireland. This being the state of the law in the three countries, the principle upon which we ought to proceed is, I think, this:—First
  1018
  of all, except by statute law, there is nothing to deprive any person of the right of voting, whether he were a returning officer or not; and consequently, except on the ground of public convenience and policy, that right of voting ought not to be taken away. But when a person placed in an official position like a sheriff or a mayor presides over an election, it is more convenient that, instead of depriving him altogether of his right of voting, we should simply reserve to him the right of voting when the case came to a "tie," and it is necessary, in obedience to the precept, that some person should be returned to Parliament. In fact, we should not disqualify him altogether; but for the sake of the convenience of having the precept obeyed, and for the further convenience of not having an active partizan taking part in the election until he was required, we should allow him to vote, but not till then. It appears to me that no great mischief would arise from such an alteration of the law in this respect; on the contrary, I think there would be a great advantage in making this change in the law, and in no longer allowing it to be different in the three parts of the United Kingdom. I am of opinion that in a new Parliament every constituency has a right to demand the presence of its representatives. I see no way of arriving at that result, so conformable to the principle and usage of Parliament, more conveniently than, in the case of a double return, to give the returning officer the power of declaring, in obedience to the precept, by his casting vote, who shall be the representative of the particular constituency. With these views, individually I am much inclined to support the Bill.
  MR. BRETTsaid, he was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) say that there was a doubt as to what was the law of England upon this question, whether the returning officer has a right to give a casting vote? No such right could be given to any man except by common law or by statute. If the right were given by the common law they would find it in the uniform course of practice, whenever a case had arisen, or in authoritative decisions. Since the Reform Bill on every occasion where the votes had been even, until the last election for Helston, the return had been a double return, and before the Reform Bill there were many occasions on which double returns had been made, and

  1019
  it would be found that there were only three occasions before the Reform Bill on which the returning officers had presumed to give a second or casting vote. The statute which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had quoted showed what the law really was, for it imposed a penalty on any returning officer who should "falsely and maliciously" make a double return. The clear inference was that he might make a double return if he did not make it falsely and maliciously. In the case of a double return it was necessary that there should be a new election, but either Member might give way and allow the other to take the seat. The Reform Act particularized the time and mode in which every person was to vote—that was to say, that no person was to vote after four o'clock, and that the poll books and polling booths were to be closed at that hour. If, therefore, the Legislature had intended that the returning officer should have a casting vote, and as that casting vote must be given after four o'clock, and could not be recorded in the polling book, it is impossible to believe that in that statute there would not have been some enactment to show how that vote is to be taken and in what manner it is to be recorded. Yet though there may be no doubt about what the law is, it may be desirable that the law should be changed. But there are some objections to the proposed changes. Take the case of a divided county. The high sheriff was the returning officer, and he might be a man who had not an acre of land in the division over the election in which he was presiding, and thus they might, under the present Bill, have a Member returned by a gentleman who did not belong to that division. In such a case it would be a fallacy to say that the Member so returned would be the representative of the constituency of the division for which he was returned. Again, with regard to the boroughs the mayor was generally the returning officer, and as he was merely the representative of the municipal constituency, which was entirely different from the Parliamentary constituency, it was possible that he might not be a Parliamentary elector; and yet it was proposed to put in the hands of such a person the power of returning the Member for the borough. But the strongest objection to the proposition was this; that whereas it was desired that the returning officer should be a wholly impartial person, he would in reality be made a most formidable political partizan.
  1020
  It had been said that the returning officer would be put into a disagreeable position by having to give a casting vote; but he (Mr. Brett) considered that any returning officer who was a strong partizan, would be placed in a most agreeable position by having an absolute opportunity of serving his party. Even at present it was supposed that the returning officer had facilities for doing so, by hastening or delaying the day of nomination, according to the convenience of his party. If there was to be any alteration of the law, he (Mr. Brett) thought the object ought rather to be to remove from the returning officer all suspicion of partiality. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton in thinking that this was the best occasion for bringing forward that Bill, for nobody would be able to persuade either party in Helston that the object of the measure was not that which would be its result—namely, to enable the mayor of that borough to say that he had done no wrong in giving his casting vote, because he had only done six weeks ago what Parliament now said was a right thing to do.
  MR. DENTsaid, he was one of those Members who had experienced the personal inconvenience, and had known the inconvenience occasioned to his constituency through being excluded from a seat in that House by reason of a double return. Whatever might have been the case in Dumbartonshire, in his own case he was advised that the only means of deciding who was to have the seat was by going before an Election Committee, and accordingly he underwent all the trouble, annoyance and inconvenience of waiting four months before a Committee. But he did not think the inconvenience to individuals to be put in comparison with the inconvenience experienced by a constituency in having for a considerable length of time no representative in Parliament. The real point was not whether a returning officer might or might not be a voter for the division or borough for which he made his return; the main question was whether great public inconvenience was to be caused by double returns, which prevented constituencies from being represented. He trusted the hon. and learned Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) would persevere with the Bill he had brought forward.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, that if the Bill passed it would create an extremely anomalous state of things in Scotland. It

  1021
  might be an open question whether in England and Scotland a casting vote should be given by the high sheriff or the mayor, because both of those funtionaries offered the guarantee that they were not only voters but occupied high and influential positions in their constituencies. But in Scotland the case was very different indeed. The returning officer in Scotland was the sheriff, who was quite different from the sheriff in England, being a paid magistrate, combining, in fact, in his person to some extent the functions of a stipendiary magistrate and those of a County Court Judge; and it was not necessary that he should be a voter in his county, or even a resident in it. Therefore, the result which the Bill would bring about in Scotland would be that, in the event of an equal number of votes being given for two candidates—a case in which it was fair to suppose that party spirit ran high and furiously—the return would practically be made by a paid Government official. He was sure the House would pause before it established a "fancy franchise" of so questionable a character. Unless the hon. Gentleman consented to exclude Parliament from his Bill he (Major Walker) should vote against it.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he did not think the law on that subject was by any means as clear as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brett) supposed. The returning officer for Helston consulted Rogers on Election Law before making his return, and he understood that he did not give a casting vote, but following the words of the writ he returned one Member only. In Sir Erskine May's work it was pointed out that the statute of the 7 & 8 Will. III. was directed against false and double returns; but the general practice had been to make a double return where the votes were equal—a practice which had long been recognized by the Resolutions of the House and the decisions of its Committees; and it was doubtful whether the sheriff would do his duty if he only made a single instead of a double return.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, that if he opposed the Bill he did so because it did nothing to remedy the unsatisfactory position in which returning officers are placed. By the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 102, a returning officer was compelled, under penalties, to provide, in view of election contests, polling booths, hustings, copies of the register of voters, &c.; and if no contest supervened no person was liable to reim-
  1022
  burse him for his outlay. If he was to be reimbursed at all he must rely upon the honour and good feeling of the candidate who was returned. No doubt as a thank-offering for his escape from a contest such a candidate would voluntarily defray these expenses; but in doing so he conferred a favour on the returning officer—a most undesirable position for a returning officer to occupy. The returning officer in many boroughs were engaged in business, or was a professional man having other calls upon his time. He was also an unpaid officer, and he contended that he ought to be legally entitled to remuneration, and thus placed on a more independent footing. Under all the circumstances of the case, he was prepared to offer to the Bill a hearty opposition.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, the fact that the returning officer was in the position just described was no argument against his giving a casting vote. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Helston (Mr. Brett) the case which had occurred in that borough was not parallel with the case for which he (Mr. Goldsmid) wished to provide. At Helston, the returning officer gave a preliminary vote as an ordinary elector; but by the present Bill the returning officer would not be able to vote as an ordinary elector, and if this had been the case at Helston the casting vote would not have been requisite.
  MR. E. CRAUFURDsaid, that in the Dumbartonshire case one of the candidates having discovered that an elector had voted for him by mistake, most honourably retired. There were grouped boroughs in Scotland 100 miles apart, and no provision was made in this Bill as to the time for declaring the poll, whether on the day following or a month afterwards. He hoped, therefore, that Scotland would be excluded from the purview of the Bill. If the Bill should go into Committee he should move that Scotland be omitted from the Bill.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGconfirmed the statement made by the hon. Gentleman in reference to what had occurred in the Dumbartonshire case.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 67: Majority 55.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  On Question that the Preamble be postponed,
  MR. E. CRAUFURDappealed to the Secretary for the Home Department to say whether he did not think it desirable that the further discussion of the Bill should be postponed until some Member of the Government connected with Scotland was in the House competent to pronounce an opinion as to the way in which it would be likely to operate in that country.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERexplained that the reason why he and others on that (the Opposition) side of the House had voted in favour of the Motion for going into Committee was that they were of opinion it was not expedient that a different law on the subject with which the Bill dealt should be allowed to continue in each of three parts of the United Kingdom, and that the present occasion was an apt one for removing the existing differences. At the same time, he did not think it would be well that the casting vote should be permitted to be given in any case by a returning officer who was a non-elector. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Goldsmid) was, he believed, prepared to insert a proviso in accordance with that view, and if the Bill were to pass in that altered form the difficulty with regard to Scotland would in great measure be removed. He hoped it would also be provided that, except in the rare cases in which there would be found to be an equality of votes, the returning officer should be precluded from taking any part in the election, and the suspicion that he might be acting as a partizan thus obviated.
  MR. BARROW,in reference to some remarks which had been made at an earlier stage of the discussion by the hon. and learned Member for Helston, said, he saw no good reason why the sheriff of a county which embraced two divisions should be precluded from giving his casting vote in either or both, inasmuch as he was the sheriff not only of a portion but of the whole county.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he desired to remove any impression that might exist that this Bill had been introduced by his hon. Relative to meet the Helston difficulty by stating that it had been brought in some time before the late election for that borough took place.
  Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 (Acts and Parts of Acts repealed.)
  MR. E. CRAUFURDobjected to the clause. The sheriffs in Scotland were by law prohibited from voting. This Bill
  1024
  proposed to give the returning officer a casting vote, and therefore he apprehended it would by implication repeal the statute which prevented them voting in Scotland. The principle of allowing an officer of the Crown to decide an election was, in his opinion, wrong and unconstitutional, and therefore he should oppose the clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (No more to be returned than required by Writ.)
  MR. WALPOLEproposed to insert the words "being an elector qualified to vote" after the words "returning officer," the effect of which would be that if the returning officer was not a duly-qualified elector he would not be allowed to give a casting vote. The object of this Amendment was to obviate the objection which had been raised that under the clause as it at present stood an election might be decided by the casting vote of a person who, except in the capacity of returning officer, had no right to vote at all.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that in the hope of making the best of what he considered to be a bad Bill, he had proposed an Amendment substantially the same as that which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had just moved. He thought that his form of Amendment was rather more convenient than that of the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time he was willing to give way.
  MR. LOWTHERwished to know what it was proposed to do in the event of a double return where the numbers were equal. He hoped that the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Bill, because it would be wholly inoperative if the proposed Amendment were carried.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that under the present law in Ireland the returning officer, whether on the register of voters or not, was able to give a casting vote, and he was unwilling to see this altered, as it would be if the present Amendment was carried.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTobjected to the proposed Amendment. The returning officers in Scotland occupied very different positions from what they did in England.
  MR. HOWESsaid, that as the Irish Members were satisfied with the law as it at present existed in Ireland, and as the Scotch Members were equally satisfied with the law in Scotland regulating this matter, and as they both appeared to be equally unwilling to accept the proposed alterations to be effected by this Bill, he really thought

  1025
  that the Home Secretary had better at once suggest the withdrawal of it. The subject might be more deliberately canvassed during the recess.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHthought that after the decision at which the Committee had just arrived to proceed with the Bill, it would be rather illogical for the Home Secretary to suggest that it should be withdrawn.
  MR. M'LARENwished to correct an error which had been committed by the hon. Member (Mr. Howes), who said that the Scotch Members were opposed to this Bill. Now such was not the case, for he had himself voted in favour of the Bill, and he believed other representatives of Scotch constituencies had also done so. He admitted that he should prefer to see things remain as they were in Scotland—but when he saw evils existing in England, and believing that the principle of one uniform law for the United Kingdom was a good one, he did not think the Scotch Members should stand in the way of a matter of this kind, and he therefore trusted the Bill would be allowed to proceed.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERthought it was very inconvenient for the law to be in such a state as to render a double return possible. The highest authority in the House had informed him that the only remedy at present for a double return was that there should be a fresh election. It was not fair to permit an entire stranger in the constituency, as a returning officer not possessing a vote might justly be described to be, to have the power of choosing between the candidates in the event of a double return, and deprive the constituency of their right of returning a representative of their own choosing. It would be better to let the candidates toss up for the seat, or to give the seat to the candidate the initial letter of whose name came first in the alphabet. If the sheriffs of Scotland were now prevented by law from voting, they would not, he apprehended, be qualified to vote under this Bill as "duly qualified and registered electors." He proposed to insert after the word "shall," in line three, the following words: "except as hereinafter provided." He also proposed that the casting vote of the returning officer should not be given till the poll books were made up and the result ascertained; and that the returning officer should not vote unless he was a "duly qualified and registered elector."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would
  1026
  be much simpler to toss up; or perhaps the result of the election might be determined by a rifle or a cricket match. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the returning officer should give his vote any time after the poll books were made up, he thought he was opening a door to malpractices. The returning officer might be a chandler, an ironmonger or a shareholder in a joint stock company, to whom the possession of a £100 note would be almost a fortune, and with all respect for the returning officer, he thought it dangerous to allow him to give a private casting vote when one gentleman would be much disappointed and another much benefited by the decision to which he might come.
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought that the difficulty started by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope) might be got over.
  MR. LAWSONwould be unwilling to see a change of the Irish law upon this subject, as he considered that it was founded upon the convenience of the thing.
  MR. E. CRAUFURDsaid, that in Scotland certain classes of persons disqualified from giving a vote at elections of Members of Parliament were got upon the register for municipal purposes. It might happen that the returning officer was one of those persons; and it followed that under the clause, even as amended, he would be able to give the casting vote—because he would be upon the register for municipal purposes— although he was one of a class of persons prohibited by the statute from voting at the election of Members of Parliament. He considered the Bill objectionable in principle, and trusted the Committee would not accede to the Amendment, which would render the measure unworkable.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that a returning officer who was an elector had a common law right to vote, and that right could only be interfered with by an enactment to the effect that until a certain contingency arose it should not be exercised. It was very desirable that the inconvenience of a double return should be avoided, and it was proposed to make that contingency in the event of two candidates having an equal number of votes. He could not see on what principle that portion of the Bill could be objected to. It had been stated that the sheriffs of the Scotch counties being appointed by the Crown, would be subject to undue influence, but he believed that there were no persons more independent than the class from which they were selected;

  1027
  and the English sheriffs were quite independent. He regarded it as of importance that the law of the three countries should be assimilated when an assimilation on true principles could be effected.
  MR. POWELLthought the proposed change ought not to be made without more mature consideration. Double returns were not of frequent occurrence, and when they did occur he did not see that they were evils of such enormous magnitude; and, moreover, he did not believe that any Member would be satisfied if his return depended upon one individual. He believed that the Bill would not have the effect of preventing inquiries by a Committee upstairs whenever a seat was gained by a casting vote. It had always been, and always, he believed, would be the case that an election of that kind would lead to an investigation on petition.
  MAJOR WALKERbelieved the Bill, under pretext of remedying one anomaly, would create an anomaly still greater, for not one out of six of the Scotch sheriffs was duly qualified as an elector. In five cases out of six the established course would be pursued, but in the sixth the returning officer, by virtue of possessing a little property in the borough, would be able to make the return on a principle hitherto unknown in Scotland.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that he had come down to the House with the intention of voting for the Bill, but on listening to the debate on the Motion for going into Committee he had changed his mind. Certain objections had been stated, and to obviate those objections Amendments had been proposed on the spur of the moment. These Amendments not having been printed, it was impossible to judge of the effect. Now, he thought it would have been much more satisfactory if, on a question of such great importance, the measure had been introduced either by the late or the present Government, for there would then have been some kind of assurance that the alterations would have been considered by competent persons acquainted with the election law of the three kingdoms. What would be the result in the case of a contested county election? The poll closed on a certain day, and the poll books were then sealed up. On another day the seals were broken, and the poll books cast up. Now, as he understood the Amendment, some indefinite time was to be allowed for the returning officer to make up his mind how to vote. The question arose as to the
  1028
  time to be given, and who was to have the custody of the books until the returning officer could make up his mind. He did not see that the urgency for this Bill was so great that it was absolutely necessary to hurry it on in such breathless haste. The removal of anomalies and the assimilation of the election law of the three kingdoms ought to be well considered by the Government, and be dealt with by a measure carefully framed, instead of by a Bill passed in haste, and which might cause much uncertainty and litigation.
  MR. GOLDSMIDremarked that he was not responsible for the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, for he preferred the Bill as it stood, and the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) as to the indefinite interval allowed to the sheriff was equally applicable to the present law.
  MR. OLIPHANTwas opposed to the Bill. He regarded the proposed assimilation of the law of England and Scotland as impracticable, the conditions of the two countries in the matter to which the Bill referred being essentially different.
  MR. SULLIVANobserved, that the matter was fully considered by the Irish Parliament in 1795, when an Act was passed providing that in the case of an equality of votes at the close of the poll, the returning officer should be obliged to give a casting vote, whether he was legally qualified or not, or whether he had voted or not, and in the event of making a double return he was liable to a penalty of £2,000. That statute was reaffirmed by the Imperial Parliament in the reign of George IV. Almost everybody was satisfied with the present law, and he protested against any hasty alteration of it.
  SIR GEORGE GREYadmitted the desirability of assimilating the law of the three countries as far as possible, but agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that the Bill and the Amendments which had been extemporised required more consideration then they could receive at that period of the Session.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDthought that they ought to try to assimilate the law and practice on this subject in the three kingdoms, but it was clear that however favourable Members were in the abstract to such a change, no sooner was an attempt made to put it in practice than English, Scotch, and Irish Members desired to retain their own laws and practices.
  MR. E. CRAUFURDsaid, Scotch Members did not ask for any assimilation, and not one of them could be found to put his name on the back of the Bill. He moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, his object in introducing the Bill was to do away with an anomaly. If the Home Secretary would bring in a Bill on the subject next Session he would allow this Bill to drop.
  MR. WALPOLEthought that it would be advisable for the hon. Gentleman to give the Amendments further consideration, and deal with it at a future stage. At present he could not say more on the subject.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  COMPULSORY CHURCH RATE ABOLITION BILL.
  (Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Attorney General.)
  [BILL 43.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In moving the second reading of this Bill, I hope not to be under the necessity of detaining the House more than a few moments, for on introducing the measure I was permitted an opportunity of explaining its general provisions, and those provisions have now been before the House and the country for a considerable time, and I am not aware that anything has taken place which renders it necessary for me on the present occasion to make any further comments upon it; though if opposition should be offered it may be necessary for me to notice any arguments which may be used against it. I rise, therefore, simply for the purpose of stating the course at this period of the Session which I propose to take with reference to the Bill. It has been intimated to me that Her Majesty's Government are willing to accede to the principle of the Bill by voting for the second reading—of course reserving to themselves the power of proposing in Committee such Amendments as they may think compatible with the view that they may take on the matter. I do not intend to limit in any way the discretion which they are entitled to exercise. At the same time, I understood that that disposition upon their part was connected with an expectation that the Bill should not be pushed during the present Session beyond the second reading.
  1030
  I cannot at all deny that that is a fair expectation, under the circumstances, and considering the period of the Session at which we have now arrived. It may, perhaps, be thought that I take a course not altogether usual in asking the House to agree to the second reading of a Bill with which it is not intended to proceed further during the present year; but there are circumstances attending the position of this Bill which render it an absolute duty on my part to ask the House to decide upon its principle, and which will, I apprehend, have the effect of inducing the House to give that decision. It will be recollected that on the second reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle), a suggestion was made by me which forms the basis of this Bill, and which was tendered to my hon. Friend as a possible substitute for his Bill. The House affirmed the principle of the measure of my hon. Friend, and he would have been in a position, I have no doubt, to carry his Bill through Committee and obtain the final judgment of the House upon it on the third reading had he not, in a kind and conciliatory spirit, for which I wish to render him the tribute of my acknowledgments, refrained from pressing the advantage which be had gained by the early decision of the House on the second reading, in the expectation that it might be in the power of the late Government to proceed with this measure. This measure, like other measures in the hands of the late Government, has been subject to serious prejudice in consequence of circumstances with which we are all acquainted. But I have considered, and it is so considered by my late Colleagues, that this measure stands in a position different from other measures, inasmuch as it was originally a proposal not made by the late Administration, but by myself on my own individual responsibility. Still, the virtual pledge I gave to the hon. Member for Bury, by making a suggestion subsequently accepted by him, undoubtedly, as I think, remains in force, and renders it my duty to aim, as far as I can, at the fulfilment of my obligation by proposing the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion. With respect to the substance of the Bill, I think it only fair that hon. Members should have the opportunity of considering what additions or amendments the Bill may be susceptible of in Committee. The motives which should lead us to the adoption of

  1031
  such a course are, I think, imperative and conclusive in their character. Independently of Amendments to the arrangements I proposed, there may be other proposals which may be suggested, involving nothing compulsory in their nature, and therefore not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, to make a more full and satisfactory provision for the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church. Therefore, though I should have wished to move the second reading of the Bill, under circumstances which would afford a hope of prosecuting the measure to a conclusion during the present Session, yet I cannot regret the delay which must now take place—particularly after the information conveyed to me that the Government received the proposal in a conciliatory spirit and acceded to its principle, it being understood that, in the event of the affirmation of the second reading, not only would full liberty be reserved for the proposal of Amendments in Committee if desired, but that no further proceeding should be taken after the second reading during the present Session, so that the fullest opportunity might be given for the consideration of the details connected with the question, in order that in the next Session we might approach this question under favourable circumstances, with a fair prospect of terminating a controversy which has hitherto involved impediments to the general progress of business.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I had no intention of troubling the House with my opinion so early in the discussion; but I fear some misconception may arise from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and I desire to offer a few remarks now. I was not in the House at the time, but I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government accepts the principle of the Bill, and will vote for the second reading on the condition that the measure should not be proceeded with this Session.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, reserving to yourselves every liberty to make Amendments in Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I fear that there has been some misconception on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think it best to notice that point frankly at once, in order that his conduct may not be unduly influenced.
  1032
  What I understood was that it was—I will notsayarranged—butthought, on the whole, considering the period of the Session, and other circumstances, the best course that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman should be now read a second time. The Government, however, do not accept the principle of the Bill, nor do they mean to vote for the second reading, but will not vote against it. It was also understood that the Bill was not to be proceeded with this year, but that opportunity should be given to the country during the recess for fully considering the measure. It, however, never reached me that the Government accepted the principle of the Bill or undertook to vote for the second reading, though they would offer no opposition to it, on the understanding that the Bill would not be proceeded with, and that a fair opportunity would be afforded to the country for considering the measure and all its details. No other understanding beyond that ever came to my knowledge, and I wish to repeat that I never heard that the Government had given their adhesion to the principle of the Bill, or that they were not perfectly free in another Session to oppose the principle. So far as I am concerned, I will not resist the second reading of the Bill this year, in order that the measure may be before the country and fairly considered, though not proceeded with further during the present Session. I shall not at this moment enter into a discussion on the Bill, but I thought not a moment should be lost in informing the House of the interpretation to be placed on the understanding with respect to the course to be taken by the Government. I am prepared myself not to resist the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion, and I think, considering the state of the Session, the long controversies on this question, and various other circumstances, which I need not now enter upon, it would be for the public convenience that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman should be read a second time, though I reserve to myself the right to oppose it in a future Session.
  SIR GEORGE GREYobserved that the Bill was already before the country, and it was certainly understood, in consequence of what passed during the discussion on the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle), that the Government would offer no opposition to the affirmation of the principle of the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEhad stated when the Bill was introduced that he, although having serious misgivings as to

  1033
  the measure, felt grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, so much did he (Mr. Newdegate) desire some solution of this question, but now that he was more fully informed, he could in no sense consent to be committed to the principle of the Bill by what then took place. He objected to the principle of the measure, for he had always contended that there should be no exclusion by law of any person from the Church. He concurred with the hon. Member for Bury so far as that personal liability for church rates should cease, but he differed from him in this, that he thought the people of this country, especially the poor, ought not to be deprived of what he considered was their inalienable right of having the means for Divine service provided out of the property of the country. This Bill would make the means for maintaining Divine service depend upon voluntary contributions. That was not an adequate security, and was far from being an equivalent for the positive right which they were asked to give up. There were other reasons why he was opposed to the Bill, and one of them was that it would aggravate and establish the existing divisions in the Church. These differences of religious opinion within the Church were already sufficiently marked. There was the High Church party, the extreme of which touched Roman Catholicism. There was the Broad Church opinion, the exaggeration of which was represented by Dr. Colenso. There was the Evangelical or Low Church party, who verged towards Puritanism. These parties in the Church differed from each other, and from the great body of the Church. The Bill would facilitate the obtaining of power by these parties within the parishes of this country. If power was given to a certain party in every parish to control the externals of worship, the arrangement of rites, and of seats in the church, it was inevitable that the most fanatical or the most wealthy would be the persons who would by purchase obtain the control. The proposal that a parishioner who did not pay should not have a seat was at variance with the right of the poor to access to the Church; and if they divided the duties of Churchwardens in the manner proposed by this Bill, and gave the exclusive control of the accommodation to the Churchwarden, who was to be called the Ecclesiastical Churchwarden, but who was not elected by the majority but by
  1034
  the minority of the parishioners, they invalidated the right of the parishioners, the majority of whom would elect the person described as the secular Churchwarden. He could not conceive any principle more vicious. It was, in fact, putting the management of the fabrics and services of the parish churches up to auction. Upon this point he might cite the opinion of the late Sir James Graham on the subject of pew rents, considering that this principle of voluntary payment stood on the same sort of footing as pew rents. Sir James Graham, on the 8th June, 1858, said—
  "I will refer again to the different compromises that have been proposed. I have a most decided objection to the imposition of pew rents as a substitute. The great principle for which the hon. Gentleman contends is the legitimate principle— the principle of a National Church, the principle that the poor shall have church accommodation. It is difficult enough, with every influence which can be used by the parochial clergy, to induce the population, even without money or price, as the hon. Gentleman expresses it, to attend Divine worship, but to institute as a rule in the rural parishes that pew rents should be received from the congregation would have an effect which Churchmen least desire. Shame would prevent the very poor from coming and not contributing, and the compulsion to contribute would increase the disinclination to attend the service. It has been suggested to mark, to brand, the Dissenters— that if they think fit to declare themselves Dissenters, they shall be exempt from payment of the rate. I have the greatest objection to any such course. I regret the unhappy religious differences which prevail in this land, and the proposal of ticketing the Dissenters tends greatly to perpetuate those differences. There are many attractions in the Established Church which are inherent in our common nature. If the daughter of a Dissenter is about to be married, she naturally wishes that the marriage shall be solemnized at the same altar where her parents exchanged their marriage vows. If a man is about to die, the voice of Nature cries within him, 'Let my bones be laid beside his bones. Let me be buried in the churchyard where my forefathers lie— where worldly anxiety and religious differences are buried in the same grave.' These are attractions which operate upon Dissenters and frequently lead the children of Dissenters to return to the bosom of the Church. But if you once fix what is termed the 'ticket' on a Dissenter, if he is to be marked by some overt act as a Dissenter, if he is required to put his hand and seal, as it were, to his dissent, it will become a point of honour with his family to adhere to that form of dissent to which their father gave a fixed and firm adherence, and all return to the Church will be for them very difficult if not impossible."—[3 Hansard, cl.1714.]
  He (Mr. Newdegate) objected to the principle of the Bill, which was that of voluntary payment, or payment by parties in each parish, and of exclusion, as being totally antagonistic to the principles on which the Church of England was founded.

  1035
  He said at once that he preferred the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. If the Church of England was to be cast on the voluntary principle, which was that of absolute freedom, it was only fair that the members of the Established Church should have the strength also which freedom gives. This Bill provided for the establishment of differences —religious differences within the Church, but it contained no provision for controlling these. Every Member knew the lapsed condition of those differences. The differences would be exaggerated in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and there was no provision for their improvement. This would become absolutely essential, if any similarity, he would not say uniformity, in the manner in which the services were to be conducted was to be observed; that some authority should control those differences which he maintained this Bill would establish. Surely it was not the object of that House to promote religious indifference. Conscience, uncontrolled by religion, became lax; and it should never be forgotten that if the conscience of a nation once became dead, that nation must lose its capacity for freedom. If they could not rely on the great majority being fit to govern themselves in matters social and political, freedom rested on a foundation of sand. He believed that the purity of the religion established with the Church of this country had contributed essentially to the maintenance of the free institutions of this country. The principle of this Bill would exclude the principle of the measure which stood in his name; a principle which affirmed a permanent provision. It was in this sense that Sir James Graham was prepared to relax the Statute of Mortmain, so as to enable the owners of land in fee, or even for life, to charge their estates for the maintenance of the parish church. Sir James Graham said—
  "The remedy which has occurred to me, and which I have long entertained, has been announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey). There are some points in his plan with which I did not agree, but I cordially agree with him in the wish to relax the Statute of Mortmain to a limited extent, so as to enable the holders of land either in fee or even for life to charge their estates for the maintenance of the parish church within certain limits. That proposal appears to me to be perfectly unobjectionable."—[3 Hansard, cl. 1716.]
  Provision was made in the Church Rate Commutation Bill for carrying out that recommendation of Sir James Graham;
  1036
  but in the Bill before the House not only were there provisions for the control of existing endowments by the Ecclesiastical Churchwarden only, who might, and probably would, only represent the minority of the parish, but the Bill would enable the representatives of the minority to dispose of those endowments, and get rid of them, subject only to the discretion of the Charity Commissioners. In this respect the Bill was diametrically opposed to the suggestion of Sir James Graham and to the principle of the Bill under the title of the Church Rate Commutation Bill, which stood in his (Mr. Newdegate's) name. He felt obliged to the House for having allowed him to express the apprehensions with which this Bill had inspired him; he could not, as an honest man, consent to the second reading of a Bill which he believed to be fraught with the deepest danger, greater even than any that could be anticipated from the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. If the House consented to the second reading of this Bill, even on the supposition that it would not become law this Session, he must be forgiven if he expressed his belief that they would on further consideration regret that course. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire would not urge the House to place itself in a position, from which on mature consideration he (Mr. Newdegate) was convinced they would desire to recede.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he was glad that the second reading of this Bill was not to be carried sub silentio, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not forgotten a pledge which he had given on a memorable occasion three years ago at Oxford, when he occupied a conspicuous place at a great ecclesiastical revival, that when it was in the power of himself and his party he would inangurate what he was pleased to call a Church policy. After that declaration it would have been surprising if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept a Bill which, if it meant anything, meant the establishment of the voluntary principle in relation not merely to the expenses of daily worship or the ordinances of the Church, but to the house and home, the very roof which covered the fabric of the Church. What the right hon. Gentleman meant by accepting the principle was best known to himself; but if he only meant it as a personal compliment due to the position of the right hon.

  1037
  Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), he should make it clear. It was with considerable regret and compunction that, following the right hon. Gentleman from the opposite Benches, and being still faithful in his allegiance, he felt bound to bear with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Newdedate) the brunt of opposing this Bill, as he had always considered it one of the leading characteristics of his right hon. Friend, that he endeavoured to harmonize legislation with the interests of the Church. But he could not shrink from the task of showing that the hasty establishment of the principle of the Bill would be objectionable. There might appear some inconsistency in his conduct in this matter, as he had supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury; but he had done so, not thinking the country ripe for the practical acceptance of that Bill, but with the idea of declaring the desirability that at an early period there should be no such thing as a compulsory church rate. To that he adhered; and he might observe that in 1860 a Committee of the other House, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, entirely gave up the principle of compulsory taxation in this matter. The only practical question was whether the exemption from payment of church rates should be partial, or, to prevent a distinction between those who paid and those who did not, universal. He did not think that full justice was done to the motives of Dissenters by stating that they objected to be "ticketed." The objection on the part of the Dissenters was, that they wished to participate in the whole of the parochial advantages without participating in their burdens, and that special exemptions could not be granted to them without subjecting them to some special disability. But the Church did not wish it to be apprehended by any division that it did not occupy the whole ground it ought to occupy. The Church considered Dissenters as erring members of the Church who might some day come back to the fold from which they had departed. The Bill of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, while dividing parishes into two camps, did not secure to the Church the benefit which might accrue from the right of taxing itself. In that respect he greatly preferred the proposed Bill of the Solicitor General, which appeared to be intended to carry into effect the recommendations of the Lords' Committee. To such a
  1038
  Bill he was prepared to give his most willing assent. The point he wished to insist on was that while they renounced, either partially or totally, the right of taxation in the Church, some provision for the maintenance of the fabrics should be established. He could not conceive it possible that, so long as the principle of an Established Church was recognized, so long as the connection between Church and State was considered a part of the constitution of England, so long as the Sovereign took an oath to preserve the rights of the Church, so long as some millions of Church property were devoted to the maintenance of the Church of England—he could not conceive how the House of Commons, or even a Minister of State, could agree to abandon the fabric of the Church to the precarious chances of voluntary contributions. As well might they leave the maintenance of the fabric of the House of Commons to voluntary contributions. He appeared as an Erastian in this matter; and if he differed from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), it was not because he had any pretension to be in a higher or in the same degree a defender of the Church; but he did not see how the substitute was to be provided, except by a contribution from the funds of the Church. The fund was a secondary thing; the State must make some public provision. They could never allow a clergymen to plead as an excuse for not performing the duties incident to his cure that his church had no roof, and that he could find no funds to put a roof on it. If this Bill passed, such a state of things might occur, without any violation of the law, or any means of remedying the evil. He did not see why they should not tax the owners of advowsons and of rectorial tithes. There was another source to which they might apply, which he was sorry to say was not so fruitful as some people thought—he meant the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. If those funds had been dealt with as they ought to have been in past years the funds now available would be vastly larger than at present. This was more a question of principle than one of amount. He did not exclude the principle of voluntary contributions. The Church had a double character; she retained somewhat of her old Apostolic character, in so far as she depended upon the contributions of the faithful, and he should be glad to see the carrying out of this principle properly

  1039
  supplemented. There was one thing he should like to add. If, ten years ago, those who now specially advocated the interests of the Church had been willing to assent to the principle of exemption, there could be no doubt that the Dissenters would have thankfully accepted any law which would have freed them from the payment of church rate contrary to their conscience, and they would not have thought of interfering with the right of Churchmen to tax themselves. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite should take warning from this, and should observe how the claims they put aside had gained strength by time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not urge this measure to a second reading in the face of the almost contemptuous assent which had proceeded from the other side, because, if there were a majority in its favour, it would serve no useful purpose, but was rather calculated to exercise a contrary influence. He begged to move as an Amendment—
  "That no scheme for the total, or partial, or absolute, or qualified abolition of Church Rates will be satisfactory to this House which does not contain some legal and certain provision for supplying any deficiency which may ensue from such scheme, in the funds applicable to the maintenance of the fabric of Church."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTseconded the Amendment in order to enable him to express his disapproval of this Bill. He believed he stated the opinion, if not of a majority, of a large portion of the House, when he said it was fully understood that a compromise of some sort should be attempted by any Government that introduced a Bill of this kind. Now, the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire was no compromise at all; it was a giving up of the whole question by those who had fought it, and, he hoped, honourably, on both sides of the House. They were asked to take a Bill which enabled them voluntarily to contribute towards the National Church, hampering their voluntary contributions by clogs which were totally uncalled for. He had always thought that a compromise meant giving and taking on both sides, and the friends of the Church had been most anxious for some compromise which should settle this much-vexed question. The Solicitor General had laid such a Bill on table; but how was it met on the other side? The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle) gave notice of his intention on
  1040
  the second reading to move that it be read a second time that day six months. Being met in that spirit, how could they accept such a Bill as that now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman?—for they had always contended that the Church should be supported by a rate derived from the landed property of the country. Considering the state of the poor, especially in the agricultural districts, it could not surely be contended that, if the State failed to provide church accommodation, it was acting in pursuance of its duty. It was perfectly true that in the early part of the Session they had been beaten on the Bill for the total abolition of church rates brought on by the hon. Member for Bury; but it was equally true that in the last Parliament they had a majority against them of seventy-four to commence with, and they finished with a majority of ten in their favour. This showed that in the interval the opinion both inside the House and outside had come to be in favour of some fair and equitable substitute, instead of a compulsory abolition of church rates. The grievance in this matter did not exist which existed a few years ago. In large towns church rates were almost entirely abolished; while in small towns the vestry, instead of carrying a rate by a small majority, generally carried it by a much larger majority than they did ten years ago. He might instance the case of Horsham, where the majority had increased from nineteen in 1856 to 179 in 1865. If this Bill passed, in large and poor parishes where there was no resident squire the whole burden would be thrown on the clergy, and they had already enough to do. In his own district there were two parishes which almost exclusively belonged to Roman Catholics where church rates were not objected to and would not be so long as the law remained as at present; but if the law were altered and it became a matter of conscience whether the Roman Catholics of Arundel and Slindon should subscribe to the repairing of the parish church, it would be a very different matter. There were 10,000 agricultural parishes in which there was a desire to maintain the rate, and he protested against a proposition which would undermine the strength of the Church which had proved so great a blessing to the nation. It would be alike unfair and unjust to assent to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, and he should therefore heartily oppose it.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no scheme for the total, or partial, or absolute, or qualified abolition of Church Rates will be satisfactory to this House which does not contain some legal and certain provision for supplying any deficiency which may ensue from such scheme, in the funds applicable to the maintenance of the fabric of Church,"—(Mr. Neate,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE,having his name on the back of the Solicitor General's Bill, and having also a Motion on the Paper to refer this Bill, if it passed a second reading, to a Select Committee, would briefly state why he did not think it necessary to oppose the second reading, while at the same time he should not ask the House to appoint a Select Committee which could not, at that late date, meet and report, and could only, therefore, be a mockery. His right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire had, in a former debate, paid him the compliment of referring to some expressions he had dropped in vindication of his going on with the Bill; he must, therefore, be allowed to explain that, while he heartily sympathized with what he believed to be a genuine zeal on the part of the right hon. Member for the interests of the Church, which had prompted him to bring forward this Bill, and while he admitted that a compromise of the church rate question would on various accounts be of incalculable benefit, he must guard himself against being supposed to give his assent to the present Bill in various details. What, in his humble position, he had encouraged his right hon. Friend to go on with, was a Bill to continue church rates minus the compulsory element. That, he thought, was a correct summing-up of what the right hon. Gentleman had proposed early in the Session, on the second reading of the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds — namely, that the church rate was to be maintained; but that the compulsory element, or according to the figurative expression of the hon. Member for Birmingham—whom, by the way, they had not yet seen in his new place—the bailiff, and the process of the Court of Law, should disappear. But the Bill of his right hon. Friend did not carry out what he had proposed—it carried out something further
  1042
  and different. The Bill, as it stood, was for the abolition of compulsory church rates—that is, for the compulsory abolition of a thing which had time out of mind possessed its legal identity and recognizable character, an identity and character which were not changed or mitigated by the idle prefix of a descriptive adjective. What the right hon. Member promised was, the retention of this traditionary impost, accompanied by the removal of its compulsory element, but saving its identity. The introduction of that word "abolition" in the title and body of the measure was very unlucky, if the intention was to conciliate the clergy and laity of the Church of England, who had for so many years been flogged up hill and down hill, attacked, placarded, spoken against, vilified, by organization actively working with the intention of destroying the Established Church behind the breastwork of church rate abolition. Abatement, cessation, determination, or any other word, might have been used without having such obnoxious savour about it. The argument on the other side, in answer to these remarks, would be that this was not a Bill for the abolition of church rate, but only for the abolition of compulsory church rate. But that was drawing their points rather fine— that was a distinction which, no doubt, could be perceived by the acute intellects which it was well known had been engaged in drawing this Bill—a distinction which was very logical, but which it would be rather hard to assume was one that 10,000 clergy and 20,000 churchwardens in England, who would be affected by it, were likely to appreciate. By the first clause, compulsory church rate was abolished, while under a subsequent clause leave was given to set up a new voluntary rate after the fashion of the old one. This clause, recognizing as it did some shade or spectre of continuing church rate, would justify those who wished exemption and not abolition, to read the Bill a second time, with the view, if they had time, of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. That would be a peace-offering to meet the just grievance of Dissenters; but when he granted the desirability of so much indulgence towards the measure, he had, he feared, drawn largely on the amount of commendation which he felt justified in bestowing on the Bill. During the process of putting in action the new system, the Bill would do what Churchmen were bound to resist—it would create a certain vacuum,

  1043
  a certain space of time between the abolition of the compulsory rate and the creation of the new voluntary one, wherein the identity of the two would be lost, and so that prestige of continuity, on which those who advocated the exemption compromise relied, would be lost. That was his great objection to the Bill. He would exempt Dissenters, but save withal the continuous identity of the rate. What he wanted was, the same old rate, made and collected in the old way, though not from all the same old persons. The principle of continuity was essential, and why did Dissenters object to granting it? The plea of conscience could not be urged, for the remedy which he offered would—perhaps to the large material damage of the Church—let off every person who had, or who professed to have, a conscience in the matter. The truth was that the political Dissenters who had in the resistance to exemption wished to get rid of the fact patent in all history, that the Church was an institution of the country, interwoven in our system, so that while those who dissented from it suffered no civil disability, yet the fact remained patent that the Church was the rule, and Dissent the exception. It was not the ticketing that was objected to, but the recognition of the truth that while individuals, one by one, or hundreds by hundreds, might be let off from paying church rates, yet that the Church, with all its accidents, was to remain a normal institution of the land. He would like to say a word about this phrase ticketing. He was compelled to confess that he had no great belief in the reality of the dislike felt to it. He never knew of any man who could get off any other tax, or any other inconvenience, by making a declaration—that is, by ticketing himself—prefer to remain subject to it from any objection to putting his name to a bit of paper; and so, unless human nature was different in the case of church rates, he was quite unable to realize the Dissenting position, and therefore compelled to deal with it as a further proof of that state of mind which he had just endeavoured to explain to the House. Besides, under such a compromise as that of the Solicitor General, no one was called on to ticket himself as a Dissenter. Any measure of compromise — and the more liberal the better, saving only the principle of which he had spoken—it was their duty as Christian men to meet half-way, and all the way if they could. Such was the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the
  1044
  Solicitor General, which contained the one cardinal merit to which he had just called attention—namely, that the absentee was not called upon to declare himself a Dissenter. It gave an exemption to those who, from whatever cause, would be exempted; and when a man wished to return he was as complete and thorough a Churchman as before, by a simple process of paying up. But he had not exhausted his objection to the Bill of his right hon. Friend— not only was the new payment to be a purely voluntary rate, but there was not even any power given to enforce it against those who had assented to it, and who had by their assent contributed to fix its ratio for their co-assenting neighbours as well as themselves. The injustice of this provision was palpable, for of course if the old rate were distributable over fifty and the new one over thirty-five, then to raise the requisite sum each of them would have to pay in the ratio of fifty to thirty-five of what they would have had to contribute under the old system of church rates. Was it not then monstrous that when they had so agreed among themselves there should not be provided a power—not by the old cumbrous machinery of the ecclesiastical law, but by the tribunal which so sharply looks after good faith between man and man, the County Court—to keep them to their word? The former clause made the new impost a voluntary rate; by the present one it would become in mathematical language "voluntaryism square." He could not help hoping that for very shame Gentlemen on the other side would come forward to repudiate so damaging a deficiency, and to concede that which would be no limitation of the rights of conscience, but a simple recognition of common good faith among persons who had without compulsion passed their word to each other.
  The Bill, however, had its good side in the provision which laid down that the person who would not pay should not have his share in the management of Church affairs. He gladly admitted the value of this compensation, and he was not afraid to say that its presence in the measure was the chief cause of his giving it so much of support as he had done to it. He was the more anxious to do so as there was one particular in it, which had, he believed, been much misunderstood, and had given rise to much of the opposition offered by earnest Churchmen—he meant the words which prohibited the allotment of sittings to those who refused their voluntary rate.

  1045
  If this implied, as many seemed to think, that these persons were to have the church door shut in their faces when they went to worship, he could thoroughly agree in the objection. But he read it quite differently, and believed that it simply meant that the householder who had wilfully refused should have no right to a share in the periodical allotment which, by old usage, the churchwarden was accustomed to make, but must take his chance with the worshipping non-parishioners who might frequent that church. In this he saw no unfairness.
  Now, having done with the Bill, he would say a few words on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Oxford. His hon. Friend's speech was characterized by great personal zeal for the Church, but then he advocated his plan upon grounds which ought to make other Churchmen cautious in accepting it. His non. Friend said he himself was an Erastian; this was candid: but as he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had a particular dread of Erastianism, he was bound, on the faith of those words, to be very cautious in accepting his hon. Friend's proposition. The hon. Member had laid down that the Church and her possessions were public property. He, on the contrary, believed that the Church was a corporation and held her property like other corporations, in fee for her own use, under the protection of the laws of the land: nor would he accept that mess of pottage so eagerly tendered to induce the Church to give up her birthright—her own enduring right to her own property. By the proposal of his hon. Friend the churches of the land would be assumed by the State, and once that was done what guarantee had they that those churches would not in a short time, at the arbitrary will of the majority, be let out at different times to different denominations? They had the example of the way in which this principle had been worked on the Continent since the cataclysm of 1789—for instance, in many parts of Germany the same building was used by the Protestants and Roman Catholics at different hours, while in other countries the whole mass of Church buildings had in one sweep been usurped, to be regarded on no more abiding tenure than the letter of that fresh grant. Now, he should utterly resist, as he hoped all Churchmen would do, the introduction of that system into England, and therefore was compelled to state that the proposal of a fabric rate was, in his opinion, most insidious and dange-
  1046
  rous, for it would be the thin edge of the continental practice. That was the reason he was so strongly in favour of the exemption compromise, notwithstanding all the faults it undoubtedly possessed. He was not blind to the material injury which it might inflict on many country parishes, he recognized to the full the illogical character of a voluntary tax. And yet, with his eyes open, he advocated the exception compromise mainly for fear that if it were rejected, the fabric tax might be set up, and with its establishment, the knell be struck of the Church of England as an independent corporation. Earnestly, therefore, he appealed to Gentlemen on both sides of the House not to let the opportunity go by, but to come forward while there was time, and make a reasonable compromise which should preserve the form of the rate, while freeing from it those who only paid it grudgingly and unwillingly. Under these circumstances he was heartily glad of the decision at which the Treasury Bench had arrived of not dividing against the Bill on the second reading, as this would be a guarantee of good feeling and the foundation of a friendly understanding upon which, during the recess, they might consult the clergy and laity, including Nonconformists, with a view to arriving at some decision upon the subject next Session. He did not suppose that at that period of the Session the Solicitor General would press his measure, while he should certainly not move for the Select Committee of which he gave notice now many weeks ago.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he should have been glad if the House had come to a decision upon the second reading of the Bill without any long debate, but as some discussion had taken place, and there appeared symptoms of a desire to continue it, he might be permitted to say a few words which might possibly be useful as tending to assist in the future settlement of the question. The present measure embraced three principles—the abolition of compulsory church rates, the continuance of the existing machinery for voluntary purposes, and the making it a condition that those who declined the ecclesiastical burdens of vestrymen should likewise relinquish the ecclesiastical powers of vestrymen. With regard to the abolition of compulsory church rates, he would say that he had always been most unwilling to see the question settled without accomplishing the object

  1047
  to which the hon. Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Neate) had referred—namely, that of securing by law the permanent and sufficient maintenance of the fabrics of the Church. He yielded to no man in the value which he set upon the Established Church. He believed it to be a national institution which conferred inestimable benefits upon the country, and which was so interwoven with all our other most valued institutions that he could not contemplate with anything like equanimity any circumstances tending to its subversion. That being so, he had always been strongly impressed with the truth of the proposition which had been advocated by some of those who had taken part in the debate—that if there was to be an Established Church, the fabrics must be maintained; and if he thought there was no reasonable ground for believing that the fabrics of the Church would continue to be maintained under a change of the law, he should have had no hesitation in saying that he should still be unwilling to see the law changed. He could not, however, bring himself to believe that that would be the case, if either of two things were done—if they either substituted some other legal provision for the purpose, which was not proposed, or if they left the Church a free and fair opportunity of meeting the deficiency by her own resources; and he had acceded to this Bill on the ground that it offered a reasonable prospect of attaining that end. Whether it would be perfect or not, he believed it would be valuable in a high degree: and the Church possessed resources and energies quite sufficient to enable her, if all obstructions were taken out of her way, and if she were permitted the use upon voluntary principles of the old machinery, to meet her wants in every parish in the kingdom. At all events, he was sufficiently convinced of the probable efficacy of the system to be willing to see it tried. He could not shut his eyes to the difficulty of justifying in principle the present law, or to the dangers to the Church and the country, as far as it was identified with the interests of the Church, in the continuance of the present state of things; nor could he see his way to any other practical remedy which was better than the one now proposed. What did he mean when he said that he could not justify in principle the present state of the law? He meant that the law did not simply impose this tax for the maintenance of the churches as other taxes were imposed—by
  1048
  the authority of Parliament, or by purely secular machinery. It was true, in a certain sense, and it had been said over and over again, that church rates were a burden upon the land, imposed by the common law; it was undoubtedly true that the common law established the particular method by which, according to the peculiar custom of this country, the churches were maintained out of the land. But the common law only gave its authority to the bare abstract proposition, that this was a legal liability: it left all the consequences to be carried out by ecclesiastical machinery. If it were merely a common law obligation—if the common law did not proceed upon the footing of an ecclesiastical obligation—there must have been in this, as in all other cases, a remedy at common law. No doubt the common law did, on the ground of the ecclesiastical law and the national custom which it recognized, say that the land should be liable for the maintenance of the Church; but it left the ecclesiastical machinery of vestries to work it out by imposing the rate, and, what was more important still, it left the Ecclesiastical Courts to compel the payment. The common law did not step in to take off any part of the burden from the ecclesiastical law; and therefore the true conclusion was, that though the common law established the burden, it did so upon the theory that all citizens of the State were members of the Church of England, and that all participated in the ecclesiastical duty of contributing to the support of the Church; and, treating all citizens as churchmen, it left the Ecclesiastical Courts to impose or enforce the obligation. He was at a loss to reconcile the continuance of that state of the law with the advance which had been made in the principles of toleration and religious liberty. To say that Dissenters might for every other purpose separate themselves from the Church and free themselves from ecclesiastical control, but that this burden should nevertheless be imposed upon them really on ecclesiastical principles, and enforced, not by common law, but by ecclesiastical law, appeared to him to be an anomaly tending to two mischievous results—to keep up constant discontent on the part of Nonconformists, on the ground that the Established Church was not maintained on the principles of religious liberty, and that ecclesiastical machinery was made use of to their oppression: and, at the same time, to force Nonconformists, in their own defence, to inter-

  1049
  fere in the vestries and administrative machinery of the Church, rendering that machinery inapplicable to its proper purposes. It invited and encouraged Dissenters to offer obstructions to the internal management and administration of Church affairs, for which they would have no motive and no inclination if this burden were not cast upon them. The present state of the law, therefore, could not be justified on principle. Could it be justified by its practical effects? The law was that in every parish the church should be thus maintained. The obligation was as great in large cities and boroughs as in the smallest rural parish. But the Nonconformists had been able to exclude the operation of the law from most of the large places, and it was attempted to maintain it, not upon the large and general basis of a national law, applicable for a national purpose, but upon that of a law of partial, uncertain, and exceptional application, in particular parishes. This state of things was most unsatisfactory and dangerous. It invited Nonconformists to take part everywhere in the vestry for the purpose of exerting their power on every opportunity; it encouraged religious animosities; it produced conflicts between the Church and Nonconformists, which must be prejudicial to the Church and to society; and, at the same time, it tended to stir up great questions with reference to the Church and State, which without this opportunity of keeping up a constant agitation, might not arise, and which, if persisted in, must by-and-bye prove formidable. This state of things also formed an obstacle to those progressive measures which might contribute to the prosperity of the Church; they would be much better able to obtain the assistance of Parliament for any re-arrangements which it might be desirable to make for the temporal welfare of the Church, if they were relieved from this perpetually embarrassing question. That conclusion was brought home to him in this way. A noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough), when a Member of the House of Commons, had in perfect good faith brought in a Bill to enable new parishes to be created by the subdivision of old parishes, stating his belief that the effect would not be to enable church rates to be levied where they were not levied before; but he said for all ecclesiastical purposes new parishes were to be separated from old. The law, however, had since determined that church rates were an ecclesiastical purpose, and therefore that they might be
  1050
  levied in the new parishes. The effect of the natural discontent and resentment of the Nonconformists at this unexpected result had been, that they had rendered hitherto impracticable the very desirable work of amending and consolidating the law with reference to the building of churches and the creation of new parishes. Having stated his reasons for thinking it expedient to put an end to compulsory church rates, he would briefly explain what, in his opinion, should be provided instead. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) was, at the present time, absolutely impracticable, and it could not be expected that the House would by any chance agree to it. Then came the principle of exemption, which had been proposed to the House in two forms. The proposition that Dissenters should be allowed to decline payment of rates had been objected to on the ground that they would thereby be "ticketed." He had never appreciated that argument when offered by Dissenters themselves, as he had never found them ashamed of declaring their opinions. But, on the other hand, the Church did not wish to draw the line wider than it was at present between herself and the Dissenting body; and to give a pecuniary motive for a declaration of Nonconformity was not for the interest of the Church. Then came the proposal embodied in the Bill of the Solicitor General, about which, at first sight, there was something plausible. It was proposed that a man should declare beforehand his desire to be exempted; and that at the same time he should give up all right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters. But Nonconformists would not be satisfied with that. If all Nonconformists would send in the notice of objection the difficulty would be at an end; but the majority would not give up their influence, upon terms which did not altogether, without reference to precautions to be taken by each man for himself, put an end to the grievance of which, as a body, they complained. That Bill, if it were passed, would probably prove a dead letter, and would not effect any final settlement of the question. What was proposed by this Bill? In the first place, that the power of using the old machinery should belong to the Church in every parish as before; and he believed that in the great multitude of parishes where the people had gone on contentedly under the old machinery, where it had not been necessary to put in distresses, where

  1051
  ecclesiastical suits had not been required, where owners and occupiers of land were members of the Church, they would continue voluntarily to use that machinery, and that the cases would be few where any difficulty or confusion would arise. He and those who thought with him were ready, therefore, to adopt this principle, relying at the same time upon the further resources of diocesan funds, and other forms of voluntary contribution. They thought that, the compulsory church rate once got rid of, there would be no inducement to Dissenters to interfere in the affairs of the Church; but as there might be apprehension of even a voluntary rate being frustrated, and of obstruction being offered to the expenditure of funds voluntarily contributed in accordance with the wishes of the contributors, it was thought that, for the seourity of the Church, those who were relieved from the burdens of the vestry should also relinquish the powers of the vestry. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to apprehend that under the provisions of the Bill persons with extreme ideas would be able to introduce into parish churches ceremonies and ordinances that ought not to be introduced. Nothing that was illegal could be done under this Bill any more than it could under the existing law, and any one who was willing to pay the rate might go to the vestry and object to anything that might be proposed. He thought, therefore, there was no solid ground in that objection, and if there were it was matter of detail, with respect to which precautions might be taken in Committee. He trusted the House would accede to the principle of the Bill, and that when considered in detail it might lead to a satisfactory settlement of this vexed question.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, that five years ago he had himself introduced a Bill to amend the law of church rates; and when he heard the late Chancellor of the Exchequer promise to introduce certain clauses into his Bill with a view to adjust existing differences of opinion, he listened with great pleasure, believing that he proposed to embody in his Bill the principle which he (Mr. Hubbard) had laid down. He had proposed in his measure of five years ago to give the most unqualified liberty to Dissenters as to paying or withholding their contributions to those rates; but he asked them at the same time to refrain from interfering in any way with the
  1052
  members of the Church when they were willing to raise amongst themselves the necessary funds for the support of the services of the church. But the very title of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was ambiguous and suspicious. It was called "The Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill." Why, no such thing existed as a law of church rate under such a title. If the right hon. Gentleman simply called his measure a Church Rate Abolition Bill there would be no objection to the name, for it would harmonize with its purpose. But it was a misuse of words to call it as he had done. By the provisions of the Bill, when church rates had been abolished liberty was to be given to raise a private subscription, which every one knew could be done without Parliamentary licence. It was necessary, in his opinion, that churchwardens should know the amounts and the persons upon whom they could levy their rate; else they would not know how much it would produce. The Bill of the Solicitor General, which was similar to a proposal made by himself five years ago, would enable this to be done, and at the same time relieve Dissenters from liability without in the slightest degree doing violence to their feelings. Where the Dissenters simply declined to contribute, the churchmen could set about making their own rate, and they would know what it would yield, for they would know the value on which it would be assessed. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had said Dissenters would decline exemption on the terms proposed, because those terms involved the surrender of a power of interference. His answer to that was that the only places where church rates were now levied were those in which Dissenters were in a helpless minority; and what power they had was useless to them. One great objection to the Bill under consideration was that it forbade the poor man's entry to the church if he did not pay his rates. The Bill of the Solicitor General would allow him full liberty to enter.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, the Bill of his right hon. Friend did so too.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he was very glad to hear it. The hon. Member was proceeding, when it being a quarter to six of the clock, debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

NEW ZEALAND GUARANTEE.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. HENLEYinquired what amount of money the House was asked to guarantee?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the matter had been referred to in the Financial Statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; the amount was £500,000.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to guarantee the liquidation of Bonds issued for the repayment of Advances made out of Public Funds for the service of the Colony of New Zealand.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Bill to amend the Act providing Superannuation Allowances to Officers of Unions and Parishes, and to make other amendments in the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GATHORNE HARDY and Mr. EARLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]

  RAILWAYS (GUARDS' AND PASSENGERS' COMMUNICATION) BILL.
  Select Committee nominated:—Mr. Hexer B. SHERIDAN, Captain STACPOOLE, Viscount MILTON Captain MELLER, Mr. O'BEIRNE, Colonel PACRE Mr. WATKIN, Mr. SHERRIFF, Colonel BARTTELOT, Viscount GALWAY, Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, and Mr. MILNER GIBSON; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at two minutes before Six o'clock.