Sitting of 22 April 1868

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Bristol, v. Sir Samuel Morton Peto, baronet, Manor of Northstead: for Stirling District of Burghs, v. Lawrence Oliphant, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Brought; Ferry Provisional Orders Confirmation* [90].
Second Reading—Burials (Ireland) [5]; Sunday Trading [40]; Canongate Annuity Tax [60], negatived.
Committee—Metropolis Subways* [41]; Legitimacy Declaration (Ireland)* [87].
Report—Metropolis Subways* [41]; Legitimacy Declaration (Ireland)* [87].
Considered as amended—Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites)* [18].

BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 5.]
(Mr. Monsell, Mr. Sullivan.)
BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 5.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MONSELL, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said he thought he could show that the grievances to which it referred were so serious that even in the present Session they ought
  1068
  to be redressed. At the present time the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, though representing only about one-ninth of the population of that country, had power to prevent any religious service but that of their own Church from being performed in the parish burial-grounds. This matter was seriously complained of, not only by Roman Catholics but also by Presbyterians and by the members of other religious bodies. He was sure that no one would desire that Ireland should continue to be, as she was now, the only Christian country in which the great majority of the people were committed to the grave without any religious service. He understood that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) intended to move that the present Bill should extend to England; he (Mr. Monsell) feared that additional difficulties would be placed in his way if the English were mixed up with the Irish grievance. The present law of burials in Ireland was founded upon a Bill passed under the auspices of Lord Plunket in 1824, which Bill provided that every person, whatever his religion, should have a right to interment in the churchyard of the parish where he died; but that no religious service should be performed at the grave without the permission of the Protestant incumbent. If the incumbent refused his sanction he was required to state in writing his reasons for so refusing, and to forward a copy of that statement to his Bishop, who was to transmit it to the Lord Lieutenant. Lord Plunket's intention as to the effect of the law was not doubtful; he stated that it would be mandatory upon incumbents to grant the permission asked for; and his intention, and also that of the Legislature, was that the application should be merely formal, and that it should be always assented to by the incumbent. Indeed, Lord Plunket gave as his reason for supporting the measure, that it could not be borne that Protestant clergymen should permit human bodies to be thrown into the ground like so many dogs. The question then arose, "Has the intention of Lord Plunket and the Legislature been carried out or not?" This question could be answered only in the negative. There was the highest authority—that of Archdeacon Stopford—for saying that "The Irish custom does not usually bring the Roman Catholic priest to the grave," and Dr. Doyle supplied the reason when he said that "Priests and prelates would rather be condemned to labour at a treadmill than

  1069
  ask for licences for interments." But when, by an overstrained humility, Roman Catholic priests had made application, they had frequently been refused. He would quote a remarkable instance which occurred at Enniskillen, the living of which was in the gift of Trinity College, and its incumbents were, generally, men of some eminence. There is a cemetery in the parish called Pubble—there has been no church there for eighty years; it is almost exclusively used by Roman Catholics. In twenty-five years there had been only five Protestant burials there. Within the last few years there had been three rectors of the parish—Mr. Maude, Mr. Magee, the present Dean of Cork, a man of the highest mark, and Mr. Greer; but though the burial-ground was far removed from the parish church, all three rectors had, in every instance, refused applications asking permission to read the burial service of the Roman Catholic Church. He might be permitted to say, with reference to the statement that Roman Catholic priests were unwilling to make an application to a Protestant incumbent, that the Protestant clergymen were accustomed, as might be seen by the placards now about Dublin in connection with the May meetings, to speak in a very gross way with regard to the Roman Catholic Church. But, the necessity of asking the incumbent's consent, however, was not only hard upon Roman Catholics, but also upon members of other religious bodies. Though the House had lately heard of the identity of feeling which existed between the Presbyterians and Protestant Episcopalians in Ireland, applications on the part of Presbyterian ministers had been refused. Lately an application to be allowed to perform a burial service was made by the Rev. E. Lyttle, a Presbyterian minister, at Donnybrook; it was refused, and the matter was brought before the Presbytery of Dublin, where Mr. Lyttle stated that—
  "For some unknown cause many of the clergy of the Church of England about Dublin and through the South have, during the last three or four years, considered it necessary to assert their dignity and rights in this miserable and odious way. In all directions our clergy are being excluded from the parish graveyards. It is impossible to hear any longer with a state of things which is becoming worse, for such refusals are becoming the usage and the rule."
  The Wesleyans met with similar treatment. He had large quantities of correspondence, showing that contumelious refusals followed the most humble applications. He
  1070
  would give one case. In November, 1863, the Rev. Edward Best, a Wesleyan minister at Armagh, asked permission of the incumbent to perform the funeral service over a Mrs. Miller, and received this answer—
  "Sir, I cannot grant the request made in your name; but I will be ready to perform the funeral service of the Church if called on by the friends of the late Mrs. Miller."
  An appeal was made to the Archbishop, and he said—
  "The Act of Parliament leaves it entirely at the discretion of the incumbent to grant or refuse the permission, and gives the Bishop no right to interfere. You will observe that I have done all that the law requires or permits me to do in this case."
  The House would recollect Lord Plunket's explanation of the law. He said that the words enabling permission to be given were mandatory; yet in this case neither incumbent or Bishop so treated it. An appeal to the Bishop was made, and the grievance was not redressed. In February, 1866, the Rev. Mr. Quarry, Wesleyan minister in the county of Kerry, received a peremptory refusal. When he attempted to perform the service outside the graveyard, it was very near being attended by serious consequences. But a more extraordinary case was one which occurred in the county of Galway. George Mitchell died, having previously specially requested that his minister, the Rev. W. B. Le Bat, should conduct his funeral service. The rector, however, would not consent, and (he quoted Mr. Le Bats words) "assisted by a mob of missionaries and other persons, stopped the procession to the grave, and there was a great deal of disturbance." A memorial upon the matter was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, who referred it to the Bishop, who sent it to the rector, and the latter returned it to the Lord Lieutenant; so that, as Mr. Butt said, the parties, instead of getting redress or satisfaction of any kind, were baffled, disappointed, and annoyed. He thought that he had said enough to show that there was a serious grievance, and that the intention of Lord Plunket and the Legislature in passing the Act of 1824 had been defeated. It had been supposed that Lord Lieutenants and Bishops would secure the carrying out of the intentions of the Legislature. It appeared that Lord Lieutenants and Bishops were unwilling or unable to control uncharitable or crotchety incumbents. The remedy which this Bill proposed was a simple one — that in the case of

  1071
  burials of persons not belonging to the Established Church in the parish burial-grounds, the priests or ministers of the denomination to which the deceased belonged should have the right to perform the burial service of that denomination. The Bill did not in any way interfere with the rights of the parochial clergy to the freehold of the churchyards; all it provided was that the national burial-grounds should be freely used by the nation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monsell.)
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he regretted that he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). He should, however, regret still more if his motives for doing so were misunderstood. He was therefore anxious to state in the briefest and most temperate language the objections which he entertained to the measure. His right hon. Friend had made a most ingenious speech in support of his Bill, and had drawn off the attention of the House from its objectionable features. The right hon. Gentleman alleged that the objects which Lord Plunket had in view when he introduced his measure upon this subject had been frustrated by the clergy, but he (Mr. Lefroy) could not admit this to be the case. He deemed it necessary to call the attention of the House to the advances which had been made in this matter of late years by the enactment of measures in favour of the Roman Catholics—measures at which he rejoiced. In the reign of William III. the Roman Catholics were deprived of the right of burial even in the monasteries or grounds adjacent, and a penalty of £10 was enacted against any violation of that law. In the reign of George IV. a Bill was introduced by Lord Plunket, the object of which was to do away with that prohibition, and throw open all those burial-places to Roman Catholics. The Act of Will. III. forbade the performance of burial service by Catholic priests. Lord Plunket's Act removed this difficulty also, and gave power to the Protestant incumbents, on the application of a Roman Catholic priest, or Nonconformist minister, to grant to the priest or minister permission to perform the burial ceremony in churchyards over individuals of his communion. The application for leave, as well as the reply of the incumbent, was to be made in writing; the object being to protect the
  1072
  rights of the Church, to secure as far as possible the proper and uninterrupted performance of the burial service, and also that if a refusal were given, it should not be upon unreasonable or trivial grounds. But that was not all; the Bill also provided that in case of leave being refused by the incumbent copies of the application and the reply should be forwarded to the Bishop of the diocese, and transmitted by him to the Lord Lieutenant. It would, therefore, be seen that every security had been given to secure to the Roman Catholics the privilege intended to be given to them by Lord Plunket's Act. In a few cases, clergymen might have withheld permission, but the fault, if any had been the priest's, in neglecting to avail himself of the remedy prescribed by the Act. He was not in possession of information with respect to all the cases referred to by his right hon. Friend; but with regard to Enniskillen, he held in his hand the correspondence which had taken place with the Rev. Mr. Greer, the incumbent, who had but a short time before entered upon his office. The first letter of Mr. Greer was in answer to an application that the Roman Catholic priest should be allowed to come in his robes, and was to the effect that he would make inquiries, and if it could be arranged without inconvenience, he would gladly give permission. On inquiry, however, Mr. Greer was obliged to refuse leave for the proposed burial, as he found that the graveyard was overcrowded, and that it could not take place without disturbing the remains of persons already interred, and thereby causing much pain to their relations. The rev. gentleman expressed his regret at this circumstance, and suggested that a subscription should be immediately commenced for the purchase of additional ground; and he said he should himself be most happy to contribute. The rev. gentleman not only was justified in what he did, but must be considered to have acted with great kindness and prudence. He (Mr. Lefroy) regretted that difficulties existed in any case. He should rejoice to see all differences of opinion forgotten at the grave, and that all those who mourned over their deceased relatives and friends should be allowed to assist at that religious service which was most agreeable to their feelings. But at the same time, he did not think that the Established clergy could consistently give up their rights in this matter. In the first place, the churchyard was in the nature of

  1073
  a freehold vested in the clergy and churchwardens, who were answerable for the care of it. He denied that the Roman Catholics laboured under any grievance in this respect. The necessity which the existing law imposed of asking permission of the incumbent for the performance of religious service over the grave was not really an obstacle to such performances. The practice was, as a general rule, to grant the permission sought; and what was the use of encouraging persons to assume a right in opposition to the clergy, which the clergy willingly conceded in all ordinary cases as a matter of courtesy? Moreover, there would be danger of collision, if, without any notice or arrangement, Roman Catholic processions had a right to enter the ground and perform religious ceremonies, at a time when, perhaps, Protestant service was going on. It would form a perpetual ground of dispute and irritation, and would, in all probability, lead to rioting and outrage. As to the Wesleyans, individuals might have made complaints; but he was informed that the great body of them were satisfied with the present arrangement. For the reasons he had just given, he felt it his duty to enter his protest against the propositions of his right hon. Friend. Looking at the state of the House, he saw no advantage in dividing against the second reading; but he should certainly oppose the further progress of the Bill in its present shape.
  MR. PIMwas glad that the hon. Member for the University of Dublin did not intend to divide the House. He hoped that the House would unanimously agree to the second reading of the Bill. There were many cases in which a clergyman would believe it to be his duty to refuse the permission sought; while, at the same time, no real ground could be urged why it should not be given. A large number of Roman Catholics in Ireland had been buried for centuries in the parochial burial-grounds; and it was very galling to a Roman Catholic that he was obliged to get permission for the priest to read the service over the remains of a relative. But Protestant Dissenters complained on this subject as well as Roman Catholics. He had a few days since presented a petition from the Presbyterians of Dublin, in which they asked that "they should no longer be subject to this grievance, which they conceived to be as inconsistent with the spirit of the age as it is uncongenial to that of the Gospel." He held in his hand a
  1074
  letter from a Wesleyan Methodist minister strongly protesting against the continuance of an irritating law, and stating that his "brethren felt much as he did." The Bill would be received in Ireland with general satisfaction; and he ventured to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick would be able to pass it through the House without any serious opposition. If any Amendments were required they could be introduced in Committee.
  MR. GREENEsaid, he could not allow the Bill to pass through another stage without entering his strongest protest against it. He felt that the time had come when it was the duty of that House to watch narrowly the progress of events. So far as he could form an opinion upon this subject it did not appear to him that there was any practical grievance affecting the Roman Catholics. He thought that the passing of the present measure would lead to scenes in Ireland which they would all deprecate. Although he was willing to give every liberty to the Roman Catholics, consistently with the security of the Established Church and its rights, he could not yet fail to remember the narrow views of the Romish Church, which interdicted all liberty of conscience and all freedom of action in its members. He said they were advancing towards a state of things that demanded their most serious consideration. To allow the Roman Catholic Church all the privileges of the Church of England was inconsistent with the maintenance of the principles of the Reformation or the national religion. This measure, if passed, would let in the keen edge of the wedge to be followed by further aggression. So long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he would raise his voice against any proposition for the progress of the Romish Church. The hierarchy of that Church not only sought for greater spiritual power in the country, but also for temporal power. One concession after another had been given them by Protestant England with a view to conciliation. Let the people of England mark well what was going on, and take warning in time. Although he should run the risk of being called illiberal, he should certainly feel it his duty if a division took place to vote against the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, this Bill for Ireland was the same in substance as the Bill which had been introduced for England

  1075
  on behalf of the Protestant Dissenters by Sir Morton Peto, and which was discussed upon the Motion for its second reading on the 15th of April, 1863. The House, after a mature consideration of its principle, rejected that Bill by a majority of 125. In 1861 the subject had been also before the House; but the proposal of that day was rejected by a small majority, because the division upon it was taken unexpectedly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick now made a similar proposal for Ireland on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was perfectly understood that the right hon. Gentleman on all these subjects represents the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland. He (Mr. Newdegate) wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman this simple proposition. The House was perpetually told that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was an aggrieved body. He asked in what respect were they an aggrieved body? He could not understand how they could be considered aggrieved; for the course of legislation had of late years been one continual system of concession to their demands, unless it was assumed that the whole of the ecclesiastical property in Ireland had once belonged to them, and that it ought now to be restored to them. ["No. no!"] He said that that was the ground assumed — not so strongly in that House as out of that House. The grievance everywhere stated by the organs of the Roman Catholic hierarchy was, that the ecclesiastical property of Ireland had been taken from them. Every man who reads the newspapers—every man connected with the Press knows this. It was a principle publicly proclaimed by them out-of-doors. It was, therefore, plain that what the Roman Catholic hierarchy now demanded was restitution of all that ecclesiastical properly which they assert had once belonged to them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite might shake his head at this statement; but he must know very well that this was a principle laid down by the Roman Catholic newspapers and publications. This was the grievance put forward by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He denied that those complaints came from the Roman Catholic laity. The former asserted that the ecclesiastical property now held by our Church in Ireland was taken from them some 200 or 300 years ago, and that it should now be restored to them. If they would not, in the case of the Church of Ireland, admit the possession for 100 years as establishing a
  1076
  right, which was the rule under the canon law of Rome as regarded such rights, he wished to know to what extent that principle of restitution might not be carried? Another grievance was that the confiscated estates were held by the descendants of those to whom they had been granted by the Sovereign at the time that these estates were confiscated 200 or 300 years ago. Well, he asked whether the House was prepared to meet that assumed grievance, and to disturb the settlement of property in Ireland? Those grievances hung together, and they would never hear the end of them so long as they encouraged the idea that they were willing to gratify these claimants, by concessions, gifts, and largesses—to subvert the tenure and title not only of ecclesiastical property, but of all property alleged to have been confiscated centuries ago, and now held by Protestant owners. He put this matter plainly, because he confessed he was tired of hearing of those grievances, which were perpetually stated out-of-doors, and were acted upon without being avowed in that House. He now came to the consideration of this Bill. If it were deemed just and wise on the part of this House to reject the proposal made on behalf of the Dissenting body in this country, with a similar object in view as the measure before the House, with what consistency or justice could they assent to the proposal now made by the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland? They all knew that special facilities had been granted by law for the accession and preservation of graveyards by the Roman Catholic community. Acts of Parliament had also been passed to provide cemeteries to be open to all religious denominations in Ireland. Nothing, however, would satisfy the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but to gain possession of the property now held by members of the Established Church. They said that the Established Church in Ireland was an insult. Now, he knew at that moment that negotiations were going on through our Foreign Office to obtain sites in Spain for the burial of Protestants, and up to the present time the Government of Spain had refused their assent to such applications. Wherever the Roman Catholic Church obtained command, as in Spain, she would forbid the burial of any Protestant in any of her cemeteries. He would take an early opportunity of asking for the production of the Correspondence in order to verify his statement. He would mention the particulars of a case which occurred

  1077
  in Galway, and which had a bearing upon this subject. A College had been founded in Galway by Edward VI. Some years ago it was broken up, and the property divided into two or three rectories by the Ecclesiastical Commission. A Protestant gentleman having property in Ireland purchased the advowsons of those rectories. The clergy of the Church of England had shown themselves extremely tolerant as to the use of two graveyards which were not immediately connected with these churches. They permitted the Roman Catholic priests the free use of those graveyards, exacting no payment whatever from them, which they might reasonably have done. What was the result now? Those Roman Catholic priests had obtained a very considerable income by possessing themselves of these graveyards, which belonged to the Protestant Church, and it might happen that they would refuse to allow Protestants to be buried in those graveyards. As much intolerance of principle was shown in Ireland by the Catholic priests as was practised by the Catholic Government and hierarchy of Spain. He could not see how the House could justify to itself concessions to the pretended grievances on this subject put forth by the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, when they knew that those very meek and humble petitioners were really the most aggressive and intolerant when they had the power of being so. By assenting to this Bill they would be making a concession to the Church of Rome which they refused to all religious denominations other than the Church of England in this country. Hon. Members might fancy that they were proving themselves very liberal; but the country would understand their motives for assenting to this Bill. The people would say it was passed under the pressure of apprehended disturbances in Ireland. They would feel that that House was endeavouring to propitiate those whom they never could satisfy without sacrificing the rights of property and the principles of justice in Ireland.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would not have interfered in this discussion, if it had not been for the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who seemed to be under a singular misapprehension, both as to the question before the House, and the scope of the Bill proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). The hon. Member compared
  1078
  the present Bill with the Bill which had been introduced and defeated in 1863. Now, there was no sort of similarity between the two proposals. The Bill of 1863, which referred to English Nonconformists, was intended to give to those who dissented from the Church of England a right of interment in the graveyards which belonged to that Church. That right had been already conferred on Irish Roman Catholics and Irish Dissenters in 1824, by Lord Plunket's Act; and, therefore, it was not now sought to confer any right of burial. The hon. Member seemed to look upon this proposal as another concession to Roman Catholics, and as such he, of course, opposed it. He (Mr. O'Beirne) must remind him that if it was a concession, it was one which applied to all sects of Christians, and gave them equal rights to have the burial services performed over the graves of their dead. Surely such a reasonable enactment could not be seriously opposed. His right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick in quoting the Act of 1824, had correctly called it a mandatory Act. Lord Plunket, beyond all question, so understood it, as shown by his own words just read to the House. But there was still stronger evidence to be found within the Act itself, as he would show by reading the 5th Section, that Section enacted—
  "That if such permission [referring to the permission for burial] be in any case withheld, the cause of withholding the same shall be specially and distinctly declared in writing by such officiating minister of the Church of England, one part of which written declaration shall forthwith be delivered to the person making such application as aforesaid, and one other part thereof shall be transmitted to the Bishop of the diocese in which such churchyard shall be situated, and shall be by him forthwith forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, signed by the registrar, &c."
  Now, he contended that that Section showed very clearly that refusal of the permission was only intended to take place in very special cases. It was, he thought, not a little surprising that this Section, although referred to by hon. Members opposite, had not been read to the House; and, moreover, the cases read by his right hon. Friend showed that the refusals which had been given in writing in no instance complied with this requirement of the Act. On the contrary, this provision that the causes of refusal should be distinctly and specially stated were, it would seem, systematically disregarded by the reverend gentlemen by whom those refusals had been

  1079
  signed. No case whatever had been made against the Bill; no argument had been used, unless, indeed, we were to accept as an argument the repetition by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire of his usual bitter invectives against the Roman Catholic Church and her hierarchy. He (Mr. O'Beirne) had no desire to occupy the House by offering any reply to the hon. Member on that part of his speech; but he could not allow a remark which fell from the hon. Gentleman as to the funds of the Irish Church Establishment, to pass unchallenged. The hon. Member stated, much to his surprise, that the Roman Catholic Bishops had demanded a restitution of the funds which had been taken from the Roman Catholic Church in centuries past. Now, the hon. Member must have known, when he made that statement, that it was wholly without foundation, and he heard him give expression to it with extreme regret, as the hon. Member had had ample and frequent opportunity of satisfying himself that such a charge was entirely without justification. Many hon. Members of this House, who were fully authorized to state the opinions of the Catholic Bishops and ministers, had over and over again stated in the most distinct and unequivocal language, that although it was quite true that the Roman Catholic religion—of which he had the privilege of being a member—had been despoiled and plundered, by unjust laws, of their Church property, in seeking religious equality, which they now demanded, they not only repudiated all idea of touching directly or indirectly one shilling of the funds now enjoyed by the Established Church, but they also very recently rejected all offers of such a nature. How, then, could the hon. Member—who enjoyed a just influence and respect in that House—permit himself to make a statement which, he repeated, he must or should have known was utterly unfounded and contrary to the fact? The hon. Member talked of publications and declarations out-of-doors, he (Mr. O'Beirne) had nothing to do with such publications or declarations. He repeated that the Roman Catholic Church would not touch one shilling of the moneys of the Establishment, and he hoped that such an assertion as that to which he now gave this unqualified contradiction, would not be again repeated within that House. He trusted the discursive remarks to which he had been obliged to give a reply, would not lead the attention of Members away from the fair consideration
  1080
  of the Bill before them. He believed it was a just measure; that it would correct an abuse which was irritating and mischievous; and, if passed, that it would be productive of much social good and give very general satisfaction in Ireland.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that Dr. Moriarty, who calls himself Bishop of Kerry, in a letter published, he thought, last autumn, stated that if the property of the Church of Ireland was placed at the disposal of Parliament a portion of it should be appropriated to Roman Catholic purposes. This was stated in a letter which had been published.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that if the House divided he should give his vote for the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that its object was simply to give effect to the Act of 1824. At present the right of Roman Catholics to burial in the parish burial-grounds existed; but it was clear that, as a matter of fact, it had in many cases been refused, not merely to Roman Catholics, but also to Presbyterians and Wesleyans. Indeed the movement in favour of this Bill was far stronger on the part of the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland than on that of the Roman Catholics. He was at a loss to understand why Spain was so often quoted by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Was it that we should imitate her, or that we should act in the spirit of retaliation? In the name of both sides of the House he repudiated both courses. He had supported the Bill introduced by Sir Morton Peto, but which was unfortunately rejected. They must, however, consider the principles of this Bill in connection with the circumstances of the case; and was it not intolerable that in Ireland a small minority should have power to withhold Christian burial from the great majority of the people?
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the Bill had been introduced to prevent the continuance of a great scandal, and to promote conciliation, and not for the purpose of giving any right to the Roman Catholic Church beyond those of other religious bodies. He had supported Sir Morton Peto's Bill. He assured the House that there was in Ireland a strong feeling of reverence for the dead; and consequently there was a great desire that a religious ceremony should be performed over the grave. He recommended the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to turn his attention to Lutheran

  1081
  Sweden, where he would find a bigotry calling for the denunciation of one who so strongly condemned the religious feeling of Spain.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he believed it was generally conceded that, except in very few instances, the Act of 1824 had been carried out. If, however, there were cases in which it had not been acted upon, there ought to be an amendment in the law. This Bill would require amendment. No provision had been made for the preservation of order in the burial-grounds. If he did not consider that the Bill could be altered in that sense in Committee, he would not vote for the second reading. As the Bill now stood, the bodies of persons belonging to two or three different persuasions might be brought into the graveyard at the same moment. The services had to be performed within a limited space; and when persons entertaining different opinions thus came together, religious animosity might lead to unseemly scenes in the graveyards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) evidently had some misgivings on that point, for, in the Bill, it was provided that burials should not take place during the hours of Divine worship. He (Mr. Henley) thought it would be desirable, when in Committee, to prescribe at what hours deceased persons of the different religious persuasions should be buried, or to give some power to the rectors to regulate the hours.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, the Bill did not merely relate to Roman Catholics, but also had reference to the members of other Christian denominations. He begged to point out that in the burial-ground belonging to the denomination of Christians to which he belonged a very simple arrangement was adopted. It was open to all classes of Christians who chose to use it, who might perform such religious ceremonies as they desired; or, if they preferred, there might be no religious ceremony at all. No difficulty had been found in arranging the interments of different classes, under reasonable restrictions as to time, and other matters of a reasonable nature. The sting of the Bill, in the opinion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, seemed to be, not the burial of Roman Catholics, but of Protestant Dissenters, in the Church of England burial grounds. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have a greater dislike to Dissenters than to Roman Catholics, and lost no opportunity that the forms of the House permitted of opposing
  1082
  everything they wished. Their claim to interment in the Church burial-grounds in England ought not to be forgotten, and he hoped the Bill of 1863 would soon be revived. There was no reason why the privilege claimed by the Bill for Dissenters in Ireland should not be extended to their brethren in England. He hoped that a clause to that effect might be introduced in Committee; but if it endangered the passing of the Bill, he should not press it.
  MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERShoped the House would not divide, but read the Bill a second time. The clergymen of the Church of Ireland had hitherto been placed in a false position. The Act of 1824 gave the right, not the privilege, of being buried in the Church burial-grounds in Ireland, which in many instances had been refused. Those who objected to the Bill showed that they had not advanced as they ought to have dune as to their sense of what was due from them to the members of other religious denominations. At the grave all religious differences ought to be forgotten. If there was a wedge at all in this case, the thin end had been inserted by the Bill of 1824. He was, he believed, as sincere a Protestant as any Gentleman in that House; but he thought he acted in thorough conformity with Protestant principles in supporting the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, this was not so simple a case as had been described, for the Bill was supported by different speakers on contradictory premises. He did not wish to refer to the question which lurked behind this Bill—namely, that of the Irish Church. The Act of 1824 had, in the great majority of cases, worked well. Power was by that Act reserved to the clergy, because on that power depended the whole legal position of the Church in Ireland; and if it had not been an act of indulgence, but a right as this Bill proposed, there would have been no Established Church in Ireland. They could not accept this Bill without anticipating the great solution of the Irish Church difficulty which was looming before them. The Bill now before the House would be as complete an abolition of the legal status of the Irish Church as any that could be effected by the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). This Bill was a short cut to the point which that right hon. Gentleman proposed to reach by a more circuitous route, and conconsequently he was not prepared to agree

  1083
  to the second reading of the Bill. The few instances of inconvenience that had arisen were not sufficient to warrant the passing of this Bill. Believing the Bill to be unnecessary, and seeing its indirect effect upon the Irish Church, he could not support it.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsupported the Bill. As a Scotchman, he protested against the views of Gentlemen opposite who opposed the Bill. In Scotland persons of all denominations were allowed to have their own religious service at their burial. He hoped the House would not pledge itself by rejecting this Bill to pursue a bigoted policy in religious matters.
  MR. REARDENsaid, that the people of Ireland were not only not allowed to live in their country, but were not even allowed to be buried in it. He protested against the practice of the hon. Members for North Warwickshire and Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Greene) of outraging on all occasions the feelings of the Roman Catholic Members of that House. He had a high respect for the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; but he unnecessarily insulted Roman Catholic Members by his constant reference to the Reformation. He might reply to the hon. Member by saying that Nero was an angel in comparison with Henry VIII.: and as to Elizabeth, he would not say anything of her moral character. The Reformation had led to the establishment of as many different religions as the number of years that had since elapsed. He asked how long the grievances of the Roman Catholics of Ireland were to continue?
  MR. HUBBARDrose to move that the Bill be read the second time that day six months.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member could not now make that Motion.
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, as the hon. Member for Buckingham had omitted to make the Motion in his speech, he would do so. He said Protestants had as much, if not more, reason to complain of the language used by Roman Catholics towards Protestants than the former had of the latter. The remarks they had just listened to were not calculated to conciliate Protestants.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Colonel William Stuart.)
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 51: Majority 23.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

SUNDAY TRADING BILL— [BILL 40.]
(Mr. Thomas Hughes, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Lusk.)
SUNDAY TRADING BILL— [BILL 40.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESrose to move the second reading of this Bill. It was precisely similar in character to the Bill which the House read a second time last year, with the approval of the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which was afterwards considered in Committee of the House, when certain Amendments were inserted. That Bill, however, ultimately became a dropped Order at the end of the Session, and what he now asked the House to do was to place the Bill in exactly the same position as that in which it was left last year. When the second reading was agreed to last year, it was upon the understanding that in case the Bill came out of Committee in an objectionable form, then every hon. Member should be perfectly at liberty to oppose the third reading. That was a perfectly reasonable underderstanding, and he was quite prepared to act on it if the same course were adopted this year. The Bill was printed in the same form as last year, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), which had been agreed to by the Committee, not being embodied, he (Mr. Hughes) proposed to read the Bill a second time pro formâ, and to introduce those words at once before going into Committee. Certain hon. Members were afraid that the Bill would affect the Act of Charles II., and in order to meet their views he would be perfectly willing when the Bill was in Committee to allow a clause to be inserted to prevent the Bill in any way interfering with the operation of that Act. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second tims."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
  MR. FRESHFIELD, who had given notice to move that the Bill be read a

  1085
  second time that day six months, said, he entirely dissented from the principle of the Bill, believing that it would be improper to alter the law which for 300 years had regulated the observance of the Sabbath in this country. But after the statement of the hon. Member, that, in Committee, he would consent to the introduction of a provision to the effect that the Act of Charles II. should not in any way be interfered with, he would consent to withdraw his opposition at this stage.
  MR. GRAHAMopposed the second reading. The exceptions contained in the Bill were so numerous as to weaken the legal sanction hitherto given to the observance of the Sabbath. They would constitute a fulcrum by means of which the enemies of the Sabbath observance would work hereafter for the further infraction of the Sabbath. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORthought it was most undesirable that the question of Sunday observance should be muddled by a Bill which would involve two conflicting principles. Until the question could be dealt with in a much broader and more satisfactory way we had better leave things as they were. He should, therefore, second the Amendment, though upon quite different grounds from those urged by the Mover.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Graham.)
  MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, the course which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hughes) proposed to adopt would secure the object which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) had in view. If he had thought that it would not do so he should certainly have pressed his own Motion for the rejection of the measure to a division. At the same time he was bound to say that he was of opinion that if the Bill did pass into law with the provision of which he had spoken, it would be a dead letter in its operation.
  MR. REMINGTON MILLSthought that the House would stultify itself by passing a measure involving two opposite principles. If the Bill would be a dead letter after the insertion of the provision respecting the Act of Charles II., what was the good of passing it at all? He should certainly vote against the second reading.
  COLONEL FRENCHwanted to know
  1086
  what was the use of the House spending time in the discussion of Bills introduced by private Members when there was not the slightest possibility that any result would be arrived at? There were certain public measures as to which the Government would be bound shortly to state what their intentions were with regard to pushing them forward,—as, for instance, the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills—and until the course of Public Business had been settled he should certainly oppose the second reading of this private Bill.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONconsidered that hon. and gallant Member was under unnecessary alarm in supposing that this Bill would occupy any great length of time. Its principle was fully discussed last Session, and the objections then taken to it had been satisfactorily met. He hoped no further objection would be raised to its progress to-day.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYhoped that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel French) would be prepared to facilitate the passing of the measures to which he had alluded. But, as the House knew, certain questions had been raised, for which the Government were not responsible, and which interfered with the progress of those measures; and the sooner those questions were out of the way the better the Government would be pleased, in order that they might go on with the business before the House. With respect to the present Bill, he thought there would be ample time to discuss it, and, without committing himself to the support of the third reading, he was prepared to accept the position taken last year by his predecessor. He thought the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee, and it would afterwards be seen whether the measure in its details was one which could be approved by the House. That was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) last year, and he (Mr. G. Hardy) thought the course was one which might be adopted with convenience now. At the same time he thought that considerable weight was to be attached to the objections both of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 31: Majority 37.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CANONGATE ANNUITY TAX BILL.
(Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Baxter.)
CANONGATE ANNUITY TAX BILL.

  [BILL 60.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. M'LAREN, having presented several petitions in favour of the measure, said: It is not my intention to occupy the House with any very minute details upon this question. The points which I intend to mention are only those which strike one as being the most salient. I will take up the question as it now stands, mainly as a question of practical grievance. It is the only remains of a church rate which now exists in Edinburgh. That part of it which is distinctly a church rate is the payment which, by an Act passed in 1860, is fixed at £4,200 annually out of the police rates of the city in aid of the stipends of ministers. There is also another small indirect impost; but I will not take up the time of the House by entering into that point at present. The tax has been very much complained of, and it has been a constant source of heartburning and ill-will. I will take the liberty of reading two sentences from a petition which I have presented to-day from Mr. Archibald Young. This gentleman states that he belongs to the Baptist denomination, and that the doctrines of that Church preclude its members from paying anything towards the support of any other Establishment, and that he and his father have resisted doing so. On three occasions he has been dragged through the Courts of Law; and since the passing of the Act of 1860 he has had to pay £50 for legal expenses for opposing the levying of the rate; and since that time he has been dragged into the Court of Session for payment of the arrears of the old Annuity Tax, and is thereby likely to sustain an additional loss of £150. He therefore approves of this Bill as likely to put a stop to this long-vexed question. The petition is but a fair example of others which might be quoted from persons who have been put to very large expenses on account of this tax. The tax has injured the collection of the other rates of the city, which are mixed up with it, in such a degree that a very large loss occurs annually in the collection. Now, the remedy proposed in this Bill is a very simple one. I propose that out of the endowed churches of the City of Edinburgh the stipend of three of the ministers should be discontinued, and this would relieve a sum of £1,800 annually, and leave them
  1088
  with an endowment of £6,000 from other sources. It may be supposed by parties not conversant with the matter, that the Established Church will suffer by doing this; but I may say with confidence that nothing of the kind can by possibility occur. Hon. Members would hardly believe the paucity of attendance in some of these churches, and the extravagant expenditure which is kept up in three of these churches. The whole of the seat-rents amount to only £278, and the number of seats let in these three churches is only 790. In the other churches of the city there are no fewer than 6,674 seats unlet and free, so that if these 790 persons were to go into other churches no inconvenience could possibly arise. In the whole of the thirteen city churches there, are only 8,840 sittings let, and 6,600 unlet and free; and all that is asked by this Bill is that the future ministers of the three churches I have mentioned shall not have any right to the stipends now payable. Vested interests, however, will be respected, because under the arrangement of the Bill the stipends will only cease when a vacancy shall occur in any of these three incumbencies; and after vacancies have occurred in these three cases, there will be no longer any direct church rates levied in the City of Edinburgh. Surely for such a small matter as this it is reasonable that the persons interested should consent to make this small sacrifice. When the stipends in connection with these three Churches have ceased, they may do anything they like with them for the spread of Christianity; and, under some new system, perhaps they may be better able to fill them than they are at present. I should now like to say a word or two as to the accommodation for religious bodies which at present exists in the city of Edinburgh. The Established Kirk of Scotland has 26 places of worship within the extended bounds of the municipality, but only 13 are endowed from this Annuity Tax, while 11 have no public endowment, and depend strictly upon the voluntary offerings of those who attend them, just as the Dissenting places of worship do. Then there are 2 suburban churches which have other endowments. So much for the Established Church. One great cause for this Bill being necessary is the disruption which took place in the Church of Scotland in 1843 because a great number of places of worship have since then been opened in Edinb ugh. While there are only 26 Established churches altogether, 35 new Free churches

  1089
  have been erected since 1843, and I have reason to believe that the number of seat-holders in these 35 Free churches is more than double the number of seat-holders in all the Established churches put together. Then there are 18 churches connected with the United Presbyterian body, who are identical in faith with the Free Church, and they are now in treaty for union with the Free Church. If you take these two bodies together, therefore, you have 54 churches, as against 26 belonging to the Established Church; and I have no hesitation in saying that anyone conversant with the facts of the case will say that there are at least four times as many seat-holders in connection with them as are connected with all the Established churches put together. Then we have 12 Episcopalian churches, 4 Baptist, 3 Congregational, 3 Evangelical Union, and 3 Roman Catholic. The number of Human Catholic churches, however, does not give a fair idea of the number of Roman Catholics attending them; for there are no less than 15,000 Roman Catholics in the city of Edinburgh. Then there are 11 churches connected with other denominations, so that, altogether, there are in Edinburgh 115 places of worship. With this fact within their knowledge, can any hon. Member in this House, or any man out of it, stand up and say that, by suppressing 3 of the Established churches, you would do the slightest injury to the Church of Scotland, or to the cause of Christianity? No man would, I think, venture to take such a stand, or to make such a statement. There is plenty of room in the other Established churches of the city. Those who oppose the Irish Church would be very inconsistent if they did not support the Bill which I now ask the House to read a second time. This measure does not seek to suppress the Scotch Church; but is only a measure for lopping off one of its superfluous parts, which circumstances have rendered altogether useless. It is, in fact, just such a measure as the First Minister of the Crown shadowed forth as that which he and his Colleagues would be willing to pass for Ireland—namely, to remove anything in the shape of superfluous accommodation—anything which was not wanted. This Bill points out superfluous accommodation which confers no practical benefit; and now that the times have so changed that all the other sects in Edinburgh—far more numerous than the Established Church—are obliged to contribute
  1090
  more or less directly for the support of a small minority of church-going people, I think the grievance is as great in Scotland as it is in Ireland, and, in some respects, even greater. The time was when the Church of Scotland included, perhaps, not a majority of the inhabitants, but still probably one-half; but I think at present the proportion of the people belonging to that body is so very small in Edinburgh that those who attend these churches are not one-eighth part of the population of the city. Why, then, should all the other classes of religionists who support their own ministers at their own expense be called upon to support three surplus congregations. One of these churches is the High Church, which the Queen attends when in Edinburgh, and which the judges and magistrates attend officially; but there are only 117 sittings in it which are let, and the seat-rents only amount to £42 6s.! The sight it exhibits is very distressing. The arrangements by this Bill are such that a grievance such as this could no longer exist; it would be entirely abolished. There is one other subject upon which I should like to touch, because a good deal has been said about it out-of-doors, and a good deal has been said in the Lobbies of this House—about some alleged compromise that took place in the year 1860, when a Bill was passed for reducing the payment for ministers. The Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh, at whose request I have brought in this Bill, have published a statement which has been pretty extensively circulated, in which they state the facts of the case in a condensed form. They show that they were no parties whatever to any compromise in 1860; but, on the contrary, opposed the Bill at every stage, and that even after the Bill had passed and become law there was a great meeting called in the largest room in Edinburgh, when a solemn protest was agreed to be signed against the measure; and was subscribed by 7,600 ratepayers, of whom upwards of 3,000 were Parliamentary electors, and which was presented to the Town Council; and they have never ceased in their endeavours to get the Act of 1860 repealed. In consequence of all this, they have done me the honour to ask that I would introduce this Bill for the practical repeal of that Act, and I assented with great pleasure. In so far as respects that portion of the original tax still payable under the form of a police rate, amounting to £4,200, the former Bill undoubtedly made a financial

  1091
  improvement. With regard to the lesser sum still paid, it was not only obnoxious in itself, but the conditions under which it was levied were also exceedingly objectionable. Having been a member of the Town Council of Edinburgh for many years, and an attentive observer of events in that city for the last fifty years, I say with confidence that no measure would give more general satisfaction to the inhabitants than that this Bill should pass into law. This is a subject which Her Majesty's Government ought to have dealt with, and I was in hopes that the learned Lord Advocate would have been able to introduce a Bill of his own; in fact, I delayed my Motion for nearly two months expecting this; and if he had brought in a satisfactory measure I should have been only too glad to have given him my support, and to have withdrawn my Bill. However, I see no chance of anything of the kind being done—in fact, it appears to be entirely out of the question, and therefore I must ask the House to be kind enough to affirm the principle of this Bill by voting for the second reading.
  MR. CRUM-EWING: I beg to second the Motion. I shall only say that if this House is of opinion that justice in matters of religious belief ought to be done to the people of Ireland, it will also do justice to the people of Scotland, and do away with a tax which has been a fertile source of discontent and strife in the city of Edinburgh. After the very excellent reasons given by my hon. Friend who introduced this Bill why it should be read a second time, I will not occupy the attention of the House by any further observations.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said:—I cannot help saying that any hon. Member interested in this question, who has inquired into the facts, must be quite sensible that the result of the arrangements made in 1860, and so late as 1867, has been to produce a greatly improved state of feeling in Edinburgh; and the tax is now collected in a way which is very creditable to the people of that city. I do not found upon the absence of agitation as a reason for witholding justice to the people of Edinburgh. Quite the contrary. But I hope the spirit which has existed of late in regard to this matter will
  1092
  have its effect, and that we shall in future find that the Annuity Tax is not that bone of contention which unfortunately it has been for so many previous years. This tax has existed, as explained by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) from the time of Charles I. There are many places in Scotland in which the ministers were supported by the burghs, without having any teinds for their maintenance. At the time of the Reformation, the burghs having obtained Church property on certain conditions, the obligation was imposed upon them to support the ministers. In Edinburgh, it appears that there was some arrangement of this kind; but unfortunately there was some failure of the property given, and the people of Edinburgh applied to have a tax imposed upon them for the support of their ministers. That tax has existed from that down to the present day. It was originally placed at 6 per cent., and comparing it with the rental, it amounted to 10 d. in the pound; but from 1820 the ministers ceased to be stipendiaries, and became entitled to the whole proceeds of the tax. Previous to that time they had been to some extent stipendiaries. The city of Edinburgh had accumulated a sum in excess of that which they had paid to the ministers, amounting to £50,000. The ministers subsequently to 1820 having become entitled to the whole proceeds of the tax, considerable dissatisfaction was felt in regard to its payment. In the first place, it was held that 10 d. in the pound was too large; and, in the second place, the tax was held to be unjust in this respect, that a large and wealthy class of persons in Edinburgh, who answered in this country to the barristers and attorneys, were wholly exempt from the payment of the tax. This caused a very natural agitation among the people. Thirdly, and more especially, the tax was objected to by those who, professing the voluntary principle, were opposed to an Establishment; and I recognize the hon. Member who introduced the Bill as a prominent objector to the tax. In the progress of that agitation in 1848, Sir John Lefevre was sent by the then Government to Edinburgh to inquire into the operation of the tax, and made a Report on the subject. He found that there were fifteen churches, and eighteen ministers in Edinburgh, and that there were some of them what were termed Collegiate churches. He recommended that the double charges should be reduced to single ones, and that the ministers should

  1093
  become stipendiaries; and that after the death of the existing incumbents they should have right only to a stipend of £550 a year, it being then somewhat more than £600 a year. He also recommended that exemption in favour of the legal profession should be abolished. Notwithstanding this, nothing more was done till 1851, when there was the Report of a Select Committee of the House; and the Report pointed to the reduction of the Ministers from eighteen to fifteen, and recommended that there should be a fund created for the payment of the Ministers, of which £2,200 should consist of the Annuity Tax. The Annuity Tax was therefore adhered to. Several attempts were made to settle the matter, and in 1860 the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff) introduced a measure for the purpose of bringing it to a termination; and he proposed that the exemption in favour of the legal classes should be abolished. The result would, of course, be that there would be a large addition to the proceeds of the tax; and he proposed further that the tax should be continued in order to accumulate a fund which should be sufficient at the end of fifteen years to put an end to the tax altogether. That was a proposition which I regret exceedingly was not carried into effect; because the result would have been that by this time we should have been more than half through the period, and; we should have been able to see a prospect of the complete termination of the tax. But the Lord Provost of the day addressed a letter to the hon. and learned Member, who held the office which I have now the honour to hold, suggesting that the Bill would give no relief to the parties aggrieved, and that it would be much better to reduce the amount of the tax, so that there should be a sensible relief given to the people. My hon. and learned Friend was reluctant to adopt this course, but it; was pressed upon him by the authorities; and there is no doubt that it was a principle which was not combated by one individual at that stage of the proceedings—namely, that a certain portion of the Annuity Tax should be retained. Unfortunately, a discussion arose on the part of some persons who objected to the kind of security which was to be given, and to some other matters which I do not think affected the question of principle. Well, my hon. and learned Friend thought proper to proceed with the Bill, which proposed to go further than the recommendations
  1094
  of the Select Committee and those of Sir John Lefevre, in not only proposing to abolish Collegiate charges, but to take away the ministers from two of the churches of the Old Town, which was very distasteful to the ministers of the town of Edinburgh. But, at the same time, looking upon it as a Bill which would bring about the settlement of a long-vexed question, the result was, that these ministers did not oppose the measure, and it was passed. There were certain advantages attending the measure. The condition of the payment to ministers since the passing of the Bill of 1860 was this—A bond was granted by the city of Edinburgh over their property for an annuity of £4,200 in perpetuity. That was secured on the property of the town, which was a security that, being considered in all other cases to be a very good one, was offered to the ministers. This bond constituted the security, and the town was empowered to impose a tax for the purpose of relieving itself from the payment of the bond. No doubt it was a substitution for the Annuity Tax, which was not to be levied as such; and it was thought that it would relieve the scruples of those who objected to pay it as an Annuity Tax that it should be paid in the same way as the police tax. Further, the ministers were entitled to the seat-rents, which amounted to about £3,000 a year. There were certain burdens upon this sum—namely, the repair of the churches, The people were relieved of church rate, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners undertook to make payment for all the repairs of the churches. It was hoped that the result of passing that Bill would have been to have put au end to all further agitation upon the subject; but the arrangements proposed were not altogether agreeable to the Church in Edinburgh, because it was thought a great grievance that some of its ministers should be taken away. The result has been this—The property of Edinburgh has for many years been increasing year by year, and if the ministers had continued to be entitled to the whole of the proceeds of the Annuity Tax, or even if they had remained stipendiaries, they would be realizing incomes of from £800 to £1,000 a year; but instead of that they consented to restrict their stipends to £600 a year, and ultimately to £550. There was also this great advantage accruing to the citizens, that the professional classes, in order to conciliate the general public, agreed to forego the exemption to which they had been up to

  1095
  that time entitled, and to render themselves liable to the tax; so that, for six years previous to the introduction of this Bill, the professional gentlemen who had before been exempt have contributed towards the support of the clergy, thus relieving the general public from a burden which would otherwise have fallen upon it exclusively. Therefore the House will observe that the clergy abated a large amount of the legal claim; and the professional classes subjected themselves, for the first time, to the payment of the Annuity Tax, and continued to pay it from that time to the present. Matters went on in this way down to 1866, when application was made to the House to appoint a Select Committee to report upon the subject. That Committee took evidence, but made no Report, not considering it necessary to do so. In 1866, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) introduced a similar Bill to the present—indeed it was almost precisely the same as the present. It was proposed that it should be read a second time at the end of February last year; and on the second reading it was rejected by a considerable majority. In the month of May one of the ministers of the Canongate died. The Canongate is under a separate municipal government, and was not included in the Bill of 1860, so that the inhabitants of the Canongate were subject to the grievance of having still to pay 10 d. in the pound down to last year, while those of Edinburgh only paid 3d. in the pound, which certainly is a very considerable redaction. As soon as one of the ministers of the Canongate died, it was brought under the notice of the Government, who considered it right that the Canongate should be placed in the same position as the people of Edinburgh; and accordingly an Act was passed last Session reducing the Annuity Tax in the Canongate from 10 d. to 3d. in the pound, and this Bill is now working very satisfactorily. Well, then, I confess that I do feel surprised that now, in 1868, one of the first measures brought forward is what is called the Canongate Annuity Tax Bill, after the passing of the Act of last year, one of the provisions of which is that the Annuity Tax should be abolished altogether in the Canongate—that is to say, that the reduced tax of 3d., provided for by the Act of 1867, should be extinguished. And what is the provision made for the support of the ministers of the Canongate? Only one of these ministers has a claim upon the
  1096
  Annuity Tax for a stipend of £250. What is the provision made in this Bill for the support of this clergyman? The proposal is to give him the seat-rents; but in the Canongate, which is a very poor district, the seat-rents do not amount to more than £16 or £18, and any further provision for the minister must be made by those inhabitants of the Canongate who are able and willing to pay.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to explain that that is not so. The Canongate minister is not to depend upon the seat-rents in his own church, but those seat-rents are to be amalgamated with the seat-rents of the city churches. The Canongate seat-rents and the city seat-rents, with the income from the other accumulated funds, would give the minister of the Canongate £250.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: That may be so; but I do not know why the burden of the Canongate church is to be thrown upon the city churches. The Canongate church and the city churches have always been kept distinct, and I do not know why the city should now bear the burden. Then it is proposed by the Bill to abolish three of the city ministers, which is going further than the Report of the Select Committee or Sir John Lefevre. But five of the city ministers were taken away in 1860. I object to any further reduction, And, with regard to the city ministers, what provision is made for them? They are to be supported out of the seat-rents. These seat-rents produce at present from £1,600 to £1,800 a year, after provision has been made out of them for the repairs of the churches. For the repairs of these churches it is now proposed that the collections at the church doors should be appropriated, amounting to about £1,400 a year. But these collections at the church doors are given for the support of the poor, and we find them a most valuable fund for preventing the spreading of pauperism. There are many persons who, by a little timely aid, are kept from actual pauperism. By this Bill, the collections at the church doors will be taken from the poor; but it does not follow that the congregations will contribute them for the purpose of repairs. I venture to say that, to take this sum away from the poor is a step which this House will not sanction. I submit, therefore, that our proper course is not to countenance this Bill by reading it a second time. It must not be supposed that the Established Church is negligent of its duties. There are other Churches doing their best for the

  1097
  poor throughout Edinburgh; but the Established Church is pre-eminently the Church on which the poor have claims. Dr. Maxwell Nicholson, a minister of the Tron Church, speaking of the poor in the Old Town of Edinburgh, says—
  "We have to prepare for the services of the Lord's-day. We have to visit the sick, both of our parishes and congregations; we have to visit our congregation, and the inhabitants of our parishes from house to house; we have to set agoing schools, to keep going Sunday-schools; we have to set agoing Bible-classes, we have the poor to attend to. In the Tron Church Parish we have our regular kitchen for providing food for the poor, where there is regular cooking for them. We provide them with clothing, we provide them with coal, we provide their children with education: either paying for it or seeing they are sent to schools where no payment is required. Finding that so many girls who remained in the parish went to utter ruin, we set agoing an industrial school for girls, in order to train them for domestic service. Then, in the Tron parish we have services on the Lord's-day. I do not think I shall be able to carry it on now; but during the life of my venerable colleague we had two services in church at ordinary hours, and then I had a service in the parish for the very poor on Sunday evening. Then we had two other meetings during the week for public worship; one during the day, and one in the evening. The one was superintended by a missionary, and the other was conducted by ourselves. Then, it is to be remembered, that we and the city missionaries have to do with hospitals, and charitable societies; and for myself I have to do with the Infirmary, where I have acted as colleague with Mr. M'Laren very frequently; and I believe I am well employed in attending to the noble charity, because my own parish is very greatly benefited by it. My own congregation is benefited by the Heriot School, by Heriot's Hospital, by Donaldson's Hospital, by the Destitute Sick Society, and by a great many other societies with which I am connected."
  Now, these are the duties which are performed by these gentlemen in the Old Town district of Edinburgh, and they are assisted by missionaries, who are paid either by the congregations connected with the Church, or by the aid of more wealthy people in the New Town. Reference has been made to the fact of their not being many scats taken in some churches. It is unfortunate that in the case of two of these churches the clergymen are in very indifferent health, and that may to some extent explain the reason why the churches are not so well attended; but the other Old Town churches are full. I believe there are no scats to be had in them. I venture, therefore, to think that the proper course will be not to countenance this Bill, which repeals the Act of 1860 and the Act of last Session. Whether it be possible to obtain some relief for the citizens
  1098
  of Edinburgh from any other ecclesiastical funds in the country is a question which I certainly should be very happy to see solved in the affirmative, and I shall do my best to give some assistance in that way; but, whether that be so or not, I think it would be exceedingly dangerous to countenance this Bill by allowing it to be read a second time. I therefore move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. MILLERseconded the Motion, not so much on the grounds which had been so excellently stated by the right hon. and learned Lord as on account of the injustice that it did to the interests of Leith. It provided that the stipends of the Edinburgh ministers should be provided out of £4,200 to be obtained from seat rents and £2,000 from the revenues of Leith Docks. It was true that for some time past this sum of £2,000 had been levied from the Leith revenues. His constituents had never agitated for its abolition, because they felt that in any scheme for abolishing the Annuity Tax their claim would also be attended to. But now it was proposed that while the tax was to be abolished as far as Edinburgh was concerned, it was to be maintained upon the harbour and port of Leith. If he asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh why this tax was to be continued, no doubt he would say, as he had often said before that the docks and harbours of Leith were originally the property of the city of Edinburgh. It was, however, very easy to prove the fallacy of this argument. In 1838 the Corporation of the city of Edinburgh being bankrupt, brought in a Bill to sell the Leith harbours and docks to a joint-stock company, for £25,000, and the titles of the city were inquired into, and it was then found that the city had no right of property—that the harbour was public property, and was vested in the corporation in trust. If Edinburgh were to be relieved from the burden of supporting her ministers Leith ought to be relieved also.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he apprehended that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would rather have the vote than the advocacy of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Miller). As he understood the hon. Member, he would disestablish the Church, at any rate disendow it, by withdrawing

  1099
  from it that which has been made its properly by Act of Parliament. Whatever might be said of taxes, dues must be of the nature of property; and yet the hon. Member had proposed that the dues on the Leith Docks should be abandoned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the services rendered by the clergymen in the Old Town of Edinburgh. There were two answers to these statements. In the first place, their industry, Christian effort and zeal had never been called in question; and in the second place, there were other ministers in Edinburgh as zealous and as industrious, having charge of Congregations as poor, and labouring in as poor a locality—yet, these rev. gentlemen had no aids external to their Churches, and were dependent for support on the voluntary efforts of their congregations. The right hon. Gentleman led the House to believe that by this Bill the income of the clergy would be reduced; but it will not reduce the stipend of a single clergyman in Edinburgh. The stipends of the clergy would remain as at present; and even their successors would be in precisely the same position, barring the three churches that were abolished by the Bill. No personal interest would be a fleeted by it, presently or prospectively. The Bill did not ask the congregations to increase their contributions towards the maintenance of their clergy, or, if any advance was expected, it was not snore than £100 in £4,000; and he apprehended that the clergy of the Established Church did not labour amongst the poor more exclusively than the Dissenting ministers; but that, on the contrary, their congregations were composed of the richer classes of the Old Town, he apprehended that there was no objection to the principle of the Bill, for it conformed to principles already adopted by Parliament in the Act of 1860. It would neither diminish the provision for the religious well-being of the city of Edinburgh, nor touch the religious belief of persons it affected. Even if they had to have recourse to other churches, there were thirty-five of the Free Church, and eighteen of the United Presbyterian Church, where precisely the same form of worship was observed as in the Established Church; but there is ample room in the churches of; the Establishment for all who would be withdrawn from the churches dealt with by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to show what damage will be done by the Bill. A case in its favour is made
  1100
  out by the fact that there is ample provision for the spiritual wants of Edinburgh in the existing churches, and by the fact that by the present law an injustice is inflicted upon seven-eighths of the people of Edinburgh. He was surprised that any one should defend this tax of 3d. in the £1, for it degraded the clergy to the position of a police force, the tax being collected in connection with and as a police tax. It appeared that the Bill of 1860 was not satisfactory either to the Dissenters or the members of the Established Church, and therefore he should suppport the Motion for the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. MONCREIFF: As I carried through the Bill of 1860, I will say a few words on the Motion before the House. I shall vote in favour of the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, not so much on the merits of the Bill, as because I think the settlement of 1860 was fair and equitable under the circumstances of the case; and it is not desirable to disturb that arrangement. But on the subject of the merits of the Bill, I will simply say that I doubt very much whether its finance will at all come up to the representations of the hon. Member. The substance of the Bill in point of finance is simply this—that the Established Church is left to its own voluntary resources, with the exception of the £2,000, about which the hon. Member for Leith has made so loud a complaint, the seat-rents, and the church-door collections. So far as the £2,000 is concerned, I do not think the hon. Member for Leith need be much disturbed; because if this Bill were to pass this year, next year we may find more empty churches, and on the same principle as that on which my hon. Colleague has introduced His Bill, Leith would be relieved from the payment of the £2,000. With regard to the rest of the finance of the Bill, the £4,200 can only be made available after the seat-rents—on the assumption that the church-door collections are sufficient to maintain the fabric of the building. I doubt very much whether that will be found to be the case, even if it were desirable to apply these collections in that way. If the collections were so applied, they would soon fall off in amount; and if it is intended to keep this as an endowment for the Established Church, I believe it will turn out to be an illusive idea. The question whether we should have an Established Church in Scotland is another matter altogether; but

  1101
  if you are to raise the question, it would be better to state boldly what principle of the Established Church should be given up, and should trust to the voluntary principle for providing the necessary appliances. I do not belong to the Established Church. I belong to the Free Church, mid feel a pride in the great effort and sacrifice it has made, and the wonderful increase it has met with; but, on the other hand, let us not discuss this as a mere formal question—adopting the voluntary principle on the one hand, and rejecting it on the other. If the Established Church is to be maintained, it must be maintained with a reasonable endowment; but it is not on that ground that I shall vote with my right hon. and learned Friend. I wish to make an explanation about the settlement of 1860. That was a fair settlement of a question which had been long pending, but we are two parties—a good deal being surrendered on each side — and it would not be fair to take advantage of the surrender made by the Established Church as the groundwork of a second assault. It is, perhaps, unfortunate for me that I have been a kind of medium between the contending parties, without having much sympathy with the views of either. When I held the office now filled by my right hon. Friend, I was applied to by both sides to see whether the controversy could not be settled. There had previously been various attempts at a settlement. A Committee of the House of Commons in 1853 recommended a substantial reduction of the number of ministers, and that any deficiency in the funds for their support should be made up by an appropriation of municipal taxes. It was thought by the voluntary Dissenters of Edinburgh that if the ministers ceased to be the collectors of the tax, and it were left to the magistrates to impose, they would be able conscientiously to pay it, and that was the opinion of my right hon. Colleague in 1853, for in that year, he being the Chief Magistrate, asked me to introduce a Bill based on that principle. I introduced that Bill, and a great meeting of Dissenters in Edinburgh was almost unanimous in its favour, and the Town Council also supported it. But the clergy were opposed to the arrangement, and it fell through. In 1857 another attempt was made at the instance of the Town Council, who requested me to introduce a Bill not founded on the principle of a permanent municipal tax, but for continuing the existing tax
  1102
  for twelve years, doing away with the exemptions which existed, and forming a sinking fund of a capital out of which the ministers would be endowed. But that also failed. We were in this position in 1860—we had had thirty years of acrimonious warfare, and there was all manner of ill-feeling on both sides, and the greatest possible discontent, and it was felt that an arrangement should be come to by giving up something on both sides. I voted for Mr. Black's Bill in 1857. It passed the second reading with a considerable majority, but the House knew it had not the slightest chance of passing into law; and, if this Bill were carried, we should have years of conflict before us. In 1860, I made a proposal to continue the tax for fifteen years, and then put an end to it altogether; but the Town Council of Edinburgh changed their minds on this matter. I will refer to what was said by my Colleague at that time—Mr. Black—for whom this House and all who knew him have the most unfeigned respect. He said—and insisted on it in a speech at Edinburgh—that the tax should cease at the end of fifteen years; but a meeting, subsequently held, pronounced in favour of a diminished and perpetual tax, in the hope of promoting peace; and, accordingly, a Resolution to that effect was sent to me from the Lord Provost and a committee of the Town Council. At a public meeting held about the same time similar resolutions were passed, to this effect—that they would acquiesce in the proposal of a tax on occupiers, which would enable the Corporation to provide the funds for thirteen ministers at £600 a year, taking the seat-rents, the tax to be redeemable at the option of the ratepayers and undoubted security being given for the payment of the stipends. The meeting passed resolutions, and the Magistrates approved of them. I was not present at the meeting, but they communicated with me officially, and I was therefore entitled to conclude that they were agreed upon a settlement. The details, certainly, were not agreed upon; but the principle was, and it was to be a Government measure. Accordingly, my next duty was to communicate with those who were connected with the Established Church. Well, they were willing to have the ministers reduced to thirteen. The proposition in 1853 was, that they should be reduced to fifteen; so that there was a gain to this extent. No doubt it was a hard wrench, and galling to their

  1103
  pride as an institution, to submit to this; and doubtless they conscientiously thought that it was a diminution of the means of religious instruction in Edinburgh. But nevertheless they acquiesced in it. They acquiesced in having their stipends fixed at £600. Therefore we had the inhabitants on the one hand, and the ministers on the other, agreed upon these general principles. Upon one matter only did they differ. The Town Council meeting had asked that the seat rents should be valued, rising from £1,600 to £2,500. I found that the Church would not consent to that, because they thought it would diminish their stipends. The consideration I had, therefore, was whether I would surrender the Bill altogether, and thus have a war for another thirty years. I came to the conclusion that it was my duty not to allow the opportunity of a settlement to be lost; and I did so the more for this reason, that the whole difference in the amount of seat-rents, promised on the one hand and refused on the other, was far more than compensated for by the fact that, at that moment, there were two vacancies not filled up in the city churches, and if the Bill was lost that year those vacancies would have to be filled up, and thus the city would be saddled with two more life-interests. Now, that was the position of the Act of 1860. Great opposition has undoubtedly arisen to that Act; but, on the other hand, I must say that I think the town has received very great benefit. The question is whether we ought to go back? For my part, I think we ought not to do so. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last appears to think that the ministers levy this tax for their own support. Now, the ministers have nothing to do with it. The settlement of 1860 was a settlement of this kind: the ministers were no longer paid by the tax, but their stipends were saddled upon the property of the town, and the tax was intended for the purpose of filling up the void made in the municipal funds. And this leads me to remark that I do not think my friends of the Council have been administering the town funds in the spirit of the Act. I find that they have been paying off debts; and I do not believe that they are entitled to levy this 3d. in the pound for municipal purposes and to pay off the debt. In conclusion I will say that it is an unfortunate matter that we should be still embroiled in this question; but I should have been discharging my duty very inadequately
  1104
  were I to give my countenance and support to the Bill under the circumstances which I have endeavoured to bring under the notice of the House.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that some most scandalous scenes had taken place in Edinburgh in connection with this subject. The police tax was levied upon all denominations of Christians and Jews, so that the ministers were paid out of a tax contributed mainly by those who did not receive any religious benefit in return. He considered the case exactly analogous to that of church rates in England. He contended that it was most unjust to compel those who did not derive any advantage from the ministrations of these clergy — against whom, as, a body, he did not wish to say a single word; on the contrary, very many of them were distinguished for their piety, zeal, and ability; but what he did say was, that persons of other religious persuasions should not be called upon to pay towards their maintenance and support. No Dissenter ought to be compelled to contribute to this tax. What had been the result of the present state of things in Edinburgh? The Dissenters had offered to pay the tax collector the amount levied upon them for police purposes, but not the proportion which went to the clergy annuity. Of course the tax collector would not receive this, and the arm of the law was brought in; and he would quote to them an instance of what had followed. A respectable shopkeeper was told that the power of the law would be brought to bear against him if he did not pay, and that a distress would be levied upon his goods. He put armour plates around his shop and door; but the local authorities were too strong for him, for they came with a posse of constables, who, armed with sledge-hammers, beat in his door, his goods were carried off to an auction room and offered for sale, amidst tumult and execrations; and such scenes had been often repeated. Was not this a scandal to a Christian country? Could anything be more irreconcilable with the principle of peace and good-will to all men? Well, the question for the House to consider was, whether they desired to have these scenes repeated? He hoped they did not. It was to be regretted that the proposition made by his right hon. Friend in 1860 was not acquiesced in.
  MR. M'LARENrose to reply. He said, in respect to the alleged compromise, I will just mention a fact, rather

  1105
  than enter into any argument. When the Bill was before the House, there was a petition presented against it, signed by 14,000 inhabitants; and after the Bill had received the Royal Assent, there was a public meeting held to protest against it. A memorial to the Town Council was got up, which was signed by none but householders. It received 7,600 signatures; there being no less than 3,000 of these Parliamentary electors. I now come to the question touched upon by the hon. Member for Leith. Thirty years ago it was thought desirable to take the harbour of Leith out of the hands of the Corporation of Edinburgh, who held it by a chatter from Robert the Bruce. In what I am about to say I speak from personal knowledge; because I held the honorary office of City Treasurer at that time, and came to London to get the Bill carried through. Well, the Government of that day pent down the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (now Lord Taunton) to value the interest of the city of Edinburgh in the harbour, and he valued the interest of the city of Edinburgh in the harbour at £7,680 as an annuity. A Select Committee was appointed to consider this proposal, and many of the first men in Parliament of that day were appointed Members of that Committee — Sir James Graham being amongst the number. I gave evidence before the Committee; and they unanimously approved of the proposal which had been made. A few years since the same process was adopted in Liverpool; but the Corporation of that town got an annuity of £75,000 for their interest, as against our getting £7,680. The Select Committee in our case said—You must, however, pay £2,000 to the clergy out of the £7,680, and abolish a rate levied for their behoof, called the Merk per ton. All this was done as recommended by that Committee, and it is, therefore, a pure delusion to think that this payment is a burden on Leith; because, if the Established Church were abolished to-morrow, the city of Edinburgh would continue to draw this £2,000. The whole of the public bodies of Leith have petitioned in favour of this arrangement. I had the personal friendship of one who was nearly related to the hon. Gentleman — Mr. Miller — he then being the Treasurer to the Borough of Leith.
  MR. MILLER: I must claim the indulgence of the Speaker.
  THE SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman
  1106
  is out of order. If he has anything to say, he must reserve his explanation until after the hon. Gentleman who is now in possession of the House has concluded his remarks.
  MR. M'LAREN: I am referring to the hon. Member's own father, who was a most anxious promoter of this Bill. Well, now, let me refer to another subject. I have been twitted with my opinions in 1853. That is a long time ago; and I have got wiser since that time, not only upon this, but upon many subjects. But let me say this much, that I was then in favour of household suffrage, and the abolition of the Irish Church; and yet hon. Gentlemen have made good speeches on these subjects now, while they were strongly opposed to them at the time I speak of. We live in changing times. It is said that by this Bill we are placing the Church on the voluntary system. But hon. Gentlemen who say so would appear not to know the meaning of the voluntary principle. Now, what is its meaning? Why, it means finding everything for themselves. But does this Bill propose anything like that? Certainly not. Under this Bill the clergy will get their £4,000 for seat-rents, and the £2,000 from the city of Edinburgh. Surely, then, this Bill cannot be the introduction of the voluntary system. The Lord Advocate knows well enough that this question will never be settled except on some such basis as that which I now propose. It is of no use blinking the matter. The attempt to put a stop to this grievance must ultimately succeed; and I think it would be a wise thing for the Lord Advocate to withdraw himself from the position which he has taken in connection with the matter. If the Bill fails once or twice, you may be sure the agitation will be continued; and ultimately you may find a measure carried going much, further than the one at present under the consideration of the House. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will consent to read the Bill a second time.
  MR. MILLERdesired to make some observations upon the speech which had just been delivered; but—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it would not be competent for him, in explanation, to reply to the speech just made. He must confine himself to any point on which he might himself have been misunderstood.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he had voted against this Bill on a former occasion, because he thought a compromise had been entered into between the parties; but since

  1107
  that time, having given the matter a fuller consideration, he had come to the conclusion that, on the present occasion, he ought to give the measure his support, and accordingly he should vote for the second reading. The question was parallel with the church rate question in this country; and the case proved how wise those who had advocated the abolition of church rates had been, in always declining to enter into any compromise whatever. Although the present measure was not the voluntary system, yet it was a step in that direction; and therefore he should give it his support.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 86: Majority 27.

  AYES.

  Amberley, Viscount

  Merry, J.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Mills, J. R.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  O'Beirne, J. L.

  Baines, E.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Bazley, T.

  Padmore, R.

  Bright, J. (Birmingham)

  Paget, T. T.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Pim, J.

  Butler, C. S.

  Platt, J.

  Buxton, Sir T. F.

  Potter, E.

  Candlish, J.

  Potter, T. B.

  Cowen, J.

  Price, W. P.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Dalglish, R.

  Seely, C.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Fawcett, H.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Fildes, J.

  Simeon, Sir J.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  Smith, J. B.

  Gaselee, Serjeant S.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Gilpin, C.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Stock, O.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Stuart, Col. Crichton-

  Hadfield, G.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Jackson, W.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Kinnaird, Hon. A. F.

  Thompson, M. W.

  Lamont, J.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Vivian, Capt. hn. J. C. W.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Leeman, G.

  Young, R.

  Lewis, H.

  Locke, J.

  TELLERS.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  M'Laren, D.

  Melly, G.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  NOES.

  Adam, W. P.

  Cox, W. T.

  Agnew, Sir A.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Edwards, Sir H.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Eykyn, R.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Fane, Lieut.-Col. H. H.

  Brett, Sir W. B.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Burke, Viscount

  Feilden, J.

  Capper, C.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Cartwright, Colonel

  FitzGerald, rt. hn. Lord O. A.

  Cave, rt. hon. S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Floyer, J.

  1108

  Forester, rt. hn. General

  Moffatt, G.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Goldney, G.

  Montagu, rt. hn. Lord R.

  Goodson, J.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Gordon, rt. hon. E. S.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Gorst, J. E.

  O'Neill, hon. E.

  Graves, S. R.

  Paget, R. H.

  Gray, Lieut.-Colonel

  Parker, Major W.

  Greenall, G.

  Parry, T.

  Greene, E.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

  Percy, Major-Gen. Lord H.

  Gurney, rt. hon. R.

  Gwyn, H.

  Powell, F. S.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Hardy, J.

  Royston, Viscount

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Russell, H.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Schreiber, C.

  Hogg, Lieut.-Col. J. M.

  Seymour, G. H.

  Holford, R. S.

  Smith, J.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Somerset, E. A.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Speirs, A. A.

  Howes, E.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir W.

  Huddleston, J. W.

  Stuart, Lt.-Colonel W.

  Kavanagh, A.

  Sturt, Lieut.-Colonel N.

  Keown, W.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Lefroy, A.

  Taylor, Colonel

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Tollemache, J.

  Lowther, J.

  Whitmore, H.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Wise, H. C.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Maxwell, W. H.

  TELLERS.

  Meller, Colonel

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Mitford, W. T.

  Miller, W.

  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock.