Sitting of 14 May 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Oxford University, v. Right Hon. Gathorne Hardy, Secretary or State.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Malt Tax appointed; Military Reserve Funds appointed; Army (System of Retirement) nominated; Houses of Parliament nominated; National Gallery Enlargement nominated; Factory Acts Extension and Hours of Labour Regulation, Mr. John Benjamin Smith added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Blackwater Bridge.
Ordered—Commons Inclosure Act Amendment*; Agricultural Children's Education; Landed Property Improvement and Leasing (Ireland); Records (Ireland); Blackwater Bridge.*
First Reading—Landed Property Improvement and Leasing (Ireland) [150]; Commons Inclosure Act Amendment* [151].
Second Reading — West India Bishops and Clergy* [126].
Committee — Bunhill Fields Burial Ground* [107]; Labouring Classes Dwellings Acts (1866) Amendment* [118].
Report—Bunhill Fields Burial Ground* [107]; Labouring Classes Dwellings Acts (1866) Amendment* [118].
Considered as amended—British Spirits* [135].
Third Reading—Offices and Oaths* [7]; Transubstantiation, &c., Declaration Abolition [6]; Vice President of the Board of Trade* [22], and passed.

THE PRISONERS IN ABYSSINIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the King of Abyssinia has refused to comply with the Queen's request that he should liberate the captives; whether, in consequence, the English engineers who were engaged to enter the King's service have returned, or are about to return to England; and, whether any and what further steps are being taken by the Government to obtain the release of Mr. Rassam, Consul Cameron, and the other captives?
  LORD STANLEY: In answer, Sir, to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I cannot say that the King has refused to liberate the prisoners, because we have at present no answer from him on the subject; but we know or believe that the Queen's letters must have reached him some time ago, and that the prisoners are still detained. With regard to the second part of the Question, as to whether the English engineers have returned or are about to do so, I may say that Colonel Merewether, in a letter dated the 4th of March, suggested that in view of the delay which has occurred it would be better that the engineers should return, and we have acquiesced in their doing so, as, under the circumstances, and from what we have heard, it did not appear safe for them to proceed into the interior. I should also mention that the chief of these engineers, soon after his arrival at Aden, was attacked with a very serious illness, so that it was necessary for him to return under any circumstances. I have written to the King, on the 16th of April, expressing regret at the long detention of the prisoners, and saying that unless they were liberated immediately the presents which had been prepared and sent out would not be delivered. Up to the present time no further information has been received beyond what I have stated.

  GLOSSOP CONVENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has

  525
  been given to a statement in The Times newspaper of the 11th of May, that six young ladies had escaped from a Convent at Glossop, and having walked to Sheffield, a distance of twenty-five miles, were there taken charge of by the police, and by them handed over to another Convent called Notre Dame at the request of the Superior of the Convent from which they had escaped; whether it is his opinion that the police at Sheffield were justified in so acting; whether any inquiry will be instituted as to the circumstances connected with this escape; and, generally, whether any, and what, means are available for affording protection to any such persons against detention in Convents against their will?
  MR. WALPOLE, in reply, said, he had that morning directed inquiries to be made into all the circumstances of the case, and thought it would be improper for him to make any observations on the matter until he was in possession of the result of the inquiries instituted.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he intends proceeding with the Representation of the People Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I intend to proceed in Committee on the Representation of the People Bill on Thursday if the House can go into Committee at a reasonable hour; but there is business upon the Paper of a very pressing character which cannot be delayed, and which may occupy much time. If I am unable to proceed with the Bill on Thursday, I will do so on the first day I can—certainly next Monday, if not on the previous Friday.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would beg to ask what would be deemed a reasonable hour.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I shall leave it to the general feeling of the House; I wish to suit the convenience of hon. Members.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he proposes to introduce the Bill for the amendment of the Representation of the People in Ireland?
LORD NAASsaid, in reply, that he proposed to introduce the Bill for amending the Representation of the People in Ireland as soon as the state of public business would admit; probably in about a fortnight.

MALT TAX.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTrose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Malt Tax. He thought that this would be found to be the best and most convenient course which could be taken in the interests of those who advocated the repeal of the tax. Whenever the question of repealing the tax had come before the House as an abstract question, large majorities had refused to accede to the request of the farmers; and, this being the case, those especially interested in procuring the repeal thought it would be the wisest and most prudent course to place before the House such information as was likely to lead to the solution of this difficult question. They accordingly held a meeting in the tea-room to consider the best mode of proceeding in reference to the question. His hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read), who, in the early part of the Session, had placed a Notice on the Paper, was present; and when he found that it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee was the right course to pursue, he consented to withdraw his Notice, saying, that his only desire was to see the tax repealed, and any measures calculated to advance that object would meet with his hearty support. His hon. Friend, being unwilling to divide the party with which he generally acted, took the honourable course of withdrawing his Notice. The Central Association for the Repeal of the Malt Tax had attacked his hon. Friend in a way offensive and uncalled for. He (Colonel Barttelot) would remark that if that Association thought it could force hon. Members to do that which they did not approve of, it would find itself greatly mistaken. It would also learn that in order to carry a great question like this to a successful conclusion, the best course to pursue was to show a willingness to act in harmony with the general body, and to assist the efforts of their friends in that House who, under difficult circumstances, were doing what they thought best to promote the object they had all in view. In the year

  527
  1846 a Committee of the House of Lords inquired into the question of the Burdens upon Land; and in the opening of their Report they say—
  "The tenant-farmers lay great stress on the malt duty, and its injurious interference with the cultivation of barley. The Committee cannot, however, consider that impost, which, on the average of the last ten years, has produced very nearly £5,000,000 annually, as borne exclusively by the land; beer being almost a necessity of life with the mass of the population, the duty falls as a general tax on the consumers of the article; but it is unquestionable that so heavy a duty diminishes the demand and deprives of a ready market all except the best qualities of barley. A duty of 21 s. 8d. on a quarter of barley costing 34 s. is so heavy a tax that Mr. Barclay is of opinion that no brewer can afford to buy inferior barley and make it into malt. The agricultural witnesses examined before the Committee complain loudly of the restriction the Excise laws impose on malting inferior barleys for fattening purposes. The advantages of this process having been matter of dispute between learned chymists and practical farmers, the Committee will content themselves by referring to the evidence of Mr. Hudson, of Castle Acre, Mr. Bennett, &c., on this subject, and adding that if further experiments should establish the utility of the process, the malt duty must be considered as a serious obstruction to agricultural economy."
  A Committee of that House on the subject of the Malt Tax sat in 1863. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) was a Member of that Committee. It sat so late that it made no general Report; but it recommended that it should be re-appointed in the following Session. The Committee, however, had not been re-appointed. These facts, he thought, would justify the proposition which he now made for the appointment of a Select Committee. There were two great interests concerned — those of the producer and those of the consumer; and there were two points with regard to the former which well deserved inquiry—first, whether the present system did not hinder the proper rotation of crops, and thereby retard the improvement of agriculture; and secondly, whether malt was not good as food for cattle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, when in office, seeing that there was something in the complaint made, particularly with regard to the poorer kinds of burley, sought to introduce a system under which barley of a lighter character and inferior quality might stand some chance of being dealt with in the market. But this attempt had, on the whole, been a failure; the maltsters would not purchase anything but the best qualities of barley, and therefore the inferior qualities were a
  528
  drug in the market. Men who ought, in proper rotation, to grow barley did not do so, but grew wheat or oats instead, being certain of obtaining by that means a better and more productive crop, the demand, on the contrary, which would be created for a crop of barley depending entirely upon its quality. The right hon. Gentleman had also introduced a Bill with the object of enabling malt to be used for feeding purposes. But the only result of that Act was that his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) brewed from that mixture some beer which the right hon. Gentleman opposite tasted and thought very good. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, had forgotten the circumstance; but he remembered quite well his going out and trying the two samples and returning to his seat with a smiling countenance, and thinking his own mixture the best. He (Colonel Barttelot) believed that malt was most useful in feeding cattle. Then came the question with regard to the consumer. Into the figures, as they affected the consumer, he would not enter; but it certainly well deserved inquiry whether the statement made by Sir FitzRoy Kelly was capable of being substantiated—namely, that to collect £6,000,000 of revenue it cost the consumer £20,000,000 of money. There was another consequence of this tax severely felt in country places. It placed before poor men by the hands of the publicans an inferior drugged article, and though persons in a position to do so might obtain a good article from the brewers, the beer which was supplied in the common publichouses was most injurious to the health of the working classes. The annual Report in The Inland Revenue Almanac gave the following facts:—
  "Twenty-six samples of beer, and of materials found in the possession of licensed brewers, have been analyzed, and of these twenty were found to be illicit; the prohibited ingredients being, in fourteen samples, grains of paradise, one of these samples containing, in addition, tobacco; in two others cocculus iudicus was present in large and dangerous quantities; two samples contained capsicum; and the remaining two proto-sulphate of iron. Generally, the prohibited materials employed in the adulteration of beer are not injurious to health, and it is but seldom that instances come under my notice in which poisonous substances have been used, the object of the fraudulent brewers or retailers of beer being more to increase the bulk of their goods than to render the beer stupefying by the addition of noxious materials. Still, there can be little doubt that the practice of adulterating beer with poisonous matters, such as tobacco and cocculus indicus, is more prevalent

  529
  than might be inferred from the small number of detections made."
  That Report showed at least that adulteration was going on. Then it would be worthy of most careful consideration whether this tax could be taken off barley and placed upon beer. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire might see difficulties in the way; but still, if the change were for the public benefit, and if it were opposed to free trade principles that barley should be hampered with heavy taxes, it was the duty of the House, and one from which it ought not to shrink, to deal with this tax, especially as by judicious action the revenue would not be diminished. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once endeavoured to take off half the duty upon malt. No great encouragement was given to that proposal; but his right hon. Friend, he believed, had faithfully endeavoured to carry out his own convictions, though in the face of great difficulties. He himself had not hesitated to declare that the malt tax could not be dealt with this Session, the surplus not being sufficiently large. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson), and all great authorities had stated that it was of no use attempting to deal with the malt tax except in a very large way. He asked for a Committee because he believed it to be the only satisfactory way of laying before the House and the country the real state of the case, and thus better enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relieve barley from the heavy tax under which it groaned. He believed that such a step — whether the total or partial abolition—would be a simple act of justice to the producer, and would prove a great benefit to the consumer. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the appointment of a Select Committee.
  MR. READrose, with great pleasure, to second the Mot ion of his hon. and gallant Friend. The Notice which he had placed upon the Paper at the early part of the Session might have taken the form of an abstract Resolution, somewhat similar to that moved in the previous year by the present Lord Chief Baron, the loss of whose services in that House, particularly in relation to the malt tax, they must all deplore. Upon further consideration,
  530
  he thought the best way to come to a satisfactory and just settlement of this question was that just submitted to the House by his hon. and gallant Friend—a course of proceeding which was by no means to be considered as shelving the question, as some persons supposed, but was likely to lead to a just and satisfactory settlement. There was an opinion prevalent out of doors that they had had several Committees upon this malt tax. But the only inquiry he could find was that which took place in 1835, when the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the Excise revenues generally reported upon bricks, glass, paper, soap, and lastly, malt. The Report was remarkable by its statement to the effect that, if it was possible to increase the supply of barley by admitting free importations, it would be perfectly safe for the Government to abolish half the duty upon malt, because the revenue would probably be very soon recouped by the increased consumption of the article. The first inquiry which the Committee would enter into was that regarding the case of the producer. Now, they had learned many valuable lessons from free trade. In the case of meat, they need not be seriously alarmed on that head, because, though it cost no more to send a bullock from Holland or Hamburgh than from the eastern parts of England, the prosperity of the working classes had increased since free importations were allowed, and larger sums of money were received in consequence of the increased consumption of meat. Again, there was wool. It was formerly thought that the Southdown varieties were the best adapted for the English market; nevertheless, we found that other countries could not grow longwools in such perfection as we could. Then, as to wheat also, other countries could produce the article cheaper and better than we could. But in respect to barley, it was impossible for the foreigner to touch us, because the soil and climate of this country were peculiarly adapted to its growth. We sent to Australia, in return for some wheat received from that distant country, a considerable amount of barley; the exportations of which, since 1862, had increased rapidly. They had been told that the malt tax was a protection to the growers of barley; but he would ask whether the House thought that an Excise duty of 6d. on meat would benefit the consumer? or whether a tax of 1s. on woollen yarn would prove of advantage to

  531
  the sheep farmer? or whether an Excise duty of 20 s. upon flour would be found serviceable to the grower of wheat? He apprehended that under no circumstances could such a tax be of any benefit to even the best descriptions of wheat; whereas, on the other hand, it would naturally interfere with the sale of the ordinary descriptions which we grow. He contended that the malt tax was a similar restriction. With regard to some lands, it paid best to keep them in grass; and although they employed less capital and labour, yet they produced rather more profit; but it was an ascertained fact that one acre of corn produced more human food than ten acres of grass. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire told them on a former occasion they ought to be well contented with the improved value of their barley crops. Now, if the price of barley was allowed to find its natural level, it would eventually exceed the price of wheat. Under the old protective laws, wheat was forced into cultivation, and also forced up in price; and, from 1800 to 1840, two bushels of barley were about equal to one bushel of wheat. He could assure the House, however, that the farmers of this country wanted all the improved prices which could be obtained; and they also wanted all the fair play and all the relief they could get to compete with the foreigner, who had cheap labour, cheap land, and very light taxation. The importation of cereals, which in 1836 was under 1,000,000 quarters, had averaged during the last five years 15,000,000 quarters; and the farmer, although he might have gained something by free trade, lost that entirely if he grew only ten or fifteen acres of wheat. Mr. Caird, who was a high authority on agricultural matters, had informed the House that a barley farmer could not be a bar farmer. He (Mr. Read) endorsed that opinion, because, in the culture of grass lands barley was preceded by the growth of some root crop, which was eaten off by sheep and which increased the growth both of mutton and wool; but grazing alone did not pay. The high value of meat was not of that benefit to the farmer which was supposed, especially when they considered the enhanced value of feeding-stuff, and also the enhanced value of manure, labour, and rent. Winter-grazing did not generally answer; and every bullock that he grazed was a loss of 40 s., every sheep 5s., and he also lost 1d. per lb on all his pork. He looked, in fact, for increased corn crops,
  532
  rather than expected direct profits from winter-grazing. He was then speaking of grazing stock on arable land; but where stock could be reared and grazed on grass land, there was ample profit. He contended that every extra bushel of corn and every extra pound of meat produced, not by protection, but by freedom from fiscal restrictions, must be a great benefit, not only to the fanners, but to the whole of the community. He was unable to prove his assertions by statistics; but a few years ago the Poor Law Board attempted to collect some agricultural statistics. Those collected in Norfolk, he believed, were the most reliable; and he found from them that in Norfolk, in 1854, there were 203,000 acres under wheat, whilst last year there were only 189,000 acres. In 1854 there were 161,000 acres, sown with turnips, and only 134,000 acres last year; whilst the extent of the permanent pasture land increased from 193,000 acres in 1854 to 209,000 acres last year. In 1854 there were in Norfolk nearly 100,000 head of cattle; but last year it was 92,000; and, as at least 5,000 died last year of the cattle plague, it was only fair to take it at 97,000. The most remarkable decrease was in sheep; for whereas there were 841,000 sheep in Norfolk in 1854, there were only 596,000 last year. He also believed that the statistics of Ireland would show that, where corn was the least grown, there they also produced the least meat. He contended that the malt tax fostered bad farming. Suppose light arable land would grow four quarters per acre of barley, and if they expended 30 s. in artificial manure and feeding stuffs, the produce might be increased by twelve bushels, which would be sold for 50 s. The duty on that would be 32 s.; so that the House would see that the price of manure and the duty exceeded the value of the barley by about 12 s., and that amount was lost by the farmer or the consumer. That would be the case in the event of fine weather and a favourable harvest. But suppose the weather was ungenial, and the harvest bad—in that case the whole produce would, in all probability, be reduced 5s. or 6s. per quarter in value, in which case the advantage would be in favour of the bad farmer. The Committee should also be empowered to inquire the reason why the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had so signally failed. The amount of malt made last year was 50,500,000

  533
  bushels, and out of that large quantity 3,500,000 of bushels only were charged by weight. He believed that the Bill was originally passed for the benefit of the growers of barley on heavy lands which was generally weighty and coarse in grain; and therefore the barley that was principally malted under this Act was the light, bright, foreign barley, and not the English barley which it was intended to benefit. In 1865 we had a hot summer, and a large quantity of barley in Norfolk ripened prematurely. It was very thin, and the maltsters mailed a great deal under the provisions of the Act. Last year, however, we had a wet harvest: a great deal of the barley had to be kiln-dried before it could be malted, and it consequently was very much reduced in weight, so maltsters preferred having the duty by weight rather than the old plan. Then as to the Malt for Cattle Bill. In 1865 there were 60,000 bushels of malt made under that Bill, and in 1866 only 29,000 bushels. The operations under that Act had almost ceased, owing to the restrictions and the interference of the Excise. There were, however, a sufficient number of experiments made to prove what practical farmers and agricultural chemists had long ago determined, that malt was a most useful condiment for the feeding of cattle, and particularly so for the rearing of young and sickly stock. Notwithstanding the attack that had been made upon him in the leading evening paper relative to what he said on a former occasion—that in the rural districts children should not be kept at school until they were between thirteen and fourteen years of age, before they knew something of agricultural labour, and the assertion that the farmers of England would like to feed the agricultural labourer upon bread and cabbage, he should wish, if they did so, they should be able to wash it down with a little beer. He did not believe in the evangelizing influence of beer; but he did not think it was possible to extract more harm and less good than they did at present from the use of beer in this country. It was the national beverage, sent by a kind Providence to strengthen the labouring man and refresh him when he was weary. The argument was that some artizans already took too much beer, but some agricultural labourers had none. He doubted if an agricultural labourer had been seen drunk in his cottage; but it was a frequent occurrence to find him in the public-house in
  534
  a state of beer. A tippler, in answer to the question whether he wished the beer to be made more pure, replied, "It is black and thick, and it makes me drunk. What do I want more?" They could not improve the habits and tastes of those men; but if there was a moderate supply of pure beer for the labourer to drink with his meals, or when he was hard at work, it would be of incalculable advantage to him; and if the malt was free from duty, a large quantity would be brewed by cottagers. They found wines were cheap in foreign countries; but he had been informed by Archbishop Manning that, in the course of a twelve years' residence abroad, he only saw during that time two drunken men and not one drunken woman. The arguments against the repeal of the malt duty were numerous and various. In the first place, they were told that the country would be inundated with foreign barley; but, so far from that, it was well-known that this country now took all that was sent to it; and so far from their having been inundated with foreign malt last year there had only been imported forty-eight bushels, which paid a duty of £7, whilst there had been a drawback on malt of £65,000, and on beer of £203,000 exported. The foreigner had not the restrictions of the Excise to deal with; and it would be a great advantage to the maltsters of this country if they could malt in bond, which he might be able to keep without having immediately to pay the duty. The return for sugar in 1865, used in brewing, was 2,760 tons; and last year it was 7,272 tons; and in the first six weeks of this year it had reached 2,853 tons, which was greater than they consumed in the whole year in 1865. As the Excise only took the brewers' returns, there was no ascertaining exactly how much was used; whereas in the case of malt, every care was taken to ascertain the exact quantity brewed. There must be something in this adulteration of beer, because the brewers appeared to have been able to produce lately a larger quantity of beer from a similar quantity of malt. In 1862, there were 17,000,000 barrels of beer made from 41,000,000 bushels of malt; in 1866, there were 22,000,000 barrels of beer made from 45,000,000 bushels of malt. The prosperity of the labouring community had greatly increased the consumption of beer; and that consumption, he thought, might be further increased by the repeal of the tax, and the price of barley at

  535
  the same time enhanced, the best from its scarcity, and inferior samples from an increased demand. The burdens on land were annually increasing. They had this year lost the privilege of keeping sheep dogs free from tax; and the exemption of duty on fire insurance will not much longer exist, as they would soon all be repealed. The succession duties had also been imposed on land; and therefore he contended that the only real and practical argument against the repeal of the malt tax was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not spare the money. The right hon. Gentleman might, however, have given them this year as much relief as he could have spared, while the remainder of the tax could be recouped by the extension of the brewers' licence, with general application, even to private brewing. Last year, the brewers' licence of 3d. per barrel produced £343,000, and an increase to 3s. would produce over £4,000,000. The licence, if applied to private brewers, would be cheerfully paid; and there would be no more difficulty in imposing it than there was in collecting the income tax, by calling upon a man to make his own returns. If the Committee were appointed, he felt certain their labours would prove the unfairness of the malt tax, and that the farming interest had not unjustly complained of the manner in which it was imposed.
  Moved "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Male Tax."—(Colonel Barttelot.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have been given to understand that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer no opposition to the Motion, and I do not at all complain of that intention; but I am anxious to make one or two comments on the speeches just delivered, and to offer a suggestion with regard to the terms of the Motion. The general principle of inquiry into the operation of the malt duty is one which it is impossible to take a fair objection to, for the duty is not levied on an article prepared for consumption, but on an article which has yet to undergo part of the processes of manufacture; and a duty levied during the first processes of manufacture necessarily raises a number of questions with regard to the incidence of the tax which ought fairly to incline the House to grant an inquiry into its operation upon a smaller showing of a positive grievance than it would require in other instances. Reference
  536
  has been made to two Acts which I am responsible for having proposed to Parliament, one having reference to the use of malt for the feeding of cattle, and the other to the charging of duty by weight. I beg pardon for having interrupted the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read), but I thought he mis-stated the percentage of malt, the duty on which had been charged by weight. I understood him to say that in 51,500,000 quarters only 3,500,000 quarters, or about 4 per cent of the whole, was charged by weight; but I believe about 7 per cent to be about the real proportion. Of course, it is desirable that the House should know more exactly than it does at present what the operation of that Act has been. As far as the quantity charged by weight is concerned, I should say it is larger. At the time the Act was passed I do not think the expectation was that it would apply to a larger proportion than 7 per cent of the total consumption. But it is important the House should know how far the hon. Member for East Norfolk has foundation for saying that the barleys which have had the benefit of the Act are to a considerable extent foreign barleys. I do not mean to say that that would be an objection to the Act, but it would be a fact of very considerable interest. It is also desirable that the House should have that sort of information a Committee would obtain with regard to the application of the Act relating to malt for the feeding of cattle. There has been no recent Return on the subject; but if my memory serves me, the introduction of the Act led a considerable number of malting establishments to prepare malt for the feeding of cattle. However, the business gradually dwindled, but to what extent I am not aware. It is also said that during the cattle plague there was a partial revival of this malting—though again I do not know the fact, or to what extent. It is desirable to ascertain these facts. It was stated in some quarters, and it is desirable that the allegation should be tested by inquiry, that the diminution of these establishments was owing to the restrictions of the Board of Inland Revenue, which were so stringent that it was impossible to carry on business. I know that the opinion of that Board and of its officers is very different, and it would be only fair to all the parties that evidence should be taken on the subject; because, unquestionably, if the application of malt upon a large scale to the feeding of animals

  537
  is economically desirable and advantageous, such application would be a material point for the consideration of the House in connection with the malt duty. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Read), and who speaks with a modesty equal to his authority and experience, referred to the effect of the old Corn Laws as having raised relatively the prices of wheat. It has been a custom with those who have endeavoured to moderate the statements of the opponents of the malt tax, to point out the progressive increase in the prices of barley since the time the Corn Laws were repealed. The hon. Member accounts for this in a degree perhaps, by saying that the effect of the Corn Laws evidently was to produce a more excessive action upon the prices of wheat than upon those of other grain. I do not deny that there may be some truth in that, from causes which it is not necessary now to examine; but I do not think it is by any means an adequate or sufficient explanation of the growth in the prices of barley, such as we have witnessed. If it were true that the prices of wheat had been raised relatively to the prices of barley by the operation of the Corn Laws, and if that was the whole explanation of the great change which has now taken place in the prices of barley, my argument would be that in that case the effect would have followed at once and with great rapidity upon the abolition of the Corn Laws, That, I think, was not the case; there was not a sudden and violent change in the relative prices of wheat and barley upon the abolition of the Corn Laws, but slowly, gradually, and regularly, the price of barley has gained upon the price of wheat. I think also, in extenuation of the charges against the malt tax, it is only fair to point to the fact to which the hon. Member for East Norfolk referred with satisfaction, that in this article we are not an importing but an exporting country, to a limited extent in malt, and to a large extent in beer. The export of beer is becoming, in fact, not one of our greatest export trades, but a very considerable one, and it is rapidly growing in magnitude. Here, again, is a fact which in some degree mitigates the statement made with regard to the effect of the malt tax upon the badness of beer in country public-houses. If the malt tax necessitates brewing of very bad beer relatively to its price in our country public-houses, how in the world is it our brewers are able to brew beer so good in this country,
  538
  under the operation of the same duty, that we can afford to export it to other countries and beat the brewers of beer there out of their own markets? The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said of the six weeks' credit to the maltster that he did not consider it a matter of much consequence. But the credit is more than six weeks — it is upon the average nine weeks; but even if it were six weeks, the hon. Member, or any one engaged in trade, who had to obtain money for six weeks, would find that the bankers did not consider the use of money for six weeks a trifle—he would have to pay for it. I hope the effect of this debate will not be to raise a sanguine expectation out of doors with regard to the power of the present or any other Government to part with the malt tax—in the shape, I mean, of a large revenue from barley converted into beer. I have never been able to understand why it is so little attention is paid by the advocates of the repeal of the malt tax, to the operation of the spirit duty upon the price of barley, which is quite as fair a subject for inquiry as that now under consideration; but I am very glad to hear in their speeches delivered tonight a disposition to recognise the necessity of an inquiry into this part of the subject. It is, in fact, a growing necessity; because it must be borne in mind that the duty derived from malt is a growing duty. A few years ago it was £5,000,000, now it is spoken of as £6,000,000; and, if I am not mistaken, it is turned or approaching £7,000,000 a year, and will continue to grow with the growth of the consuming power of the country from the great improvement that has taken place in several branches of trade. I was a little sorry to hear the reduction of the number of maltsters and brewers referred to apparently with a disposition to suggest that the reduction was to be regarded as an evil. Such changes infer inconveniences to individuals, but it would not be fair to ascribe that reduction to the malt tax. This is a manufacture of a highly scientific character, requiring not only a rough and ready experience, but also a considerable knowledge of a refined character, especially connected with practical chymistry; and in this manufacture there is a natural and necessary tendency to concentration in fewer hands, and it is in connection with this concentration, and the establishment of large concerns, there has been that improvement in the quality of the article

  539
  produced which has given us the access we now have to foreign markets. Therefore I think it would be a mistake to suppose that the burden of the malt tax was the reason for the reduction in the number of maltsters and brewers, that reduction being contemporaneous with a large increase in the quantity produced. I remember very well that before the repeal of the paper duty the number of paper-makers in this country had been diminishing, and at the time of the repeal it was supposed they would continue to diminish; but the very first effect of the repeal was to stop the diminution; and the number of maltsters and brewers depends upon causes quite distinct from the incidence of a duty like the malt tax. I have only referred to a few of the points of this question which appear to show the very legitimate reasons which exist for instituting an inquiry such as is now asked for by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion: particularly since these hon. Gentlemen have been disposed fairly to admit that the interests of the revenue must be considered. Surely it is one of the meanest arts of the demagogue, using that word in its worst sense, to hold out to any portion of the community, interested as producers, vague expectations that the State will be able to part with enormous sums of public money, we having in our own minds at the time no means of replacing those sums, and consequently being guilty of arousing expectations which there is no possibility of fulfilling. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) says that he wishes this Committee to take the place of the Committee which was appointed on the Motion of the present Lord Chief Baron, (Sir FitzRoy Kelly.) I submit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he would not do well to adopt the terms in which that Committee was appointed. In so doing he would not in any degree alter the breadth and fulness of his inquiry, but might help to prevent the growth of those vague expectations which I am sure he would not wish to encourage. The terms were these — and they were not moved by me as an Amendment on the Motion, but were adopted by Sir FitzRoy Kelly, and made a part of his Motion. The Select Committee was appointed on the 23rd of June, 1863—
  "To consider whether, compatibly with the interests of the Revenue, the Laws relating to
  540
  the Excise duty upon Malt can be amended so as to operate more advantageously with reference to the cultivation and price of Barley, to the manufacture and price of Malt and Malt Liquor, and to the use of Malt in the feeding of Cattle and Sheep."
  This plan of pointing out topics of a practical character for consideration by the Committee would be an improvement upon the terms of the present Motion, which is necessarily somewhat vague and general in its character. I do not wish to make this suggestion in any hostile sense, nor should I think of moving an Amendment; but I would submit to the Government and to the hon. and gallant Member, whether it might not be of some advantage to enlarge the terms of the Motion as I have suggested. I must add that it would be only fair and just if the hon. and gallant Gentleman also thought fit to include in his Motion the sister topic to which I have referred—namely, the operation of the spirit duty upon the same subject. Questions relating to the growth of barley used in malt chiefly interest the Eastern and Southern portions of this country; questions relating to the growth of barley used in the making of spirits have a much wider range, and extend to the furthest North. I should be disposed to consider that it would be a further improvement in his inquiry if he were to make it cover the whole growth of barley considered as an article of production which is to undergo manufacture.
  MR. HENNIKER-MAJORsaid, as the representative of one of the greatest barley-growing counties in England, and where as much, if not more, interest is taken in the repeal of the malt tax than in any other county in this country, he ventured to address the House on this occasion, and trusted the House would grant him some indulgence as a new Member in the few remarks he wished to make. He gladly supported the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the malt tax, as he thought it would lead to this question being thoroughly investigated, and every argument on either side being carefully sifted, so that it might be placed fairly before the House as it stood at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said a short time ago, when he introduced his Budget in that House, that he thought this tax the only one that really bore injuriously upon any large class of taxpayers in this country at the present moment.

  541
  He (Mr. Henniker-Major) felt sure that the Committee would not only be able to endorse this opinion, but that they would report that the demand for the repeal of this duty was only a fair and a just one on the part of those who made it, if it was more than asking for the redemption of a pledge given at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws. He could not help expressing his very great disappointment and surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not thought it his duty to deal with this tax this year, even if only to a small extent; but remembering that he had attempted to deal with it once before, he trusted that if strong evidence were brought before the House in favour of its repeal by the Report of the Committee, that it would carry such weight with it as to induce him to alter his policy so far as to deal with it on a future occasion. It would be out of place to enter into any argument on this occasion, when the matter was about to be looked into by a Select Committee, particularly in him, when every argument had been urged in such an exhaustive and able manner before the House at different times by those far more competent to do so than he was himself, in favour of the remission of the tax; but he must ask the House for a few minutes' indulgence while he made a few remarks. When he knew the state of the case, as of course he did in his own county—and he was speaking of a county where a great deal of barley was grown, no less a proportion than 138,496 acres out of the total average of the county 405,000 or 406,000 being under that crop by the last agricultural statistics as far as he could make out—he was sure this tax bore most unfairly and injuriously upon those who were liable for the payment of it, preventing barley being grown where it might be grown with great advantage, and preventing the use of a most useful ingredient in the feeding of cattle and stock of all kinds, bearing upon those who, as all hon. Member said the other day in this House, are "traders after all who require to hire land to carry on their business," in a manner which would not for a moment have been tolerated if it had affected any other branch of industry, manufacture, or trade in the country. Nor did he think it would have been tolerated by the agricultural interest if there had been more cohesion amongst them. He trusted in future that they would stick together on subjects that were of such interest to them as the one before
  542
  the House. He hoped the Committee would not forget to look carefully into a part of the question that he believed to be a very important part of it — namely, how it affected the consumer. If what had been stated by two hon. Members who had previously spoken was correct, that by the time beer reached the consumer £20,000,000 was paid on account of this tax, which affected only £6,000,000 of the revenue, he thought it was indeed a heavy burden. He hoped the effect this tax had upon the agricultural labourer and poorer classes would be looked into, in regard to the system of cottage brewing especially, for he believed it would be almost universally adopted throughout the country for the very reason that now, whenever the cottager had a chance of brewing at home — and at the present time the opportunities were few from the pressure of this tax, in most counties only once a year, at the time of harvest—he gladly availed himself of it. He thought the remission of this duty would be a great boon to every class of labourer, as it would enable him to get good beer, not as a luxury, but as almost a necessary comfort and part of his diet. He (Mr. Henniker-Major) thanked the House for listening to him so long, and in conclusion would say he hoped the appointment of the Committee would lead to the whole subject being clearly and fairly laid before the House in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire on a former occasion when this question was being discussed—
  "Not because it is not a matter fit to be entertained, but on the contrary, on account of its importance; and I will go one step farther, and say on account of its urgency, for I am very strongly persuaded that it is a subject that should be fully unfolded before the House and taken into its consideration."—[3 Hansard, clxxxii. 1565.]
  MR. SURTEES: I regret very much that during the last few years, when there has been a considerable amount of surplus revenue which might have been applied to the repeal of the malt tax, that that course was not adopted. I am, Sir, however, anxious that the Committee which is now asked for, may be granted; because I believe that if it should be granted, the obnoxious nature of the malt tax will be so clearly demonstrated that numbers of hon. Members who may have been sceptical on the subject will become convinced of the objectionable character of the impost. It is asked, Sir, by the agricultural interest, if it is fair that barley which sells

  543
  for 35 s. per quarter should pay the same amount of taxation as barley which sells for 55 s. per quarter? as has been the case this season. It is asked if it is not contrary to the sound principles of taxation that the duty should be imposed upon the raw material. And it is asked if it is not unjust to deny that freedom of industry to the agricultural interest which has been so earnestly advocated for others. But, Sir, it has been said that if the malt tax were repealed, that the reduction of 21 s. 8d. would affect the price of beer in a very small degree. Now, Sir, I maintain that 21 s. 8d. and 5 per cent on it, does not represent the whole of the increase in consequence of the malt tax, in the price of the beer made from a quarter of malt. To this, Sir, you must add the maltster's profit on the duty. You must add also in many cases the maltfactor's profit on it; also the brewer's profit on it, and on the accumulations; likewise the publican's profit on it, and on the accumulations. But, Sir, that is not all; if any person now wishes to commence business as a brewer it is necessary for him to have, in consequence of the increase in the price of malt caused by the malt duty, a much larger capital than would otherwise be requisite. Thus, Sir, the monopoly of the brewers is promoted. But, Sir, repeal the malt tax, and you will not only strike a heavy blow at the monopoly of the brewers, but also knock down the price of beer. Now, Sir, with regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, I would remark that the high duty on spirits is maintained not merely for the amount of revenue which it produces, but also in the interest of morality. And, Sir, as regards the diminution in the number of maltsters, I believe that that circumstance might be accounted for by the reduction in the time granted for malt credits. Well then, Sir, believing that it is desirable that we should collect all the information that can possibly be obtained, relative to all the bearings, direct and indirect, and operations of the malt tax, I do most sincerely support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex.
  MR. BEACHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had commented on the fact that the British brewer was able to brew his beer, in spite of the duty, so cheap that he was able to undersell the foreign brewer in his own markets. But he (Mr. Beach) would remind
  544
  the right hon. Gentleman that our manufacturers could export beer and undersell other producers because they obtained a drawback upon the duty when the beer was exported, the result being practically that they paid no duty at all. He was very glad that they were going to have an inquiry into the question, and he trusted the Committee would succeed in selling fairly before the public the real merits of the case, because hitherto the advocates of the repeal of this tax had had little opportunity of expressing their views, that opportunity occurring but once in the Session, when a night was set apart for the consideration of this subject. To many hon. Members it appeared that the abolition of the malt duty would necessitate the imposition of a beer duty. Such an alternative, however, he believed to be undesirable, and he appealed, in confirmation of his opinion, to the experience of the past. Previous to 1830 there existed both a malt and a beer duty. By the former a revenue of about £3,600,000 was raised, and by the latter about £3,000,000; so that the difference in amount was scarcely an element in the consideration of the respective taxes. There was a considerable amount of distress in the country, and the taxes pressed heavily on the people. The Government of the Duke of Wellington were naturally anxious to abolish such taxes as would afford the greatest relief to the community. An inquiry was instituted to ascertain whether the beer duty or the malt duty might be most advantageously removed. At that time it was urged that on each quart of beer the beer duty was three-quarters of a penny. Every £1,000,000 of duty removed would take from the price of the quart one-quarter of a penny, while £1,000,000 of malt duty removed would only lower the price one-twelfth of a penny. Mr. C. Barclay, referring to the matter, said the removal of the malt duty would save the public ½d. per quart in the price of beer, while the removal of the beer tax would lower the price 1d., and that he was quite satisfied by the removal of the beer duty the country would be benefited to the amount of upwards of £4,000,000. Mr. Goulburn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, after the most careful inquiry, arrived at the conclusion that the abolition of the beer duty would confer a far greater relief on the community than that on malt, although the amount of revenue the two duties then yielded was very nearly the

  545
  same. Still the matter was one worthy of attention, and if it was found at the present time that a beer duty would press less heavily upon the public, they might by all means change the nature of the tax; but until the conclusion arrived at at that time could be impeached it would, in his opinion, be useless to contemplate such an alteration. He did not think that those who were anxious for the repeal of this tax could be accused of indulging in any very exacting language upon the subject. The most that they had asked for was that the case might be considered when an opportunity was offered by the discovery of a surplus. He trusted that the labours of the Committee would result in the reduction of this tax, and that ultimately this favourite though not most favoured production of the English soil might grow free and unfettered.
  LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHquestioned whether any fresh light would be thrown upon the subject by the investigation of the proposed Committee. The malt tax ought to be dealt with irrespective of party considerations. The question was one that pressed for immediate settlement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknowledged in his Financial Statement that there was no portion of the community upon whom taxation pressed so heavily as upon the agricultural class; and yet, instead of affording them any relief, the right hon. Gentleman had appropriated his surplus in other directions, and had rendered a reduction improbable if not absolutely impossible for some years to come.
  MR. CORRANCE: As it is now understood that this question will be consigned to a Select Committee, a proposal to which, let me say, nevertheless, I could not have given my consent, I shall not attempt to enter into any elaborate argument on any special details. We shall in future be in a better position to deal with these, subsequently to that Report. I shall therefore, in the few observations I am about to make, confine myself to the situation now existing, and which has existed for some time previous to this, which I only trust may not be the final exit of this measure from the House. To me, Sir, as the representative of East Suffolk, this question comes by hereditary descent, and yet it is a legacy from which we seek to be relieved. Perhaps I am rash to remind the House of this, for it will remind them of the advocacy of this cause by one with
  546
  whom I am not worthy to compare—of one now a Judge upon the Bench—of one whose knowledge of the subject and power of exposition it would be hard to replace. Sir, to recall his memory may be rash personally, but I am not careful as to this, for it may serve to remind this House of logic unanswered, and facts beyond all power of dispute. And now, Sir, what was the nature of this proof? He observed, as we also have, that a great industry is depressed by an enormous and disproportionate tax; that it affected the producer, and it injured the working class, by placing upon their produce a burden estimated at from 95 to 100 per cent, and that the mode of doing so was this:—that it encouraged the substitution of other material; that it rendered inferior barley valueless as an article of sale; that it debars the farmers from using it for feeding or fattening stock. Now, whatever value you may assign to each of these statements, it will not be denied that collectively they amount to a very substantial fact well worthy of careful consideration. So much for his case as a producer; but it must also be remembered that he is, as a farmer, a consumer as well, and to a large extent as an employer of labour not less directly than before. At one time wages used to be partly paid in malt, to the very great advantage of both employer and employed, saving by the avoidance of all contingent expenses and duty, at least 1s. or 2s. a week. But, Sir, this is not the only ground for our appeal; the strongest of all must be found in the condition of our labouring class. [Ironical cheers.] Yes, Sir, the condition of our labouring class—those who your press has lately designated venal serfs — those unrepresented men to whom you so grudge the vote. Excuse me if I say that these also merit some attention on your part. Wages, you will tell me, have risen, and will rise. Well, but do I feel any satisfaction at this? I should do so, no doubt, if the rise of such wages betokened an increased demand, and stimulated production; but is this the case? I think not; it is caused by a scarcity of labour, which has departed because unemployed. If the demand for labour is great, then, indeed, it is a healthy sign; but if we find that high wages and slack employment are combined, it is by no means a sign that such an industry is in a healthy state. But, Sir, there is a point beyond which wages cannot rise—the produce becomes unremunerative, as such. It must

  547
  soon become so in this case. The price of produce has risen, slowly; but so, indeed, has everything else, and labour not least. And why? because this labour departs. Is it not worth asking the cause of this? and is it not possible that one such cause may be found in the artificial dearness of what, to the labourer, is a necessity of life? Now, Sir, this I must contend is no fictitious or unsubstantial claim which I set up. You admitted it when you repealed the Corn Laws—everyone who calls himself a free trader in this House. I confess I am unable to see upon what grounds the counter-arguments could rest, unless we accept such logic as this—I quote from the most talented of our daily papers. It says that all the pressure put of late years on agriculturists has immensely increased the product of the soil. I confess I am more willing to agree with a sentence next ensuing. It is scarcely reconcilable with this — namely, that no man will tax his muscles or his brain without the prospect of reward. For I cannot help considering such healthy stimulant as more valuable than the thumb-screw or the rack. Well, Sir, this would seem ever to be the opinion of the subject himself; few means on his part have been left untried, but to one uniform result. For they have found various Chancellors of the Exchequer each more obdurate than the last. I have attended several deputations myself. First we went in small parties; then surged into the room en masse. Some of such meetings took a gloomy and sinister turn; some were almost jocose. I remember one such eventful scene, when one of the deputation produced a bottle out of his pocket and a glass, and I think a corkscrew as well if I remember right, and the then Chancellor partook of the refreshment and absolutely laughed. He also averred his entire predilection for "Bass," an amiable sentiment which let us hope in spite of some recent events, may not have been em-bittered overmuch. Nothing could be more promising than this; but, Sir, did the tax come off? Not one bit. Well, Sir, coming to more modern times, what has now taken place? Once more the Chancellor rises in his place, and the eyes of county Members brighten as the words slowly drop from his mouth. He admits the injustice—he states the exceptional case; but, Sir, the concluding words I would fain not utter, he does not take off the tax. Well, Sir, I cannot judge the requirements of the case; they had needs
  548
  be great, and the right hon. Gentleman would think so if he knew the full effect it had produced. There are good and staunch supporters who have turned indignantly away, perhaps, for ever—I cannot say. They have lost faith in the fair dealing with the case. One thing seems certain, that while it has been possible to remit £11,000,000 of such indirect taxes in as many years without seeing a drawback to the revenue, not one farthing of this tax can ever come off. The tax is always too big or the surplus too small, or we must deal with it in a manner which may be comprehensive but is not comprehensible, I would humbly submit, nor is it wide enough or wise enough to include this tax. Sometimes the whole cannot be possibly spared. Sometimes the cost of collection is far too great to admit of a part. And this cost of collection, now paid by every consumer, ought it not to be conclusive against the tax as it is? We have lately heard so in another case—the turnpikes. The fact is that the alternatives are distasteful to the House, or rather to those who manage the affairs; for these are income tax or financial reform. Why, Sir, this measure should have many friends. Where are the economists? Where are the advocates of direct taxation? Where are the free traders, there are those interested in financial reform—strange bedfellows for the British farmers; but they have been much forced upon him of late, and with such he must put up if thrust out of this side of the House. Perhaps, however, they will not have him. Then, indeed, he must wait, and the Motion of my hon. Friend is well judged. Yes, Sir, he must wait perhaps for Reform, perhaps until by perennial Chancellors the National Debt is paid off, perhaps until the New Zealander sitting upon his broken arch looks moralizing upon the ruins of Barclay and Perkins's and quays lately loaded with Bass. Sir, in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend, I would only say, I trust not.
  MR. JASPER MOREsaid, it was impossible for the agriculturists to refer to the last speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the malt tax without feeling extreme disappointment at his neglect of the question when in office. Speaking on the Motion for substituting a reduction of the malt tax for reduction of the sugar duties proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, in the discussion on the Budget of 1864, the right hon. Gentleman fixed the time for proposing a

  549
  repeal of the malt tax. He laid down then that we should first discharge the engagements undertaken by the country at the time of the Crimean War, the reduction of the sugar duties being one, and having discharged these, then, said the right hon. Gentleman, "if our resources continue abundant and the country prosperous let us bring forward the claims of what may be considered the last of the Excise duties." He did not state then what amount of prosperity of the country would be the condition of dealing with the tax; but he has told us now that it can only be dealt with in a "comprehensive" manner. He thought this word, which was so often introduced into their Parliamentary vocabulary, was not always easy to comprehend; but he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean that the tax would not be repealed till the surplus of the revenue equalled the tax in amount. If that were so, it was not clear why the right hon. Member for South Lancashire was reflected upon for not dealing with it with the surplus at his disposal; but it was clear that the farmers were right now in changing their tactics, and therefore the attempt to substitute for the malt tax a tax upon beer became worthy of consideration. This proposal enlisted the sympathies of all those philanthropic persons who were considering what would be the most effectual means of diminishing drunkenness amongst the poorer classes. Drunkenness it was found arose chiefly from the adulteration of the beer they drank, rather than from any undue tendency to intemperance amongst the working classes. The argument for the repeal of the malt tax from this point of view was that it would diminish drunkenness by causing a pure to be substituted for an adulterated liquid, and by enabling beer to be brewed at the poor man's house. The practicability of cottage brewing was often denied in the House of Commons; but that it was prevalent in England is plain from numerous passages in Shakspeare, and that it is prevalent in other countries now he could prove from the Consul General's Report for Prussia. He states that permits are granted to certain poor families to brew free of licence or tax, and that between 16,000 and 17,000 of these permits were applied for and granted in the year 1864, the number annually increasing. He had some time ago proposed an Amendment to the hon. and gallant Member's Motion, not for the purpose of opposing him, but to enable the country
  550
  to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion on the question; and it now being shown that he is no more able than the right hon. Member for South Lancashire to deal with the question directly, he wished the hon. and gallant Member success in attempting to obtain the object that has been for so many years before the House, by the substitute of a beer duty.
  MR. GREENEsaid, that no one felt a deeper interest in the welfare of the agricultural classes than he did, and he should therefore support the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee. His belief was that the malt tax was not a real grievance, and if the matter was gone into fairly and dispassionately it would have the effect of convincing the farmers that it was not the hindrance they imagined it to be. When they took into consideration the average price of barley for the last seven years, he did not think there existed any complaint on that head, and he thought that owing to the mode in which the tax was levied there was an advantage to the finer qualities of barley, for whether barley yielded 80 or 90 per cent it paid the same duty. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had given advantage to a lower class of barley by allowing it to be malted at a less duty; but the difference in the extract of malt was so great that the price of the finer qualities was enhanced by the duty, inasmuch as it cost no more for 90 per cent than for 80. Therefore the barley grown on the finer soils had an advantage. It had been said that if the malt tax were repealed beer would be brewed at home; but the artizans in large towns had no means of brewing at home even if the malt were given them for the purpose; and with respect to the agricultural labourer, if the duty on malt was reduced it would not be so reduced as to enable him to consume it generally in his family. It was a hardship undoubtedly upon the farmer that he should be compelled to pay duty upon barley which he had grown himself and wished to convert to his own use. No doubt he might send his barley to the maltster to be converted into malt; but he might ask, with the same reason, why he did not buy his wheat and send it to the miller to be converted into flour. As to this being a poor man's question, if the tax were taken off malt and placed upon beer would not the poor man, as consumer, pay it eventually. There had been no complaints from the consumers of beer that the duty on malt enhanced its price. It

  551
  had been said that if the duty was taken off malt inferior barley would be brought into use; but against this argument must be set the fact that foreign barley would always come into competition with it, and the brewer would use it in preference to the coarser barley grown on heavy land. If the question were fairly investigated by a Committee he had no doubt they would come to a decision that considering the large revenue raised from spirits and malt, if the duty was not retained some burdens of a worse character would fall upon the agriculturist. The question of the duty on malt was not a free trade question, for there was no prohibition of barley and malt coming into the country. If the subject received a calm investigation, and if the Committee was properly appointed, he had no doubt they would come to a fair conclusion on its merits. If the Report of the Committee convinced him that the malt duty was injurious to the agricultural interest and ought to be removed, he would not resist its removal; but in his opinion the tax was paid by a large class of well paid artizans who could not be reached in any other way, and if the duty on malt was reduced a large number of persons who could afford to pay it would be relieved from taxation.
  MR. BARROWsaid, the malt tax was an excessive duty on the raw material, paid by the producer in the course of his manufacture. Now, the hon. Gentlemen opposite had always professed themselves anxious to remove duties from the raw material of our manufactures—why should they refuse to act on the same principle with regard to the farmer, from whom excessive duties were levied upon an article which he had himself raised. The farmer grew the barley, he must use a certain portion of malt, and his raw material was taxed before he could use it in the course of his own business. The tax on malt on a small farm was more than double the property tax, and this showed that it was an enormous pressure on the small farmer. It had been said that their patriotism would be called in question if they yielded to the claim of the farmer; but he was not at all afraid of such an imputation, and his belief was that the tax would be eventually removed. He felt so strongly on the subject, that he would rather pay double the amount of income tax than that the malt tax should be a pressure on his tenants.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member for Shropshire
  552
  (Mr. More) expects Her Majesty's Government to inform the House what their intentions are with respect to the malt tax. He also particularly wishes to know whether we believe it is practicable to exchange this tax for a beer tax. If the Government were prepared to give this information to the House, it appears to me there would be very little necessity for the appointment of the Select Committee which has been moved for. The hon. Member for Shropshire also informs us that great disappointment is felt in the country amongst the various classes connected with agriculture in consequence of Her Majesty's Government not having repealed the malt tax. If there be that disappointment I can only say that the character of the agricultural classes is very much changed since I have had an intimate acquaintance with them. I believe that the leading members of that class in all the counties of England are men of much too great sagacity, and are too well acquainted with the subject, to suppose for a moment that the Government intended to repeal the malt tax with the surplus which it was my business this year to place at the disposal of the House. These are, I think, somewhat careless and exaggerated statements, and I do not consider them at all likely to advance the cause to which the hon. Member for Shropshire has on several occasions informed us he devotes the whole energies of his life. [Mr. JASPER MORE: I never made any such statement.] I so understood the hon. Member, and the interest he takes in the subject, and the enthusiastic manner in which he expresses his sentiments must be impelled, I think, by some feeling of that character. But I must say, on the part of the Government, that it will not be in my power to gratify his curiosity on this occasion. On the contrary, I think the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) a very proper and sensible Motion. I do not oppose it; on the contrary, I approve of it. It is a long time since the question of the incidence of this tax has been investigated. Since that time the information we possess on these subjects has been very much increased; the progress of the public mind on subjects of taxation has been very great; and I believe that if this investigation is pursued with earnestness and application, the results, whatever they may be—whatever conclusions the Committee may arrive at—will be productive of great public advantage. There is another reason why I

  553
  think the hon. and gallant Member is wise in the course which he has taken. We have had now for several years Motions made in this House, and debates leading to the complete or partial repeal of the tax, and they have always been defeated. Their character has not been accurately described by the noble Lord who addressed us, and who is also, I believe, a Member for the county of Sussex (Lord Edward Cavendish). They were not Motions for on absolute or even partial repeal of the malt tax; they only sought expressions of opinion from this House, that in any future reduction of indirect taxation the malt tax had a superior claim—or had a claim—to the consideration of the House; and I believe that since the time these were made no considerable reduction of indirect taxation has been proposed to the House—certainly not by the present Government; and therefore I think that the course my hon. and gallant Friend has adopted is a wise course, because to continue year after year making Motions apparently leading to the reduction of a particular tax, which cannot be successful, and which would be encountered by the same Amendments, leading to the same conclusions, will not at all advance the question or enlighten the public mind. With regard to the question itself, it is unnecessary for me to enter into its merits, as there is before the House a proposition for the appointment of a Committee, to which the Government entirely accede. But, with regard to another observation of the noble Lord the Member for East Sussex, I must also venture to criticize the accuracy of his recollection. He said that I described the tax as a burden on the agricultural interest. Now these were not the expressions that I used the other night. I did not use the word "burden," nor did I use the words "agricultural interest." I said that the malt tax was a restriction on the industry of the producers of barley; and I should like to see any one rise on either side of the House and deny that proposition. The malt tax is a restriction on the producers of barley, and after all the changes that have taken place it is no doubt, of those that are left, one of the most considerable restrictions upon the industry of any important producing class. That is the proposition which I think, cannot be controverted—no doubt it is perfectly sound and true; and yet there may be reasons which, on the whole, may render it politic and expedient still to retain
  554
  such a tax. A very considerable time has elapsed since there has been a complete examination of the subject, and after the variety of Motions that have been made on it, and the very extravagant views which are taken either way upon this subject, it is my opinion and that of my Colleagues that it is expedient that this Committee should be granted. I hope that the Committee will be efficiently constituted, and so far as the Government is concerned my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) may rely upon our assisting him as much as we can in its formation, so that its labours may command the confidence of the House. I cannot doubt that the result of those labours will be advantageous to the House and to the country. With regard to the language in which the Motion is couched, I cannot advise my hon. and gallant Friend to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone). I think if be were to do so he would involve himself in subjects of very great difficulty; and I think the proposition he makes, which is a very simple one—one which, strictly regulated as I have no doubt the investigation will be, particularly under the management of my hon. and gallant Friend—I think will lead to a very satisfactory arrangement. Of course, it is open to my hon. and gallant Friend to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman if he likes to do so; but I make no conditions—as far as I am concerned with the language of the Motion, I believe that the labours of the Committee will be very advantageous to the public.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the words he had used did not alter the case. The admission made was satisfactory to those who were opposed to the malt tax, for the words as explained were condemnatory of that tax equally with the words which had been attributed to him by the noble Lord (Lord Edward Cavendish). He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) would not extend the subject of his inquiry to the question of the spirit duty. The spirit duty was a duty on a manufactured article. The malt duty was a tax, not on a beverage only, but upon food as well. It was a duty, not on the manufactured article, but on the raw material. There was no ground, therefore, for making a comparison. Still less was there any reason for alleging that the two beverages or the two taxes were of a similar character—they

  555
  were totally and essentially different in their nature. He did not suppose that there were two opinions as to the duty on spirits. It was universally admitted that spirits might legitimately be taxed to the utmost extent to which taxation might be carried without decreasing the revenue derived from the article. But in the case of beer they were not dealing with a dangerous or pernicious commodity, or with an article of luxury. Beer, if not one of the necessaries, was one of the first comforts of the people, and consequently it was not to be taxed, except as a matter of necessity in the raising of a revenue sufficient for the wants of the country. It was said that if Parliament dealt with the malt duty without dealing with the duty on spirits, it would be doing an injustice to those counties in which spirits were consumed, and conferring a favour on those in which beer was the ordinary drink. That allegation would have force if the House were dealing with a compulsory tax like the income tax; but an indirect tax was an optional one. Spirits were undoubtedly more heavily taxed than beer; but if some people had the bad taste to prefer spirits to beer they had no reason to complain of the heavier duty. Besides, if the argument was good for anything, how could those who used it justify the exemption of cider from any taxation whatever; the fact was that a liquor like spirits could not be regarded in the same light as a beverage like beer. He confessed he should have thought the better course would have been to bring the subject of the malt tax under the consideration of the House by a direct Motion. He did not think much additional information was to be elicited by a Select Committee; but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his Financial Statement for the present year, he was glad his hon. and gallant Friend had got his Committee, which he hoped would make its Report in time to have an influence on the Budget of next year.
  MR. DAVENPORT-BROMLEYsaid, that although regretting with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the question of the malt tax had not been brought under the consideration of the House by direct Motion, he thought that they must be thankful for small favours, and accept the Select Committee as a possible means of obtaining the end which most of the county Members had in view. But he took this opportunity of alluding to a circumstance which had come to his
  556
  knowledge in respect of the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. More). As he had been informed—of course, if he was incorrect the hon. Gentleman would set him right—the hon. Member went down to his (Mr. Bromley's) county the other day, and took advantage of a meeting of the Chamber of Agriculture to call attention, in the first place, to the absence of the four county Members from that meeting.
  MR. JASPER MOREassured the hon. Member that he had been misinformed—he had done nothing of the kind.
  MR. DAVENPORT-BROMLEYhoped the hon. Gentleman would give a satisfactory answer to what he was going to further state. As he was informed the hon. Gentleman had stated at the meeting in question, that by their absence on that occasion, and by other ways in that House, the four Members for the county had shown their insincerity — or at least they were not very zealous—he was not sure of the exact words—about the repeal of the malt tax.
  MR. JASPER MOREmust inform the hon. Gentleman that he had made no such allusion to the Members for the county.
  MR. DAVENPORT-BROMLEYaccepted the hon. Member's denial as quite satisfactory. At the same time, he must acquaint the hon. Member with the fact that he was reported in the county papers to have made the statement to which he had just referred. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would inform the editors that the report was incorrect, and would advise them to withdraw it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) whether, under the terms of their appointment, it would be competent to the Select Committee to thoroughly inquire as to the expediency of levying a duty on beer instead of on malt, He desired to protest against the assumption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the malt tax was a restriction upon the industry employed on the growth of barley. He believed one of the great advantages to be derived from the labours of the Committee would be that that assumption would be shown to be entirely erroneous and unfounded.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he distinctly understood that the Committee would be competent to make every inquiry with regard to the possibility of placing the tax upon beer. Indeed, he believed that the Committee would be at liberty to

  557
  inquire into every other circumstance connected with the malt tax. He must say he was astonished at the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) that the Committee should also inquire into the question of spirits. The two things were wholly dissimilar, and he thought the Motion which he had made would best suit the convenience of all parties.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Malt Tax." — (Colonel Barttelot.)
  And, on May 31, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. HUNT, Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. G. SHAW-LEFEVRE, Mr. LAING, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Mr. AYRTON, Lord EUSTACE CECIL, Sir EDWARD MANNINGHAM BULLER, Mr. READ, Major PARKER, Mr. HENRY SURTEES, Mr. MORE, Mr. DENT, The O'CONOR DON, Mr. HARDCASTLE, Mr. BENTON, and Colonel BARTTELOT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum:—And, on June 3, Colonel DUNCOMBE added.

MILITARY RESERVE FUNDS.—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
LORD HOTHAM, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the origin of the Military Reserve Funds, the sources from which they were derived, and the objects to which they were applied, said, that as he had received an assurance from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War that he did not object to the Motion, he thought he should best consult the wishes of the House if he refrained from troubling them with any of the details which he should otherwise have felt it his duty to lay before them. A Return which daring the last few years had annually been laid upon the table of the House, showed that the Secretary for War was in receipt of large sums of money, of the raising of which the House had no knowledge, and as to the manner of disposing of which the House was equally ignorant. It appeared to him, however, that this was a matter with regard to which some information ought to be afforded. He also found that under the administration of these Military Reserve Funds great changes were being made in the system of the sale and purchase of military commissions. Although he did not concur in the opinions which had been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the expediency of discontinuing the purchase system in the army—which, however it might seem objectionable
558
in theory, he thought was, practically, advantageous—yet he strongly objected to an extension of that system; and from the examination which he had been in the habit of making for a long time past into that subject, he believed that a great extension of that system was taking place. He perceived that commissions were now sold, under the authority of the Secretary for War, which, according to the practice of the army, were formerly given to the sons of distinguished officers, and officers were now obliged to purchase commissions, to which they were formerly of right entitled without purchase, while commissions were sold in the junior ranks to a great and prejudicial extent—the consequence being that it was a matter of difficulty to find ensigncies for young men who have entitled themselves, by successful study, to commissions without purchase. He wished the Committee for which he was moving to direct its attention to these matters; but he also wished the House to understand that the Committee for which he was moving was one of inquiry, and not of inculpation; for he desired to attach no blame to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington), nor to the right hon. and gallant General who preceded him (General Peel), nor to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) who preceded the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. His only object in moving for the Committee was to have a full investigation of the subject, in order that if the system was found to be good and useful to the service it might be continued under the sanction of Parliament, and that if it were capable of improvement it might be improved.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the origin of the Military Reserve Funds, the sources from which they are derived, and the objects to which they are applied."—(Lord Hotham.)
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: As has been already stated by my noble Friend, I have no objection to the appointment of this Committee, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to detain the House for any length of time. I shall follow the example of my noble Friend by saying very little on this subject. These Funds consist of considerable sums of money—the system has been in existence for more than forty years, and there is an ignorance on the part of the public, on the part of the army, and on the part of the House, as to the source whence they are derived, the purposes

559
to which they are applied, and the advantages, whatever they may be, which the army derives from them. I believe my noble Friend is quite right in the opinion which he entertains, that the House ought to know whence these Funds are derived, and what advantages the country obtained from the expenditure. I see no reason why the administration of the Funds should be involved in mystery. On the contrary, I think my noble Friend is quite right in his opinion that it is far better that these Funds should be understood by the public, and that they should stand upon their own merits. Under these circumstances, I think my noble Friend has done well in moving for a Committee of Inquiry, and I am glad to support his Motion.
MR. CHILDERSwas glad to find that the right hon. Baronet did not oppose the Motion. These Funds had for many years existed without the knowledge of Parliament, although there had once or twice been whispers abroad concerning their existence, and recently accounts relating to them had come to light. He would venture to say that all these kinds of Funds at the disposal of public officers, whether in connection with the Army, the Law Courts, or with any other public Department, were extremely objectionable, and always ended either in bankruptcy, when the public had to make them good, or in something very much approaching jobbery, when a great public exposure had to be made. All expenditure in connection with any public Department ought to be voted by Parliament, and brought directly under its view, and the sooner these Army Funds were brought under the control of Parliament the better it would be.
Motion agreed to.
Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the origin of the Military Reserve Funds, the sources from which they are derived, and the objects to which they are applied."—(Lord Hotham.)
And, on June 19, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. BAXTER, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. GOSCHEN, Colonel HOGG, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Colonel NORTH, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, General PEEL, Mr. O'REILLY, Sir CHARLES RUSSELL, Mr. TREVELVAN, Sir JOHN TROLLOPE, Captain VIVIAN, Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM, and Lord HOTHAM:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN'S EDUCATION BILL.—LEAVE.
MR. FAWCETT, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the Education
560
of Children employed in Agriculture, said, there had been a discussion in the House on the necessity for extending the application of the Factory Acts to agriculture, and the subject of so extending the operation of the Factory Acts and the Hours of Labour Regulation had been referred to a Select Committee. He wished to get the Bill, for which he now moved, read a second time and referred to the same Select Committee. He thought many advantages would arise from that course. There were many men upon that Committee who had great experience in agriculture, and who were excellently fitted to consider the provisions of his Bill. It might be said, as the Home Secretary had promised a Commission to inquire into the feasibility of applying the Factory Acts to children employed in agriculture, that it would be better to wait until that Commission had reported; but that would lead to an unfortunate delay in dealing with the subject, and it seemed to him that the Commission and the Select Committee might pursue their labours very well at the same time—especially as they wanted no further information with regard to the state of education in the agricultural districts, as that subject had been exhausted by the remarkably able Report of the Commission on Education of 1861, which was presided over by the late Duke of Newcastle, and what was required was the solution of practical difficulties in the way of the application of the compulsory system which existed in Lancashire and Yorkshire to certain branches of agricultural industry. In the Bill he (Mr. Fawcett) wished to introduce he proposed simply that every child of less than thirteen years of age, employed in agriculture, should be compelled to attend school on alternate days—because in agriculture it was impossible to apply the half-time system. Of course, there might be some difficulties in exceptional cases with regard to children who lived at a great distance from any school. That had been recognised in some of our previous Factory Acts; and therefore he proposed to introduce a provision that in the case of a child living more than three miles from any school it might be excused from attending school on alternate days under certain circumstances. He also proposed a tribunal which should consist of the magistrates sitting in petty sessions who should have the power of temporarily remitting the provisions of the Act for two months in

561
each year, the time to be selected by the local authorities in the period during which the operation of harvesting was carried on. He gave the same tribunal power in any village with a population exceeding 300, of ordering a school to be built, and supported by a rate which should be levied in proportion to the poor rates which were levied upon property in the parish; and he also gave them generally the power of carrying out the Act. He did not wish to have any elaborate system of instruction, which was always vexatious, and sometimes obnoxious; but he gave any person the power of laying an information before the magistrates against the employer and the parent of any child under thirteen years of age employed in contravention of the provisions of the Act; and where those provisions were proved to have been contravened the magistrates would have power to enforce a fine not exceeding £10 on the employer, and another not exceeding £1 on the parent of the child. An elaborate system of inspection was unnecessary, as he felt convinced that the resident gentry and clergy in each district, who were interested in education, would see that the Act was carried out; and in the end the public feeling in each district would in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred be in favour of the Act. If we wished to compete successfully in agriculture, or other branches of industry with foreign competitors, our only course was to take care that the people by whom the industry was carried on were properly educated, so as to do their work with skill and efficiency. If the House allowed the Bill to be read a second time, he should then move that it be committed to the Select Committee sitting on the Factory Acts.
MR. WALPOLEhad no objection, on the part of the Government, to offer to the introduction of the measure; but he thought that if it were referred to the Select Committee on the two other Bills it would impede the labours of that Committee.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would not object to the introduction of the Bill, though he must remind the House that it contained some very stringent provisions, amounting in fact almost to a compulsory system of education, as well as a compulsory erection of schools out of the rates. It was well the House should remember that this was an entirely novel principle altogether alien to our system of legislation; and he did not think that such propositions
562
would be acceptable to the people of this country.
Motion agreed to.
Bill to provide for the Education of Children employed in Agriculture, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FAWCETT, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, and Mr. TREVELYAN.

LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT AND LEASING (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. PIM, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the Improvement of Landed Property by extending the powers of Limited Owners of Land in Ireland, said, that the principle of his measure was the same as that introduced a short time ago by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, though it proposed to deal with the question in rather a different way. He hoped the Landed Improvement Bill of the noble Lord would be referred to a Select Committee; and, if so, he should wish to have this Bill also referred to the same Committee. He proposed that the annuities to be charged on the lands of the limited owner on account of his expenditure in improvements should be for periods varying from twenty-one to sixty-one years according to the nature of the improvement. As regarded leasing powers, he did not propose to give any notice to the successor. There was no occasion for any such intervention, which must be unpleasant to the landlord, and tend greatly to prevent the working of the Act. His Bill was founded to a considerable extent on the Montgomery Act of 1769, which had been very useful in Scotland, and to which many persons attributed a great portion of the prosperity of that country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to facilitate the Improvement of Landed Property by extending the powers of Limited Owners of Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PIM, Mr. LEADER, and Mr. BLAKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 150.]

RECORDS (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE.
  LORD NAAS, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for keeping safely the Public Records of Ireland, said, the necessity for a Record Office in Ireland had been felt for a great many years, and so far back as 1739 a Resolution was passed by the Irish House of Commons in favour of the establishment of a general

  563
  Record Office in Dublin. Nothing, however, had been done until a Commission was appointed by the late Government to inquire into the state of the public Records in Ireland. In consequence of the Report of that Commission a public Record Office had been established at considerable expense in Dublin, and the building, which was large, was now ready for the reception of the documents. Much credit was due to the late Government for the steps they had taken in this subject, and what the House had now to do was to complete the arrangements made by the late Government by establishing in Dublin a department to take charge of these important documents. Mr. Duffus Hardy, the Deputy Keeper of the Records in London, and Mr. Brewer, at the instance of the late Government, undertook the necessary inquiries, and after inspecting alt the places in Dublin where these valuable documents are deposited — the Rolls, the Customs' House, the Bermingham Tower, the Prerogative Office, and the Rolls' Offices connected with the Courts of Exchequer, Queen's Bench, and Common Pleas—reported in October, 1864, that all these repositories were unfit for the deposit of these important documents, and insufficient for their proper arrangement. All those offices were crowded to overflowing. The Bill which he was now asking leave to introduce was intended to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The Bill proposed that all legal documents of the age of twenty years, except those that were in the Birmingham Tower, should be placed in the new Record Office, and that all State papers should be placed in the Bermingham Tower, under the care of Ulster King of Arms, till they were fifty years old; after which, at the discretion of the Government, they also should be placed in the Record Office. Among other provisions the Bill contemplated the appointment of a Deputy Keeper of the Rolls at a salary of £600 a year, rising to £800; the appointment of an Assistant Deputy Keeper and other officers, and the employment, as far as was possible, of all persons at present engaged in the keeping of the records. £200 a year would be added to the salary of the Ulster King of Arms, in consequence of the extra duty which this measure would impose upon him, and the Master of the Rolls was to be ex officio at the head of the Department, and all the business of the office would be under his management. The result of this proposal
  564
  would, he believed, provide for the safety of a large mass of valuable documents, and would afford great facilities not only to those engaged in legal pursuits, but also to those collecting materials for historical and literary works. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. CHILDERSsuggested the advisability of leaving the payment of the officials to be settled by the Department instead of determining the amounts by statute.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for keeping safely the Public Records of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Lord NAAS and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL— [BILL 84.]
(Mr. MacEvoy, Mr. M'Kenna, Mr. Leader.)
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL— [BILL 84.]

  SECOND READING. ORDER POSTPONED.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MACEVOY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that on a previous occasion he had been charged with bringing in this measure without consulting any of the Bishops or authorities of his own Church, and that by the course he was pursuing he was throwing obstacles in the way of a more pressing measure being passed, and acting in a manner calculated to injure the interests of the country with which he was connected. He was, at all events, on the present occasion, open to neither of those charges. He had consulted with the Archbishop of Westminster on the subject, and the Motion he now made was made with the approval and sanction of that Prelate. He might also remind the House that the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) had given notice of an Instruction to the Committee on this Bill considerably extending the scope of the proposal. He thought, therefore, that he was fully justified in assuming that the hon. Member no longer felt any alarm at the extent of the proposal contained in the Bill. He might also state that since the subject was last debated in this House a discussion had taken place "elsewhere," which showed that we were living in more serene times. On that occasion, Lord Derby had said that if any real inconvenience could be shown to press upon the Catholic prelates in this country in consequence of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, he felt sure that every person would be anxious to remove the cause of that grievance and

  565
  inconvenience. Another noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), who was remarkable for his strong common sense, said that when he had the misfortune to vote for that Bill he was a young man. Earl Grey also acknowledged that the Bill was a mistake, and said that he would not have voted for it if he had not known that it would have been without any practical result. Earl Granville said—
  "Many persons were quite delighted to give that kind of sop to the people of this country, in order that they might have time carefully and seriously to consider the real merits of the question."
  Other noble Lords expressed opinions equally indicating the change that had come over the spirit of the times. The evidence before the House justified him, he believed, in stating that no extraordinary amount of agitation had been exhibited by the country upon this matter. Only twelve petitions, containing 2,000 signatures, had been presented in reference to this matter; while on a Gas Bill, which affected the interests of a portion of the metropolis, there were as many as 3,000 petitions presented, signed by 45,000 persons. He understood that the Government, recollecting what Lord Derby had said upon the subject, and having fully considered the question, were prepared to allow a Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the practical working of the Act. He had no hesitation in accepting the offer, and proposed to defer the Motion for the second reading until this day fortnight, and on Thursday next to move for the Select Committee, which would also inquire into the working of the 24th section of the Relief Act, 10 Geo. IV. He felt sure that when the Report of that Committee was before the House, all who were satisfied of the necessity for getting rid of that most obnoxious Act would join with him in urging its repeal. He concluded by moving that the Order for the second reading be postponed until that day fortnight.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, the course of proceeding in reference to this Bill having taken such an unexpected turn, I cannot now move the Amendment of which I have given notice—that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. No one can look around him upon the empty state of these Benches at the present moment and suppose that this is the sort of House in which the great and important questions which are involved in the Bill can be fairly
  566
  discussed. I must say that there appears to be a carelessness and indifference with respect to the subject of this Bill on the part of the Government and of the Members of this House, especially the Conservative Members, which is not creditable, which is unworthy of the House. The proposal to refer the question to a Select Committee may be excused on the score of the ignorance that has supervened during the last sixteen years with respect to the premises upon which the Ecclesiastical Titles Act was founded. I know that the utmost pains have been taken on the part of the supporters of the Papal pretensions to confuse public opinion upon the subject. I shall therefore, notwithstanding the absence of the great majority of the House, re-state some of the grounds upon which Parliament founded this Act. I feel that it is my duty to remind the House of the expressions used by Her Majesty in her Speech from the Throne on the 4th of February, 1851, in referring to the then recent Papal aggression, and calling upon Parliament to legislate on the subject. I will read a short extract from Her Majesty's Speech—
  "The recent assumption of certain ecclesiastical titles, conferred by a foreign Power, has excited strong feelings in this country, and large bodies of my subjects have presented addresses to me, expressing attachment to the Throne, and praying that such assumptions should be resisted. I have assured them of my resolution to maintain the rights of my Crown and the independence of the nation against all encroachment, from whatever quarter it may proceed. I have, at the same time, expressed my sincere desire and firm determination, under God's blessing, to maintain unimpaired the religious liberty which is so justly prized by the people of this country."—[3 Hansard, cxiv. 4.]
  Now, I should not have thought a few years ago, that the House of Commons would ever consent to refer such a subject as Her Majesty described in the few words I have just read to a Select Committee upstairs. I certainly should not have expected this. At the same time it would be idle for me, in the present state of the House, to resist the proposal. I see the possibility of advantage from this course being taken. For I know that dense ignorance prevails with regard to the merits of the question. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] Yes, Sir, I repeat it, a dense ignorance. In the first place, I believe very few Members of this House have ever taken the trouble to read the Act which the Bill proposes to repeal, and that still fewer of those Members who have been

  567
  elected to this House since the year 1851, have taken the trouble to read the debates which were then carried on in this and the other House of Parliament on this subject. With the permission of the House, I will read another extract, and it is from the letter which was written by Lord John Russell to the Bishop of Durham. [An ironical cheer and laughter from Irish Members.] I quite understand that laugh of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk. Well, Sir, this letter was dated the 4th of November, 1850, and in it Lord Russell said—
  "It is impossible to confound the recent measures of the Pope with the division of Scotland into dioceses by the Episcopal Church, or the arrangement of districts in England by the Wesleyan Conference. There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome — a pretension to supremacy over England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our Bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catholic times. I confess, however, that my alarm is not equal to my indignation."
  There was a warm response to that appeal on the part of the country, and the Act which we are now asked to refer to a select Committee was the reply to the agitation which ensued. But there is yet another extract which I should like to read to the House. The hon. Member for Meath has referred to the authority of some Peers upon this subject. Permit me to take this opportunity of referring to the opinion of one Peer, of stating the opinion of the late Duke of Wellington, respecting the necessity for the Act which the House is asked to repeal. In the debate that took place in the House of Lords on the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill, the Duke of Wellington said that he had been a party to proposing the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act—that the object of that Act was to remove all political restrictions which were enacted against Roman Catholics after the Reformation, at the time of the Popish Plot, and in consequence of the Popish reign of James II., and of the War of Succession in Ireland; but, to do this without tampering with the laws on which the Reformation was founded. The illustrious Duke used these expressions—
  "We have had a good deal of experience of the effect produced in Ireland by measures passed by the Legislature. There was the Relief Act. A great deal was expected from that, and it was
  568
  said that it would put an end to agitation in Ireland for ever. But in the very year—nay, I believe, almost in the very month in which it became the law of the land—Irish agitation re-commenced. How often since then has the Crown from time to time had occasion to complain of agitation in Ireland? How often has the Crown come to Parliament to demand additional powers for the purpose of putting down the agitation, or worse than agitation, existing in that country, the Relief Act notwithstanding? My advice to your Lordships is to do that which is just and necessary to maintain the power and prerogatives of the Crown, and to protect the subjects of this country, and no more; and you may rely on it you will have the support and good wishes of the loyal people of Ireland as well as of this country. Having the misfortune on this occasion to differ from my noble Friend the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), who addressed your Lordships second in the debate, I felt it necessary to trouble you with these few words to show on what grounds I intend to support the Motion for the second reading of this Bill."—[3 Hansard, cxviii. 1116,]
  It seems, Sir, to be perfectly obvious that it is intended that the Act contemplated by this Bill shall be dealt with in the same mode as those penal Acts to repeal which the Relief Act was passed; and it is hoped the Committee will devise some means by which a termination of agitation on this and similar subjects may be brought about. I remember that the same hope was held out with respect to the passing of the Maynooth Act. But what was the fact? Why, that agitation increased tenfold, and that agrarian outrages in Ireland doubled during the next two years — the years 1846 and 1847. I am quite convinced that the majority of the people in this country are labouring under a deep delusion. They cannot bring their minds to believe that Dr. Manning and Cardinal Cullen, both high Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, will perpetuate agitation, no matter what concessions are made to them short of granting the supremacy of their Church—the supremacy of Rome in the United Kingdom. That is what honest Englishmen cannot bring their minds to believe, although they have had proof of it over and over again, and have found themselves constantly deceived. What was the reason for passing of this Ecclesiastical Titles Act? What was it that caused the aggression of which the nation complained? Why, the immediate cause of the aggression in 1850 was that in the year 1846 Parliament swept away the penalties which enforced the legal provisions left us by our Catholic ancestors in restraint of the introduction into this country of Papal bulls and Papal agents. In that year this House was in the same state of careless

  569
  Liberalism that it presents at this moment. And what was the result? We swept away some of the enactments and many of the penalties which our Roman Catholic ancestors had found necessary to meet the aggressions of the head of their own Church, aggressions the nature of which is so correctly described in the extracts which I have read from the Queen's Speech, and from the letter of Lord John Russell, and in the extract which I have also read from the speech of the Duke of Wellington. It is a difficult matter to persuade the English people of these facts. They think themselves to be uncharitable if they admit or enunciate the truth in this matter. And they proceed, from a feeling of honest benevolence, in a course which entails the constant renewal of agitation and the periodical renewal of those safeguards which our ancestors found to be necessary in order to secure the independence of the national religion and of the Government of this country. I lament that Her Majesty's Ministers should have adopted the course they have announced, unless it is upon the conviction that nothing but an inquiry by a Select Committee, or an inquiry of some kind, will break through the state of delusion into which the people of this country appear again to have fallen upon these subjects. Whether we look back to the history of our own country, or whether we examine the modern history of the nations around us, who are equally opposed with ourselves to this system of Papal agitation and aggression, some such enactment as that before the House is evidently necessary. Let any man read the documents which have lately been laid on the table of this House, giving an account of the reasons which compelled the Emperor of Russia to break off relations with Rome. What was the demand of the Papacy in that instance? Why, that a Nuncio from the Papal Government should be received at the Court of St. Petersburg. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No!] Sir, the document is on the table of the House, and I hold a copy of it in my hand, and the interruption of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk appears to me unseemly. What is the substance of this document? That the Emperor of Russia expressed his anxiety that a Nuncio should reside at St. Petersburg. Will the hon. Baronet deny that? And the Emperor adds this—that the terms upon which he is willing to receive the Nuncio at St.
  570
  Petersburg are the same as those on which the accredited agents of the Papacy are received in France. I do not like to trouble the House with reading long extracts, but I hold the document in my hand. The Papacy refused these terms; and the consequence was that the Nuncio was never sent to St. Petersburg. But there is yet another reason for this rupture of the relations between Russia and the Papacy. It was at that very time, while these negotiations were pending, the Papacy was engaged in secretly fomenting a rebellion in Poland. Owing to the unanimity of the expression of public opinion which is embodied in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, it has been talked of by Gentlemen opposite as the product of a sudden ebullition of Protestant fanaticism. Let me re-call the circumstances connected with the passing of this measure to the recollection of the House. The Papal brief which constituted the aggression was issued on the 29th of September, 1850. During the month of October it became known in this country, and on the 4th of November following Lord Russell, the then Prime Minister, wrote the letter from which I have quoted. From that time to the beginning of February, 1851, when Parliament met, this subject was canvassed, not by a Select Committee of this House, but by the Universities and all the learned bodies of the kingdom, and they laid the result of their investigations at the foot of the Throne. This measure was recommended from the Throne as the result of these investigations. In its passage through Parliament I never knew a measure that was more ably or keenly disputed. It was introduced early in the month of February, 1851; it did not pass the third reading in the House of Lords until the 29th of July, and it did not receive the Royal assent until the 1st of August. This Act, then, was the result of great deliberation, commencing with the learned bodies of the country and the public generally, afterwards conducted in debate through the two Houses of Parliament. From that day to this no prosecution has taken place under the provisions of this Act. Not a single person has been prosecuted under the enactment. Why, then, I ask, is its repeal demanded? I will tell you why. It is because in the recitals of that Act are embodied references to the provisions of the ancient laws, which, ever since the Conquest—aye, and even before the Conquest—have been found essential

  571
  for the maintenance of the national independence, for the maintenance of the independence of the Crown, and for the maintenance of the freedom of this country from that system of aggressive tyranny which has always marked the conduct of the Court of Rome in every country that has been under its sway or accessible to its agency. If the House is now inclined to grant an investigation, let me remind you of part of the subjects investigated in 1851. In the Library of this House you will find documents which describe the restrictions against Papal aggression that were found to be necessary, and were in existence in every country on the Continent at that period. And not only have these restrictions been since retained, but in Italy in particular their force has been greatly strengthened, and stronger measures have been adopted. Moreover, at this moment, in the French Empire—in France, a Roman Catholic country—restrictions exist upon the exercise of the Papal power there, which are fully equivalent, though in their nature different, to those contained in the Act, which we are asked to repeal. It was my intention to have moved the rejection of this Bill, but seeing the course which the Government have determined upon pursuing in the present empty state of these Benches, I will not attempt to take the opinion of this skeleton of the House. I only trust that the investigations of the Committee will be wide enough, will embrace the subjects to which I have referred, and be extended fully to the question in what respect the measure, which is now condemned, is either oppressive, or, considering that this is a Protestant country, is unfitted to be maintained as a safeguard against the continued Papal aggressions, to which we are exposed.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERrose to address the House, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would take the liberty of reminding the House that this was not the proper occasion for discussing the Bill upon its merits. The discussion should more properly take place upon the Motion, "That the Bill be now read the second time." That Motion had not been made that evening. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill stated that his intention was to put off the Bill for a fortnight; and in the meantime a Committee is to be appointed to inquire into the working of the Act involved in the Bill. On the Motion
  572
  for the appointment of the Committee the question as to the propriety of referring the question to a Committee may be properly discussed; and on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill an opportunity will be afforded for discussing the merits of the Bill. The question now was simply the postponement of the Motion for the second reading. He therefore took leave to invite the House not to enter into the discussion of the measure itself.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, with the utmost deference to the opinion of the Speaker, he wished to explain the reasons which urged him to address some observations to the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated that it is not according to Parliamentary practice to enter upon a discussion under such circumstances as the present.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, it was not consistent with his sense of duty to lose any opportunity of calling public attention to the general character of those attempts to alter, as it appeared to him, the fundamental constitution of the House—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
  MR. O'REILLYrose to order, and submitted that the question was that the Motion for the second reading of the Bill be postponed to that day fortnight.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member who has introduced this Bill gave some reasons for the course he was pursuing; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had also some reason for addressing the House, inasmuch as he had given notice of an Amendment on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, though in doing so he perhaps entered into a discussion rather beyond what the ordinary rules of this House justified. But I strongly advise the House to consider the present position of the question.
  MR. NEWDEGATEhoped he had not travelled beyond the ordinary rules. He certainly had not done so intentionally, for he had given formal notice of an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  LORD NAAShoped the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) would yield to the suggestion made by the highest authority in that House. Numberless opportunities for discussion were sure to present themselves hereafter.
  MR. WHALLEYentertained profound respect for any observation falling from the Chair; but had not understood the Speaker to prescribe any rule of debate compelling

  573
  him to forego his privilege of speech. Dr. Manning had over and over again declared—["Order, order!"]
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERhoped that the hon. Member would not be allowed to proceed. He himself had resumed his seat as soon as the Speaker intimated that there was anything irregular in continuing the discussion.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid he should only detain the House a few moments. It was notorious that in violation of the law Roman Catholic prelates—["Order, order!"]
  MR. COGANrose to order. The decision of the Speaker had prevented the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) from being heard, and it should now equally prevent the hon. Member for Peterborough from persisting in his present course.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dundalk has described his position differently and more correctly than the hon. Member who has last spoken. I suggested to the House that under the circumstances it would be extremely inexpedient to enter on the merits of the Bill when it was a mere question of the day to which the further progress of the measure should be adjourned. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk for the manner in which he acquiesced in that suggestion. I have not said that I have power or authority to forbid any observations on the question that this postponement should be agreed to; but I am sure the hon. Member himself (Mr. Whalley) will see that the whole feeling of the House is entirely in accordance with the suggestion which I made.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had no desire to place himself in opposition to the feelings of the House, and if the House would only allow him to proceed they would find he had some grounds for endeavouring to press his observation on their attention. Dr. Manning had constantly stated that the Act placed him and other Roman Catholic prelates in a position of constantly violating and disregarding the law of the country, which was in accordance with their views of their interests—that of giving a practical illustration of their supremacy over the authority of that House. That fact had been made use of in reference to the Fenian movement. So long as this law was allowed to be violated by the Roman Catholic prelates, it would be useless to attempt to enforce the laws against
  574
  Dr. Manning's followers. Let the law be repealed, or give it practical effect.
  Motion agreed to.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 28th May.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL— [BILL 6.]
(Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Cogan, Sir John Gray.)
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL— [BILL 6.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. NEWDEGATEreminded the House that there had been but one division taken upon this Bill. The reason assigned for the repeal of this declaration was that its terms were offensive. In order to obviate that he had proposed an Amendment embodying two articles of our religion which did not contain a single offensive word, but which comprehended the substance of this declaration. The Amendment was rejected, and it was perfectly clear that the object of the Bill was not merely to get rid of any offensive terms, but to forbid any officer of the State from making the declaration or one equivalent to it under the Act of Settlement which the Sovereign of this country was compelled on his or her coronation to make; and if the House of Lords passed the Bill the Sovereign would be called upon to make a declaration which Parliament had declared to be unfit to be taken by any officer of State. The declaration was a declaration of adhesion to the Protestant faith; and if the Bill passed in its present form it was perfectly obvious that the Act of Settlement would be very soon assailed, and they would lose the safeguard of having a Sovereign who declared himself or herself of the religion professed by the majority of the people.
  MR. WHALLEYpointed to the empty state of the Treasury Bench as an indication of the feeling of Her Majesty's Government and the House with regard to this question. He urged that the Government had abdicated its functions with regard to these matters, and he asked whether it was not time, now that they had reversed their policy, that some other means should be taken similar to those adopted by Roman Catholic countries for

  575
  dealing with the pestilent power of the Papacy. England was the only country in the world where six young ladies who had escaped from a convent would be allowed to be kidnapped and sent back as soon as possible.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  COMMONS INCLOSURE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. NEATE, Bill to amend the forty-ninth and ninety-third sections of the General Inclosure Act of the eighth and ninth Victoria, chapter one hundred and eighteen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NEATE and Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 151.]

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT AND NATIONAL GALLERY ENLARGEMENT BILLS.
  Select Committee on the Houses of Parliament Bill and the National Gallery Enlargement Bill nominated:—Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. WILLIAM COWPER, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE, Mr. DALGLISH, Captain GROSVENOR, and Five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection:—Five to be the quorum.

  FACTORY ACTS EXTENSION AND HOURS OF LABOUR REGULATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Factory Acts Extension Bill and Hours of Labour Regulation Bill do consist of eighteen Members:—Mr. JOHN BENJAMIN SMITH added to the Committee.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals)* (98).
Second Reading — Clerical Vestments (No. 2) (72), debate adjourned.
Third Rending—Inclosure* (65); Local Government Supplemental* (89); Land Drainage Supplemental* (90), and passed.

CLERICAL VESTMENTS (No. 2) BILL.
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
CLERICAL VESTMENTS (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 72.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY*: In rising to move the second reading of the Bill which is now before your Lordships, I think there is no occasion for me to remind the House of the necessity that exists for

  479
  passing some measure on this subject. The question has been so long before the public, and has given rise to so much agitation throughout the country—we have had so many remedies proposed for the evils that exist in connection with this matter by the clergy, the Bishops, and the laity, that I think it must be apparent to every person that some remedy must be adopted to check certain practices that are now prevalent. It has been stated that I have been somewhat hasty in this matter. But, my Lords, this is a matter which has been long considered by the country. I have long had it before me. I propounded this measure to your Lordships in the month of March, and it is now the 14th of May before we come to the second reading. Subsequently to my propounding it, it was proposed that a Commission should issue to take into consideration all matters connected with Ritualistic practices; nevertheless, I thought it my duty to persevere with the measure. I offer no impediment to the Commission; but there happens to be one part of Ritualistic practice which has created so much alarm and dissatisfaction among the community, which has so disturbed men's minds and consciences, that I am of opinion that no delay ought to be allowed to intervene before the matter is discussed, and some remedy, at least, attempted. Now, the remedy I wish to propose is not by introducing any innovation. What I maintain is, that these Ritualistic practices are a great innovation on the system and conduct of the Church. Yet I do not meet innovation by innovation, and so make matters worse. I wish to see the usage and practice of the Church ever since the period of the Reformation, which has been sanctioned by experience, which has given contentment and satisfaction to our forefathers, our fathers, and ourselves—I wish to see that usage embodied in an Act of Parliament, and that statutory effect may be given to the usage of this country which has now subsisted for more than 300 years. To effect this purpose, I take the spirit and, in great measure, the words of the 58th Canon, and engraft them on the Bill now before your Lordships. Although there may be a slight alteration in the words, yet in principle and details the spirit of the canon is preserved.
  It will be my duty, I fear, to detain your Lordships by reading a certain amount of documentary evidence, because I am anxious to prove that the law and authorities are on our side, from the Reformation down to
  480
  the present day—to justify the course I pursue, and show that what I propose to enact has been the law of the Church of England, recognised in past times by all her great prelates and divines, recognised at the present moment by the two Houses of Convocation, and, I believe, by the great body of the clergy. To show that what I propose has been the law of the Church from the earliest period, I must first recite the rubric in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., of 1552—
  "And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of Communion, and at all other times of his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but, being Archbishop or Bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and, being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only."—[Liturgies of Edward VI., Parker Society Ed., p. 217.]
  This was the statute law of the Church, as enacted by Cranmer, Ridley, and other Protestant martyrs. In the time of Queen Mary the statute was repealed; but on the accession of Elizabeth, power was given to Her Majesty to issue advertisements that should have the nature of law. In 1564 Strype says [3 Strype's Parker, p. 65]—
  "The advertisements arose in this way:—The Queen directed her letter this year (1564), in the month of January, to her Archbishop, requiring him, with other Bishops in the Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical, that orders might be taken, whereby all diversities and varieties among the clergy and laity, as breeding nothing but contention and breach of common charity, might be reformed and repressed, and brought to one manner of uniformity throughout the realm."
  The result was, that in 1565 Queen Elizabeth issued her advertisements in respect of the ornaments of the ministers, one of which [Sparrow's Articles, 124] was as follows:—
  "That every minister saying any public prayers or ministering the Sacrament, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish."
  Now follows the recognition (and it is worthy of great attention) by the prelates in their injunctions and visitation articles, that the surplice was the only dress of the minister between the time of the issuing of the advertisements of Queen Elizabeth and the passing of the Canons of 1604. Parker, in his Visitation Articles in 1569 [1 Cardwell, Doc. Ann., 356], inquires—
  "Item, whether your priests, curates, or ministers do use in the time of the celebration of Divine service to wear a surplice prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and the Book of Common Prayer, and whether they do celebrate the same Divine service in the chancel or in the

  481
  Church, and do use all rites and orders prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, &c., and none other."
  Sandys, Bishop of London, in his Injunctions, 1570, orders the clergy in all Divine service to wear the surplice. Grindal, Archbishop of York, in his Injunctions for the province in 1571, directs [2 Strype's Annals, 6] the clergy—
  "At all times when ye minister the Holy Sacrament…. and other Divine service in your parish churches and chapels, ye shall when ye minister wear a clean and decent surplice with large sleeves."
  At the same Visitation, Archbishop Grindal orders the churchwardens and ministers to see that—
  "All vestments, albs, tunicles, stoles, phanons, pyxes, paxes, handbells, sacring bolls, censers, chrismatories, crosses, candlesticks, holy water, stocks, fats, images, and all other monuments of superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed."—[Grindal's Remains, 124.]
  Again, the Archbishop, in his Metropolitical Visitation in 1576, inquires—
  "Whether you have in your parish churches and chapels all things requisite for the common prayer and administration of the sacraments, specially the Book of Common Prayer with the new calendar…. and a large decent surplice with sleeves. Whether all and every antiphoners, mass books … all vestments, albs, &c., … be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed. Whether your pastor do wear any cope in any parish church or chapel.—[pp. 157–9.]
  Now, observe, my Lords, that here another authority interposes—the authority of the University. Dr. Caius, in 1572, was charged at his College with Romanizing.—Strype [1 Strype's Parker, 399] says—
  "For that he had a kindness it appears in his private reservation of abundance of Popish trumpery, which he might think could come in play again; and so that, out of good husbandry, preserved them, to save the College the charge of buying new furniture for the chapel. But, in the year 1572, all came out, for the fame hereof coming to the ears of Sandys, Bishop of London, he wrote earnestly to Dr. Byng, Vice Chancellor, to see those superstitious things abolished. Byng could hardly have been persuaded that such things had been by him reserved; but, causing Caius's own company to make search in that College, he received an inventory of much Popish ware, as vestments, albs, tunicles, stoles, manicles, with other such stuff as might have furnished divers masters at one instant. It was thought good by the whole consent of the heads of the houses to burn the books and such other things as served most for idolatrous abuses, and caused the rest to be defaced, which was accomplished the 13th of December, 1572, with the willing hearts, as it appeared, of the whole company of that house."
  My Lords, I continue the episcopal testimony.
  482
  Archbishop Whitgift, in 1584, required—
  "That all preachers and others in ecclesiastical orders do at all times wear and use such kind of apparel as is prescribed unto them by the Book of Advertisements and Her Majesty's Injunction."—[1 Cardwell Doc. Ann., 468.]
  In the same year, in the Visitation Articles for the diocese of Chichester (sede vacante), he asks—
  "Doth your minister in public prayer wear a surplice, and go abroad apparelled as by Her Majesty's Injunctions and Advertisements is prescribed?"—[Strype's Whitgift, 243.]
  Piers, Archbishop of York, in 1590, follows, and [Robertson, 97] asks—
  "Whether all copes, vestments, albs, tunicles … and such like reliques of Popish superstition and idolatry be utterly destroyed and defaced?"
  Now, my Lords, I request you to observe the agreement between the Canons of 1571 and the Canons of 1604. The Canons of 1571 and the Canons of 1604 recognise the surplice with the hood as the only dress for the minister during the time of public prayers, being in strict accordance—let not this escape attention—with the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., and the advertisements of Queen Elizabeth. The Canons of 1571 contain the following order:—
  "No dean, nor archdeacon, nor residentiary, nor master, nor warden, nor head of any college or collegiate church, neither president nor rector, nor any of that order, by what name soever they be called, shall hereafter wear the gray amice, or any other garment which hath been defiled with like superstition; but every one of them in his own church shall wear only that linen garment which is as yet retained by the Queen's command, and also his scholar's hood, according to every man's calling and degree in school."—[1 Cardwell, Synodalia, 115, Ed. 1842.]
  And Canon 58 of Canons of 1604, which is embodied in the Bill, requires—
  "That every minister saying the public prayers or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish. And if any question arise touching the matter, decency, or comeliness thereof, the same shall be decided by the discretion of the ordinary. Furthermore, such ministers as are graduates shall wear upon their surplices at such times such hoods as by the orders of the Universities are agreeable to their degrees, which no minister shall wear, being no graduate, under pain of suspension. Notwithstanding, it shall be lawful for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices, instead of hoods, some decent tippet of black, so it be not silk."
  This canon, my Lords, is essentially the same as the rubric in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. and the advertisements

  483
  of Elizabeth, and in strict accordance with the Injunctions and Visitation Articles issued by the Archbishops and Bishops since the passing of the second Act of Uniformity of Edward VI. Let me now draw your attention to the recognition by prelates of the use of the surplice after the Canons of 1604, and before the enactment of the present Prayer Book in 1662. Bishop Cosin, in 1627, inquired, in the articles for the Archidiaconal Visitation of that year, whether—
  "The minister doth observe all the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer in such manner and form only as is there enjoined, without any omission, or addition, or alteration whatsoever? (He was not a Bishop at the time.) Whether in the time of public and Divine service…. and at all other times of his ministration, when any Sacrament be administered, or any other rite or ceremony of the Church solemnized, use and wear the surplice without any excuse or pretence whatever; and doth he never omit the same."—[2 Cosin's Work, 19.]
  Observe, now, the recognitions by prelates of the use of the surplice, after the enactment of our present Prayer Book. Bishop Cosin, in his Visitation, October 1662—I may here observe that this eminent Bishop is ranked by all as among the very highest authorities of the Anglican Church—the Bishop—
  "Requires the surplice to be worn with the habit by the ministers at the reading or celebrating any Divine office; and asks whether the lecturer read service, and that in a surplice; and whether, in lecturing, he used the ecclesiastical habit appointed for all ministers of the Church."
  Archdeacon Harrison (on the Rubrics, 175) has the following note upon the word "habit":—"This is obviously the gown." To proceed, Archbishop Frewen, in 1662, in his Visitation Articles for the diocese and Province of York, asks—
  "Have you a decent surplice for your parson, vicar, curate, or lecturer, to wear in the time of public ministration? Doth he read the Book of Common Prayer, &c., and doth he wear the surplice while he performs that office, or other offices mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer?"
  In 1670, Laney, Bishop of Lincoln, in his Visitation Articles, inquires—
  "Doth your minister, at the reading or celebrating any Divine office in your Church or chapel, wear the surplice, together with such scholastic habit as is suitable to his degree?"
  And in 1674, Bishop Fuller, the successor of Bishop Laney, makes the like inquiry as his predecessor. In 1670, Archbishop Sheldon requires of his clergy—
  484
  "An exemplary conformity in their own persons and practice to His Majesty's laws and the rules of the Church…. and that in time of such their officiating they ever make use of, and wear their priestly habit, the surplice and hood."—[2 Cardwell, Loc. Ann., 328.]
  Dr. Owtram, Archdeacon of Leicester, inquires, in 1676—
  "Have you a large surplice for the use of your minister in his public administrations?"
  And, in 1679, Bishop Barlow, in his Visitation Articles of the diocese of Lincoln, inquires—
  "Have you a fair surplice for the minister to wear at all times of his public ministration provided at the charge of the parish, and doth he make use of the surplice when he reads Divine service or administers the Sacrament?"—[Harrison, 178.]
  And here, my Lords, I ask you, can we have a more uniform, more connected catena patrum — (catena is the word, I believe—in the present day) than this which I have just concluded?
  But I will now call attention to what has taken place in more modern times, in reference to the dress of the ministers. In the Lower House of the Convocation of the Province of York the following resolution, seconded by the Dean of Ripon in a powerful speech, was adopted in March of the present year—
  "Whereas certain vestments and ritual observances have recently been introduced into the services of the Church of England, this House desires to place on record its deliberate opinion that these innovations are to be deprecated, as tending to favour errors rejected by that Church, and as being repugnant to the feelings of a large number of the laity and clergy; and this House is further of opinion that it is desirable that the dress of a minister in public prayer, and the administration of the Sacraments and other rites of the Church, should continue to be the surplice, academical hood (or tippet for non-graduates), and the scarf or stole, these having received the sanction of long-continued usage." [Dean Goode's Speech in Convocation.]
  This resolution was passed unanimously by the Upper House, and was carried by 23 to 7 in the Lower House.
  And here I think it right to bring under your Lordships' notice a declaration of the American Bishops, in March 1867—the testimony of the Episcopal Church in the United States, identical in creed and discipline with our own. Your Lordships will not fail to see the value of it. The declaration of the assembled Bishops is as follows:—
  "And we therefore consider that, in this particular national Church, any attempt to introduce into the public worship of Almighty God usages

  485
  that have never been known—such as the use of incense, and the burning of lights in the order for the Holy Communion; reverences to the Holy Table or to the elements thereon, such as indicate or imply that the sacrifice of our Divine Lord and Saviour, 'once offered,' was not a 'full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world;' the adoption of clerical habits hitherto unknown, or material alterations of those which have been in use since the establishment of our episcopate—is an innovation which violates the discipline of the Church, 'offendeth against its common order, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.'"
  I will now close this part of the subject by reading to your Lordships the opinion of the Province of Canterbury. The Resolution passed by the Upper House of the Southern Convocation in February last stands thus—
  "Resolved,—That having taken into consideration the Report made to this House by the Lower House, concerning certain ritual observances, we have concluded that, having regard to the dangers (1) of favouring errors deliberately rejected by the Church of England, and fostering a tendency to desert her communion; (2) of offending, even in things indifferent, devout worshippers in our churches, who have been long used to other modes of service, and thus of estranging many of the faithful laity; (3) of unnecessarily departing from uniformity; (4) of increasing the difficulties which prevent the return of separatists to our communion—we convey to the Lower House our unanimous decision that, having respect to the considerations here recorded, and to the rubric concerning the service of the Church in our Book of Common Prayer, to wit,—'Forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly set forth but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same, to appease all such diversity (if any arise), and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this book, the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall always resort to the Bishop of the diocese, who, by his discretion, shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in this book; and if the Bishop of the diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the resolution thereof to the Archbishop'—our judgment is, that no alterations from long-sanctioned and usual ritual ought to be made in our churches until the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese has been obtained thereto."—[Dean Goode's Remarks, &c.]
  This resolution is quoted to show the opinions entertained by the Prelates of the impropriety and danger of these Ritualistic observances, not by any means in approval of the remedy they propose. And I now come to the Bill, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time. The object of the measure is simply, as I have said before, to give statutory effect to the principle of the Canon of 1604, which has had the effect of governing the system of the
  486
  Establishment from that time to the present, and of securing peace and harmony among our communion. I do not know what objections are entertained to the Bill, beyond two or three unimportant criticisms. The first is that the Bill touches but one point. That is true, and the reason is because it is the only point on which there is really any legal doubt. There is no doubt about incense, lights, and other points, but there is a doubt about vestments; and therefore it is the subject to which the attention of Parliament should be more immediately drawn. It is the one point which of all others most disturbs and alarms the minds of the laity, which is the most prominent, which strikes the eyes with the greatest force, and goes the deepest into the hearts and convictions of the people. This is the reason why I thought that no time should be lost in submitting a Bill on the subject to your Lordships; and, should your Lordships not think proper to adopt it, some other measure might be proposed more acceptable to the House. The next objection is one taken to the provisions of the Bill. I have received numerous letters in reference to the measure; but I do not think the objections expressed in any of them go beyond mere matters of the smallest detail. Great care has been taken, in preparing the Bill, to make nothing lawful or unlawful which is not so at present. Any alterations as to matters of detail can be made in the Committee; but they would be so small and slight that were they not made it would not be of any importance. I am censured, too, for proceeding by law. Why, my Lords, law, or fancied law, is the cause of the whole mischief, and by law alone it must be removed. Again, the proceeding by way of Commission has also been urged as vastly preferable. But your Lordships are now aware that the promised Commission did not precede the Bill, but that the Bill preceded the Commission; and it was not until the Bill had been some time on the table of the House that a Commission was suggested. I frequently consulted many of the right rev. Prelates in private, and showed them the Bill. Little or no objection was expressed to the course of proceeding I proposed to pursue, and many of them gave me very strong hopes that they would support the measure, considering it a great boon to the Church. If a Commission had been proposed some three years ago it might have been expedient to leave the subject to the investigation of

  487
  such a body; but to abandon an attempt at legislation now, in consequence of the promise of a Commission, of which we know neither the terms nor the members, and thereby to hang up the question for a considerable time, would cause great dissatisfaction to the country; and in the meanwhile the state of things which has created, and which is still creating, so much discontent would go on increasing without check or hindrance. By such a course you would be doing for the extreme Ritualistic party the very thing they would most heartily desire. I cannot give a better proof of my assertion than by reading an extract from one of their recognised and authorized organs, by which you will see that this is the policy which they most earnestly labour to accomplish. The value which they attach to delay may be gathered from the following passage, which I take from The Church Times:—
  "In the meantime our counsel to our friends is, in homely phrase, to make their hay while the sun yet shines. Every Church that adopts the vestments renders their abolition a great deal more than proportionately difficult. We have no hesitation in saying that if the ornaments Rubric were only carried out in every church where it would be acceptable, our position would be impregnable."
  And hear, in confirmation of their policy, a book of the highest possible authority among them — a book full of amazing learning, but learning, no doubt, of a most useless character—here is a statement which completely harmonizes with the astute system thus counselled by The Church Times of making their position impregnable. The Directorium Anglicanum assures us that there are already "2,000 churches which have lights on the altars," the result of secret and gradual advancement. His brevibus principiis, via sternitur ad majora.
  I think I have now shown your Lordships that some necessity exists for legislation, and that the line which I propose is founded on precedent, tradition, long and unbroken usage, on the contentment and satisfaction of the people, the peace of the Church; in short, on every consideration which tends to maintain unimpaired throughout the kingdom the blessings of civil and religious liberty. I must, however, ask your indulgence while I detain you a little longer. I am anxious, having disposed of the legal aspect of the question, to inquire whether we are not standing on the brink of a system which, if extended, may lead to the subversion of
  488
  the Church of England itself, and bear along with it political evils tending to shake the existence of the Empire. There are so many points illustrative of that view that it would be unpardonable in me if I did not advert to one or two of them for the purpose of conveying conviction to your Lordships' minds. Here is one point which has, I confess, filled me with considerable alarm. A short time ago a very remarkable book was published, called The Church and the World; or, Essays upon the Questions of the Day, and I observe on referring to an authorized work, called The Chronicle of Convocation, June, 1866—a work analogous, so far as the proceedings of that body are concerned, to Hansard, for Parliamentary debates—that an event took place in the Upper House which I should like to state to your Lordships. The Bishop of Oxford, on the occasion to which I am referring, said—
  "I have now to present to your Grace and this Upper House of Convocation a book which has been forwarded to me under cover, directed to the Upper House of Convocation. I have not read the book myself."
  I can well believe, my Lords, that the right rev. Prelate had not read it, for if he had done so he would, I am sure, have been one of the first to repudiate its contents. The title of the book was, he added, The Church and the World, and when he had presented it the Bishop of Salisbury rose, and, speaking in more precise language, said—
  "I think we ought to present our thanks to the author of this book. I have read a good many of the essays contained in it, and they are most able. Although persons may differ from its conclusions, I am sure that everybody who takes the trouble of reading the work will find a great deal of matter in it admirably well put together."
  Now, my Lords, I have read the greater part of this book, and in my humble judgment I never opened a book more disloyal to the Church, to the Bishops, and I may add, to the truth. I will, with your Lordships' permission, give you one or two specimens of the character and purpose of this publication. To begin. We have said, my Lords, that the Ritualistic system adopted in many of our churches has altogether changed their Protestant character and given to them the appearance of Popish places of worship, so as scarcely, and oftentimes not at all, to be distinguishable from those of the Church of Rome. Well, that being so, one of the essays in this book contains the following passage:—

  489
  "Anglicans are reproached by Protestants with their resemblance to Romans; they say a stranger entering into a church where Ritual is carefully attended to might easily mistake it for a Roman service. Of course he might"—
  Listen to these words, my Lords, "of course" he might—
  "The whole purpose of the great revival has been to eliminate the dreary Protestantism of the Hanoverian period, and restore the glory of Catholic worship; the churches are restored after the mediæval pattern, and our Ritual must accord with the Catholic standard… Ritual, like painting and architecture, is the only visible expression of Divine truth. Without dogma, without any esoteric meaning, Ritual is an illusion and delusion, a lay figure without life or spirit, a vox et præterea nihil."—[p. 212.]
  The book urges also the celibacy of the clergy. A whole essay, indeed, is devoted to the object of demonstrating that the unmarried state is the highest state of human existence. It urges, moreover, the revival of religious confraternities, while one of the essays proceeds to contend that the Church ought to be assimilated to the theatre.
  "Managers," it says, "have constantly been compelled to make gorgeous spectacle their main attraction; and a splendid transformation scene or a telling stage procession will draw crowds night after night, even in the absence of any theatrical celebrity. Hence a lesson may be learnt by all who are not too proud to learn from the stage. For it is an axiom in lithurgiology that no public worship is really deserving of its name unless it be histrionic."
  Here, my Lords, we have it declared that the simple worship of the Almighty as hitherto observed in our churches is now to be converted into a histrionic display, and that the house of God is to be turned into a stage, where gorgeous processions are to take the place of spiritual service, and religion is to be turned into a glittering drama. Again, the following passage approaches very close to the adoration of the Virgin:—
  "The veneration of the blessed Virgin I perceived to a certain extent really exalted our Divine Lord, by showing the dignity attached to everything connected with the incarnation, and that Protestants misunderstand it because they practically degrade Him to the level of a saint, and then of course are shocked at any human creature being compared with Him.
  In another essay we have the value and necessity of the Confessional vigorously asserted. It contains a remarkable statement, which purports to be written by a lady, who gives details of what took place when she, a young girl, went to confession without the sanction of her parents,
  490
  her confession occupying six hours. She adds—
  "Years have passed since then, days and weeks of severe suffering, mental and bodily, but never anything that can be compared to those hours and the weeks that followed them, and I know that I can never pass through anything worse on the earth side of the grave."
  She goes on to say how absolutely indispensable confession is, and she assigns this as her reason—
  "Many persons think that their sins confessed in secret to God are fully confessed. I believe it to be a most fatal mistake."
  Now, was there ever before, my Lords, a doctrine such as this, sanctioned by the approval of a Protestant Bishop? Was there ever a doctrine so calculated to found, and maintain, a system of sacerdotal tyranny? That no intercourse can take place between a man and his Maker, without the intervention of some priest, weak and fallible as himself, is a dogma as false as it is revolting. Yet these are but samples, and those not the most violent and extreme that might be quoted from this book. Surely it is a sign of the times that such avowals have been befriended by Episcopal authority.
  And now, my Lords, can we wonder at results such as I will now put before you? Can we wonder at a narrative such as that which is extracted from The Church Review of the 18th of November, 1865, describing the scenes that occurred at the church of St. Lawrence, Norwich, a few days before with reference to the dedication of a cope—
  "The Church of St. Lawrence, Norwich.—On Sunday last an unusual ceremony was witnessed at this church. A cope had been purchased by a Cambridge undergraduate, and, at his wish, was presented and duly dedicated to God's service in a particularly impressive manner. The usual procession of choir and priest entered the church for evensong, headed by the crucifer. At the rear, immediately before the thurifers, the cope was carried by the deputed person who acted for the donor; the priest went to the altar accompanied by the thurifers. At the bottom step of the sacrarium the cope was presented to him with these words:—'Reverend Father, in the name and on behalf of the donor, I present this cope for use by the priest in this Church of St. Lawrence on all fitting occasions.' The priest received it with these words:—'We receive this cope to the glory of God and for use in this church of St. Lawrence in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.' The priest then duly presented it on the altar and incensed it, after which suitable versicles, responses, and a prayer were used. Then the priest was vested in the cope and remained so until after the Magnificat. The cope is of rich gold

  491
  and white brocatelle, with crimson orphreys and hood."
  My Lords, I suspect a frugal mind, as well as a devout heart, in this narrative, for it is added—
  "The cope was supplied by Mr. R. L. Bloomfield, and is the same as shown at the Ecclesiastical Art Exhibition at Norwich."
  The stories of this kind in reference to our churches and chapels might be largely multiplied, and notably I might call your attention to the church of St. Raphael's, Bristol. Now, this cope is, after all, but a very servile imitation of the Holy Coat of Treves; still, that coat, miserable as it was, excited very great commotion throughout many parts of Germany. It is, indeed, our interest, no less than our duty, to mark the extremes to which these things are carried, and the necessity that they should be checked. At this moment there are very many men, of great ability, great zeal and learning, all engaged in an endeavour to promote and fix in the hearts of the people this Ritualistic system. And, to prove my position, I must advert to a book of the highest authority with the Ritualists, which shows the great lengths to which they have gone and, beyond dispute, to which they intend to go. The work which I am about to quote is the Directorium Anglicanum, a work of authority; and it thus lays down the mode of worship which, the writers assert, ought to be observed in the Church of England. It says—
  "Ritual is the expression of doctrine, and a witness to the Sacramental system of the Catholic religion."
  Very well to begin with—the various vestments are also described, and the times and seasons at which they are to be worn thus pointed out—
  "The order of the many-coloured vestments:—White, from the evening of Christmas Eve to the Octave of the Epiphany, &c.; Red, Vigil of Pentecost, and all other feasts; Violet, from Septuagesima to Easter Eve, &c.; Black, Good Friday and public fasts; Green, all other days."
  From this your Lordships will be able to see the advanced position of the Sacramental system occupied by a portion of the clergy. Now, follow a few of the orders and injunctions for the administration of the Sacraments—
  "The greatest care should be taken to avoid the sacrilege of allowing the smallest particle to fall from the ciborium or pyx, &c.—It is impossible to communicate persons (who put their faces on the floor or kneel away from the cushion) without the greatest danger to the blessed Sacrament. After the Consecration prayer, it is most desirable that no person passes before the blessed
  492
  Sacrament, without genuflecting, bowing, or some token of reverence."
  Is not this, my Lords, an act of adoration?
  "Let the priest test it by his minister, who will taste both the wine and water. But the priest himself ought not to taste it, … (but) pour a drop on his hand, rub it with his fingers and smell it. … If it is too watery, he must not use it unless he knows that the wine exceeds the water. He shall fetch a breath, and with one inspiration shall say, 'Hoc est enim corpus meum,' so that no other train of thought shall intermingle with (the words). Again, he should never take the chalice at one draught, lest, by reason of the impetus, he should unadvisedly cough; but twice or thrice he should take it warily. Before mass the priest is not to wash his month or teeth, but only his lips from without, with his mouth closed, as he has need; lest, perchance, he should intermingle the taste of water with his saliva. If, after having communicated of the body, he shall have the water already in his mouth, and shall then for the first time perceive that it is water. … it is safer for him to swallow than eject it; and for this reason, that no particle of the body may be ejected with the water. If a fly or spider, or such like thing, should fall into the chalice, after consecration, it should be warily taken out, oftentimes diligently washed between the fingers, and then burnt, and the ablution, together with the burnt ashes, must be put into the piscina."
  [A laugh.] My Lords, I do not quote these things to provoke laughter; far from it. Strange and abhorrent as they may be to our Protestant feelings, there are many earnest, though deluded, minds that hold and teach them, and of such it is far from my wish to speak with contempt. The book then goes on to say—
  "If the consecrated host … slip from the priest's hands into the chalice … he ought not to take it out of the blood, but proceed in making the sign of the cross, and other matters, as if he held it in his hand. If the Eucharist has fallen to the ground, the place where it lay must be scraped, and fire kindled thereon, and the ashes reserved beside the altar. In a similar case we (Ed. D. A.) should put the ashes down the piscina. If any of the blood be spilled upon a table fixed to the floor the priest must take up the drop with his tongue, &c., and he to whom this has befallen must do penance forty days."
  Observe, my Lords, the constant repetition of the word "blood," showing the identity with the Roman system.
  "If any one, by any accident of the throat, vomit up the Eucharist, the vomit is to be burnt and the ashes reserved near the altar, and if he shall be a cleric he must do penance forty days, if a Bishop"
  I call the attention of the Episcopal Bench to this—
  "seventy days, if a laic thirty days."
  Well, my Lords, are we then to return to the burdens that neither we nor our fathers

  493
  were able to bear? Are we to be subjected to a system of Ritualism which, if merely for decoration, is childish and irreverent; but which, if symbolical of the deepest mysteries of our faith, amounts to blasphemy? Will your Lordships take the trouble to look at the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer, and read that part of it which explains why certain ceremonies were retained and certain others were rejected? You will see a reference to the fact that there the great St. Augustine complained of the intolerable yoke of ceremonial in his times, and spoke of the condition of Christian people as being worse in that respect than that of the Jews. The paragraph goes on to ask if St. Augustine had lived in those days what would he have said at seeing such a multiplication of observances? Said! why, would he not have said that our Protestant worship is a worship in spirit and in truth, and that it recognises only so much outward observance as is necessary for reverent and decent devotion? This state of things is, beyond denial, tending to Popery, and such is the assertion of many of our Prelates; and unless it be checked it must issue in Romanism. Speaking in Convocation in February, 1866, the Bishop of Llandaff said—
  "This has been called a Romeward movement, while others have denied that it is so. I cannot but consider this a Romeward movement, and a very rapid movement."
  What says the Bishop of St. David's?—
  "Nothing, in my judgment, can be more mischievous, as well as in more direct contradiction to notorious facts, than to deny or ignore the Romeward movement."
  And here I cannot hesitate to call your Lordships' attention for a moment to an ancient writer, whose words are curious as showing how identical are the policy and action of those who now seek to bring back Popery with the action of the men who 300 years ago were opposed to the spirit and principles of the Reformation. In Cardwell's History, in reference to the Conference of 1539—
  "Gualter, it states, also the friend and colleague of Bullinger, writing to the Queen's physician early in the year 1559, and alluding to the attempts at comprehension, entreats that they would not harken to the counsels of those men who, when they saw that Popery could not be honestly defended nor entirely retained, would use all artifices to have the outward face of religion to remain mixed, uncertain, and doubtful, so that while an Evangelical Reformation is pretended, those things should be obtruded upon the Church which will make the returning back to Popery, to superstition, and to idolatry very easy."
  494
  Mark these last words, "The return to Popery, superstition, and idolatry very easy." In 1867, 300 years after, listen to the same designs, the same hopes, the same facilities. The whole scheme is set out in The Church Times of March 30, the acknowledged organ of the Ritualistic party—
  "The address of Dr. Pusey," (says the journal) "to the members of the English Church Union at their last monthly meeting is one of considerable significance, and fraught with most important lessons for the present time. It is, simply, a formal declaration of war—war against unbelief, against coldness, against timidity, against all which goes to make up that form of religionism which dignitaries call safe, and The Times calls English. War then it shall be. But, that point once settled, the question is, What shall be the tactics by which the campaign shall be conducted? The advice of Dr. Pusey is this: Let no further advances be made for the present, but all attention be concentrated in fortifying the position already attained, and in completing the military education of the Church's army. This is the method by which Russia has pushed her way so steadily and permanently into the far East."
  Observe, my Lords, the dexterity and astuteness with which they press everything into their service.
  "A fort is erected in the enemy's country, with clear lines of communication back to the basis of supply. A village of soldier-colonists gathers round the fort, and civilians follow where a market springs up. When the post has been Russianized it becomes, in its turn, the base line of operation, and another fort is thrown out some score of miles in advance, and the process is repeated, until, as we have seen, Khokan, Bokhara, and the neighbouring territories are in a fair way to be as Sclavonic as Kazan and Perm. But two rules are inexorably maintained. No fort is erected at a dangerous distance from the base line, and no non-combatants are allowed to be the pioneers of colonization. Exactly identical with this should be our policy. Churches like St. Alban's, Holborn, and St. Lawrence's Norwich,"
  (Observe this, my Lords, the Church of the Holy Cope!)
  "books like the Altar Manual, the Priest's Prayer Book, and the Church and the World,"
  (Bear in mind the title of this book)
  "fairly represent the most advanced post yet reached by the Catholic Revival in England. They are not the ultimate goal."
  What is it then, my Lords?
  "Why, the final aim, which alone will satisfy the Ritualists, is the reunion of Christendom and the absorption of Dissent within the Church."
  Here, then, my Lords, is the true object avowed—the subjugation of all Christendom—namely, body, soul, and spirit, to sacerdotal dominion. The journal proceeds—
  "This, then, is the thing to do. Let the advanced posts remain as they are. Let each of

  495
  those which is a little behind, and only a little, gradually take up the same position, and let this process be carried on (only without haste or wavering) down to the last in the chain. Let a gradual change be brought in."
  I beseech your attention, my Lords, to the quiet and secret progress—
  "A choral service, so far as Psalms and Canticles are concerned, on some week-day evening, will train people to like a moral ornate worship, and that which began as an occasional luxury, will soon be felt a regular want. Where there is monthly communion, let it be fortnightly; where it is fortnightly, let it be weekly; where it is weekly, let a Thursday office be added. Where all this is already existing, candlesticks with unlighted candles may be introduced. Where these are already found, they might be lighted at Evensong. Where so much is attained, the step to lighting them for the Eucharistic Office is not a long one. Where the black gown is in use in the pulpit on Sundays, let it disappear in the week. The surplice will soon be preferred, and will oust its rival. It is easy for each reader to see how some advance, all in the same direction, can be made, and that without any offence taken."
  The resistance of our forefathers in the days of Queen Elizabeth has given us a Protestantism of 300 years; may the resistance in the present day assure to us one of no less duration!
  And now it may be asked why a layman should deal with this question. My Lords, I will tell you at once why I have undertaken the duty of bringing this subject under your notice. For a very long time the laity of the Church of England have been looking for assistance in every direction. They have turned to the clergy—they have turned to the Bishops. They have been answered by charges and exhortations; but nothing effective has been done for their relief—and this is the answer why the laity have resolved to take the matter into their own hands. They think, moreover, that the Bishops require the assistance of the laity; and they have determined, with them, or without them, to make every attempt in their power to remove this abuse from the fair face of the Established Church. In common with many others, I was, I confess, alarmed in no slight degree at what occurred in the early part of this year (in the month of February). The Most Rev. Primate had put out an invitation to the Bishops of both provinces to meet at Lambeth in order to discuss various important subjects connected with the Established Church. In the agenda paper there was, however, no mention of Ritualism, the question of all others most sharply agitating the people of England. I believe I am correct—and
  496
  if not the Most Rev. Primate will set me right — in saying that some of the Bishops of the Northern Province declined to attend the Conference proposed to be held at Lambeth because Ritualism was not on the list of the agenda. In addition, my Lords, I must say that I myself had been deeply moved, and the laity likewise had been moved, by certain declarations made by the Bishop of the diocese in which I have the honour to reside. In these declarations strange powers were claimed, powers as great and absolute as were ever claimed and exercised by any of the priests of the Eastern and Western Churches. Convinced that matters were approaching a fearful issue, I consulted with many of my lay friends, and we agreed that an effort should be made to test the feeling of the laity on this subject. A large county meeting was accordingly held; and nothing could give a stronger proof of the extent to which the people of England were animated and resolved. I did not know until I had received accounts from many parts of Dorset that the farmers could be so painfully excited as they were by these ritualistic observances. I should not like to repeat the language used on this subject; it was, indeed, of the strongest description, and no one could hear it without feeling that if these practices are continued the farmers of England, instead of being, as they always have been, the friends, will become the bitterest opponents of the Established Church.
  Now, in regard to this Bill, I heard on high authority that there was nothing to be objected to it, except on the ground that it had not proceeded from the decisions of Convocation. My Lords, I am bound to express the deep respect I feel for the individual members of Convocation of both Houses. But collectively I do not feel the same respect for their opinions and judgments; and for this reason, that Convocation represents only the clergy, and those only most imperfectly, while of the laity there is not a shadow of representation. I believe that no Convocation is of any value that does not contain the laity as well as the clergy. In the American Episcopal Church of the United States the laity form the majority of their assemblies; and when I was in Paris a few days ago I had the benefit of a conversation with a Bishop of that Church, and learned from him that the laity formed a large part of the governing body. Without

  497
  them, he added, Convocation would not get on at all; but with their aid the Church in America had been greatly extended, and would continue, he believed, being extended far beyond its present limits. Another objection I urge to the supremacy of Convocation is that the Convocation of Canterbury does not include the Province of York. Yet that Province contains the very pith and marrow of the whole Empire. The Province of York contains the diocese of Chester, which includes the great town of Liverpool. It includes the diocese of Manchester and the whole of Lancashire, the Archbishopric of York and the diocese of Ripon, and the whole of the West Riding of York, the diocese of Durham with the whole of Durham and Northumberland, and the diocese of Carlisle including the whole of Cumberland and Westmoreland. If the Bill had proceeded from the Convocation of Canterbury, which generally assumes to be exclusively Convocation, it would have proceeded from the weaker of the two bodies, and from a body which, as I have said already, does not represent the laity at all, and most imperfectly represents the whole body of the clergy.
  My Lords, I hold that this is essentially a question for the laity. I will never cease to proclaim that it is not for the Bishop and the minister to settle between themselves the order of the service, or what vestments are to be worn, but that it is for the great mass of the congregation to determine whether they will go on in those usages which their fathers have practised for 300 years. It is not for the mere majority of the congregation to determine what changes shall be made, but for the congregation at large; and even then it must be done consistently with the law of the land. What are the minority to do? Affected conscientiously, they cannot continue to worship in a church where these Ritualistic practices prevail. And whither can they go? Must they seek in their necessity another place of worship? Doubtless they must, and such has been the smart and ready counsel of a Bishop, who preferred to give such advice to the judicious exercise of influence and authority in the suppression of harassing innovations. I know, my Lords, that a great difference has grown up between the ultra-Ritualists and those denominated the High Church—a greater difference, perhaps, than there is between the High Church and the Low. I am not about to speak with disrespect
  498
  of those who belong to these two bodies. The High Church, I acknowledge, contains many wise, good, and learned men. I have ever expressed my admiration for the virtues, talents, and learning of the head of that party, Dr. Pusey. The Ritualistic party also, no doubt, contains men of sincerity and learning, who think by what they are doing they are conferring a blessing upon the Church and the country. I admit it all. But we must consider the effect of the system they are introducing. It is alienating many of the devout and faithful members of our communion. In some it is producing a state of complete indifference, and an opinion that there is little or no distinction between the Church of Rome and the Church of England. Others are averted altogether from the Church, and are going over to the Nonconformists. Congregations are broken up in all parts of the country, and numbers are on the point of being added to the ranks of Dissent. There are noble Peers here present who could tell you of three or four churches in their neighbourhood being completely emptied of their former people. See the effect it is producing among many of your best friends—those who have been faithful to the Church in circumstances of difficulty and danger. I will allude to that powerful body the Wesleyan Methodists. I have many friends among them, and I know that they have been accustomed to cherish a warm attachment to the Church of England. I can tell your Lordships, however, that a great change is coming over their hearts and minds. With regret, but conscientiously, they hesitate not to declare that if these observances continue and are allowed to extend in the degree in which they are extending, there must be a complete change of policy leading, as a matter of deep conviction, to help in destroying the Church of England as a rag of Popery. There is at all times a large body of Dissenters who desire, as a question of principle, the abolition of the Establishment, and in a time of difficulty and distress it may go very hard with our ancient system if to this active Society there be added allies drawn from our former friends and supporters. My Lords, it is quite certain that if the present state of things continues, if no vigorous attempt be made to repress these practices and show that the Church of England is yet prominent in all her purity and her truth, another Reformation will begin in this country. But that Reformation will not

  499
  be like the last; it will not descend from the heads and come down to the people, thus bringing with it Episcopacy and all its orders; but it will ascend from the people to the heads, and may land us perhaps on the platform of Geneva. There is testimony to this among persons of great experience and well acquainted with the present aspect of ecclesiastical affairs. Canon Blakesley, speaking in Convocation, declared his opinion—
  "That if we look the country through, you will find that it has been more Puritanized by those practices than Romanized."
  I believe that to be true; and that if you beget in the people the spirit of the old Puritans you will also see in them the action of the Puritans; and that the Establishment, if once uprooted by their assaults, will never regain its first position. Hear also an eminent Nonconformist, Dr. Vaughan, the author of one of the ablest treatises upon Ritualism which has yet been published—
  "The success of the Ritualists (says Dr. Vaughan) hitherto has been in corrupting the members of the Church of England, not in making converts from beyond her pale."
  And so it is, my Lords. They have brought none to the embrace of the Church of England, though they have driven many over its border, and have tarnished the simplicity of the faith of many who remain within it.
  Let me close this statement with an extract from the Charge of the Bishop of St. David's, one of the most acute, profound, and exhaustive documents which I have ever read—one remarkable alike for its learning, wit, power, and sound defence of the purity of the Church of England. The right rev. Prelate, taking exactly the same view which I have ventured to take, says, among other things—
  "I believe that in most neighbourhoods the number of those who are attracted by the revived Ritual bears a small proportion to that of those who dislike and disapprove it, even if they are not shocked and disgusted by it. And I strongly suspect that those who take pleasure in it do so mainly, not on account of its superior sensuous attractions, but because it represents a peculiar system of opinions."
  But listen to these weighty remarks—
  "The Committee of Convocation, in a passage of their Report, remind us that the National Church of England has a holy work to perform towards the Nonconformists of this country. If the innovations which offend many, I believe I may still say most, Churchmen, are peculiarly obnoxious to the Nonconformists of this country, it is not simply as innovations, but because they
  500
  present the appearance of the closest possible approximation to the Church of Rome. And the danger on this side is far greater than that which is suggested by the language of the Report. It is not merely that we may make fewer converts from the ranks of Dissent, but that we may strengthen them by large secessions, perhaps of whole congregations, from our own."
  "Perhaps!" why, my Lords, the evil is already in full action. He proceeds—
  "And the danger—if I ought not rather to say the certain and present evil—does not end there. These proceedings both tend to widen the breach between us and Dissenters, and to stimulate them to more active opposition, and furnish their leaders with an instrument which they will not fail to use for the purpose of exciting general ill-will toward the Church, and weakening her position in the country."
  My Lords, it cannot be denied, nor do I wish to disguise the fact, that, in dealing with these things, we are dealing in a large measure with the symptoms and not with the root of the disease. We may take away the altar, and yet leave the spirit that erected it. We may take away Ritualism and yet leave Sacerdotalism. No doubt this is true. This is the weakness of all repressive laws; but still we must subdue these external abuses, and, while seeking other means to purify the source of the mischief, endeavour to turn to the best account the powers committed to our hands.
  And now, my Lords, in concluding, having thanked you most heartily for the courtesy and patience with which you have listened to me, allow me briefly to say a few words in reference to myself on this occasion. I have at various times been called by various appellations. Perhaps your Lordships will hardly believe that I have sometimes been termed a High Church bigot, while at others I have been described as an irreverent Dissenter. I think neither of these appellations can be fairly assigned to me. It has ever been my heartfelt and earnest desire to see the Church of England the Church of the nation, and especially of the very poorest classes of society, that she might dive into the recesses of human misery and bring out the wretched and ignorant sufferers to bask in the light, and life, and liberty of the Gospel. I have ever desired that in a country, such as our own, where, under freedom of thought and freedom of action, Dissent must ever he found, the Church of England should extend the right hand of fellowship to those who, though they differ from her in matters of discipline, agree with her in the grand and fundamental doctrines of the

  501
  faith, and so advance the great interests of our common Christianity. I have ever desired that the Church of England should in her wisdom, her piety, her strength, and her moderation, be a model to all the nations of the earth. It has ever been my most ardent desire that in all the great dependencies of this vast Empire the Church of England should be powerful and beneficent—that in the East and in the West, in the North and in the South, and in all the regions of the earth, wherever the English name is heard, or English rule is obeyed—in profound gratitude to Almighty God, and in affectionate reverence of their common mother, her children should rise up and call her blessed. This, I know, is the earnest prayer of every one of your Lordships, and may God give it a prosperous issue!
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that having been directly appealed to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he would in a few words answer the questions which had been addressed to him. It was perfectly true that at the meeting of Bishops at Lambeth in February last the subject of Ritualism was not placed on the paper of agenda; but the simple and sole reason for this omission was, that the matter had a short time before been thoroughly discussed, and the views of the Prelates with respect to it had been thoroughly ascertained. As to whether one of the Bishops of the Northern Province had declined to attend the meeting on account of that omission, he did not think that that was the sole reason for his absence. With regard to this subject it must be remembered that Bishops did not possess the almost despotic authority which some persons seemed to imagine. They had not, however, been altogether inactive. In the beginning of last year he publicly stated his own views in the matter, and the next step which was taken, and which involved considerable expense, was to consult certain very distinguished lawyers, whose opinion was that many of the innovations complained of were contrary to law. Opinions, however, had been taken by the Church Union which took a contrary view. At that time, moreover, a suit had been instituted against a clergyman in the diocese of Exeter, and it was thought better to await the issue of those proceedings. He felt bound to state this in vindication
  502
  of the Episcopal Bench, and in proof that they were not so insensible to the gravity of the case as the noble Earl perhaps supposed. With the greater part of the noble Earl's powerful address—and indeed with all the earlier part of it—he fully agreed, and he sympathized very much in his indignation with reference to the quotations which had been read by him. He did not wonder that the noble Earl felt indignant that persons who called themselves members of the Church of England should ridicule and revile the Reformation, should declare it a great blunder, and should speak of her formularies and articles as pregnant with Protestantism and heresy. He was earnestly desirous of putting an end to the practices which prevailed; but he did not think the Bill of the noble Earl would effect that. He confessed he did not believe that this Bill would become law, and, if not, to try to pass it was so much time wasted. Proceedings by Commission would be much more legitimate, and every reflecting member of the Church of England would say that a measure of such importance should be first considered by a Commission, where the laity as well as the clergy would be represented; and, if so considered, it would come recommended by an authority which would be likely to get it passed. Another objection to the Bill was this, that it dealt only with one point, leaving incense, adoration, and other; matters untouched. Now a great deal more was involved than this single point of vestments. The noble Earl had contended that any delay which might take; place would give time to the parties of whom he complained to make great advances. He differed, however, from the noble Earl on that subject. He did not think that they would make great advances. The Royal Commission which had been promised by the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government (the Earl of Derby) would take into consideration several other points besides that touched by the Bill; and the same noble Earl had expressed his determination to advise that the Commission should be recommended to make their Report as speedily as possible. Now, he firmly believed that by such means they would arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on several important points without any great delay. He would therefore ask the noble Earl whether he would not consent to postpone his Bill for two months while the

  503
  Commission was sitting, and then he would see whether their Report would not include all the points involved? Now, he did think that a measure sanctioned by a large body of members of the Church of England would be much more likely to set the matter at rest than anything that could be done by the efforts of a single individual. It was natural for one in his position to wish to see the peace of the Church settled upon a solid basis, and he believed that the course which he had recommended would have that effect.
  EARL NELSONsaid, there were some points which had not been touched by the noble Earl opposite, upon which he wished to make a few remarks. In the first place, he desired to offer his thanks to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) for the very moderate language in which he had stated his views; but, in the next place, he wished to point out that if the first part of his speech, showing the general consensus of the Church of England against the use of vestments was true, it really went to prove that there was no necessity whatever for the Bill. The fact was, the question was now pending in a Court of Law, and if the law was against the use of vestments, what was the necessity of the present Bill? Now, in their zeal against vestments, they should not forget that the Church of England embraced opinions of very various kinds. His own view was that while holding the entire truth it was wise to allow among them those who might hold different extremes of that one truth; and he should think that a great injury would be done to the Church of England if, by any action taken either by the party represented more or less by the noble Earl or the extreme Ritualists, any persons were carelessly driven out of the Church. Another point which ought not to be lost sight of was this. It was often said that the practice and doctrines complained of were Romanistic. But the use of vestments was no necessarily connected with the errors of the Church of Rome. They ought not to forget that though the Church of England denied transubstantiation as taught by the Church of Rome, and did not allow consubstantiation as taught by the Lutherans she did admit and teach a real presence in the Eucharist, although she had abstained from defining what was the exact meaning of the words of our blessed Lord in instituting the Sacrament, And with regard to vestments, they found that they had been used from a very early date. Vestments
  504
  were laughed at by many as being really nothing more than the Roman garments worn by laymen in the time of the old Roman Empire. But it would be impossible to show that when the errors—as he believed them to be—of the Church of Rome were introduced, especially in reference to the Sacraments, any change whatever took place in the vestments or ceremonial. He would remind their Lordships that the vestments were retained at the Reformation, and that to this day many of them were worn in the Swedish Protestant Church. Another thing that was to be borne in mind was this — that the people who had gone into the greatest extremes in this matter had professed their willingness to be governed by the law, and they had actually given up some things which they were told were unlawful. The very fact that the noble Earl had brought in this Bill showed that he thought those people had the law on their side, else there would be no necessity for such a measure. If that were so, let them take care that, while removing an acknowledged evil, they did not make matters worse; because there was nothing which created a greater sympathy for people than dealing with them by ex post facto legislation, and driving them out of the Church when they were really acting according to law. Now, confining himself to the question of vestments altogether, he must say that, in his opinion, one great evil of the matter was the patent fact that so many clergymen had acted without authority; and another evil was that there was so great an indefiniteness in their mode of proceeding that no one could see whither it would lead. He did not think that people would mind so much if they knew exactly what the law was, and how far persons might go; but from the manner in which they had acted nobody could say what the end of it might be. It would, on the other; hand, be a bad thing to have an obsolete law put into effect to force these practices on unwilling congregations. Therefore the great advantage of a Royal Commission would be that the distinct law of the Church in the matter might be defined, and a security provided that no innovation be made without the consent of the congregation. The question of vestments could not be separated from the general question of Ritualism in the Church. It was only an offshoot from the growth of Æsthetical taste among the people, like the desire for choral services and a more

  505
  decorative style of ecclesiastical edifices. The regular growth in the English mind of a love of these things had been further witnessed in our improved street and domestic architecture and decorations. Finding such a feeling in men's minds, the Church sought to meet it, and in many cases had done so effectually. He remembered when many persons used to go to the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. George's for the purpose of hearing the services. The want which was thus expressed had been met by the introduction of choral services into the Church of England; and the consequence was that many people — especially of the middle classes — were induced to attend our churches who were not in the habit of going before. Æstheticism had extended even to the Dissenters themselves; their chapels were being built and ornamented like churches; in many of them floral decorations were used, and the "Te Deum" was chanted. At the time that the Church Congress was held at York, a conference of Dissenters was sitting at Wolverhampton or Birmingham, which discussed different improvements in modes of worship, and canvassed the propriety of using creeds, introducing chanting, and adopting many of the prayers of the Liturgy. If too rigid a line of uniformity were drawn for the purpose of putting down the extreme views which they all regretted to see adopted by some of the clergy of the Church, they would cripple the influence of the Church in trying, side by side with other bodies, to meet these yearnings of the people; while, on the other hand, if they proceeded as the noble Earl proposed to do by this Bill, those of the High Church party who did not now sympathize with the Ritualists might be induced, by the appearance of persecution on the part of the State, to support the views of that extreme party. The best way to deal with the question was by a Royal Commission, before which the views of both sides could be fairly and freely discussed, If that course were adopted, the Ritualists, who had always declared that they had no wish to break the law of the Church, would have no excuse for violating regulations which were defined as the law after the question had been fully argued. It would also be preferable that any measures regulating the practices in the Church should be approved of by Convocation, and, having been approved by the Convocations of York
  506
  and Canterbury, should be finally made law by being passed by Parliament. The 20th Article distinctly declared that the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and the Church is rightly defined by the Houses of Convocation and the Houses of Parliament. No regulation of Convocation could become law without it was approved by Parliament, and thus became the law of the State. The difference between a Royal Commission and direct Parliamentary legislation was very great, since in one case the measure would be the result of the judgment of the Church, and in the other it might be looked on as usurpation, and therefore an act of persecution by the Stale. But, whatever course was adopted, it was necessary to act, as far as possible, according to law, and care must be taken not to attempt to press one set of views upon the Church with the iron hand of Puritanism. He trusted that the matter might be settled upon a proper basis after being fairly referred to Convocation, and that while the requisite alterations in the law were made, care would be taken not to cripple the usefulness of the Church of England in the great work which she had to perform in dealing with indifference and infidelity. In conclusion, he must say that while he did not sympathize with the extreme views of the Ritualists, nor with those expressed in the book alluded to by the noble Earl, yet he could not deny that the St. George's Mission in the East of London, and other works of mercy by the extreme Ritualists, had been productive of immense good.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had omitted to move at the conclusion of his speech that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed for two months. He now begged to rectify that omission.
  Moved, "That the further debate on the said Motion be adjourned to this Day Two Months."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he regretted he could not accede to the most rev. Prelate's request. Were he to consent to postpone the second reading of the Bill for two months he might on attempting then to proceed be told, that the period of the Session was too late to proceed successfully with the Bill. Up to that morning no less than 624 petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill,

  507
  and during the evening that number had been increased by upwards of 200, while not one had been presented against it. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to proceed with the Motion for the second reading.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I should be very sorry were an erroneous impression to prevail in the country as to the feelings of those who sit on this Bench with regard to the noble Earl's Bill. I believe I speak the sentiments of this Bench generally when I say that we are obliged to the noble Earl for the clear and temperate manner in which he has laid this matter before the House to-night. We are all agreed with him in believing that a very great evil indeed exists, and that it is our duty to endeavour to remedy this evil. And, moreover, I believe we are all of opinion that the time has come when this evil must be treated either directly by legislation or in some more effectual manner than it has been dealt with up to the present time. Your Lordships will remember that we used in former days to hear a great deal about "the Church being in danger;"—by which expression was meant that there existed a desire on the part of certain persons to cripple the resources of the Church. The Church has survived that danger; and we were all congratulating ourselves that there never was a time when the Church of England was more active and more devoted to its great work than the present, when suddenly strange phenomena have arisen among us—perhaps not only in the direction to which the noble Earl has pointed, but in other directions also. These are things to make men sad and alarmed; and I am sure that it is the earnest desire of this right rev. Bench and of your Lordships to preserve the Church of England free from all the dangers by which it is threatened from I within, and to enable her to carry on the great work, which, thank God, she has been for some years so assiduously promoting among us. We think that the time has now come for action; but I am not sanguine enough to suppose, after the extracts that have been read by the noble Earl to-night, that either by the carrying of his or of any other Bill, or by the most mature deliberations of any Commission, the evils the noble Earl deplores will suddenly disappear. There are various ways to treat the disease. All that we can do by legislation is to palliate the symptoms we see
  508
  in existence. But we shall do but little unless we can strike at the root of the evil. I am strongly of opinion that we must extend our views to our Universities. By so doing we shall more effectually remedy the evils complained of than by passing Acts of Parliament. I desire to impress this fact upon those whose duty it is to distribute public patronage in our Universities. I should be the last man to wish that any ban should be placed upon one set of opinions or another; but I should wish that every great post which may become vacant in our Universities should be filled by a man whose talents and power to influence the feelings of the young would give him a real influence over those with whom he has to deal. If by adopting this course and filling such posts with really able and influential men who understand the wants of the times the feelings of the youth at the Universities are influenced on the right side, the evils complained of by the noble Earl will not only be palliated, but in this, as in other cases, men's minds have assumed a healthy tone, the sympathy with these practices will disappear, and such opinions as those contained in the extracts which have been read by the noble Earl will be treated with the contempt they deserve. As things stand, however, I am afraid that these opinions are at the present moment very popular among young men. I am afraid that in the University to which I belong there is some reason for the alarm that exists that these opinions are spreading; and my knowledge of young men leads me to suppose that an Act of Parliament will never control their opinions, and that they will not be influenced by the decision of a Royal Commission. I trust, therefore, that we shall not act upon the idea that we can at once eradicate these opinions by any steps we may take in Parliament. Yet I nevertheless agree with the noble Earl that the time has come when we must act in the matter. Such action may not effect a radical cure, but it may do some good. By passing an Act of Parliament, we can, at all events, remove the temptation which has existed for so many years which is offered by the uncertainty of the law on this subject. We—I do not mean the Bishops merely, but the whole country—are very much to blame for having looked quietly on this uncertainty of the law for so long a period. Men are tempted to lean to extreme opinions by the knowledge

  509
  that there is no law to restrain them. Therefore, believing, as I do, that the time has now arrived for action, if the noble Earl for perseveres with his Bill I shall be prepared to fulfil my promise and to support it. Still, I do not believe that mere Acts of Parliament, however carefully prepared, can cure the evil:—and one important defect in the present Bill is that it proposes to deal with one branch in the position it occupies. I believe that only of the subject. My impression is we must go thoroughly into the whole matter, and that can only be done by such a Commission as the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government has promised we shall have. That Commission must extend its investigations to a wide range of subjects. I do not wish that it should touch doctrine; but whatever bears on public worship must come within its sphere. One thing, it appears, would be a necessary result of the deliberations of such a Commission — the law must be made clear. I do not mean that liberty should be altogether constrained — that the whole Church of England must be reduced to absolute uniformity, so that there should not be the slightest difference between the mode of performing Divine worship in one church and the mode of performing it in another—but that liberty shall be legally secured, not licence seized by individuals in the hope that they may escape in immunity from the consequences of their licence. There are many things no law can touch in the outward performance of Divine service. There must be a great range of subjects left to discretion, and the Commission should advise a settlement by Act of Parliament as to settle where that discretion is to lie. At present every clergyman uses his discretion. The Bishop has no power of interference, or a merely nominal power; therefore, any legislation which is to be complete, having settled what the law is, must also strengthen the hands of the central authority whatever it is to be — whether we refer to the Bishop called on by appeal from the laity, or the Bishop subject to the Archbishop, the central authority must be strengthened. No doubt, it must take some time before these points can be carefully considered by the Commission; and the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) may think it better to act even in the small matter now before us than to have any delay: still I hope and I believe that the result of the Commission must be the proposal of another Bill which
  510
  shall deal with the points I have pointed out. My Lords, I repeat we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl for rivetting our attention on the dangerous crisis which has arrived. It is a crisis not only for the Established Church, but for the Church generally — for the nation; and depend upon it if this nation once loses its Protestant character it will suffer very greatly in the position it occupies. I believe that the Church of England has before it at this moment as great a work as ever lay before any Church. It is a time, I think, for anxiety, but not a time for alarm, still less for despondency. Even in these very eccentricities there is some proof of zeal, and zeal is a good thing. No doubt, if we can carefully direct that zeal to proper objects, we have every reason to hope that the great work which lies before the Church of England will be accomplished. This Church more than any other has power to deal with the civilization of this age—to deal with the very dangers civilization causes—it is the Church's duty not to thwart the course of events; but while it follows, at the same time to lead and guide the men of the 19th century, and this I believe our Church can do beyond any other body, either of our Protestant or Roman Catholic brethren.
  THE EARL OF DEVONquite agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that it would be very desirable if a clear definition of the law on this subject could be placed before the public—not a mere short Act of Parliament, but such an exposition as could be drawn up after a full inquiry by a Commission impartially composed, and representing all shades of opinion; and nothing short of a declaration of opinions and of the law so arrived at would be satisfactory. But he should earnestly deprecate any interference with religious liberty, or the introduction of anything which would interfere with perfect liberty of action within the limits of the law — a liberty, perhaps, degenerating sometimes into licence, but still in regard to usage and discipline analogous to many of the formularies of the Church which combine with advantage within the Church men who might on some points widely differ. He could not regard with much favour any attempt at rigid legislation, unless arrived at in a manner to secure the public confidence, and after a due expression of opinion on the part of the clergy. He was not himself an ultra-Ritualist, and although he would allow the exercise of

  511
  every proper liberty to the clergy in exercise of their duties, he thought that innovations on the customary services of the Church should only be introduced with the consent of the laity. For instance, he would not sanction the introduction of vestments, except by the well-ascertained desire of a majority of the regular communicants; but he deprecated this Bill as prejudging one of the subjects to be inquired into by the Commission. He could not conceal from himself that the usages complained of had been introduced by deeply pious, learned, and hardworking men, whose self-devoted labours were directed solely to the good of the community who thought they were justified under the existing law; and, unless the law absolutely required it, it was no light thing to check enthusiasm. It had been said by Lord Macaulay that the Church of England did not know how to deal with enthusiasts. Very serious consequences might arise from unduly fettering the expression of the devotional feelings of pious, warm-hearted men. He therefore said until the law was defined after due inquiry, let them not cripple those liberties which were now accorded to the clergy. It was a matter to be dealt with gently and wisely, not by one-sided interference. The Commission would lead to good if conducted by a body of Gentlemen chosen fairly. All opinions, he hoped, would be represented on it, and if from such a body, after due inquiry, a wisely conceived decision should emanate, he trusted and believed that on the part of the great majority of the clergy a ready acquiescence in the law would be given. Their motto as Christians and as legislators should be In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he participated in the feeling of jealousy which had been expressed against having this matter dealt with by Parliament alone; but he observed that Parliament was now only asked to give effect to the decision of the Church. The canons of the Church and Convocation had already spoken on the subject, and there was no reason for jealousy if Parliament stepped in and confirmed what the canons and Convocation had already declared. The canons of the Church were perfectly explicit, and a Commission could have no authority—what was wanted was a declaratory Act of Parliament. The matter to which the Bill referred was one which most struck the
  512
  public eye and most created indignation. Let them, at all events, remove this scandal from our parish churches. If clergymen chose to introduce the practice complained of in private chapels of their own, then those who chose might go and witness them; but clergymen had no right to flaunt in variously-coloured dresses in the face of parish congregations, and compel them in the parish churches to witness services which, if not illegal, were, at any rate, unknown to the law, as interpreted by the custom of 300 years. If this were a secular case, no difficulty would be opposed to the action of Parliament in the matter. When some one discovered that the wager of battle had never been legally abolished, an Act of Parliament was immediately introduced and an end put by law to that obsolete practice. Why, then, should not an Act of Parliament be passed to put an end to the use of objectionable and obsolete vestments during the ministration of the services of the Church?
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that though he could not, like the right rev. Prelate who presided over the metropolitan diocese, support the Bill now proposed for second reading, it was not because he differed from him, or from any other of his right rev. Brethren, in his estimation of the gravity of the occasion which had called for the proposed remedy. On the contrary, it was because he was most seriously convinced of the most serious gravity of the occasion that he deprecated most earnestly proceeding in Parliament in the manner proposed. The movement at present going on was of a gravity which it was impossible to overrate at the present moment. He knew from his connection with the University of Oxford how great was the danger arising from the tendency of the young mind of England to turn towards the views and usages of that Church which our forefathers had left—the Western branch of the Church—with a new and strange affection. His own attention was being continually called to individual cases in which this strange tendency was to be met with, and a great part of his time was devoted in trying to solve the difficulty of diverting the affections of those who exhibited this tendency from the object to which they were inclined. This feeling was widely spread in the more religious part of the young mind of England; but he did not believe that it was confined to the Church of England alone. He believed that the influence

  513
  which was passing over the religious mind of England manifested itself greatly among those who dissented from as well as among those who belonged to the Church of England, and was turning the minds of men towards new forms of service, and towards more stimulating and material forms of worship. Therefore it was, he said, that the present was a grave and serious occasion for those who believed with him that a greater misfortune could not befal this happy land than any faltering in adhesion to those true doctrines of the Reformation which our forefathers proclaimed, and that no greater evil could befal the Reformed Faith in Europe than that this mighty pillar of Apostolic truth should be shaken in any manner. But the more he felt apprehensions at the greatness of the evil, the more he dreaded danger from an attempt to meet the disease by insufficient remedies. It seemed to him that if in the case of a grave disease they called in a physician who proposed to try some trifling remedy which it was shown could at the most excite the patient, and perhaps produce irritation with symptoms that might produce serious results, that it would be giving ill advice if they advised that such a man should be allowed to attempt a cure. Now, this appeared to him to be the very character of the Bill before their Lordships. No doubt the present Bill had been introduced with the sincere desire to help the Church of England; but before giving way to a desire, however strong, the reason should be satisfied that the course proposed to be adopted was one that ought to be pursued. If this Bill would have the tendency that he had described upon the minds of men—if it were, as he believed, excited and nourished by the general uncertainty of the law in reference to a multitude of observances, which were really the smallest portion of the error to be dealt with—then he hoped that their Lordships would not sanction the measure. He said that this particular evil was one of the least, because it was one which had spread least in the land; for he did not believe in the correctness of the number of churches where these practices had existed which had been stated that night. It was not spreading at the present moment; but people were awaiting and abiding a declaration of the whole Church of England on the question at issue. Supposing legislation was to come, it was of the utmost moment that it should come in the gravest, most deliberate, and most constitutional
  514
  manner; and he thought that nothing was more unwise in these matters, which touched things so delicate as the morbid feelings of the minds of men, as to apply a remedy which would be sure to be resisted on account of the mode in which it was administered. He approved the proposition to issue a Royal Commission. What had been the result of the last Commission? All opinions in the Church were fully and fairly represented in it; the Commissioners went through the whole of the questions submitted to them calmly and deliberately. It was long before they could come to an united conclusion; but they did come to such a conclusion, and what was the effect of it? Why, that the Church at large accepted it without any irritation or resistance. If, however, an attempt had been made in the first instance to deal with it by a Bill in Parliament, the whole Church would have been convulsed, and the attempt would probably have led to a great secession. One answer to the objection to proceeding by legislation was, that the mode of proceeding by Bill was the most expeditious; but that he must beg leave to deny—and for this reason:—Let him suppose that their Lordships were that evening to agree to the second reading of the measure before them, it must, after it had gone through the remaining stages, be sent down to the other House. And was it desirable, he would ask, that it should there give rise to discussions such as were likely to be provoked by the statements contained in the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), which, however essential they might be to the establishment of his case, were yet scarcely calculated to help out the reign of truth, and peace, and love, and spiritual power, in this country? He trusted therefore that his noble Friend would not press his Motion to a division, for the result might lead the public out of doors to imagine that their Lordships had come to a conclusion either in favour of or against those novelties of which he complained, whereas the real point at issue was the selection of the safest and most hopeful way of making their common resistance to innovations which they all condemned. He should regret to see the Question put on that account; and he saw, he must confess, the elements not only of delay, but of considerable danger in the mode of proceeding which the noble Earl proposed for adoption. It would, he was afraid, stir up the minds of those against whom it was

  515
  directed, irritate them, and set them in the posture of opposition, when what was most to be desired was that they should be induced to assume the reasonable posture of listening to what was to be said on the subject. The real question for their Lordships to consider, then, was how they could lead the mind of England as one man without crippling their religious liberty, and keep out the entrance of great religious evils into the Church? To that question the history of all mankind supplied an answer. All history showed that it was not by hasty or sudden legislation upon particular and minor points of a great controversy that the question could be settled. What was the great controversy—was it whether men in a purple dress should preach the Reformation, or whether men in white surplices should preach the doctrines of the Church of Rome? Was it wanted to get a party triumph; and would so doing give aid to preserve the Reformation? Entertaining that view he most earnestly begged of the noble Earl to listen to the suggestion of his most rev. Friend (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and not press the House to divide on that occasion. He fearlessly appealed to the moderation and the calmness of both sides of the House to allow a Commission to prepare the way for legislation. It was the deep conviction of his mind that it was in that way the spread of the evils which they sought to redress would be most effectually prevented. He called upon them to remember that the English people never had borne, and he trusted never would bear, the semblance of persecution; and also to remember that the Church of England was not a church of compromise, but of comprehension, embracing within her fold men of every view, between those who absolutely denied her primary principles and those who held the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, which she had expressly condemned. In that comprehensiveness it was that her strength lay. Let not their Lordships, then, without being aware of what they were doing, by legislation, give a triumph to one party in the Church over another. It was no secret, and nothing could be gained by denying the fact, that there were in the Church of England men who went near to Rome and near to Geneva; but the safety of that Church, which was the greatest bulwark of truth, would, in his opinion, best be consulted by keeping both and expelling neither. That end, he would add, could
  516
  only be accomplished by great forbearance, and by using every method of repressing the evils whose existence he deplored before having recourse to harsh legislation, He, for one, had no sympathy with the objection to the Bill referred to by the noble Earl, grounded on the fact that it was proposed by a layman. He had no wish to see legislation on the subject confined to the Episcopal Bench. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the circumstance that the noble Earl, in the universal estimation of the country, was connected with one party among the parties of which the Church of England was made up. For that he, for one, did not attribute to the noble Earl the slightest blame. Every earnest man must, he thought, at the present moment connect himself with one or the other of the different sets of opinions which prevailed in the Church. It was the indifferent who stood apart, and he liked the noble Earl all the better because he was heartily in earnest in maintaining his own particular view. But then his identification with one party would inevitably tend to create in the minds of those who differed from him the suspicion that by his measure he sought to bring legislatorial power to the aid of the former to their disadvantage. This was far from being a Bishop's view only; for the Report of a Committee of laymen who were members of a conference on the question of Ritualistic practices, who as a body belonged to the Low Church party who had considered the whole subject in conference after conference, and many of whom he esteemed highly, showed that they had come to the conclusion that hasty and sudden legislation would do infinite mischief to the cause they had at heart, would not tend to prevent excessive Ritualism, and would create a dangerous re-action. Their advice was—
  "That an invitation be sent to the leading members, lay and clerical, of the Church of England, without distinction of parties, requesting them to join a deputation to the Prime Minister for the purpose of urging on the Government the necessity of such legislation as we have described, and inasmuch as the appointment of a Royal Commission is likely to afford a satisfactory solution of the question at issue, with less irritation to the feelings of those who are opposed to any change, we recommend that the Premier be requested to advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission which shall enter into the propriety of amending the rubric complained of and rendering the enforcement of Church discipline in such matters prompt and inexpensive."
  The Report which is signed by Mr. J. B. Smith, chairman of the conference, and

  517
  Mr. R. Culling Hanbury, the hon. Secretary, who had been snatched away in the midst of a career abounding in good, went on to say—
  "We consider it undesirable that the conference should issue a prosecution, and undesirable to proceed by immediate legislation."
  In the spirit of that advice his vote should be given that evening. If the Bill were at once pressed to a division, he could not help regarding legislation as being hurried on too hastily by impetuous minds who, overlooking the difficulties which lay in their path, would thus really hinder themselves and others from arriving at the conclusion they desired; and, still more, perhaps occasion divisions in the Church of England, the keeping of which one and undivided was the dearest wish, he believed, of every Member of their Lordships' House: and with this wish he connected the dearest interests of this country.
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAMsaid, his right rev. Brother who had just spoken seemed altogether to ignore those who were suffering from that development of Ritualism. Their case was a most urgent one; and what made the matter most serious was that they continually read in the newspapers of congregations being in some instances disturbed and in others scattered by the adoption of these practices. The reason assigned for that state of things was that the clergyman of the parish felt himself bound in conscience to follow his own interpretation of the Rubric given at the beginning of the Prayer Book. But not only were these Ritualistic practices scattering and disturbing congregations in different parts of the country, they were also weakening Church movements in every direction. People believed that the Church was drifting into Romanism. A layman in the metropolis who had given much time and labour to objects connected with the Church of England had told him that, for the first time in all his experience, when he invited contributions from merchants and others in the City, he found an unwillingness manifested to respond to his appeal owing to a doubt whether the money subscribed might not be used for Romish purposes in a short time. Ultra-ritualism was alienating many sincere members of the Church, and driving them over to Dissent. He had lately read of a conference of Dissenting ministers held in London to consider whether they should not introduce into their chapels the form of prayer used by the Church of England;
  518
  and one of the most eminent of them urged the adoption of the course because there were so many young men in his congregation who had left the Church from disgust at its ultra-Ritualism. The evil, then, was a most pressing one; and day by day the Church was suffering from it. How could it best be met? Surely the remedy which was most likely to be prompt was the best. Would a Commission afford an expeditious remedy? If the Commission reported in almost the same language as the terms of that Bill, what would be the use of waiting for it? On the other hand, if it reported differently, its recommendations could not be adopted at once, but must be previously referred to the consideration of the Clergy and of Convocation, and must also, he supposed, obtain by some means the assent of the Church in Ireland. All that would necessarily take a long time—two years at least, he should think. And in the meanwhile they would probably be playing into the hands of the very persons whose novelties they were seeking to check. What was the language of all their organs? Why, give us two years, and in that time we shall have so indoctrinated the upper classes of society—they put aside the middle and lower classes—that Parliament will not dare to adopt any measure which would check our onward progress in Ritualism. Look, then, at the Bill of the noble Earl. It was true it was a very simple one. His right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Oxford) said it touched a very small point; but he (the Bishop of Durham) believed it touched the very essence of the matter. The introduction of these vestments was and ever had been the first step in the downward course which these unwise clergymen were pursuing. In itself it might be a little matter whether a clergyman were a purple or a white vestment; but if the garment was symbolical, and intended to represent that the clergy were a sacerdotal order, fulfilling a priestly and sacrificial office, it was inconsistent with the doctrines of our Reformed Church, and was a close approximation to the Church of Rome. It was not therefore a trifling matter, and he thought the measure before them was a most essential one to meet the real evil which existed. And when his right rev. Brother spoke of its introduction as the movement of a party for contracting the breadth and limiting the liberty of the Church, he maintained that it was not so, but that it simply adopted and made law

  519
  what had been the practice of the Church of England from time immemorial. There must be laws to guide them in the government of the nation, and those laws contracted the liberty of this individual or that individual, in order to establish the liberty of the whole people. He had no doubt that if a Bill were introduced to forbid the meeting of political bodies in the Parks, their Lordships would not maintain that that was a contraction of the rights of the people of the metropolis, but the establishment and confirmation of the right of the entire community to enjoy the Parks for recreation and amusement. So, in their Church, they needed fixed rules and fixed dogmas. Contract those rules and dogmas too much, and he allowed that they would turn their Church into a sect; but, on the other hand, let them make her limits so wide and her rules so lax that they would include everybody, and the whole of her vitality and essence would expire. Believing that Bill to be a measure calculated to meet an urgent and daily increasing evil; believing it to be a measure to preserve the liberties of the whole of England, and the party of order, the party of uniformity, the party which loved the Church of England, against the small party which was seeking to Romanize her, he should cordially vote for its second reading. And while he sincerely hoped that the Commission would deal with other matters, he strongly deprecated its dealing with so simple a matter as this.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, in justification of what had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), that the question of Ritualism had been the subject of discussion at the Episcopal gatherings both in 1865 and 1866. He was not at liberty to say more than that, owing to various causes, no decision had in either case resulted. When, in the spring of 1867, the most rev. Prelate, with his usual courtesy, invited his brethren to meet under his roof, he noticed, with regret, that the subject in question was not on the agenda. He stated to his Grace his reluctance to be present under such circumstances. This elicited a kind note of remonstrance. On this, out of deference to his Grace, he attended the first meeting of the Prelates. But when he found that the decision which he lamented was still in force, he left the assembly, when, after but a few minutes' sitting, the Bishops dispersed to attend upon Her Majesty at the opening of Parliament and
  520
  did not return. He earnestly hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill before them, for delay would be fatal to the interests and welfare of the Church. It was too certain that there existed in this country an organized conspiracy which, with a consistency of purpose, a perseverance of action, and a fertility of resource worthy of a far better cause, was carried on in order to restore the system of Popery in this country, and effect what had been called "the subjugation of an Imperial race."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYwas understood to give an explanation of the circumstances alluded to by the Bishop of Durham; but his Grace's remarks were inaudible.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think I should hardly perform my duty in remaining altogether silent on this important question. It is with great regret that I find myself called upon to divide on this subject. I deeply regret that my noble Friend who introduced this question (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has been unable to accede to the very reasonable proposition of the most rev. Prelate to postpone for a short period the second reading of this Bill, until the Commission shall have had time to consider and deliberate. Let it be understood, however, at all events, what is the real subject on which we are going to divide. We are not about to divide on the vindication or condemnation of these Ritualistic practices. If that were the question there would be found very slight differences among your Lordships; because I believe there is hardly a man among us who does not deeply regret the injury done to the Church of England which results from these innovations, and the discordant controversies which they occasion throughout the country, and from the erroneous doctrines and practices of which they have become symbolical, and which have propagated disunion. I hope, therefore, it will be understood that the question we are now discussing is not whether or not these Ritualistic practices ought to be opposed or put down, but what is the best mode of attaining that object, and carrying out the convictions of the country without at the same time embittering the feelings of those whose conduct in this matter is condemned. I cannot but think that such a discussion will be infinitely better conducted by a Commission composed of the clergy and laity, deliberating quietly and giving their opinions

  521
  calmly, rather than by this and especially the other House of Parliament, where, if, it should go down to them, it is impossible the question should be dealt with in that spirit of calmness necessary for its due consideration; whereas, if it were considered by a Commission, there would be an immunity from that party feeling and polemic discussion which would interfere to prevent the calm and deliberate opinions of the House from being expressed. My noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) said that this was a very plain and simple question, because it was merely giving the sanction of Parliament to the clear and undoubted law of the Church. But my noble Friend is begging the question. This is far from being the case. If the question is so clear and plain, why does the 3rd clause provide that all canons contrary to this Act shall have no force whatever? The Bill proposes to deal with only the narrow fringe of a very important question. Whether you agree to it or not it will settle nothing. It may decide as to the use of the white surplice, but it does not touch the question of incense or the elevation of the sacrificial elements. But these are all substantial parts of the practices which it is desired to put down. These questions might be dealt with fairly and honestly by a Commission where they may be fairly heard and decided by impartial arbiters, and their decision would be attended with infinitely more satisfaction than a decision come to in a Parliamentary atmosphere. For these reasons I deeply regret that my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) should find it necessary to proceed to a second reading of this Bill; because, being fully convinced in my own mind that the safest and most expeditious course of dealing with the question will be by a Commission, preparatory to legislation, I shall, if compelled, vote for the Motion of the most rev. Prelate postponing the further consideration of the Bill for two months. Meanwhile, I pledge myself that the Royal Commission shall be issued with as little delay as possible. If we do come to a division, I trust it will be understood that those who vote on one side or the other will not be taken as sanctioning the practices complained of; but that it will be seen that this is simply a difference of opinion as to the mode of proceeding for the purpose of effecting an object which is alike desired by both sides of the House. I must vote for the Amendment of the
  522
  most rev. Prelate, and I shall very much regret if in doing so I am supposed to approve the practices complained of.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, the Lord Bishop of Oxford—
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I rise to order. The noble Marquess has no right, in the presence of any Peer, to call him by name in debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHmust apologize for his inadvertence; but as several right rev. Prelates had spoken, he did not know how in any other way to make his meaning clear. He was about to say that the Royal Commission on Subscriptions to the Articles which had been so much extolled by the right rev. Prelate had abrogated an oath which the Sovereign, as head of the Irish Church, and the clergy of that Church were obliged to take against transubstantiation. This led him to feel some distrust as to the possible proceedings of a Commission, should one be appointed.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 46: Majority 15.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ely, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Carew, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Colonsay, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Derby, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Devon, E.

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

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Erne, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Lucan, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Nelson, E.

  Rollo, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Lifford, V.

  Southampton, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  523

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Normanby, M.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Albemarle, E.

  Belper, L.

  Bandon, E.

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

  Chichester, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Farnham, L.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Poltimore, L.

  Cork, &c., Bp.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Durham, Bp.

  Portman, L.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Raleigh, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  London, Bp.

  Ossory, &c., Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Wentworth, L.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to continue and amend the Acts relating to contagious or infectious Diseases among Cattle and other Animals—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 98.)
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.