Sitting of 22 April 1869

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions [April 21] reported—Consolidated Fund (£17,100,000).
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Courts of Justice [Salaries and Funds].
Ordered—Consolidated Fund (£17,100,000).
Ordered—First Reading—Railway Construction Facilities Act (1864) Amendment* [94].
First Reading—Merchant Shipping (Colonial)* [91]; Colonial Prisoners Removal* [92]; Copyright (Periodicals) * [93]. Second Reading—Poor Law (Scotland) Act (1845) Amendment* [80]; Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland)* [79]; Local Government Supplemental* [90].
Select Committee—Married Women's Property, [20], nominated.
Committee—Irish Church [27]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Newspapers, &c. [66]; Militia [82].
Considered as amended—Court of Common Pleas (County Palatine of Lancaster)* [26].

NAVY—USE OF NORTH COUNTRY COAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that a decision has recently been come to by the Admiralty with reference to the use of North Country Coal on board Her Majesty's ships; and. if so, whether he has any objection to state what that decision is?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in 1867, in consequence of a Report from the West Coast of Africa, in which the capture of a slaver was attributed to the smokeless character of the coal used, an order was given recommending the disuse, for the time, of bituminous coal in all sea-going ships. After careful consideration, it has been determined to modify this order; and directions have been given to use mixed coal, consisting of two-thirds Welsh and one-third North Country coal, in Her Majesty's ships, except on the China and African stations. Orders have been given as to modifications in the furnace doors and fire-grates which will be necessary for the use of mixed coal.

  POOR LAW—METROPOLITAN LUNATIC ASYLUMS.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention

  1355
  has been called to the statement reported to have been made by the Chairman of the Metropolis Asylums Board, when laying the foundation stone of the Cater-ham Asylum on the 17th instant, regarding the intention of Government to sanction the expenditure of £490,000 on five new buildings under the Act of 1867; and, whether the cost of the entertainment provided for 200 guests on that occasion is to be paid for out of the Metropolitan Rate, or out of Civil Contingencies, or how otherwise?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, I am quite ready to answer the Question of my hon. Friend. He asks me whether my attention has been drawn to the entertainment at Caterham. My notice was called to it, probably by the same means by which his attention was drawn to it—through the newspapers; and I readily admit that the same thought passed through my mind, when I read the proceedings, that appears to have passed through his mind—namely, who was to pay for that entertainment? Now, with regard to the Question which stands on the Notice Paper—whether it will be paid for from the metropolitan rates, or, as he facetiously adds, from, the Civil Contingencies, the state of the case is precisely this—that if such a charge were made and entered, and paid for by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Auditor would probably disallow the whole of that expenditure. I cannot say absolutely he would do so; for this reason, there lies an appeal to the Poor Law Board from the decision of the Auditor, and it is not for the Poor Law Board to lay down, in advance, the course which any Auditor may take in disallowing expenditure; but I am free to admit that where any charges connected with such entertainments have been made, the Auditor usually and universally disallowed the expenditure. How this particular entertainment is to be paid for I do not know. I am told it is to be paid for by the contractor who is building the works. He had authorized a certain expenditure, and the committee who conducted the entertainment will pay any deficiency out of their own funds. I have heard that unofficially. I only know that the expense will not come out of the metropolitan rates. With regard to the question of the estimated outlay for the lunatic asylums and fever hospitals, I do not under-
  1356
  stand that the statement was made that the Government intended to sanction the sum of £490,000, but simply that this was the estimate of the Metropolitan Hospital Board. I may state, however, that of this £490,000, £270,000 were sanctioned as far back as June last for the two lunatic asylums at Caterham and Leytonstone. The remainder would, therefore, be the estimate for the three fever hospitals. But the Poor Law Board has not yet sanctioned the expenditure; and, as on my suggestion, the Metropolitan Asylums Board has consented to limit itself to the erection of two hospitals intead of three, the estimate may be reduced by about £60,000. I may add that every item of expenditure will be rigidly scrutinized before it is sanctioned by the Poor Law Board.

RANGOON AND WESTERN CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GRAYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, If any, and, if any, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote the communication between Rangoon and Western China through a portion of the Shan States; and if the survey of that route is being proceeded with?
  MR. GRANT DUFF, in reply, said, that nothing further had been done to promote communication between Rangoon and Western China through the Shan States since the survey was stopped near the boundary of our own territory in 1867, after 245 miles had been traversed. A considerable distance remained to be surveyed, and he hoped the Government of India might see its way to completing the unfinished work. If it did they should be glad; but at the same time the Secretary of State for India would not dream of pressing the continuation of the survey, if the Government of India was deliberately of opinion that, by continuing that survey, it might run the risk of being involved in alarming political complications or of incurring any very great expense. He considered the whole question of communication between India and Western China—of which this project of a road through the Shan States was merely a fragment, and not a very large fragment—to be one of the very greatest interest, though it would be of greater prac-

  1357
  tical importance to the next generation than to ours; but interesting as it was, and important as it might become, we should not forget that in the Indo-Chinese peninsula, as in Abyssinia, we might buy gold too dear. Some Papers which would shortly be laid on the table would more fully explain the present position of this question.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he would object to introduce into the Irish Church Bill a Clause enabling limited owners of of land in Ireland to borrow and the Commissioners for Public Works to lend sums not exceeding a fixed percentage of the value of such land, re-payable upon the principle of loans for drainage, farm buildings, and labourers' houses, for the purpose of assisting in the erection of churches, chapels, and places of worship; and when the promised Clause will be introduced into the Bill to enable the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to lend and the Temporality Commissioners to borrow the sums required for the purpose of the Act?
MR. GLADSTONE: With regard, Sir, to the first Question of the hon. Baronet my answer would be this—I do not think that the Irish Church Bill would be the most convenient position for a clause of such a nature. It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill having reference to the subject in general of giving facilities for borrowing and obtaining sites with a view to objects such as the hon. Baronet contemplates, and that Bill, evidently would be the place for inserting any particular provisions of the nature to which the Question of the hon. Baronet refers. In a very short time, in fact, as soon as we are clear of the Committee on the Irish Church Bill, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be prepared to make known to the House the precise provisions of the Bill to which I refer, and the hon. Baronet will probably think we had better, perhaps, postpone the subject till then. With regard to the clause relating to borrowing, the Question is a most seasonable one, and my best answer will be that I hold in my hand a Notice of a preliminary Committee to consider the pro-
1358
priety of authorizing the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt to advance, with the consent of the Treasury, to the Church Commissioners of Ireland, to be appointed under the Irish Church Act, such monies as may be required for the purposes of the Act, and to take as securities any portion of the property of the Commissioners that may be convenient for that purpose. I give Notice that to-morrow I will move a Resolution in Committee to give effect to that purpose.

REMISSION OF CAPITAL SENTENCES— CASE OF CHARLES WILTSHIRE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that a man named Charles Wiltshire, sentenced to be hung at Gloucester, has been reprieved by his order; if so, whether he is the same man who was convicted at the last Assizes at Gloucester, in the present month, of violating and murdering a woman, and who, since his conviction and sentence, has attempted to murder the warder in charge of him in Gloucester Gaol; if he is the same man, will he state the grounds on which he has recommended the reprieve of this man; and, will he state the number and names of those convicts who, having been sentenced to be hung for murder, have been reprieved by him since he came into Office, and the dates of such reprieves; and the names and number, if any, of those who have been hung in accordance with the sentence passed upon them since he came into Office?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I think I should carry with me the judgment of the House if I were to decline to answer the Question of the hon. Baronet on the ground that, in a matter involving necessarily some considerable explanation, the first portion of this Question should rather be brought forward on going into Committee of Supply, and the last matter is one as to which information can be obtained at the Home Office. But I am quite as ready to give the information as the hon. Baronet can be to ask for it; and, if the House will kindly give me their indulgence for a few minutes, I will endeavour to satisfy them that, during the short time I have been at the Home

  1359
  Office I have not exercised the prerogative of mercy entrusted to me unworthily. I will, with the permission of the House, invert the order of the hon. Baronet's Questions, and I will state at once the number of persons who have been sentenced to capital punishment during the time that I have held Office, and what has been their fate. Excluding cases of child murder, which, for the last twenty or thirty years, have never been visited with capital punishment, the number of capital sentences, passed since the 10th of December last, has been eleven. Four of these sentences were passed during the winter Assizes of 1868. The first prisoners I had to deal with were Robert Sweet and William Bisgrove. Both of these men were found guilty of murder, and both were sentenced to death, after, no doubt, a full and fair trial on the part of the Judge and jury. I reprieved both of these sentences, and ended by granting a free pardon to Sweet, and commuting the sentence of Bisgrove to one of penal servitude for life. That decision of mine has been called a great miscarriage of justice. I will leave the House to judge to what extent it was so. It is beyond all question that Robert Sweet was an innocent man. It is equally beyond all question that the other man, Bisgrove, was insane. Three separate Reports all establish his insanity. The next two cases were those of Priscilla Biggadike, who was condemned for murdering her husband by poisoning him, and who was executed; and of Martin Brown, who was convicted of murdering a man, with the intention of plundering him, by shooting him, and upon whom also the sentence of death was carried out. In the Lent Assizes there have been seven capital convictions, excluding cases of child murder. In the first case, that of John Dolan, the sentence was executed. In the second case, that of John M'Cormack, convicted for shooting a man, the sentence was executed. In the third case, that of Michael Atkins, convicted of the murder of his wife, the sentence has been respited. The evidence, confirmed by the opinion of the Judge, satisfied me that the man was wrongfully convicted. The Judge stated that the verdict took him by surprise, and that he was satisfied that the death of the woman was caused by accident. The next case was that of Michael James
  1360
  Johnson, who was sentenced to death for murdering a man, by stabbing him, at Manchester. That sentence was executed. The next case was that of William Sheward, who has recently been executed at Norwich for the murder of his wife. The last cases were those of James Macdonald at Chester, whose sentence has been respited; and Charles Wiltshire, whose case is the subject of this inquiry. It will be seen, therefore, that of these eleven prisoners, six have suffered the capital sentence; two, I believe, to have been entirely innocent; one is undoubtedly insane, and there remain the other two—Macdonald and Wiltshire. The prisoner Macdonald has been respited on the recommendation of the Judge, who has authorized me to state that, in his opinion, the case was not one in which the capital punishment ought to be enforced—a recommendation which I may say is never disregarded. The case of Wiltshire was a more difficult one. This man being drunk violated a drunken woman. She had been, according to the evidence, drinking at a public-house; had left about ten in the evening; had fallen down repeatedly when helped on her way homewards; and at last had fallen down in a lane and remained in a state of insensibility. There, about one o'clock on a very tempestuous night, she was seen by this man Wiltshire, and violated. Next morning, about eight o'clock, she was found about eighty yards off, under a hay rick to which she had been conveyed, quite dead. The inquiry before the jury was what was the cause of death. It was beyond all question that the woman had been violated by this man Wiltshire. But it was the opinion of the Judge, and it was the opinion of the jury, that the death of this woman was caused rather by her own intemperance, and by exposure to the weather, than by the violence of the prisoner. The evidence of the surgeon, who was the first person who examined her, and which was endorsed by the next gentleman also who examined her, was this—
  "I conducted the post mortem examination with a view to discover the exact cause of death. I used all the means my skill afforded, and, considering all I saw, I found nothing inconsistent with death from natural causes—I mean from wet and cold."
  I have received from ten of the jury the following statement of their opinion in

  1361
  regard to the cause of death. They state—
  "That the deceased was proved to have been totally incapable by reason of intoxication, and had been lying about in the rain and mud for many hours before the condemned met with her; and we believe that the death of the said Harriet Nurse was accelerated by cold and exposure as well as by the violence of the prisoner; that up to the time of the condemned meeting with Harriet Nurse there could be no intention on his part to molest her, or do her any injury, and we hope the clemency of the Crown will be extended to the condemned, as we believe the case is one in which mercy may with propriety be exercised."
  That is the opinion of the jury. The opinion of the Judge was communicated to me on another memorial being sent to me, which memorial stated that, in the opinion of the memorialists, there was no intention on the part of the prisoner to take life, and that the woman's death arose as much from natural causes as from any violence. The Judge, in his communication to me, said—
  "I entirely agree with the memorial, that the evidence shows no intention on the part of the prisoner to take life; and I also think it probable that she would not have died from that violence, if she had not been intoxicated. I shall be glad if you find in these circumstances a reason for granting the prayer of the petition, and commuting the sentence of death to penal servitude."
  It is well that the House and the country should understand how in these cases, which so often offend the honest opinion of the public, there is apparent discrepancy between the opinion of the Judge and jury on the one hand, and that of the Home Secretary on the other. It arises from this—that the jury is obliged to find from the direction of the Judge, a verdict of wilful murder; and that the Judge is constantly required to pass a sentence of death, when it is quite certain it will not, cannot, ought not, to be executed. Take the cases of child murder. It is perfectly notorious that no woman is ever executed for the murder of her infant child. In many other cases, no sooner has the Judge passed his sentence than he immediately communicates with the Home Secretary, telling him his opinion that the capital sentence ought not to be carried out. Such is the state of the law, and so long as it is the state of the law it is absolutely impossible but that the decision of the Secretary of State must occasionally be in disaccord with the finding of the jury and the sentence of the Judge. I thank the House for their kindness in hearing me. I felt that, un-
  1362
  der the circumstances, I could not give a satisfactory explanation without exceeding the brevity ordinarily assigned to answers to Questions. I hope it will be the opinion of the House that, in exercising the high trust reposed in me, I have done so with discretion, and under a full sense of the great responsibility I incur, and that the reasons I have given are satisfactory to the House and to the country.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government consent to the production of the information which will be required by the Return with respect to Roman Catholic Charities, Notice for which stands on the Orders for this day?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he was sorry to say that it would be his duty to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend that evening. He was informed by the Deputy Keeper of the Rolls at the Record Office that it would be impossible to prepare the Returns for which his hon. Friend asked in less than a twelvemonth, and then only by employing upon the task the services of officers who were required in another department.

ARMY—COLONELS' PAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, seeing that Colonels commanding Regiments in the Regular Army no longer receive an allowance for clothing estimated upon the number of men in their Regiments, there is any reason why the Colonels commanding (King's) Dragoon Guards and 1st Royals respectively should continue in the receipt of a higher rate of pay than the Colonels of other Regiments of the Line?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the reduction suggested by the hon. Member had been determined upon in the month of August last year, and when the colonelcy of the 1st Royals became vacant, the appointment was made at a reduced rate.

  CATTLE PLAGUE—DISEASED FOREIGN SHEEP.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he rose to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, of which he had not given him notice, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished it he would postpone it till tomorrow. He wished to know if it were true that a cargo of 1,800 sheep had arrived in London from Antwerp, of which several were found when landed to be infected with sheep-pox; and also whether another cargo of between 500 and 600 sheep, also from Antwerp, had been landed at Harwich, a portion of which were also found to be infected; and, if so, what steps had been taken to prevent the spread of the infection?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that, for the information of the noble Lord, and for the satisfaction of the House, he would answer the Question at once. It was true he yesterday received information that two cargoes of sheep had arrived, one at London, and another at Harwich, in both of which it was stated that one or two sheep were suffering from sheep-pox. Steps were immediately taken to ascertain the truth of the statement, and officers of the Customs and of the Department with which he was connected were sent to examine. With respect to Harwich, he held in his hand a Report from Professor Simons, in which it was stated that a cargo had been landed there consisting of 351 sheep, of which three were discovered to be suffering from sheep-pox. The fact was discovered not only before the sheep had left the wharf, but before they could possibly have been placed in communication with other sheep. Steps were immediately taken for the slaughter of the whole cargo, and orders were given that no more sheep should be landed at that wharf till it had been thoroughly disinfected. A telegraphic message had been sent down to Harwich to carry these orders into effect. With regard to the cargo which was brought to London the same steps had been taken. The cargo there consisted of about 1,800 sheep, twenty-two of them were suspected to be infected with the sheep-pox, and one or two of them were found to be thoroughly infected. Steps were immediately taken that the whole cargo should be slaughtered, and in this
  1364
  case also the order was carried into effect before it was possible that they could come in contact with other sheep. The House ought to be informed that every step had been taken in this case which would have been taken if the late Orders in Council had been still in force. Owing to the vigilance of the officers of Customs, and of the other departments, everything was done that could have been done if these Orders had been still in force—that was to say that all diseased sheep, and all the sheep that had been in communication with them, were destroyed, and orders were given that the wharves where they were landed should not be used again till they were thoroughly disinfected. He might explain to the House, as it might appear alarming that two cargoes landed at different ports were both infected, that there was reason to believe that these cargoes were sent by the same person on the Continent, and were consigned to the same parties here, and that they had been separated in the hope of their being more easily landed—a device that was quickly discovered by the authorities.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask if the Privy Council had determined to issue any fresh general orders with regard to sheep that were imported from districts abroad that were reported to be infected?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the matter had been under the consideration of the Privy Council, but the facts did not appear to warrant any change; nothing had happened which tended to show that the regulations now in force were insufficient.

  IRISH CHURCH BILL— [BILL 27.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 14 (Compensation to ecclesiastical persons other than curates).
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, as the clause now stood it would work great injustice upon those incumbents who from ill-health, age, or other good reason, might desire to exchange their livings. In order to remedy this defect he proposed the following Amendment in page 5, line 23—

  1365
  "After 'or preferment' insert 'or other equivalent duty to which he shall have been duly appointed in respect of the Protestant Church in Ireland.'"
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he had on the Paper an Amendment embracing all that the hon. Baronet asked for, but going to some extent further than the hon. Baronet proposed. He would suggest, therefore, by way of saving time, that the hon. Baronet should permit him to move his Amendment. He need not trouble the Committee with many reasons for his Amendment, because its principle had been recognized by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who said that it was not his intention to tie down those who were entitled to compensation to the same local duties in which they were now occupied. It was evident that the Church in her new position would require to make great changes in the distribution of her powers, and, therefore, it was but fair that every facility should be afforded her for doing so. Amendment moved in line 23—
  "After 'preferment,' insert 'or any other spiritual duties in Ireland which may he substituted for them, with his own consent, and with the consent of the representative body of the said Church hereinafter mentioned, or, if not discharging such duties, shall be disabled from so doing by age, sickness, or permanent infirmity, or by any cause other than his own wilful default."—(Sir Roundell Palmer.)
  He trusted that the Government would agree to the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, that the Government were of opinion that the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment might be safely adopted. The words of the clause made the income of the Archbishop, Bishop, or incumbent dependent upon the discharge of his duties; and the Government agreed with the hon. and learned Member that that income should not be forfeited in the event of an exchange of livings, or of the recipient being disabled from discharging his duties through no fault of his own. The Government had carefully considered the Amendment, and it appeared to them that it might safely be adopted.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONwould with pleasure withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, which was to the same effect as the one he had himself proposed, only
  1366
  that it went even further, therefore the object he had in view—namely, the fair protection of the Irish clergy was equally attained.
  Amendment (Sir Roundell Palmer) agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, the next Amendment that stood upon the Paper was also in his name, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would accept it, or, at all events, words intended to have the same effect, as it rested on much the same grounds as the last. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to place himself in the position of the unfortunate persons who were to be deprived of their means by this Bill, and to say whether, in the event of an incumbent dying within six months of the time of the passing of this Bill, it was just that the parish of which he had spiritual charge should be left without any minister to perform the services of the Church? The only permanent endowment under this Bill would be given to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, every other compensation given under it being only for life. In the case of Maynooth the compensation was made in a lump sum, which, if invested, would give a very considerable permanent income. Under these circumstances he begged to move the following Amendment in page 5, line 24—
  "After' as aforesaid' insert 'and at the death of such incumbent or other avoidance of such benefice or preferment, his successor, if any such be duly appointed, shall be paid a similar annual payment from the same source, and by the same authorities, and such annual payment shall continue to be so paid to any duly appointed successor so long as the duties of such benefice or preferment are properly and adequately performed.'"
  Nobody could gainsay the justice of these words, because they merely proposed to provide for the parish that which had been hitherto provided for partly by the generosity of the landowners and partly by the tithe-rent-charge. The House had heard from the Prime Minister that the sooner the Irish Church was remitted to the liberality of its members the better. To a certain extent he admitted that proposition, although there might be two views even with regard to that. This measure proposed to take away a great proportion of the funds that had belonged to that Church for 300 years, and even to take

  1367
  away private endowments. Having thus shorn the Church, it was proposed to turn her out naked to gain fresh wool—in time, probably, to be shorn again. He objected to that sheep-shearing process, and he hoped the Prime Minister would agree to his Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must commence by assuring the hon. Baronet that, as far as the Government were concerned, there was not the slightest intention to grant any permanent endowment to Maynooth. If the hon. Baronet objected to the form of the clause making compensation to that College, he might propose to amend it when that clause came on for discussion. The principle of this Bill was to take away all permanent endowments, without inquiring what crumbs and fragments the parties receiving compensation might save out of the wreck in order to establish a permanent fund for their support. In looking at the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet, he could scarcely suppose that it could have been put forward seriously. It was possibly susceptible of two constructions—the first and mildest construction being that, upon the vested interest with which the Committee had now to deal should be put another generation of vested interests; and the second being that, having already passed the general clauses of the Bill disendowing the Church of Ireland, the Committee should now insert words into this clause which would perpetuate endowments at the present rate in every parish in Ireland. He need scarcely say that the Government could not assent to such a proposition.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he was not sure whether it would be proper here to advert to a subject which he regretted had not been referred to on a former clause that related to life interests in lands and hereditaments belonging to the clergy. What they had already done was to allow property to vest in the Commissioners, and by words in the former clause to reserve to the present holders all the corporeal hereditaments which they possessed for their lives in the same manner as if this Bill had not passed. He understood that a considerable part of the income of some of them was dependent upon fines; that was to say, they had leasing powers and
  1368
  they received fines on the renewal of the leases. A doubt had occurred to his mind whether the effect of the Bill had been hitherto to save the leasing power at all, and, if so, whether it was to remain with all its former incidents. It seemed to him that if a doubt existed upon the point the matter could be set right upon the Report.
  MR. PIMsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment, the object of which was to increase the annuities to be paid to the holders of very poor benefices. There were in Ireland 297 benefices of under £100 a year, 421 of between £100 and £200, and 356 of between £200 and £300. In fact, about two-thirds of the benefices in Ireland had a net revenue of under £300. There were about 1,000 of the Irish livings in the patronage of the Bishops; and there could be no doubt that a considerable number of these livings must, in course of time, be given to the rev. gentlemen whose claims he advocated. It was utterly impossible that the Bishops could avoid giving at least some of those livings to those gentlemen, however much they might wish to bestow their patronage on their own particular friends. He therefore thought that clergymen who held very poor benefices were entitled to compensation for the loss of their chance of preferment. It should be remembered that by the Bill, these gentlemen were bound to perform duty for life; and, as the scheme of this Bill destroyed the prospects of promotion which they would otherwise have had, their case required some consideration from Parliament. Certainly they had a strong claim, and he trusted that the question would not be treated on merely technical grounds of law, but on liberal terms of equity. He thought they were entitled to something for the loss of their hopes of improvement; being now left in narrow circumstances, and in a much less favourable position than they might have anticipated. He had received several letters on the subject, not only from clergymen but from others. He had received one from Dr. Longfield, late Judge of the Irish Landed Estates Court, who remarked that a clergyman could only earn his bread as a clergyman or a schoolmaster, and they should offer him compensation not only for existing rights but also for the loss of future prospects. In the Library of the House he had seen

  1369
  an able pamphlet on the subject, and the writer held very much the same opinion as Dr. Longfield, and proposed something of very much the same character. Some holders of benefices had accepted less income than they had received when curates, in order to get into the way of promotion, and it would be hard if they should be placed in a worse position than they would have occupied if they had remained curates. He was anxious to have the principle established, because he thought it was not right or just that the holders of very small livings should get nothing more than a life annuity of the same amount as their present income. He had fixed on £250 a year as the average income for which those clergymen might reasonably hope, and he had put down twenty-five years as the term after which the increased annuity should commence to be paid, because he believed that term to be about the average of the number of years' service after which a clergyman might, under ordinary circumstances, expect a better position than that enjoyed by holders of those small livings. He trusted hon. Gentlemen would not be impatient. Indeed, if a provision limiting their own incomes to £100 a year for life were under consideration they would not think even two or three nights wasted in its discussion. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a speech which he once delivered, referring to the interests of the parties of whom he then spoke, said that though it was not a legal interest, it was one with which the House were bound to deal generously, and he (Mr. Pim) hoped to see that sentiment applied to the present case. The interest for which he pleaded—that is, the expectation of preferment—was not a legal interest, but he submitted that, like the claims derived under the Regium Donum, it was an interest of a kind with which the House ought to deal generously. He therefore moved the following addition to Clause 14, page 5, line 24:—
  "Provided always, That where the net income of the holder of any benefice does not at present amount to two hundred and fifty pounds per annum, the Commissioners shall increase the annuity to be paid to the holder of such benefice to the aforesaid sum of two hundred and fifty pounds as from the first day of January next succeeding the day on which he shall have completed the term of twenty-five years in the discharge of the duties of a clergyman in the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was sorry the Government were unable to accept the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend. He did not deny the difficulty of the case. When a Church Establishment, involving so many interests, or oven when a small establishment, involving interests on a smaller scale, was dealt with on the principle of abolition, there was always a great risk of inconvenience to individuals in the loss of the prospect of promotion, but it was impossible for Parliament to undertake to offer compensation for that loss. One reason for that was the extremely indefinite nature of those prospects. They had heard that all curates in Ireland received preferment; but the rule was not without exceptions, because he had received a letter some short time since in which the writer stated that though he had served under six Bishops in the same diocese, none of them had been sufficiently long in possession to provide for those in whom they felt a more natural and special interest, and, consequently, the writer had never been promoted. Supposing, too, that curates did get preferment, that preferment was of a very unequal character, though he agreed with his hon. Friend that, if they could deal with this matter at all, the case of the poor incumbent was a subject as worthy of consideration as that of the permanent curate. But let the Committee look—though he acknowledged that the analogy was somewhat imperfect—at the manner in which they dealt with the civil servants when Government offices or situations were abolished. When a Civil Service was abolished its duties were destroyed altogether, and the men were thrown out of their career altogether, except so far as superannuation was concerned, having no title to appointments elsewhere. He was bound to except from the statement of his hon. Friend that this Bill, although for disendowment and disestablishment, cut the parties off from all hope of improvement. He did not admit that those who received £150 or £200 a year as clergymen in Ireland could never hope for anything better in the Disestablished Church. When a civil servant in this country was dismissed he was compensated for his vested interest, and not on his prospect of preferment, although his prospect was secured by the fixed usage of the public service. A clerk passed from

  1371
  class to class by seniority, and even in that case the Government declined to compensate him, because his loss was not of a character which the law could measure, and to which a given amount of compensation could be adopted. In the case of the clergyman, he did not deny that much might be said in favour of the view advocated by his hon. Friend; but it would not only be a total departure from the usual practice to add fixed scales over and above those for vested interests, but it would raise such a diversity of claims, that we should probably end by creating greater dissatisfaction by the refusal of claims which it would be impossible to allow than we should confer pleasure by acceding to others which might be regarded as just.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the civil servants under the circumstances alluded to received their compensations absolutely and without any condition; whereas in this case the compensations were given on the express condition that these recipients should continue to perform the duties they had hitherto discharged.
  MR. GLADSTONEdid not say that the analogy between the two cases was perfect, but did not think that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had altered the analogy in a sense unfavourable to his argument. Why did the House impose duties on these individuals? Not for its own sake. It would have simplified the matter very much if Parliament had been able to adopt the principle of the public establishments, and to give an annuity and ask for nothing. But they had to consider that a clergyman belonged to a body, and was desirous of discharging his duties as one of that body; but, as against the body itself, Parliament imposed no duties whatever. Only let the clergyman and the body agree, the clergyman might receive his annuity and go scot free all over the world.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he did not know what was the case in Ireland, but in the case of many of the small livings in England the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be increasing the incomes up to a certain amount, and where this was being done the holders, though possessing no vested interests, had an expectancy which in character very nearly approached it. If the clergyman had a
  1372
  reasonable expectation that an increase would be given to him from the Church property, it came as nearly as possible, to a vested expectancy, to which they should give some attention.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, it was quite true that by the law in Ireland the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did augment small holdings; and to the full extent to which they would augment them up to the passing of the Act the holders would be entitled to compensation. The augmentation given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners up to the passing of the Act would be considered a part of the income to be compensated for.
  MR. WALPOLEreminded the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his question referred not to augmentations which had been completed, but to those which were in progress.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, that the point should receive consideration.
  DR. BALLsaid, that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) was of great importance in principle, and the question was not whether the exact sum suggested as compensation should be adopted, or whether the particular proposal was exactly feasible, but whether the principle should not be accepted of giving some compensation for the utter and total destruction, of the possibility even of promotion to benefices. He had expected that since the other evening the Government would have re-considered the question of compensation, founded upon the hopes of promotion which the clergy in the Irish Church might reasonably entertain. On a former occasion he had cited, from Hallam, who, in discussing this very question of the suppression of religious Establishments, excepted from his principles one class of persons—namely, those in whom the succession is either probable or designated. He believed that in the case of curates the succession was, not only probable, but he would go so far as to say he believed it to be designated. Mr. Stuart Mill, a politician of extreme opinions also, in his essay on Corporation and Church Property, was disposed to respect and consider the expectations of all persons actually in Orders. After all, it was not satisfactorily to be met merely by a majority, and the assertion—" We

  1373
  cannot do it." But every thinker said—"You ought to do it," and it was no answer to say that it was difficult to do it. He would accept with gratitude a small compensation; but the Prime Minister said he would give none, and that he would confine himself to forcing the performance of duty at such a miserably low payment that it was neither a compensation nor a benefit. He drew a distinction between the case of civil servants and the case of a clergy. Property of this nature must be dealt with on different principles from a sum paid by the nation out of its own resources, and of its own free will and pleasure. The Irish clergy had a designated right of succession in this property; but they would have no right of succession where the nation owned the property, and in respect of which they were dependent on the will of the State. The case of the civil servants was wholly different from the case of the clergy. They were like persons in a great mercantile establishment, who served a firm for years on the faith of the honour and generosity of that firm at the expiration of the service, but they could not be viewed as having the same right to compensation as if the property were their own.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's (Dr. Ball's) proposition covered a much wider field than the conclusions he had drawn from it. If the spes successionis was a good ground for compensation, why should they stop at the small livings? If it belonged as right to the clergy of Ireland, it must belong to every member of that Church who had not reached the dignity of Archbishop of Armagh. It was obvious that, taking the ordinary chances of life, there was a certain number of incumbents who must sooner or later become Bishops, and a more limited number who must ultimately become Archbishops. The spes successionis, as put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a legal basis of compensation could not be maintained for a moment. He was sorry his right hon. and learned Friend had rested his case upon that ground, because he hoped the Committee was something more than a court of law administering merely legal rights. He thought they might be regarded as doing something else than merely awarding compensation, either as a court of law or as a court of equity,
  1374
  according to the strict and narrow principles of distributive justice. The High Court of Parliament was something higher than that, and they had a right to dispense the generosity and bounty of the nation according to principles of sound policy. His right hon. and learned Friend had inconveniently mixed up two classes of rights—the freehold rights of incumbents and the rights not freehold which belonged to curates. When they came to the clauses dealing with curates he should appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether some different arrangement might not be made in the terms of compensation offered, but it would be inconvenient to deal with that question upon this clause. This clause dealt simply with freehold rights; and he did not see on what principle they could distinguish between such rights, and say that a person who had a small freehold should have a larger compensation, while a person with a large freehold should have a smaller proportionate compensation. Though they were all desirous of acting in a spirit of fairness and generosity in carrying out this act of public necessity and political justice, he did not see how the distinction which had been suggested could be drawn in this case.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Harcourt) did not seem to be aware of the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England had recognized the right of clergymen to the spes successionis by fixing the sum of £300 a year as the amount to which the incomes of all small livings should be raised. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) simply wished by his Amendment to raise small livings in Ireland to to £250 a year under analogous circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government claimed an analogy between the cases of civil servants and the Irish clergy; but in that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten the expression he himself made use of on a former occasion, when he said the clergy belonged to an indelible profession. The civil servants, when they left the service of the Crown and were compensated, could go into other professions, and had other means of earning money which were not open to the clergy.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the

  1375
  Amendment. They must not be generous at the expense of justice, and they must recollect that the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland were the property of the Irish nation. The practical effect of Amendments of this character would be to leave little or nothing to be applied for national purposes. The principle of commuting life interests was open to grave objections, because they might be commuted on a scale which would altogether defeat the objects proposed by this Bill, and which would endow the Protestant Church of the future almost to the same extent to which it was endowed at present. If the principle of commuting life interests required the absorption of all, or nearly all, the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, that principle ought to be abandoned and things maintained in their present position during the lives of the present incumbents, and at their death the undiminished revenues of the Church could be applied to national purposes. They ought not to advance beyond the bounds of compensation proposed by this Bill, which, in his opinion, gave to the Irish. Protestants considerably more than in justice they were entitled to.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had confused the principles of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). The two things were quite different. The suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge stood on its own merits and would be considered by the Government; but the proposal of the hon. Member for Dublin was to deal with certain claims for compensation on an arbitrary rule and scale invented by himself, which would be an anomaly and inequality of which many would complain. If it were right to apply the principle of this Amendment to livings under the value of £250 a year, why should not the same rule be applied to other livings? It was clear that such a mode of compensation was one of the most arbitrary and unequal character. The hon. Member for Whitehaven suggested that the Irish clergy were under a disadvantage because they were confined to one profession. That was true; but it was equally true that their professional prospects and career were not de-
  1376
  stroyed by this Bill. The Committee must not suppose that there would not be a large demand for clergymen in Ireland after the passing of this Bill. It would, indeed, be a miserable state of things if the change now in progress were to have the result which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to fear. On the contrary, he was convinced that there would be a large demand for the services of clergymen, and although their pecuniary prospects would be affected by the Bill, they would certainly not be destroyed. The supply of clergymen to the Irish Church within the last five or six years had been largely diminished. The number of curates had decreased from 800 to under 500, and no doubt since the carrying of the Irish Church Resolutions last year the entrance of new members to the clerical profession in Ireland had received a great check. But the number of clergymen still in that Church was far beyond the reasonable necessities of the Irish Church. Their prospects and emoluments were by no means put an end to in other parts of the country and in the British Empire; and that was not an unimportant consideration in fixing their compensation by this Bill. As to the continued enforcement of religious duty on the clergymen receiving compensation, which had been referred to as another point of contrast between the treatment of civil servants and the treatment of the Irish clergy, there had been great exaggeration on that point. He denied that by this Bill they forced the perpetual performance of their present duties on the clergy of the Irish Church. It depended on themselves and the future governing body of the Church whether they should be discharged from those duties or not. If it seemed good to the incumbents and the governing body of the Church, those clergymen might either be transferred to other spheres of action within the Church, or be discharged from duty altogether; while they would continue during their lives to receive the compensations provided by this Bill.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had shown them that there were more clergymen in Ireland now than were required, and yet he thought so well of their prospects and spoke of the good future before them. It had been admitted that two-thirds of

  1377
  the clergy of the Irish. Church had these very small livings. What, then, became of the argument which was so often used concerning their inordinate pay and their great prospects? The fact was that, though the case of the curates was a hard one, the case of the holders of small livings was quite as hard. The curates and. the holders of small livings had a good chance of removal to better livings; for there existed in Ireland a common practice of promoting a clergyman from one living to another, as though they were in the army or navy, and that led to reasonable expectations of promotion. He hoped the Government would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim), seeing that the amount involved was small, and that they would like to have the satisfaction afterwards of having done their duty to a class of hard-worked and ill-paid gentlemen.
  MR. SAUNDERSONpointed out, as an objectionable feature in the Amendment, that it would benefit a clergyman who had fulfilled his duties for twenty-five years, but would not be of the slightest advantage to a clergyman who had been in the Church twenty-four years and eleven months.
  MR. PIMsaid, that was a mistake, as the Amendment he had proposed would not have that effect.
  MR. O'NEILLsupported the Amendment, believing that the compensation to curates and the holders of small livings ought to be increased. The holders of good livings took their benefices with the idea that, they might remain in them probably for the rest of their lives; but the great majority of curates and the holders of small livings expected to be promoted, so that that drew a distinction between the two cases.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he regretted he could not support this proposal. He felt very strongly, as in the case of the curates, that there should be some kind of compensation for these parties; but he could not help thinking it must be given, if at all, in a manner which should not operate injuriously on the interests of the Church at large after disestablishment. The present proposition was to enable every clergyman now in the possession of a small living to refuse all commutation of his life interest, and remain in his living beyond twenty-five years, in order that he might hereafter
  1378
  obtain an increased annuity. Now, that might tend to be an obstacle to those re-arrangements of duties and that commutation of the interests of the whole body, which he deemed of paramount importance; and, therefore, though certainly not unwilling to support any proposition of another kind, which, without having this effect, might give due and reasonable consideration to this class of claims, he, with great reluctance, felt unable to vote for the proposed Amendment.
  MR. PIM, in replying, said, the discussion had satisfied him that the Amendment was right in principle, and that he had done right in proposing it. It was very important to convince the clergy that that House and the head of the Government meant nothing unfair towards them, and what had occurred tended to produce that effect. As he saw no hopes of carrying the Amendment he had proposed, he would not trouble the Committee to divide upon it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the words "permanent curate" were not known to the law, but a phrase was wanted to express a distinction that was required for the purpose of the Act, between the curates who might be said to be on a footing of permanence and those who stood on a temporary footing. The Amendment he had to propose referred partly to the circumstances of the incumbent and partly to those of the parish, and they defined the nature of the service of the curate. It would, at all events, give the Commissioners the mind and intention of Parliament, so as to enable them to decide who were to be regarded as permanent curates. He accordingly moved, in line 31, after the word "curate," to insert the words—
  "Having regard to the length or term of his service, to the nature and extent of the duties needful to be discharged in the Benefice, and to the non-residence or infirmity, or other incapacity of the incumbent, or his habitual employment of a curate to assist him as heretofore."
  Amendment proposed, in line 31, after the word "curate," to insert the words—
  "Having regard to the length or term of his service, to the nature and extent of the duties needful to be discharged in the Benefice, and to the non-residence, or infirmity, or other incapacity of the incumbent, or his habitual employment of a curate to assist him as heretofore."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, that, at that stage of the proceedings, he begged to put to the right hon. Gentleman a question of considerable importance, and he believed that, if it was discussed upon the principles of common charity, it would tend very much to simplify their dealing with the next clause. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Government proposed to deal with those who were not permanent curates, and whether they meant to adhere to the provision in the following clause, that those gentlemen should only be compensated with the pitiful sum of £200?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the question was not strictly relevant to the present clause. But, at the same time, he could easily understand that hon. Gentlemen might wish to know more distinctly what was the view of the Government with respect to non-permanent curates; and he would, therefore, at once, state that they were prepared to modify the proposal they tad made with respect to that class. They did not think it desirable to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin. (Mr. Pim) as it stood, but they believed that with some slight alteration that Amendment might meet the justice of the case.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that this was not a question of party spirit, but of strict justice. They wanted to find out, first, what was the vested interests of the incumbent; and, next, to compensate him for that interest. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing his measure on the 1st of March, said that incumbents were to be secured in the receipt of a certain annual income, and that certain duties were to be discharged in return. An Irish incumbent was thus to be compensated according to the amount he received, the duty he performed, and he was to remain subject to the laws by which he was bound. He was bound to discharge the duties of his sacred office, and if he did not the Bishop might interfere. He (Mr. Cross) believed they were all agreed as to the desirability of carrying out the object contemplated by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman; but it appeared to him that that object would be better attained by substituting for the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the words of the Act of 5 Geo. IV. with respect to the duty of incumbents. Those words were as follows:—
  1380
  "The Commissioners shall have regard to the number of churches or chapels belonging to the benefice; to the distance of such church or chapel from the residence of the spiritual person serving that church or chapel; to the difficulty of personally attending the same, and to the negligence or mental and bodily infirmity of such spiritual person."
  For the purpose of illustrating the caution, with which they ought to proceed in. that matter, he might state that in the diocese of Armagh there were twelve parishes, having each a Church population of over 1,000, with an average area of 9,000 acres, and. in which the average income of the incumbents was £600 a year, while not one of these incumbents employed a curate. In the same diocese there were twelve other parishes of the same average acreage, but with a Church population averaging only 380, and in which the incumbents, who had similar incomes of £600 a year, all employed curates, although they had a much smaller Church population. Now, if the proposal of the Government were carried into effect, the result would be, as he understood the matter, that the incumbents who had not availed themselves of the services of curates for the better discharge of the duties of their several offices, would have no deductions made from their incomes, and would thus be placed in a better position than those clergymen who had taken care to supply themselves with proper spiritual assistants, and who would on that very account be subjected to the payment of a fine. He appealed to the Committee and to the Government whether that was a principle which it would be fair and reasonable to adopt? To be strictly just, the first inquiry should be as to what a man should have in the way of compensation, and when that had been decided it was time enough to inquire where the money should come from. It was no justification of the course proposed to say that it was not clear where the money should come from if the incumbent was not fined for it.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend what was the precise intention of the Amendment? He put the case of a living where a curate was always employed, and presumed that, in such a case, the Government did not intend to fix upon the curate who happened to be there on the passing of the Act, and consider him as the permanent curate; because it

  1381
  might become necessary, for a variety of reasons, that he should leave: the incumbent, for instance, might require him to leave on some ground involving difference of doctrine, and, presuming the living required a curate, as a matter of necessity, a new one would have to be appointed and paid. This state of things should be borne in mind.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALstated, with reference to the criticism of the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross) that a clergyman with an income of £800 a year, out of which he had systematically paid £100 to a curate, should be regarded as having had an income of £700 only. The object of the Amendment was to guide and not absolutely to fetter the discretion of the Commissioners, and for this purpose he, believed it was desirable that the words should be susceptible of a large interpretation. But that, he thought, would not be case if they were to adopt the words of the Act of George IV., as suggested by the hon. Member. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had raised a somewhat different point. He had regarded the curate as an office, and conceived the ease of a curate who had been in office but a short; time. As length of service, however, was one of the circumstances the Commissioners would have to take into account, the case his hon. and learned Friend had conceived was met. And, inasmuch as the incumbent had always had a curate, and his income had always been depreciated to the extent of that curate's salary, the depreciated income would represent a fair basis for calculating compensation. On the other hand, there was no injustice in compensating the curate found in possession of the office at the time of the passing of the Act. A particular curate might gain an advantage; but it was impossible to follow with precision the multitude of cases that would come before the Commissioners, and it was much better to lay down a general rule.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he did not consider the answer he had received from his hon. and learned Friend by any means satisfactory; the course proposed was most unreasonable, and would work injuriously to curate and incumbent. The fallacy of the Solicitor General's reasoning was patent. For the convenience of expression he treated a
  1382
  curate as the holder of a permanent office, and then used this convenient expression in a way false in logic and principle. His hon. and learned Friend had not met the case he had put of an incumbent who changed his curates in the hope of securing the best possible man for the purpose. In the case assumed there had never been any freehold in the curacy, there being only a sort of moral obligatian upon the incumbent to keep a curate for the benefit of his parish; and so it would continue to be after the disestablishment of the Church had been effected. The clergyman could part at present with his curate at will; but, under the words of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when a curate had served six months in a parish before the passing of the Act he was to have a sort of windfall at the clergyman's expense, and was to receive a permanent annuity charged upon the clergyman's income, whether he gave satisfaction or not, whether he conformed to the doctrine of his incumbent or not, and whether he made himself agreeable or the reverse. The effect would be to compel the clergyman either to keep a curate whom he objected to or else to pay an additional one to discharge his duties. He thought that it was utterly unreasonable that a curate should be held to have a permanent charge upon the income of the clergyman, unless he had served such a reasonable time as would prove his fitness for the place.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, nothing could be more plain than that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would compel the incumbent in many cases to pay two curates instead of one. He thought that the words at the end of the clause were perhaps the most important in the whole Bill that they would have to discuss, so far as the compensation clauses were concerned. They were as follows:—
  "The Commissioners shall determine the cases in which a curate is to be deemed a permanent curate, after hearing any objections that may be made to the permanency of the curate by the ecclesiastical person under whom he has been or is serving."
  He thought that some more accurate definition of the word "permanent" should be given than those words afforded.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN), as there were several matters of moment to be

  1383
  discussed in this clause, said, it was necessary to distinguish accurately between them. He could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was discussing, under Clause 14, a subject which might be more appropriately discussed under Clause 15. The question which arose under the present clause was, what deductions were to be made from the incumbent's income; but the question as to who was to get the deductions so made was not now before the House, as that would have to be discussed on Clause 15. The Committee had already decided that deductions were to be made in respect of permanent curates; and the question before them now was whether the words proposed to be added to that clause of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government were sufficient for the purpose of carrying out that conclusion. It was a curious circumstance that the word "permanent" was to be found in several old Irish Ecclesiastical Acts as applied to curates, and that in 14 & 15 Vict. c. 73, s. 2, it was declared that in ascertaining the net income of the clergy for the purposes of the Act, the "salaries of permanent and necessary curates" were to be deducted. The words used in the present case were mere amplifications of those words, the word "permanent" standing alone being considered too vague. It was perfectly true, as was contended by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that length of time of service formed an essential part of this clause, but the particular length of time was not denned. It might so happen that a clergyman who had kept a curate for twenty years might lose him some year or so before the passing of the Act, but surely it would not be right to say that, under these circumstances, his new curate was not to be regarded as a permanent one. It was the permanent employment by a clergyman of a curate that was intended to be looked to, and not the length of service in that capacity of any individual.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it was idle to attempt to separate the words "permanent curate" from the individual curate who was to receive the deductions to be made from the incumbent's salary. In order to bring the matter to a precise issue, he should move, as an Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman's Amend-
  1384
  ment, to insert after the word "service" the words" and also."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "service," to insert the words "and also."—(Sir Roundell Palmer.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not agree to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, because it would make a certain length of service by a curate a condition of the declaration under this Act that he had been a permanent curate. In the 14 & 15 Vict, the words "permanent curate" were used in precisely the same sense as that which the Government proposed they should have in this Act. The question whether the particular curate who might be holding the office at the time the clause was to come into effect had held it for a particular time, though an element of consideration in another respect, was not at all an essential element in the consideration of the question whether there had been a permanent curate. The object of that part of the clause now under discussion was not to determine the question to whom the salary was to be paid, but to determine whether the case was one in which a deduction was to be made from the incumbent, on the ground that there was a permanent curate. Lower down there were words which contained a provision that the rector was to be heard when the Commissioners were considering these matters.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he thought it would be well that the Committee should decide on what grounds the Commissioners were to determine the status of the curate.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that the words merely pointed out, for the consideration of the Commissioners, where there was any element for determining whether there was a permanent curate or not.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he thought the confusion had arisen from the words stating that the Commissioners should decide who were to be deemed permanent curates. The Commissioners were to pay the person so long as he discharged the duties of his office a certain annuity; and he had to suggest the insertion of words, to make it clear that they should deem that person a permanent curate who had been employed

  1385
  in any particular parish for a length of time.
  MR. LEFROYobjected to give the Commissioners power to decide who were or who were not permanent curates.
  MR. J. H. PALMERsaid, that the clause connected too closely the personality of the curate with the nature of his office. They ought, in his opinion, to make as little alteration as possible in the language of the clause, and he should therefore suggest that these words should be used—"Having regard to the length of time during which such curate had been employed," instead of the words, "having regard to the length of term of his service."
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, what the hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed was exactly contrary to his view of the question. His object was to take from the incumbent and give to the permanent curate; but that if the permanent curate did not comply with the conditions, then the money should revert to the incumbent, who might then find another curate. He trusted the Committee would adhere to the clause.
  GENERAL PERCY HERBERTsaid, he wished to know what was proposed to be done in the case of a curate who had been in Holy Orders for only eight or nine months, and who had been fortunate enough in that time to be appointed to a permanent curacy; and what would be the nature of the treatment accorded to the curate who had been in Holy Orders for twelve or fifteen years, but who at the last moment had undertaken the duties of a curacy which evidently was of a temporary character?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have heard it stated that the Government purposed altering that portion of the Bill which related to non-permanent curates, with a view to bringing their condition nearer, although not identical to that of the permanent curates.
  MR. G. GREGORYsuggested that this section of the clause should be postponed until the Committee had dealt with Clause 15.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 221: Majority 93.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved, in line 33, after "serving," to insert—
  "Provided always, That where deduction has been made under this section in respect of the salary of 1 permanent curate, and the salary of such curate ceases in the lifetime of the person in ascertaining whose yearly income such salary has been deducted as aforesaid, the Commissioners shall thenceforth pay to such person, so long as he lives and continues to discharge the duties of his office, a further annuity equal to the amount of such curate's salary, subject to the provisions for commutation hereinafter contained."
  The right hon. Gentleman said, this proviso would repair a pardonable omission in the Bill. The omission was pardonable, because the circumstances of this part of the clause were so many, various, and complicated that it might be excused. It was, of course, entirely contrary to the intention of the Bill that an incumbent should be Placed in such a condition as that, having had a deduction of the salary of his curate made from his income, and then, in consequence of the decease or departure of his curate, should find himself deprived of that part of his income.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Compensation to curates).
  MR. PIM MR. PIM moved to omit the first part of the clause, which provided that the Commissioners—
  "Shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, ascertain and declare by order, the amount of yearly income received by any permanent curate who has been or is serving as such curate on any day between the said first day of January one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine and the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, both days inclusive, and shall pay to every such curate during his life an annuity equal to the amount of yearly income so ascertained as aforesaid, subject to the proviso that the annuity of such curate shall cease if, owing to his misconduct, or by his own free choice, he quit the curacy in respect of which the annuity is given to him."
  The hon. Member said, it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was prepared to accept, to some extent, the principle suggested in the further Amendments of which he had given notice. His object in moving them was to secure the payment of a lump sum to each curate, so that the compensation he received should not be dependent upon his remaining in the curacy. He had received communications from curates in the dioceses of Cork, Ossory, and Cashel, who complained of the hardship of tying them down for life to

  1387
  one spot, and complained that the method of compensation proposed pressed with great severity upon the curates of longest standing. There did not appear to be any provision for old age and sickness, so that if a curate was incapacitated by sickness he would lose his annuity, which would be a great hardship, He (Mr. Pim) thought that, instead of a life annuity, a lump sum ought to be given to them, without enforcing any conditions, by way of compensation for their expenditure in preparing themselves for an office which they had expected would continue to be supported by the State.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the first paragraph.—(Mr. Pim.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he understood the hon. Member wished to collect what were the precise arrangements which the Government proposed with regard to the non-permanent curates. He wished to say, then, that he thought the Amendment might be adopted with one alteration, which would cause the increment to grow more slowly, because £50 a year was undoubtedly too rapid, and the effect of such a proposal would be to place the non-permanent curate in many cases in a better position than the permanent curate, The greatest difficulty in the Bill was not how to apply it as between the State and the body of the clergy, but to observe an accurate proportion in dealing with the various classes concerned. Now, clearly, non-permanent curates must not be treated quite so favourably as permanent curates. Under this Bill the permanent curate would receive on the average, as nearly as could be estimated, an annuity which would be commuted at between £1,300 and £1,400, subject to the condition that he was to perform his duty according to arrangements with his incumbent, during the lifetime of the incumbent. Subject to this condition, and to the consent of the incumbent and of the Church Body, he would be able to commute his annuity, and the commutation would vary according to the age of the curate and the amount of his salary, but the average would be about the amount stated. Of course, in commuting the annuity, the obligations of service would be considered. The incumbent would say—"You cannot commute without compounding in respect of the
  1388
  service from the obligations of which you are going to be altogether relieved." A great portion of these permanent curates would be young men in the full vigour of life, and, supposing that the rector obtained from them one-half or one-third of the commutation money as the condition of releasing them from service, they would have £500 or £700 in their pockets—no very large sum, Heaven knew, for men of education, but still a much larger sum, probably, than many of them had ever commanded in their lives, and they would have the world before them. It could not be said in this case that in taking away their particular employment you took away all employment, for Ireland was only a small portion of the field open to them. There were in Ireland not more than 500 curacies, but in England there were more than 5,000, for every one of which the Irish curate, dismissed with £500 or £700 in his pocket, would be at liberty to compete upon terms of perfect equality. He was far from saying that any of them would get more than, or even as much as, they deserved to get, but he was sure that there were many hundreds of English curates whose mouths would water at the mode in which the Bill dealt with curates in Ireland. Assuming, then, that on a rough estimate—though he admitted this to be mere conjecture—the permanent curate on commutation would receive £1,300, of which he would surrender one-half to be relieved from duty, it was plain that the compensation paid to the non-permanent curate must be below that. In dealing with him there would be this important distinction—the sum paid to him would be coupled with no obligation; he would receive it unconditionally. Consequently, though it might be very fair to give a minimum of £200, in consideration of displacement from office, to every curate in Ireland, the sum should not be allowed to rise to £600 except where the non-permanent curate has served so long that he might be said to have ceased to be capable of transplantation. A man from twenty-five to thirty-five might go to England, Scotland, the Continent, or anywhere else, but at fifty a man's muscles were stiff, and he was not so ready to move into other countries. He should therefore propose that, instead of £50 for every year's incre-

  1389
  ment, £25 should be substituted, the effect of which would be that the maximum of £600 would be reached after twenty-four years' service—that is, when a man was approaching fifty years of age. He was bound to say on this subject, that with certain happy exceptions, the clergy were the most underpaid labourers in the country, but then it was impossible for the Government to make any change in their position, and it would be not only foolish but criminal to prevent it. The Amendment, however, modified as he suggested, would, he believed, be one of the most liberal arrangements to be found in the Bill. The Committee would be justified in going so far, but he thought they would then be going far enough.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was under some misapprehension as to the effect of his own clause. Under Clause 23 the value of the annuity would not be paid to the permanent curate, but to the representative body of the Church, and would they not at once seize it for the benefit of the Church? He suggested that the capitalized sum should be paid to the curate with the consent of the Church Body. In either case the consent of the Church Body would be necessary, but Clause 23 seemed to make the Church Body owners of the amount for Church purposes.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman might deserve consideration when they came to the clause, but as to the intention of the Bill there was no doubt whatever. The obligation of the State was to satisfy these annuities; but it was not desirable to keep the State in direct personal relations with each member of the clerical body as paymaster and annuitant. Consequently, they looked to the Church Body as one which might conveniently undertake this agency for the State. For that purpose they were willing to overlook all questions of infirm I lives, chances of resignation, and vacancies arising otherwise than from death; and, the whole of these lives being calculated at their value, the State would acquit itself of the obligation by handing over that sum to the Church Body charged with the payment of the annuity. There would then be absolute freedom as regarded the State with respect to the disposal of the money, and it would be
  1390
  entirely a matter for the Church Body and the Bishop, the incumbent, or the curate, with the consent of the incumbent, to determine upon what terms the annuity should be surrendered and the commutation substituted. If they could reserve any of it for re-endowment they had nothing to do with that, their duty being to acquit themselves from their obligations the best way they could, and that was the best way that occurred to them. If more words were necessary to make that clear, the time would come for doing so.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to know how the principle of the very salutary improvement which had been introduced into the last clause, on the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, was to be applied to the case of the curates of the Irish Church, and how the difficulty was to be met of the competing claims of their original curacies and of the general work of the entire community? Let him take the instance, by way of making his question clear, of a parish which was tolerably well served by one incumbent, but better by two—self and curate—and assume that the rector, from conscientious motives, had hitherto deemed it right that the work should be done double rather than single-handed. But the altered circumstances of the Irish Church, after the passing of this Bill, would lead him to take another view, undertake his own parish single-handed and offer the use of his curate to the Church Body. Well, then, the curate happening to be removed elsewhere to a place where there was need of spiritual labour, was the rector, who was obliged to go on working all the harder because his duties were performed single-handed, to be mulcted in Munster for the service of his late curate done in Connaught, or, was, on the other hand, the curate because he served in Connaught to lose his commutation and have to work as a mere voluntary minister? Either alternative involved a hardship and injustice. He wished to add that he had not spoken on the second reading of the Bill, although he thoroughly disliked and repudiated the whole scheme. That opinion of it he thought, however, he could express as emphatically in three words as in 300; but now that the Bill was in Committee he perhaps might be allowed to offer a few observations on the practical ques-

  1391
  tion how it was likely to work with, such Amendments as would probably be made in it. A crying iniquity of the measure, from first to last, as he regarded it, was that it put the reasonable personal interest of the incumbent in unfair competition with the spiritual interest of the whole community. The one tempted him, for the sake of those depending on him, to take the life interest; the other urged, him to claim commutation, and so win a little endowment back for the Church. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had last year informed the House that when his scheme, which was then in embryo, was completed, it would leave the clergy of the Church in Ireland something like three-fifths of the property which they now held. That was the inducement which he placed before the House to adopt his Resolutions. This year the right hon. Gentleman stated, at the close of one of his speeches, that the clergy would retire from the scene of Establishment with a capital sum of £6,000,000, but the fact was that the Church would not get, besides the value of the churches and glebe houses—both of them offered because they were held to be unmarketable—600,000 farthings; nay, it would not have three-fifths of one farthing as a community. All the commutations proposed were commutations to men for their lives, calculated upon a plan which was in itself most unequal, because the raw young man who happened to have been pitchforked into a living at twenty-four—for the duties of which he might not be particularly well fitted—would receive a sum not much less in its value than the price of the living calculated as a freehold, for his interests; while the venerable ecclesiastic of sixty or seventy years of age would, as his compensation, have hardly more than a year or two's income of his preferment, although he might be a Bishop or other dignitary who had risen by his learning and merit to the top of the tree. Yet the old man could best afford the risk of commutation, and that, he contended, was a thoroughly unjust mode of proceeding. It was arranging the whole system of commutations on a basis of philanthropic selfishness, and then setting that selfishness against the general interests of the Church by calling upon everyone of its clergy to say whether he should consider most his own livelihood and that of his wife and chil-
  1392
  dren or the contingent benefit of the body corporate. He could not refrain from expressing before he sat down his entire concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford, to the effect that that House was not a court of law, but a tribunal where reigned the higher law of charity and mercy, and of that generosity which was in itself the higher statesmanship. Had his right hon. Friend happily entered upon this question in that spirit as he might have done, and yet have carried the Bill as easily, he would have began by offering the new Church Body a moderate lump sum on the condition of its dividing the income equitably among the existing clergy. Then the alternative systems of life payments or of commutations might have been brought in, and given fair play as to the margin of income which lay between the original value of the livings and the stipends enjoyed out of the interest of this lump sum. Such a measure would not be a re-endowment, but a mere act of grace and mercy, just as when, at the termination of a long suit in the Court of Chancery, a man lost an estate which he had long enjoyed, and the successor to it made him a present. This would be reckoned to be not re-endowing him or annulling the decree of the Court, but simply doing an act of charity and kindness, and contributing to break a heavy fall. So, in accordance with the rules of practice of the higher court of charity and religion, the fall of the Irish Church ought to be broken in a generous and liberal spirit. There were many hon. Members on the opposite Benches who he had no doubt were animated by such a spirit, while there were others of whom he was afraid as much could not be said—
  "Victorque Sinon incendia miscet "Insultans."
  He had simply, in conclusion, to ask his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to be good enough to give an answer to the Question which he had put to him at the outset of his remarks.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, no man needed less to apologize than his hon. Friend for the tone and the temper with which he pressed his views. His hon. Friend might occasionally use strong language, but he always used clear language, and that without giving offence. That was a happy facility which belonged

  1393
  but to few, and belonged to his hon. Friend as much as to any one. But he was not surprised that he and his hon. Friend did not agree, because they did not start from the same point. His hon. Friend said they ought to have contemplated the re-endowment of the Church, though on a more modest scale. But it never was their intention to do so. They had laboured, as far as depended on them, that the disendowment should be attended with no shock that could be avoided by their arrangements under the Bill; and if those arrangements could be so framed that the clergy, as he had said before, should be able to save something out of the wreck, the Government would not look on with an envious eye. That was, however, the furthest point to which the Government could go, and when he had stated, last year, that he believed three-fifths of the property of the Church would be given either to it or its members, he spoke in precise conformity with the course which was now being taken. He, however, explained distinctly at the time that the full value put upon glebe houses and churches with some reference to their cost was included in that statement. Another circumstance of a very satisfactory kind had since entered into the computation, which materially tended to disturb it, and that was that, speaking from the information which he then possessed, he was obliged to put the tithe commutation rent-charge at a lower value than that which it was hoped might be obtained for it by making a good arrangement. Having said thus much with respect to the general arguments of his hon. Friend, he must admit to him that there was a necessary competition in a case such as that with which the Committee were dealing between the interests of the incumbents and the general interests of the Church. The Government, however, did nothing to aggravate that competition. They, on the contrary, desired to soften it by every means in their power. It was undoubtedly very difficult to ascertain what was fair as between the people and the Church, but the Government were doing their best to ascertain this. They had agreed to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond not without some scruples, but in deference to the great weight of his authority. With regard to the immediate question
  1394
  raised by his hon. Friend, whether they could apply to curates a provision similar to that adopted at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, authorizing a curate to carry, with proper consent, his services to other parts of Ireland, and at the same time to continue his annuity, he was afraid that would be difficult in consequence of the extreme complication which attached to the curates' case. Indeed, their case was peculiarly difficult to deal with. Vested interests might be dealt with easily enough, but it was very difficult to contrive means of treating as a vested interest that which was not one in the strict sense of the term. If a curate were allowed to circulate about Ireland while he was in receipt of a pension he would be placed in a false position with regard to the clergyman from whoso income his pension was deducted. What they had provided for was that the commutation of the curate should be his release from all complications. He did not say that there would be any objection in principle to applying to the curate the same provision as that which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had given in the case of the rector; but he doubted very much the sufficiency of the object. He was afraid that complication would attend such a method of commutation, and he thought that the general consent of the Church Body and the incumbent would provide all that was necessary.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTadmitted that this was a most difficult part of the question. When the point was discussed as to whether the curate's annuity should be deducted from the rector's income, it was most material to ascertain whether the curate had permanently occupied that position or not, but that circumstance was wholly immaterial when the position of the curate himself came to be considered. He did not see why any difference should be made between permanent and non-permanent curates. Why did they call a curate a permanent curate? A curate might have served in a parish only six months. Was he to be treated as a permanent curate, because there had always been a curate in that parish? On the other hand, there might be a man employed as a curate in one parish for twenty years; but before the Bill came into operation he might be removed to a parish where a curate had not hi-

  1395
  therto been employed, and his place supplied by another who had not been in the Church for six months. The Bill, as it stood at present, would regard the new comer as the permanent curate; and the curate of twenty years' standing as the non-permanent. Because the permanency was regarded not from the point of view of the service of the curate, but of the parish. Why not take the deduction from the living and pay it into a common fund, for distribution by the Commissioners among the curates according to their requirements and services in the Church? Agreeing as he did that it was highly necessary that the present Bill should pass, nothing could be more desirable than to temper its severity with as much liberality as possible. They had compensated the life interests of the Bishops, the incumbents, and the owners of advowsons—they had, perhaps, given too much to the landlords; and he should be very sorry to find that the hardworking and meritorious curates were to be the only persons who would not receive full and ample compensation. Their situation was such as entitled them to peculiar sympathy and consideration on the part of the House. As the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) had pointed out, there were legal restrictions as to the occupations which a clergyman could follow, and there were particular reasons why curates in the Protestant Church should be treated with liberality. We set great store by the principle of the marriage of the clergy. Consequently the clergy of the Church of England generally were married, and frequently had very large families. In dealing with curates, therefore, they were dealing with a class of married men, and surely the compensation proposed to be given to non-permanent curates was inadequate. Originally it was proposed to give them a lump sum of £200. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim), however, proposed to give them £50 for each year they had served as curates; and the Prime Minister, splitting the difference, proposed £25 a year. A curate would then, after twelve years' service, get £300. The larger sum proposed would only take £4,000 or £5,000 from the surplus to be applied to national purposes, and that would not be a material deduction from £311,000 a year. He was sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) a remark that Amendments
  1396
  of this kind were an injustice to the people of Ireland. It ought not to be forgotten that an Irishman was an Irishman, whatever his creed might be, and therefore he thought the hon. Member for Tralee ought not to say that this money would be diverted from Irish purposes if it were paid to Irish Protestant curates. The number of these curates was only 500 at the outside, but he did not know what proportion were non-permanent. Now, instead of adopting the principle of payment by annuity and tying the rector and the curate together, it would be better to pay a lump sum and leave both free. If £500 were given to each curate, instead of £200, as had been proposed, the additional £300 would when capitalized amount to no more than £150,000, which might be deducted from the residue of £8,000,000. How did the Government propose to appropriate this residue? First of all £200,000 a year was to be given to lunatics and idiots. The Irish Protestant curates might, perhaps, claim to share some small part of that sum with the lunatics and idiots. The next item in the proposed appropriation was £15,000 a year for monthly nurses; and if they gave the additional sum which he proposed to the Irish curates it would amount to something less than one-third of the money they intended to devote to the payment of the monthly nurses. Another portion of the surplus fund (£30,000 a year) was to be applied for the benefit of the dumb. What might be the proportion of dumb people in Ireland he did not know; he should suppose it was somewhat below the average in the rest of the United Kingdom. However that might be, the sum he asked for the curates would be only one-tenth part of that proposed to be given to the dumb. Then there were other large amounts intended to be appropriated to reformatories and infirmaries—institutions, no doubt, very excellent and deserving; but, when they were proposing to do things handsomely, he did not think it was too much—having regard to the extent of the total sum of £311,000 to be applied to the various purposes which he had mentioned—to ask that that total sum should be reduced £4,000 or £5,000 a year, in order to pay this moderate compensation to the Protestant curates—and this was the whole matter there in issue. In

  1397
  making these observations he felt satisfied that he should not be suspected of any hostility to the measure of the Government. The Prime Minister himself had invited suggestions which, consistently with the broad outlines of the Bill, would secure a more beneficial application of these funds to the welfare of the people of Ireland, and had also declared that, in framing the measure, the Government had not been actuated by a spirit of unkindness towards the Church of Ireland as a religious communion. Now, it was exactly in that spirit that he ventured to suggest to the consideration of the Government whether the proposed treatment of that special class of persons might not be somewhat varied in the direction of Liberality and generosity. The difficulties seemed to be almost insuperable to the payment of permanent curates by annuities, and it would be far simpler to give them a lump sum. The House was engaged in the performance of a great act of political justice. They were making by this Bill a great revolution. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member cheered that remark. It was not the first revolution which the Liberal party had made. They made one nearly 200 years ago, which was admired by the hon. Gentleman opposite who cheered; and some Conservative gentlemen opposite saluted that revolution with Kentish fire by day, and celebrated it with libations by night. Therefore let them not be frightened by the word revolution. But when they were effecting a beneficent revolution he trusted they would effect it in a liberal and generous spirit, and endeavour, as far as possible, to sever an act of public justice from any sentiment of individual hardship or private wrong.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, the object of the Amendment which he had put on the Paper was to enable the curates to have their compensation as unconditionally as possible. He trusted, considering the large sum at the disposal of the Government, they would not be influenced by a feeling which he was sorry to hear expressed, though only for the first time, by one hon. Member that night, or by the consideration of a few pounds more or less. He hoped there was a generous feeling on the other side of the House, and a disposition that, if the principle of the measure were carried, there should not be a very close scru-
  1398
  tiny as to the sum to be granted by way of compensation to gentlemen who were, by this Bill, to be deprived of many comforts, and prospect of further promotion. He begged to move in page 5, to leave out from line 34 to line 11, page 6, both inclusive, and insert—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall affect or alter the right of any curate employed previous to the passing of this Act to recover the salary to which he would have been entitled by law if this Act had not been passed, so long as such curate shall continue to be so employed, and such salary shall be recoverable by action in any of the superior courts of law in Dublin, or by civil bill, if the amount sued for be within the jurisdiction of the civil bill courts; and it shall be lawful for the Commissioners, and they are hereby required, to make compensation to any curate who shall lose his employment after the passing of this Act (except such loss shall arise from his own free choice or from his misconduct), by an annuity of one hundred pounds per annum so long as he lives and continues to discharge the duties of a curate in the Church in Ireland with the approval of the representative body of the said Church, such annuity to be increased by a sum of pounds for each year that such curate has served in the Church over and above the period of ten years, or by a capital sum equivalent to such annuity at the election of the said curate, and any order of the said Commissioners for such compensation shall be subject to an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, it would be impossible for the framers of the Bill to consent to such a proposal as that of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy), for it was quite inconsistent with the principles of that part of the Bill. The effect would be, from such time as the clause became law, to give the strongest possible inducement to every rector in Ireland to dismiss his curate, knowing that so soon as the dismissal took place the curate would draw £100 a year from the common fund. He wished now to say a few words with respect to what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt). He could not agree with those who took little account of the surplus of the Church funds, which the Government considered to be the national property of the people of Ireland. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it mattered little whether the surplus was large or small. In dealing, therefore, with these several points of compensation—of which he admitted the case of the curates to be one of the most difficult and complicated—they ought to look to what was fair and just in the particular instance, and not

  1399
  to be carried away by vague declarations of indifference as to the surplus. The case of the curates was one of great difficulty and perplexity, and he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that the matter had cost those Members of the Government concerned in passing the Bill at least as much anxiety as it had probably cost himself. Before the plan now under the consideration of the House was adopted, various other plans had been examined and discussed, and, among others, the very plan of forming a common fund out of the deductions from the incomes of incumbents; but if his hon. and learned Friend knew with what difficulties of a practical and formidable nature the plan was beset, he would not have spoken of it with equal confidence. The Government had divided the curates into two classes—permanent and non-permanent. With respect to the permanent curates, there might be cases in which a curate had only just entered into the service of an incumbent, and would be fixed upon the benefice as a permanent curate, but that could only happen where the Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, decided according to the terms of the Act that the office was a permanent office in connection with the benefice. His hon. and learned Friend contended that compatability of temper between the curate and his employer could not in all cases be insured. He admitted that there was an inevitable difficulty, growing out of the connection which the Bill would create for a time between the incumbent and his curate; but that difficulty had been greatly exaggerated. And, in practice, there would be means of escape from the difficulty greater even than could now be foreseen. There was, first, commutation; and the incentive to establish relations upon a new footing would be all the greater if anything disagreeable arose between the incumbent and his curate. It was provided, under the Bill as proposed to be amended by the Government, that, with the consent of the incumbent, the curate might escape, and yet retain his annuity under the Bill. An incumbent, having strong reasons for wishing to let his curate go, would give that consent; and, in many cases, he would be able to do so without loss, by employing some curate who was charged upon some other benefice, and that by a matter of exchange. In extreme
  1400
  and rare cases, where the difficulty suggested would arise, exchanges would take place if commutation were not resorted to, and besides that they would be able, in some cases, to obtain the services of those non-permanent curates who were about to be compensated with a lump sum. Ample means of escape from the difficulty pointed out, though exaggerated, would be found in the working of the plan proposed by the Government. With respect to the non-permanent curates, his hon. and learned Friend was rather hard to satisfy. These curates had one great advantage over the permanent curates, for they were free from the first to devote themselves to any sphere of emolument they could find. He knew that at present the supply of clergymen to the Church of Ireland was absolutely at a stand-still; and it was inevitable that such should be the case for some time to come; but these young and active clergymen, the non-permanent curates, would doubtless find, if not in the Irish Church, in other spheres of ministerial activity, careers open to them, retaining, of course, the moderate gratuity given to them under the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend next alluded to what he called the small amount of compensation that would fall to the lot of curates of ten and twelve years' standing in the Irish Church. No doubt the greater the age they had arrived at in the condition of curates the more sympathy he (Mr. C. Fortescue) was inclined to feel for them; but he ventured to believe that such cases would be rare. The number of such curates would be very small indeed who would not come under the class of permanent curates.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had made a strong personal allusion to the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue), applying equally to the other Catholic Members from Ireland, in which he charged them with being actuated by illiberal, and, perhaps, sectarian, motives. On his own part and theirs he repudiated the charge. The Catholic Members were actuated by the highest, the most liberal, and just considerations.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was at a loss to understand the hon. Member. He had never made any imputation upon the Catholic Members.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he was very glad

  1401
  he had misapprehended the hon. and learned Gentleman. He certainly had not mistaken the charge of illiberality made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope), and felt deeply complimented by the gentlemanly feeling and Batavian grace of his classical allusion. So far from the Irish Church being harshly treated, he maintained that it was treated with justice, with liberality, and even with generosity. Assuming that glebes were not a marketable property, they ought to have been put down at the value to the Church of at least £1,000,000. If he thought the Irish curates would be dealt with unjustly by the proposed Amendment of the Government, he would be the first to take their part. The argument with respect to it proceeded upon the assumption that the unendowed Church of Ireland would afford no field for the services of those gentlemen; but he thought they would be the persons to whom a new field would be opened. The incumbents, from age and long service, would disappear; and, in computing the compensation the curates would get under the Bill, the Committee must not forget that the curates were a body that would not disappear from the stage; but that they would, be transferred from one position to another, and in addition receive the compensation to be given under the Bill. He did not consider it was at all likely that the permanent curates would be in a worse position than the non-permanent curates.
  Question put, "That the words 'The Commissioners' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 107: Majority 113.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved to leave out at page 6, line 3, the words—"by his own free choice," and to insert, instead—"without the incumbent's consent." This was to enlarge the scope of the words. "By his own free choice" was not sufficiently extended.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that after the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman at an earlier period of the evening with respect to the 23rd clause, it would not be necessary that he should take the sense of the Committee upon the point then under their consideration.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that all that had been stated on the part of the Government, when they were dis-
  1402
  cussing the 14th clause, seemed at present to be forgotten. They were then told that when they came to the 15th clause they would arrive at the proper time for discussing the claims of the curates. But they were at present dealing with that clause, and giving a life annuity to a curate who was found to be a permanent curate at the period of the change, without the slightest attempt to carry on the arrangement in favour of the incumbent.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think they were open to the observation of his hon. and learned Friend. At the time they were discussing the 14th clause, they gave it as their opinion that, under that clause, it would be open to the incumbent to object before the Commissioners on one or other of two grounds—either that there was no case for declaring that there ever had been a permanent curate, or that the clergyman acting at the time being was not such a curate. Beyond that they did not wish to go, and if anyone wished to proceed further it was for him, and not for them, to propose an Amendment to that effect.
  DR. BALLsaid, that after the Committee had decided against the Amendment proposed from the Opposition side of the House on the 14th clause, they felt that it would be useless for them to proceed with the Amendments of which they had given notice on the 15th clause.
  MR. BENTINCKdesired to have a dear statement of the course the Government meant to take with respect to curates. After the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), the Chief Secretary for Ireland addressed the Committee, but spoke in a very low tone. ["Oh, oh!"] Those hon. Members who cried out 'Oh!" were not in the House at the time. He should like to have a clear statement of the intentions of the Government.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. Member had been rather severe on those hon. Members who were not in their places at the time referred to, but he was sceptical as to the presence at that period of the hon. Member himself. [Mr. BENTINCK: I was present during the whole debate.] In that case it was unfortunate that he had not made the intentions of the Government understood by the hon. Member; but he had stated distinctly how far they could go in meeting the views of hon. Gentlemen with respect to curates. The plan of the

  1403
  Government was that a permanent curate, once declared to be so, should have his annuity; and with respect to a non-permanent curate, they met the proposal of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) by substituting £25 for £50. Beyond that, with the exception of the Amendment of which he had given Notice, the Government had no change to announce with respect to curates; but any proposal made by any hon. Member would receive their attention.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked, whether any provision would be made for curates incapacitated from duty by mental or bodily infirmity?
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had now to move an Amendment which would serve as an answer to the inquiry just made by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton). He proposed, in line 4, after "him," to insert the words, "or by ill health or otherwise become incapable of discharging the duties of such curacy."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PIM,who had given notice of an Amendment in the clause by leaving out, "£200" and inserting "£50 for every year during which he shall have served as a curate," observed that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to insert £25 instead of £50, was a satisfactory one, and he was quite prepared to accept it.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was prepared to recognize £200 as the proper minimum, and to alter four into eight years. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pim) would then stand thus—
  "Line 11, leave out 'two hundred pounds' and insert' twenty-five pounds for every year during Which he shall have served as a curate; Provided always, That in any case in which the period of service of any curate shall not amount to eight years, the Commissioners may make up such gratuity to the sum of two hundred pounds; Provided also, That such gratuity shall in no case exceed the sum of six hundred pounds.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. E. W. VERNERsaid, he wished to ask a question which, he admitted, ought more properly to have been put when Clause 2 was under consideration.
  1404
  Under the Poor Belief Act for Ireland three chaplains might be appointed to workhouses, one connected with the Established Church, another connected with the Presbyterian body, and the third a Roman Catholic. He wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government intended to deal with the chaplain connected with the Established Church when that Church was disestablished?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he thought that a provision would probably be required of a general nature, when they had ascertained all the cases of a somewhat similar kind as that referred to, which they would have to include. The clause would be framed so as to provide that where any person or officer is employed on behalf of the religious community which is now the Established Church, such person or officer shall continue to be employed hereafter in respect to the said religious community, although it shall have ceased to be the Established Church.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to introduce such Amendment in the present Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that that would depend upon the circumstances of the case. Perhaps he would propose the clause in the present Bill; but, at all events, he would give notice of it.
  DR. BALLreminded the right hon. Gentleman that there were many cases in Ireland in which persons by virtue of the ecclesiastical office they held enjoyed certain privileges and prerogatives and administered trusts. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in framing his clause would include all these persons in it.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16 (Compensation to diocesan schoolmasters, clerks, and sextons).
  MR. GLADSTONEproposed the insertion, in line 25, of "or district" after after the word "diocesan."
  Agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) moved, line 25, to leave out "from any incumbent or incumbents in respect of his or their benefice or benefices," and insert—

  1405
  "Under any warrant of the Lord Lieutenant in Council made under the provisions of the Act of the Session of the fifty-third year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, chapter one hundred and seven, or any statutory amendment thereof."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that having had an opportunity of expressing his opinion, at an early stage, of the merits of the Bill, he had no wish to press unnecessarily upon the time of the Committee. The object of his Amendment was to do justice to a very small but deserving body of men, the diocesan architects, who were appointed under the 14 & 15 Vict., known as Napier's Act. The Bishop appointed one in each diocese, and their duty was to superintend all the alterations of the glebe houses, to make periodical inspections, to report on the repairs necessary, and to see that those repairs were properly completed. They were, indeed, such useful functionaries that he wished there were similar ones on this side of the water. There was no provision in the Bill for compensating these officers for the extinction of their employment. He had added the words "or emoluments" after "salaries," because they were not paid by definite yearly salaries, but by a commission on the repairs they had superintended. One gentleman, who had filled this office for fifteen years, told him that his professional earnings from this source, for the last three or four years, had exceeded £100 per annum. These offices would not be continued because, as the glebe houses fell in and were purchased under the provisions of the Bill, they became the property of the Church Body, which need not employ diocesan architects unless it chose to do so. It was a fair case for consideration, and, though he did not say that the diocesan architects were entitled to any large remuneration, they were entitled to something. He trusted that the House would on this subject emulate the spirit of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) rather than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said that, although they were prepared to do justice to the Irish Church, yet that justice did not mean liberality; and that they would not legislate in the spirit of the First Minister of the Crown, who had declared that he was prepared to do justice, but that justice
  1406
  must also be done to the large and important interests—interests of his own creation—which had to receive the surplus after these claims had been satisfied. There was not above twelve or thirteen of these diocesan architects in the whole of Ireland, and their compensation would not amount to a very large sum. No other class had so great a claim to a first charge on the funds as those who were the first to suffer from the change. He moved, page 6, line 27, after "benefices," to insert—
  "The amount of yearly salary or emoluments which any diocesan architect appointed under the provisions of the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth years of Victoria is entitled to receive."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, the compensation for officers connected with the Church would be considered with the greatest care, and with the greatest anxiety to extend compensation to every case to which it could reasonably be extended. But it had been found impossible to recognize the so-called office of diocesan architect. There was no such office known. The only authority for such an appointment was the Church Building Act of 1851, which gave the Bishop power to appoint three or more persons, one being a competent architect, to view the ecclesiastical buildings and improvements. That was the provision under which these persons claimed to be diocesan architects; and, if they were to be compensated, he did not see why the other persons appointed on those commissions might not claim compensation also. Again, the Bishop had power to appoint a "competent tradesman." Did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to compensate "competent tradesmen?" The Government could not accept this Amendment, because the clause was based upon the reasonable supposition that officers connected with the Church whose offices the law recognized were entitled to fair compensation; but this was an office which it had been found impossible to recognize. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
  DR. BALLconcurred in the opinion that these could not be regarded as freehold offices, but it had been usual to name one architect in each diocese to perform the duties referred to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (the

  1407
  Attorney General for Ireland) might put these persons in the 17th clause, and give them one year's emoluments.
  MR. PIMsaid, he hoped the Government would accept that suggestion.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHARLEY MR. CHARLEY moved in page 6, after line 27, to insert
  "(2.) The amount of yearly salary which each organist of any cathedral, or of any church or chapel in the said Church, is entitled to receive."
  The effect of that Amendment would be to take the organists out of the 17th clause and to put them into the 16th. It might be said that the 16th clause dealt only with freeholds, and that the office of an organist was not a freehold; but the office was generally held quamdiu se bene gesserint and was therefore in the nature of a freehold. He held in his hand a list of organists in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, from 1595 to the present time, appended to which was a declaration of the chapter of that cathedral that the office of organist was a life appointment, subject to good behaviour, and that there had never been an instance of dismissal. Lord Stowell was of opinion that the salary of an organist could be charged upon a Church rate. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland, in the Return of their average annual expenditure, gave the sum of £1,410 as payable to organists, whilst the Irish Church Commissioners' Report contained a sum of £670 paid to organists out of the economy fund annexed to the several cathedrals. The organists, therefore, had as much vested interest in the property of the Church as the incumbents, and in some out-of-the-way places, such as Tuam, there was no private tuition on which they could fall back if they were deprived of their income. There were, he believed, about thirty organists of cathedrals in Ireland, and 100 of churches; he was willing to limit his Motion to the organists of cathedrals.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)explained that, in dealing with the question of compensation, the Government found that they should confine themselves to what might be called freehold offices. A person holding the office of organist could not be included among this class, and could not consequently be placed in Clause 16. He fully admitted that the case of organ-
  1408
  ists was deserving of the consideration of the Committee. Some of the most distinguished men had filled the position, and some of the persons who at present held the office were entitled to every respect and consideration; but he could not accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. He could, however, propose for that class of persons better terms than those mentioned in Clause 17. In that clause one year's salary was proposed. On the representation and by the recommendation of several persons representing churches in Ireland, particularly representing the cathedral in Dublin, he had prepared an Amendment to Clause 17, which he intended to propose, and which he thought would meet the justice of every possible case, and would leave the Commissioners an unfettered discretion to deal with cases of a peculiar character.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he thought the organists ought to have a life interest, as their appointment had always been for life.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought that they should not mix up non-freehold offices with those that were freehold. The duties of an organist were of an undefined character, and varied in different churches, and it was hard to say in what cases there would be a diminution of their emoluments, and in what cases no such diminution.
  MR. BENTINCKsubmitted that a great number of life interests which, strictly speaking, could not be called freeholds, existed in cathedrals, and the organist's post was one of them. It was not just that a person who had accepted a post on the presumption that it would be continued to him for life should be dismissed with a single year's salary simply because it could not be established in law that his interest in the office was for life. It was well, however, that the doubt as to whether the appointment was for life arose in other case than that of organists. It had always been a matter of doubt whether non-capitular members of new cathedrals—those re-founded at the Reformation—had a freehold in their office or not; indeed, that point was distinctly raised in the celebrated case of Dr. Whiston. Supposing that the principle of disestablishment were to be applied to the Church of England, what would be the fate of those permanent non-capitular

  1409
  officers of St. Paul's Cathedral who were not members of the minor corporations of the Church, but who nevertheless held appointments for life to all intents and purposes? By the clause it was proposed to leave these gentlemen in the hands of the Commissioners, who were to give them any compensation they might think fit. He should therefore submit that either the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Charley) be acceded to on the part of the Government, or else that they should insert words giving the organists a life annuity equal to their yearly salary.
  MR. PIMadmitted that the Government was right in not embracing those gentlemen among those entitled to a freehold interest, but he trusted that the Commissioners would inquire into their case. He thought that the organists should be treated on the footing that they possessed a life interest in their situations. He proposed to amend the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman by inserting the words, after the word "compensation," "either by annual payment or by way of life annuity."
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that having ascertained that his Amendment could be discussed with more propriety on Clause 17, which referred to the organists, he begged to give notice that he should move an Amendment upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government on that clause.
  MR. J. B. SMITHasked whether the hon. Member intended to include the organ blowers in his Amendment?
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that the observation of the hon. Member was conceived in the spirit of the 17th clause, in which the organists were classed with the vergers. He begged to withdraw his Amendment upon the present clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. VANCE MR. VANCE moved the following Amendment, after line 30 insert (3)—
  "The amount of yearly salary which each vicar choral and choirman of any cathedral in Ireland is entitled to receive."
  In many of the Irish cathedrals, particularly Armagh, they attracted, by large salaries, men skilled in music from England and other countries; they were almost as necessary for the performance of the cathedral service as the clergymen themselves. Their position was as nearly as possible a freehold one,
  1410
  seeing that there was a fund for their superannuation and compensation. They were all gentlemen who had received a most excellent education, and in the event of the clause being passed as it stood, they would be left destitute at an age too advanced to obtain other employment, with the exception of the small provision which the Commissioners might make for them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)observed, that the Amendment embraced two matters. There was a very great distinction between vicars choral and choirmen. Vicars choral were in many cases a corporation, and those who enjoyed freehold offices would get compensation upon that footing. On the other hand, stipendiary choirmen were in the same position as organists, and he saw no objection to putting them into Clause 17, under which they would be entitled to a gratuity.
  MR. BENTINCKurged the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the word "stipendiary" in this clause.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that all the persons, in whose favour he had moved his Amendment, wanted was to be allowed to remain where they were, and to be paid their annual salary as long as they performed their duty. He hoped the Government would agree to those terms.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the clause provided for the remuneration of schoolmaster, clerk, and sexton, but only as long as they continued to perform the duties of their office. He thought that words ought to be inserted to insure them the remuneration even if they ceased to perform their duty, provided that they ceased so to do without any fault of theirs.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the suggestion would be considered.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Compensation to organists, vergers, and others).
  MR. GLADSTONEwished to insert, in page 7, line 2, after "fit" the words—
  "And where the said Commissioners shall find that any such person is or may be deprived of any income derived from any property or fund vested in the said Commissioners under this Act, they may pay to any such person such further sum by way of compensation as they shall, with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, determine."
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 2, after the word "fit," to insert the words—
  "And where the said Commissioners shall find that any such person is or may be deprived of any income derived from any property or fund vested in the said Commissioners under this Act, they may pay to any such person such further sum by way of compensation as they shall, with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, determine."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by inserting in line 4, after the word "person," the words—
  "So long as he shall live and shall continue to discharge the duties of his office in the same cathedral, church, or chapel, an annuity equal to the amount of the income of which he is or may be deprived."—(Mr. Charley.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 314: Majority 115.
  MR. PIM MR. PIM moved, as an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) proposed Amendment, page 7, line 2, after "compensation," line 4, insert "either by a single payment or by way of a life annuity."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) Amendment, said, he was at a loss to understand why, in this clause—and in this clause only—the free action of the Commissioners was to be made dependent upon the consent of the Treasury. The object was not certainly to increase the amount of extra compensation, but probably to diminish it.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, in conferring a discretionary power on the Treasury, they had followed the course that seemed most consonant, and one that was also in accordance with precedent. The concurrence of the Treasury was of extreme utility, because they had a large and varied experience of money questions of this kind. The trustees of the British Museum, for example, were in the habit of consulting the Treasury, though they were under no statutory obligation to do so.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the British Museum Trustees dealt with money derived from public grants. In this instance, the proper plan was to take care that the Commission was so constituted
  1412
  as to inspire confidence in its decisions, independently of any influence brought to bear upon it by the Government of the day. In ordinary cases, he agreed that the control of the Treasury might be useful in cases of compensation; but in this case he should have thought that his right hon. Friend would have been the first to say that the Government ought not to be virtually a court of appeal. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider this point.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that though he retained his former opinion, he did not wish the House to pronounce a final judgment on the question at present; but the opportunity would be given for the fresh consideration of it. In the case of the law courts, although they were not dealing with funds from the Exchequer, the concurrent action of the Treasury was provided, not with power to decide anything, but simply as a check.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, they were admitting here a principle of great importance for the first time. It was not a controlling power, but, on the contrary, they were going to take the power of increasing the compensation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As they, the Commissioners, shall determine.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the matter should be left in the hands of the Commissioners, and he hoped that before they parted with the Bill the point would be carefully considered.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18. (Compensation to lay patrons).
  MR. GOLDNEYproposed, in the second line of the clause, to insert after the word "ascertain," the words, "as hereinafter mentioned," with the view to the adoption of a subsequent Amendment, fixing a basis on which to ascertain the value of the lay patron's interest.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government was desirous of doing what the hon. Gentleman wished—namely, to introduce positive and definite terms into the clause; but, owing to the great difficulty of arriving at a basis of calculation, the provisions in the Bill were the only provisions they could introduce. He should be glad to hear the words which the hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce, though he could scarcely hope

  1413
  that the hon. Gentleman had been more successful than themselves.
  MR. GOLDNEYaccordingly read the words which he intended to propose, and, which he thought would have the effect he desired.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, the greatest pains had been taken in the case of advowsons sold under the direction of the Landed Estates Court to ascertain the basis to settle the value of these interests. None of these attempts had been satisfactory; and the Government, therefore, had thought it better to allow the Commissioners to act for themselves, and in case of the lay patrons and the Commissioners disagreeing as to the value of the property, to leave the matter to be decided by arbitration.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcomplained that the Bill contained no provisions for compensating the laity. He could not see the justice of establishing a basis when it could work favourably for the purchasers, and refusing to establish a basis when it would act as a restraint upon their acquisition. It seemed to him that what is just in one case is just in another.
  MR. GLADSTONEassured the hon. Gentleman that the Government had very carefully considered this question, and had obtained the best information they could respecting the sale of advowsons. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wished it, that information should be put into such a shape that it could be laid before the House; but he was bound to say he did not recommend the production of the records, as he believed they would prove unfavourable to the opinions expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It would be impracticable to fix a scale like that which the hon. Gentleman had referred to.
  COLONEL GILPINremarked that this question appeared to have puzzled even the right hon. Gentleman himself. They had been debating the Bill seven hours. It was then past twelve o'clock, and, to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of having the point cleared up, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he was really anxious that this matter should be "thrashed out," as he was confident he could prove to the Committee that his
  1414
  views were right. The project of disendowing the Church had been in contemplation for a considerable time, during which no man in Ms senses would have thought of purchasing an advowson in Ireland. If the Government intended to take an advowson from one man in order to sell it to another the owner ought to receive as much as the Government were going to take. In Eng- land, at all events, and he presumed in Ireland also, the following was the simple method of calculation adopted in dealing with advowsons. The net value was first ascertained—namely, the amount arising from glebe lands and tithes, and then a deduction was made in respect of the charges thereupon. A sum was allowed for the cost of a curate, and then so many years' purchase, ranging ordinarily from nineteen to twenty-five, was taken. This fact was already before the House in the shape of a Return relating to Lord Westbury's Act, which authorizes the sale of a certain number of livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, some of them fetched as much as thirty-five years' purchase, the calculation being made on the principle which he had endeavoured to indicate to the House.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the object of the Government was simply to ascertain the market value of these advowsons, and to give that sum, neither more than less, to the lay patrons. The common-sense method laid down in the clause, to leave the matter to the arbitration of three eminent gentlemen, was the best that could be adopted.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland sat in the House during the time the Incumbered Estates Court was in operation, and consequently he would remember the enormous depreciation of property which resulted from forcing a mass of property into the market at one time. Some properties were then sold at ten or twelve years' purchase or less; and, indeed, he knew of some properties which, by reason of the market being glutted by legislation, were bought at twelve years' purchase, and which were now worth double that sum. The present legislation would produce exactly the same effect on the property of advowsons. They would be forced into the market, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland took the market

  1415
  price it would have to be taken in a market unduly depreciated by the act of the Legislature.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remember market value when the clauses were reached which related to glebe houses and Bishops' lands. Gentlemen on that side wanted no favour, but simply justice, and it was justice which they could not get from the other side of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked, that the Government had entirely made up their minds on the clause, and he hoped the Committee would be permitted to divide upon it at once.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid he should certainly press his motion to a division.
  LORD JOHN MANNERScalled attention to the fact that they had not seen the Amendment in print, and thought the discussion ought to be adjourned till they had an opportunity of comparing it with the Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if the hon. Member had not printed his Amendment, that was not the fault of the Government. It might be brought up on the Report.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Gilpin.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 176; Noes 289: Majority 113.
  MR. FITZWILLIAM DICKsaid, he had been the House since noon, and it being now half an hour beyond midnight he must move that the Chairman leave the Chair.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, he had also been the House since noon; but he thought it was now an early hour for such a Motion to be made as had just been proposed.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that notice not having been given of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), which raised a point that perplexed the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), the proper and by far the most expedient course would be for the hon. Gentleman to raise the question he had brought forward upon the Report. He had stated the facts of the case as far as they were at the command of the Government, as well as at the command of hon. Members, and before the hand of the clock reached twelve a Motion was made for reporting Pro-
  1416
  gress. It was undoubtedly for the interest of all parties not to cut short discussion, but to proceed with all rational despatch. As it seemed to be so much the desire of the other side of the House that the Chairman should report Progress, he should not further oppose a Motion to that effect; but he hoped that hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the Paper for to-morrow would give way, so as to allow the Bill to be proceeded with. One of the hon. Members for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) had a Motion for tomorrow to which he attached considerable importance. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give way. Provided hon. Gentlemen kindly waived their privileges for to-morrow evening, he could promise that they would have the first night at the disposal of the Government, except in cases of questions of urgent necessity, after the Irish Church Bill had passed through Committee.
  MR. DE GREYsaid, he had the authority of the hon. Member for Suffolk for stating that he fully intended to proceed with his Motion.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that he had moved to report Progress before the clock struck twelve. The right hon. Gentleman having accepted the adjournment showed that he was not wrong in the Motion he had made.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would tomorrow renew his appeal to the hon. Member for Suffolk to withdraw his Motion until a day should be given by the Government.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

NEWSPAPERS, &c. BILL— [BILL 66.]
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
NEWSPAPERS, &c. BILL— [BILL 66.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. AYRTONexplained that its object was to repeal Acts which had been passed in very troubled times, and the necessity for which had entirely passed away. For instance, the first Act recited that as the country was at war with France, it was necessary to restrain dangerous and seditious publications, at the instance of the public enemy, and, therefore, very stringent provisions

  1417
  were enacted to prevent the French from making use of the public Press of this country for their own purposes. They might now repeal that Act. Another of the Acts was passed for levying taxes upon newspapers. They had ceased to levy the tax, and therefore that provision ought no longer to be enforced against persons who desired to carry on the business of publishing newspapers. Two of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill had been already repealed. The matter had been previously under the consideration of the House, and the House was of opinion that they ought not to maintain those statutes.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought it desirable that some steps should be taken for the preservation of newspapers in the British Museum, as they were most useful for the purposes of reference on the events of the day. As he understood that the Secretary for the Treasury intended to bring in a measure for that purpose he would give his assent to the present Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that it was his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MILITIA BILL.— [BILL 82.]
(Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Major Vivian.)
MILITIA BILL.— [BILL 82.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, that the object of the Bill was to provide for the granting of commissions to subalterns in the army and officers on half-pay who might choose to enter the Militia.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the Bill had his approval except the 3rd clause relating to the appointment of Militia officers for a temporary purpose. It was necessary to find officers from some permanent source; and, as there was a difficulty in procuring officers, he suggested that half-pay officers of the army, and those who had served some time abroad, should be appointed to Militia regiments. He hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War that he was prepared to deal with the subject in a satisfactory manner.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he had no doubt the Bill was framed with the best
  1418
  intentions, but he feared it did not adopt the best plan to attach officers to the Militia. He would suggest that young gentlemen of the counties should be attracted to the Militia by the prospect of obtaining commissions in the Line.
  MAJOR WALKER MAJOR WALKER, while admitting the difficulty of dealing with the subject, was not sure whether the remedy suggested by the hon. Baronet would be the best that could be adopted. There was little encouragement to join the Militia at present, and promotions were now so extremely sluggish that if they were made slower he thought the Militia would come to a state of stagnation.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, it would have been unjustifiable to ask the House to go into Committee on this Bill if it necessarily involved a discussion on the cardinal question of the reserved forces, which was one of the greatest importance, and had engaged the attention of the present Government from the time of its formation. Two suggestions offered in this conversation showed that the subject was attended with great difficulty, and the probability was that both suggestions would have to be adopted to some extent in any really effective plan. His object, however, was to ask the House to consent to the small things which the Bill proposed, and which were necessary for the training of the Militia about to commence. There was power at present to train the Yeomanry and Volunteers along with the regular forces. The 1st clause of the Bill asked for the same power in reference to the Militia, and everybody agreed that it was desirable that power should exist. As there was a great scarcity of officers of Militia, particularly of subaltern officers, and officers could be found in the army for the Militia, the 2nd clause gave power to attach any officer of the regular forces to a Militia regiment; but there was not the least desire to force army officers into the Militia; and they were to be attached only on the requisition of the Lord Lieutenant. The 3rd clause, which was universally assented to, abolished the property qualification for Militia officers; and the 4th merely prevented a Volunteer, who had passed one period of training, availing himself of any technical error in attestation.
  COLONEL BRISE,who had a regiment of eight companies with only eight company officers, one of whom was on the sick

  1419
  list while another was a Member of this House, cordially approved the Bill, and if it passed would immediately avail himself of the power of requisition. There was considerable difference of opinion involved in the question, and he, on a previous occasion, suggested that additional inducements should be offered to gentlemen who contemplated joining the army, to enter first into the Militia, while waiting for their commissions—also that a specified number of commissions in the regular Army should be periodically offered to Militia officers to be competed for.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, the Bill was really a Bill rather to amend the law than to affect at all the question of the reserve force.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  COPYRIGHT (PERIODICALS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill for amending the Law relating to Copyright, so far as regards the delivery of periodical publications at the British Museum, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 93.]

  RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT (1864) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHALLEY, Bill for the amendment of "The Railway Construction Facilities Act, 1864," ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHALLEY and Mr. M'MAHON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 94.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl De La Warr, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Increase of the Episcopate (34), negatived.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  (NO. 34.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading, read.
  LORD LYTTELTON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that there being a new Parliament and a new Government, he had consented once more to raise this question, though it would easily be believed that he wished some one else had undertaken the task, having failed so often in the attempt that his appearance seemed an emblem and symbol of failure. The measure was substantially the same as that which he had introduced in previous Sessions on the same subject, but was somewhat simpler in its provisions. He had been termed an enthusiast in this matter; but he had no desire to be particularly enthusiastic on this or any other subject, and he had always argued it, not on any grounds of enthusiasm, but as a simple question of arithmetic and common sense. He had seen it urged that, whatever the state of the Episcopate might be, the Church and society would accommodate themselves to it; and no doubt they would do so, just as a man might accommodate himself to the loss of an arm or a leg; but according to an old saying, the prejudice was in favour of two, and so there surely ought to be some proportion between the numbers of the Bishops and those of the population. This Bill was analogous to existing enactments for the subdivision of parishes, for it provided a self-acting machinery by which, under proper regulations, sees might be divided; and he had received a letter from the Bishop of Lincoln, who, being the junior Prelate, had not at present a seat in the House, expressing an earnest desire that it might become law, his own diocese being far too large to be properly administered; and he said that, having travelled over the whole of that large comity, he had heard but one
  1330
  regret and one desire expressed—regret that the Bill of 1867 had not passed into law, and desire that the Bill of 1869 should become law. He did not himself care much for the details so long as the substantial object of increasing the number of sees was attained, and in framing the measure he had sought to conciliate differences of opinion and to give it the best chance of being passed. He had omitted the long Preamble reciting the testimony of various Ministers of the Crown and of Royal Commissions to the fact that an increase of the Episcopate was required, and the main provision was one empowering the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to prepare schemes for the division of dioceses on their avoidance, or previously with the consent of the respective Bishops, and for the union of portions of several dioceses into a new diocese, and to provide, if they thought proper, a capitular body. Any such scheme must be approved by Her Majesty in Council, and must be laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament, the disapproval of either House within a given time being fatal to it. Short, therefore, of requiring a distinct enactment for every scheme of the kind, no more effective safeguards could be devised. As to the endowment of the new sees, he proposed that it should be raised entirely by voluntary contributions. He thought it, indeed, the merest superstition to maintain that this was not a reasonable charge on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but he was bound to consider the shape in which the Bill would have the best chance of success, and he knew it could not pass with such a provision. Considering too the enormous wealth of the country, which, according to his noble Friend (Lord Overstone), was increasing at the rate of at least £100,000,000 a year, he thought it in itself most reasonable and most according to primitive example that this wealth should be first appealed to for the supply of the necessary funds. He admitted, indeed, that unless the people of Cornwall or any other county wore prepared to bear the expense, they did not deserve to have an additional Bishop. It was well known that some years ago a clergyman offered the whole income of a parish in Cornwall, amounting to about £1,600 a year, towards the creation of a new see; but, unfortunately, the opportunity was lost, and that liberal gentle-

  1331
  man, engaging in speculation, lost a great part of his property. This instance, however, was a specimen of what might be done by voluntary contributions; and the amount required was really not very large. It was sometimes suggested that if a bishopric was divided, the income should be divided also; but this was an entire fallacy. It was assumed that a Bishop did his utmost, and his income was not too much according to the work he could get through; but, in some of the dioceses, the work was much more than a Bishop could possibly perform. On a former occasion it was proposed that the smallest income of the existing dioceses should be the minimum for the new sees; but, on consideration, he thought it expedient to depart from that principle, partly because of the difficulty there would be in raising so large a sum, and partly because he saw no necessity for it. The social, political, or ecclesiastical position of Bishops did not depend on their financial position; their incomes always had differed very much, formerly much more than now, and his proposal was to fix the minimum at £2,500 per annum. Considering the possibility of future augmentation from further contributions, and of persons of private means being appointed, he believed this arrangement would work very fairly. He should not, however, insist on this or any other point of detail. Warned by experience, he had not introduced the question of suffragan Bishops; for though this step would partly answer the same object, that of increasing the working power of the Episcopate, it was a difficult question, and ought to be handled separately. Overworked Bishops, no doubt, required suffragans, and the present state of certain sees in the South of England, the Bishops of which were wholly or partially disabled, was much to be deplored; but no provision for the appointment of suffragan Bishops would meet the case of overgrown and populous dioceses. With regard to seats in Parliament, he proposed that the number of Bishops sitting in the House should not be increased, but that the principle of rotation should be extended to the increased number of Bishops. He did not attach much weight to the objection against the temporary exclusion of some Bishops from Parliament, and against an inequality of income based on what he might call the "hush" argument.
  1332
  When an alteration was proposed in any old institution people sometimes said—"Hush! you had better say nothing about it. The institution is rotten, but it may last our time if left alone. If you say anything about it it will tumble down." On this ground it was feared that, if some of the Bishops were excluded from Parliament, all would be excluded, and that, if some had only £2,500 a year, all would be reduced to that sum. Now, if this argument was well founded, he should think it idle to attempt to maintain the present system. No institution in these days could or ought to last unless it would bear free discussion. But he did not share those fears, and he believed that the system of Bishops sitting in Parliament worked very well, and that the country was well content that it should continue, if it were but for the common-sense view of Paley, that it was only an equivalent for the exclusion of the clergy from the House of Commons. At any rate, he could not see that the system would be prejudiced by the rotation principle being extended to the new sees. Their Lordships would remember that, in 1867, the House of Commons decided that the Bishops to be created under the Bill should not sit in the House of Lords, and that under the direction of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, this House disagreed with the Amendment; the result being that the Bill fell through. Should the House of Commons pursue the same course on this occasion, he trusted that the Bill would come back to their Lordships at an earlier period than was the case in 1867, when, it being near the end of the Session, there was a thin attendance, and the House, under those circumstances, guided by the right rev. Bench, thought it undesirable to reverse their former decision. He trusted that, if the two Houses again differed on this point, their Lordships would hesitate before they allowed the Bill to fall through on that single ground. He hoped no objection would be offered to the Bill at the present stage.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Lyttelton.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in postponing the Bill last week. I must, however, re-

  1333
  mark that I was obliged to request the postponement, from the fact that no Member of the Episcopal Bench had been consulted as to the details of the Bill; and I cannot help thinking that, if we had been consulted, some of the difficulties in the way of it might have been removed. I cannot say that I can give the Bill a hearty support; for though I grant that an evil exists, I do not feel that it exists to the full extent that has been stated, and I do not quite feel that this measure meets the evil that does exist in the best possible manner. The evil is, that there is no efficient episcopal superintendence for some of the large populations. When I had the honour of presiding over the diocese of London, I was instrumental in carrying a Bill which transferred from London to the see of Rochester a population of 300,000, and also in arresting the operation of an Act, passed twelve or fifteen years previously, whereby, at the next vacancy in the see of Winchester, the diocese of London would have been increased by about 500,000 additional souls. Now, though rejoicing that the see of London was saved from such an overwhelming responsibility as must have devolved upon it had not that change been made, it was impossible not to see that there remained an enormous population for that diocese, and that the dioceses of Rochester and Winchester were becoming too large for the management of a single Bishop. Hence it has, I think, been for a long time the opinion of the Episcopal Bench that Earl Russell was right in stating, now many years ago, that it was desirable to erect several additional sees. At the time of the foundation of the see of Manchester the proposal, I think, was that four additional sees should be created; and the subject has since been discussed both in this House and by a Select Committee, on which I had the honour to sit; the opinion as well of the House as of the Committee being that some increase of the Episcopate was necessary to meet the vast increase of population. I believe, too, that I am right in saying that the clergy, represented by the two Houses of Convocation, have expressed their opinion that additional sees should be created. I can speak of my own feeling with regard to a new diocese in the immediate neighbourhood of London, and I am ready to accept
  1334
  the testimony of others better informed than myself as to a division of Exeter and Lincoln. I am convinced, however, and so, I think, are most of my Brethren, that an indefinite extension of the Episcopate is not desirable. Now, there is something indefinite in the proposal of the noble Lord. Supposing his Bill to take effect a great number of sees might be created, thereby doing no particular good; while, on the other hand, there is the possibility that no sees whatever may be created. If successful it goes beyond what is required; if not successful, it does nothing at all. To trust to the chapter of accidents or to voluntary contributions to remedy an acknowledged evil is hardly the way in which Parliament should deal with this important question. I am also of opinion that there is a difficulty in the way of creating two different sets of Bishops. We had much discussion on that point in 1867, and the difficulties then suggested have not, I think, been removed by the provisions of this Bill. I should have preferred to limit the number of new Bishops to the number really required, and to take some steps by which we should have an assurance that those required would be really secured. Another difficulty attaches to voluntary contributions. It is of the utmost importance, in a constitutional point of view, that the nomination should remain in the hands of the Crown—and of course the noble Lord does not propose to place the nomination in other hands; but if a person conies forward with a gift of £60,000 or £70,000 for the creation of a new see, must he not exercise a great deal of influence, at any rate, in the first instance, in the nomination to that see? The case of colonial Bishops has often been appealed to: they are created at much less expense, and yet my experience as to the first appointment to colonial sees has been that, in almost every instance, the persons who were the movers in the creation of the bishoprics were the real patrons, in whatever hands the nominal patronage rested. That is one of the difficulties which prevent my giving so hearty a support to the Bill as I should have wished. I do not feel that the noble Lord has sufficiently grappled with the subject, and that there are other modes of meeting the evil before us. The House of Commons, in 1867, rejected the

  1335
  proposal that money should be taken from the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the creation of new sees, and perhaps they would again take the same view; but I do not think full consideration has been given to the question whether funds might not be found from cathedral revenues for the creation of a certain number of new sees. The noble Lord, however, has come forward in an honest and straightforward way, and proposed a plan, and as nobody else has proposed one, and as we are all agreed that an evil exists and should be remedied, I can offer no objection to the second reading of the Bill, though I should certainly desire Amendments to be made in it in Committee.
  LORD PORTMAN LORD PORTMAN moved that the Bill be read the second time that day three months. The subject was too important to be dealt with by a private Member of their Lordships' House—if an increase of the Episcopate be desirable it should be taken up either by the Bench of Bishops or the Government; but he thought by the latter, because they would be able to say where the funds should come from, and. ensure the operation of the scheme. He objected to the establishment of subscription Bishops, on the ground that it would be injurious to the Church of England, believing, as he did, that endowment was the best mode of maintaining an Established Church. He objected to the scheme in the Bill, because these Bishops would, in turn, become Peers of Parliament, created by subscription, without the creation by the Sovereign. He objected, also, because these Bishops would infallibly be partizan Bishops, as, in these days of division in the Church, the subscriptions would be given for the purpose of obtaining a Bishop in unison with the special views of the subscribers. He could not consent to the establishment of two different classes of Bishops, and ask the House to agree to the creation of new Bishops to be paid an income of £2,500 per annum to be raised by subscription. He did not believe that any Bishop could perform the duties of his diocese and sit as a Peer in that House upon that income. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships not to affirm the propositions in the Bill of his noble Friend; and in order to afford them the opportunity of expressing that opinion he moved that the Bill
  1336
  be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Portman.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I am surprised that the noble Lord (Lord Portman) should object so strongly to subscription Bishops, for there is not a single colonial bishopric which has not been endowed or supported by subscriptions, and, indeed, not a bishopric in the Christian Church which has not at some time or other been so supported. It was with deep regret I heard the most rev. Primate state that he could not give a hearty encouragement to this measure, for it must always be your Lordships' wish in ecclesiastical matters to be very much guided by him, both on his own account, and on account of the high position he holds. I must frankly confess, however, that I cannot quite agree with the arguments he used. The most rev. Primate deprecated an indefinite extension of the Episcopate. Now, my fear is that a measure, guarded with such restrictions and conditions hard to satisfy, must prove nugatory. The endowment, moreover, is to be a voluntary one; and it is quite clear that at the present day persons will think twice before subscribing very large sums for ecclesiastical or educational endowments. The sum required, too, is not less than £2,500 a year, in addition to which an episcopal residence has to be provided, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are empowered to provide for the appointment of a dean and chapter. All this expense is an obstacle to the success of the Bill; and any scheme is to be framed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be then submitted to Her Majesty in Council, and, lastly, to be subject to the veto of either House of Parliament. Whether the new Bishops should sit in this House by rotation or not is a point of detail on which my noble Friend said he would not insist, and as the Bill now contains no provision as to coadjutor Bishops, and as no question is raised of retiring pensions, the simple question is, whether Parliament will give the power of dividing overgrown and enormous dioceses, by voluntary endowments costing the nation nothing. England has been vastly increasing in population, in wealth, and

  1337
  in everything that taxes the resources and strength of the Episcopate, while Bishops have not increased in number absolutely, and relatively have greatly diminished. Look at the condition of the South of England at this moment, owing to the unfortunate circumstances of three, if not four, of its Bishops. The Church of England is suffering from an evil from which no other religious denomination in the country is required to suffer. Bishops are officers essential to her organization, yet you deny her that number which she affirms to be necessary; while, with the utmost inconsistency, the country insists upon the Bishops getting through their work. It is like asking them to make bricks without straw. You require them to do their work; yet refuse them the materials with which alone the work can be done. It is as if, in the large towns, you were to keep to the old parochial system, and insist on a single parish church as sufficient for the wants of the population. You have been enforced there to enlarge your machinery by means of the voluntary subscription—to which so much exception is taken—and the result has astonished everybody, and has advanced the interests of the Church in a wonderful degree. Even if Bishops were the mere ornamental fringes, so to speak, of the Establishment it might be a different matter; but if you look at the duties they have to perform—if you look upon them as confirming, as ordaining, as preaching in the Churches in their dioceses, as giving counsel to their clergy by word and letter on every conceivable subject on which their advice is required; if, further, you consider that they ought to know personally the clergy and principal laymen, and to give counsel to the laity on all points on which the laity naturally turn to them—if you consider all this, and yet limit them to the existing number, you are imposing on them an impracticable and impossible task. More than one opportunity of increasing the number of sees has been neglected. A chance of endowing a bishopric for Corn-wall has gone by, and if this Bill is thrown out or shelved other such opportunities may be irretrievably lost; but I, for one, will not share the responsiblity of thwarting a measure which, though imperfect, and dealing only with part of the question, deals with a very vital and essential part of it, and from
  1338
  which, if passed, I anticipate most useful results.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, if anyone entering the House this evening entertained a doubt as to the future of the Church of England the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) would have gone far to dispel such an impression. At the same time I am obliged to demur to some of the hopes which he held out before us so pleasantly. He looks forward to the creation of five of six bishoprics; but let us consider what probability there is that this Bill will do any useful service in supplying a great and pressing need. It will, I think, be admitted that something like £70,000 or £80,000 would be required to endow one of these sees, with the addition of a house of residence, and it is also contemplated that there should be the complete apparatus of a dean, canons, minor canons, and other more humble officials. I should not be extravagant if I suppose that nearly double the sum I have named would be required for the complete equipment of a diocese. I admit that all this machinery is not absolutely required, but it is within the compass of the Bill, and therefore within the hopes of the noble Lord. To equip a single diocese, and put it on the same footing as the others would require, then, about £150,000. Now, I do not think that the laity of the Church of England will be ready to come forward and subscribe any such amount for such an object. No doubt the laity of the Church of England have been extremely liberal—beyond what we could have expected or hoped; that is to say, they have given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, since 1854, an amount always increasing up to 1867, and ranging somewhat over £250,000 a year. But the barometer in Whitehall Place experienced in 1868, a sudden fall, which denoted the approach of stormy weather. The sum offered, in 1868, was less by £80,000 than that given in the year previous. Now, I do not share in the apprehensions which that fact represents, but nobody can doubt that this falling-off in the amount given is due to a want of confidence on the part of the public in the stability of endowments. I do not share that impression to the same extent; but the feeling of the public was fairly represented by that reduction in the amount of grants. During the most prosperous year, how-

  1339
  ever, and during the time when the laity of the Church were most liberal towards the parishes, we heard little talk of any offers for the purpose of founding a bishopric. In the diocese of Lincoln, I believe, the late Bishop, who is now here among us, finding that the Bishop was enormously overcharged with work, took pains to ascertain the state of public feeling there, and he came to the conclusion that there was no disposition on the part of the laity to establish a second bishopric by voluntary subscription. My, Lords, I believe that the Bill before us, if passed, will be quite inoperative. Judging by the facts I have just mentioned, and by what I hear on all sides, I believe that no one will contribute these large sums for the purpose of founding a bishopric. Bear in mind that the large endowments of a bishopric would, in the case of any change, be likely to be the first affected by it. The humble parish might happen to be spared, but the large endowments of the bishopric certainly would not. Therefore, I believe, that the public will hold its hand, and, for the present at least, will do nothing. But if the Bill proves inoperative, it will be worse than inoperative. It has been admitted over and over again that there is a real need, and that in this country several dioceses, of which Lincoln is one, have grown beyond the compass of one man's labours; yet we are about to pass a measure, which, as I maintain, will do nothing at all, and which, however favourably you may view it, is not certain to do anything towards satisfying this need. While, therefore, it really does nothing, it will enable us to sit down, and say—"We have passed a measure; let us wait and see how it may happen to work." For this reason I am unable to regard the measure with much favour. It has been said by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) that the most rev. Prelate who spoke before me anticipated an indefinite increase of the Episcopate; but the most rev. Prelate said nothing of the kind. He said it would either lead to an indefinite increase of the Episcopate or to no increase at all; he argued upon both suppositions; and it must not be supposed that I differ from him when I say that, in my opinion, not one bishopric will be founded under the Bill. It has been said by the noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of
  1340
  Carnarvon) that the state of the southern dioceses shows that this Bill ought to pass. Now, the state of the southern dioceses has been the subject of some comment—and I, for my part, wish to speak very tenderly, on the one hand, of those who have, in the course of nature, become too infirm to exercise that vigilance of eye and vigour of mind which once they displayed; and, on the other hand, of those who, struck down by disease in the prime of life, are compelled, for a time at least, to desist from their labours. I am not going into that question; but let me ask the noble Earl how it comes within the four corners of this Bill to relieve the southern dioceses?
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The most rev. Prelate must allow me to say that I never used the argument which he now is putting into my mouth. In alluding to the overgrown state of certain dioceses I merely observed, in passing, upon the position of the southern dioceses, which, I said, was one of the causes which I deeply deplored.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Well, I will treat that argument as though the noble Earl had not used it; but I say that, whoever uses it, the Bill would do nothing whatever to remedy the need which exists in the southern dioceses. If a Bishop breaks down and can no longer administer the affairs of his diocese, how is that state of things provided for by the Bill we are speaking of to-night? The question is, how are we to meet the difficulty arising from the want of additional Bishops? The need exists—a need not, perhaps, often Bishops, but of three, or it may be of more. Now, I submit that any Bill which professes to supply this want must do so by showing us a certain prospect of obtaining the necessary funds, from some quarter or the other. My own belief is that if you leave the present sees untouched within the Church of England, there is only one source from which the funds can come, and that is from the deans and chapters. Unless the laws that regulate cathedrals are much improved, it would be of no advantage to increase their numbers. If we were to have ten new Bishops, there would be a clear gain to the Church of England; but if we had ten new deans and chapters, the gain would be small, unless you had some means of enforcing residence. Upon this point Clause 4 in the Bill is

  1341
  very cautiously worded. It speaks of "residence, if any;" so that, whereas the canons must now reside three months, the noble Earl seems to contemplate as possible a state of things under which canons need not reside at all. Now, I should deplore that state of things. What is the theory of a dean and chapter? You may take the old theory, and say it arose from the gathering together of the clergy of the town by the Bishop, and his using them as his council in matters of difficulty and delicacy. But, how can we say that that purpose is at all served by the state of things we find now existing? The dean is there for several months in the year, but he is a distinct person with separate duties and powers. The canons are not there at all; and by your costly endowments of £6,000 or £7,000 a year you do not always secure that which you have in any parish church throughout the kingdom—the presence of at least two clergymen to celebrate public worship. By whatever theory you test the functions of deans and chapters, I think some means might be found to make their revenues more useful; and my own Convocation passed unanimously a resolution to the effect that it might be possible for one or more canonries to be used for the foundation of a suffragan Bishop, whose power should only last as long as the commission of the Bishop who first put him in motion and caused him to be consecrated. The only evil would be that you would have a few canons bearing episcopal orders, while their episcopal functions were at an end; but I should prefer some scheme of this kind, which afforded the prospect that something would be done, and in which we determined beforehand how the thing should be done, rather than trust to the caprice of promiscuous benevolence which might possibly spring up in Cornwall or in Devonshire, where it was wanted, but which, on the other hand, might not be displayed at all. I must, therefore, express my disapproval of the Bill, not because I am opposed to its object, but because I believe that that object will not be attained by such a measure.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: I am anxious to state very shortly the reasons which will induce me to vote against the Bill. In the first place, I do not approve of Bishops by subscription. I
  1342
  doubt whether the necessary funds will ever be raised; but supposing you make a Bishop, with £2,500 a year, who in his turn is to be a Peer of Parliament, you will then not only be making a Bishop by subscription, but a Peer of Parliament by subscription. Then, are these Bishops when made to be translatable or not? For many years it has been thought much better not to move Bishops from one see to another; but it would be somewhat hard if you had a Bishop in an inferior position, with £2,500 a year, to say that, if he were a distinguished man, he should never be appointed to a higher bishopric. There is another objection to the Bill, and I think it is a strong one. If you send down this Bill to "another place," I know quite well what they will say. "The House of Lords," they will say, "think that £ 2,500 a year is enough for a Bishop. Very well, then; there are plenty of revenues out of which to increase the Episcopate. Let us put together in a lump all that the Bishops have. We can immediately increase the Episcopate in an admirable manner by dividing the whole of these revenues into portions of £2,500 a year, and the House of Lords can offer no objection to such a plan because really it will be their own Bill." My Lords, I think this is a most inopportune time to go to the country for subscriptions for more Bishops. In the West of England, at all events, people would say—"There are ample revenues for Bishops all the way from Canterbury to Cornwall, and yet we have not a single efficient Bishop." Surely that was a state of things which must be looked to before the begging-box was sent round, and the country informed that the Episcopacy was in such a condition that funds must be raised for the purpose of creating new bishops. He objected to having the voluntary system applied to their case, and he was, therefore, not disposed to listen to the proposal embodied in the Bill.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that, although he was not entirely in favour of the Bill as it stood, he was most anxious for the second reading of the Bill. The opinions which he and others with him entertained upon this subject had not frequently, if indeed they had ever, found full expression in that House. They did not ask for the increase of the Episcopate in order to add to the out-

  1343
  ward glory of the Church, but only in order to add to her efficiency; and they only came to Parliament because, as the Church was an Established Church, they were bound to do so—for he believed that but for this the matter could be more easily accomplished some other way. In order to show the importance of an increase in the Episcopate, he wished to refer to two great grievances affecting the Church and her work in England, which he considered would be materially diminished by such a measure. In the first place, it was now a cause of complaint, and a just cause, that the clergy were drifting away from episcopal control; and, forgetting the lessons which history clearly taught us of the utter futility of maintaining unity by compulsion, many of their Lordships were seeking to remove that evil by putting more stringent laws upon the clergy, and drawing tighter still the Act of Uniformity. Now, he was perfeetly certain that the only real way to remove the evil was to increase the Episcopate, so that the Bishops might be able more thoroughly to enter into the work of their clergy, and to dispose of the difficult questions that frequently arose in parishes. As an illustration of what he meant, he might mention that a short time since he was staying with a clergyman who was a friend of the Bishop of the diocese, and had been appointed by him to his living. The clergyman consulted him (Earl Nelson) the first night of his stay, upon a very difficult question that had arisen from some occurrences in the parish. He naturally said, "Why do you not go to your Bishop?" But the reply was, "It is of no use; he has no time to come here and go through the case with me and sift the feelings of the people in the parish, and therefore, before I go to him, I must make up my mind what is best to be done—for what I advise he will tell me to do." Now that case seemed to show, to some extent, how if there were more Bishops they and the clergy might act more thoroughly as friends together, to the great benefit of the community under their charge. Another evil under which the Church of England laboured was the inefficiency of its work among the masses in our great towns, and he considered that every large town required a Bishop at its head in order to secure that the work should be done with completeness. He did
  1344
  not expect their Lordships generally to accept these views; but, feeling deeply upon the matter, he had thought it his duty to mention them to the House. If we were not an Episcopal Church, it would be a different thing; but Bishops were our only leaders, and you could not get the parochial clergy to work under each other, and thus make combined efforts against the infidelity that in great cities surrounded them. But there would be little chance of a real increase of the Episcopate until people realized that it was just as absurd for the Church to go to war against infidelity without Bishops as it would be for an army to be sent against the enemy with a deficiency of officers. He would not go into the details of the Bill, though he should be glad to do so in Committee; but as it was possible, from what had fallen from some Members of the Episcopal Bench, the Bill might not reach that stage, he might say that he objected very much to any extension of the rota system. He always, from the first, considered that this system was a great mistake, that it was unconstitutional; and, he believed, that if they waited until the see of Manchester should again have the junior Bishop, the country would not object to that see having a barony attached to it; and thus restoring the constitutional principle of baronies being attached to episcopal sees. He considered that there ought to be a very great increase of Bishops for the sake of carrying on the work of the Church, but he saw no reason why the new Bishops should not be as freely appointed to any of the other sees as the other priests of the Church.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, that although he could not, as the noble Earl had done, give a cordial consent to the Bill, no one felt more sincerely how much the Church was indebted to the noble Lord who had brought it forward for his constant and unwearied labours with a view to promote her efficiency. He objected to the measure on the ground that it was tentative, and even something worse. In answer to the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) he must add that he should be sorry their Lordships should come to the conclusion that there were many such cases as that which he had mentioned, or that the clergy experienced any difficulty

  1345
  in procuring a careful investigation of matters of importance in their parishes. Speaking in the name of the whole Episcopal Bench, he thought he might safely state that, if any clergyman in a parish brought under the notice of his Bishop a question which he deemed it necessary to be inquired into, the probability is that it would be personally investigated by the Bishop within a very short time. As to the allegation that the masses in our great towns were at present deprived of that spiritual superintendence which it was so desirable they should have, and that the efficiency of the Church would be much promoted if there were in each great town a Bishop who could bring his influence to bear upon the clergy, he could only say that the Bishop of the diocese in which their Lordships were assembled had been enabled to work it most successfully, notwithstanding its immense size. It might be said that in this instance the Bishop was resident in the city; but he could point to many other places, of large size, without a resident Bishop, in which, nevertheless, the Bishop of the diocese was able to co-operate effectually and successfully with clergy and laity in bringing spiritual influence to bear on the masses of the population. It was a source of much comfort to him to be in a position to state, by way of example, that in the City of Bristol the municipal authorities and others were cordially joining with their Bishop—though that Bishop was residing thirty or forty miles off—in the endeavour to do what lay in their power in that direction. He was of opinion that there were grave objections to the formation of bishoprics dependent upon subscriptions in an old country like our own, and felt convinced that a Bishop supported upon the voluntary system would not be called to this office upon the best principle. The voluntary system was wholly unsatisfactory, and in nothing would it break down more signally than in the case of subscriptions for new Bishops. Again, he had a strong objection to a party and sectarian spirit wherever he found it, and under this Bill we should not only have Bishops on voluntary principles, but also be in danger of having Bishops on party and sectarian principles. Men of extreme opinions would endeavour most earnestly to get a portion of a suspected diocese into other and, in
  1346
  their judgment, better hands. Each of the two great religious parties into which the Church—it might be for its good—was now divided would strive against each other, and the result would be that, through the agency of the Bill, sectarian Bishops would be created. Some of the more recently formed religious associations had vast sums of money at their disposal, and certainly would not lose a chance of endeavouring to procure the appointment of Prelates who would take their side in ecclesiastical matters; and it must be clear that, though the actual appointment would be in the Crown, these associations as being, perhaps, to a great extent, the actual finders of the money, would commonly carry their point. He was afraid he had spoken very openly and frankly, but he had deemed it right to set forth the reasons which prevented his giving a cordial support to the measure. He acknowledged that some of the dioceses in the South-west of England were crying out for help. The need was indeed extremely pressing, and he trusted their Lordships would turn their attention to it. He trusted, however, that the Church of England would be spared the infliction of either subscription, voluntary system, or party Bishops.
  EARL STANHOPE: I do not care to carry any further the arguments which your Lordships have heard in support of the principles of the Bill—my object in rising is to make a personal appeal to the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) who has introduced the measure. I think it must have struck him and your Lordships, as this debate has proceeded, that there has been a very general wish that the object of increasing the Episcopate might, under certain limitations, be carried out; while, on the other hand, not a single speaker has, I believe, addressed the House who has not raised objections to some of the details of the Bill now under consideration. One of the strongest arguments which has been directed against the Bill went to show that it is most likely to be inoperative, and that if it operates at all it will not operate in the direction which the noble. Lord desires. Under these circumstances, I think the noble Lord will not do justice to the principle of the Bill if he calls upon us to divide on the present occasion. If he does so he will, I think,

  1347
  mark many as objectors to the measure who, in fact, approve of the general principle he advocates, and will thus greatly damage the interests which he has at heart. It will be far better if he will consent to avoid that, apparent opposition and will yield to the strong objections which have been urged in the highest quarters to the particular details.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I second the appeal which has just been made by the noble Earl; but, at the same time, I am unwilling that this debate should terminate without my having an opportunity of referring to the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) in support of his Bill, which I am bound to admit is an earnest attempt to remedy an evil of which I myself have had considerable experience. I have been long connected with a diocese containing above 900 clergy, who are spread over a large extent of country which is indifferently supplied with means of intercommunication. I painfully felt that, in this diocese, it was impossible for the Bishop to hold a sufficient number of confirmations, or to keep up that acquaintance with his clergy by personal visits which is so desirable and necessary. In my present diocese, with its vast and rapidly increasing population, it is obvious that the duties of a Bishop have multiplied beyond the powers of any ordinary man. This being so, if I am asked why I cannot give a cordial assent to the Bill my answer is that it will not, in these cases, in my opinion, do any good whatever. With regard to the diocese of Lincoln, I have instituted private inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining what amount of funds was likely to be contributed by the laity for the foundation of a bishopric. The conclusion at which I have arrived is that hardly any funds would be raised for that purpose. In my present diocese the case is somewhat different. London is a very wealthy city, where money can be obtained for all objects considered of importance for the welfare of the Church, and. it might be possible to raise funds for the endowment of another bishopric, if a second bishopric were thought desirable. But I believe none of your Lordships will say that it is desirable to have two Bishops for London. It would be contrary to all precedent to have more
  1348
  than one Bishop in one city, and the inconvenience would be obvious; it would be almost impossible to prevent complications arising which would impede the work of the Church in the metropolis rather than advance it if there were two Bishops, one on each side of Temple Bar, governing on different principles and. having different powers and different incomes. At the same time I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attempt to relieve the great dioceses in England and their Bishops of the great evils under which they at present labour. It is true that if the diocese of Lincoln had been divided I should have had, on the whole, just as much work to do as before; but still the work would have been more concentrated and consequently more effective. Under the plan proposed by the Bill the new dioceses would be placed at a very considerable disadvantage. I do not think, however, that the Bishops themselves with smaller incomes will be worse off than those whose incomes are larger, because, in fact, our incomes are given to us in trust. We enjoy them really and truly not so much for our own advantage as for the benefit of the diocese and of the clergy; and a Bishop is entrusted with large means in order that he may be able to contribute liberally to all schemes for the advancement of the Church in his diocese. Therefore, if you take from him half his income, and relieve him at the same time of half his liabilities, he is no loser, although the diocese may be. Under this Bill there will be not only two classes of Bishops, but likewise two classes of dioceses; and is it to be supposed that the inhabitants of the new dioceses would be satisfied with that state of things? In the new dioceses there will arise another disadvantage, as has been pointed out by the noble Duke who spoke from the Benches below (the Duke of Somerset). For, it is obvious that if you have two classes of Bishops you cannot object to translations. The noble Lord, I perceive, shakes his head; but surely, if a man has done his duty carefully and conscientiously, and, if, moreover, he is a man of superior ability, you cannot say to him that, because he is placed in a bishopric of small income and lower position, he is to give up all hope of being raised to a higher and more desirable see. Consequently, if one of the less richly-endowed dioceses has the misfortune to possess a Bishop

  1349
  who is not a man of ability, he will re-main in that see; whereas, if the Bishop is a man of great ability, he will be removed, and the diocese exposed to the inconvenience of frequent changes. These are a few of my objections to the Bill, which, although not without some good points, is not calculated to effect the object at which it aimed, while, in all probability, it would produce considerable inconvenience.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Baron who moved the Amendment (Lord Portman) stated that a measure of this description ought to be brought in either by the right rev. Bench or by Her Majesty's Government. As regards this particular measure, Her Majesty's Government have had no opportunity of exercising any judgment on the matter, for they have not received, either from the noble Baron who introduced the Bill, or from those who are desirous of promoting it, any communication on the subject. The noble Baron who has brought forward the Bill will, I am sure, understand me to speak with the most perfect sincerity when I say that no one has more entirely at heart the object which he seems to have in view in introducing this measure than myself. No one can doubt the evil which exists; and if any of your Lordships were to walk to the other side of Westminster Bridge, and then reflect that you are in the diocese of the same Bishop who presides over Jersey and Guernsey, you would then, I think, feel, no doubt, that the diocese was of too extended an area. But what I would impress on my noble Friend is this—Finding that this Bill, brought forward with an object which he and I have in common, has so far failed to meet with the concurrence of the House in the mode by which that object is proposed to be attained—and I am far from saying that I concur myself in that mode—finding more especially that he has received from the right rev. Bench so little encouragement—or might I not rather say he has received discouragement from them?—I would ask him to consider whether, by persevering with this Bill, he may not rather tend to defeat the object that we have in common than to promote it? I would therefore entreat him to adopt the course which has been suggested to him, and not to proceed further with the measure.
  LORD LYTTELTON, in reply, declined to withdraw the Bill.
  LORD CAIRNS: I was under the impression, when the noble Lord rose to reply, that he would yield to the appeal addressed to him from both sides of the House. I regret that he has not done so, because there is always a danger that a vote taken on an issue of this kind may have a tendency to mislead, and to put those who are in favour of an object so excellent as that sought by this Bill in a false position; because, by voting against this Bill, they may be supposed to be voting against the principle of an extension of the Episcopate. My objections to this Bill may be stated in a very few words. I own that I do not at all concur in the observation which has been made that this is a proposal to establish Bishops on the voluntary principle. My first objection is that the measure will be entirely inoperative. The amount of money required to constitute an endowment is so great-more especially remembering the circumstances of the time in which we live—that it would be quite impossible to obtain the requisite funds. My second objection is that I believe the Bishops appointed under a measure of this kind would at once assume a different rank and position from the other members of the right rev. Bench, and the circumstance that there would be two different classes of Bishops so treated and looked upon would be in the highest degree injurious to the interests of the Church. And, thirdly, I think that any measure, having so excellent an object in view, should be of a more general character. I cannot support the second reading of the Bill; but I wish, in the vote I am about to give, not to be supposed to be opposing that for which I am as anxious as the noble Lord—an increase of the Episcopate under proper conditions.
  EARL GRANVILLEwished to make a practical suggestion to the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton). After the declaration which had been made on both sides of the House, and with the feeling that the noble Lord must have, that, although he might be supported by some Peers, he would be defeated by a large majority, would it not be much better that he should put himself in communication with the Episcopal Bench, and possibly also with the Government, before proceeding farther with his measure?
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 43: Majority 23.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  Churston, L.

  Bath, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Delamere, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Brownlow, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Romney, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  London, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Belper, L.

  Somerset, D. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Exeter, M.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Digby, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Foley, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Houghton, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Grey, E.

  Monson, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Morley, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Portman, L. [Teller.]

  Zetland, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Gough, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Hawarden, V

  Sidmouth, V.

  Suffield, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Westbury, L.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL AND CLERGY DISCIPLINE AND ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.

  SELECT COMMITTEE NOMINATION.
  Order of the Day for the naming of the Select Committee on these Bills.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETtook exception to the Select Committee consisting of so large a number as twenty-three. Great inconvenience would be felt by taking the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and four other noble and learned Lords from the Court of Appeal in order to serve on this Committee. Anyone who had served on a Committee would know that if they were to have so large a number of Members it would be
  1352
  almost impossible to carry on the business of the Committee. Let their Lordships only imagine how it would be with twenty-three Members—who, as he understood, had been selected because, on this subject, they held twenty-three different opinions, or nearly so—if they were sent upstairs to try to come to some agreement. It was said that there were seventy-eight clauses in the two Bills which were the same; but, in spite of that identity of clauses, it was quite certain there was enough of disputed matter in the Bills to last the Committee to the end of the Session. Now, he would really appeal to their Lordships, whether it would not be giving a fair opportunity for the display of that difference of opinion which, the noble Marquess on the other side (the Marquess of Salisbury) said, is so much to be desired, if they were to send the Bills to a Committee consisting of fifteen members. He begged to propose that the Committee be reduced to the number of fifteen.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that if the noble Duke would look at the list he would find that out of twenty-three Members six were right rev. Prelates, five were noble and learned Lords, and therefore there were only twelve ordinary lay Lords. The noble Duke would admit that on a Committee of this kind there ought to be a full number of right rev. Prelates; and it was also necessary to have noble and learned Lords on it, because the Committee would require their guidance on legal matters. It was so difficult, on account of their other engagements, to procure the attendance of every noble and learned Lord, that the Committee might have to depend on the advice and assistance of some one or other of them. If the noble Duke objected to the numbers, he ought to name those who were to be struck out.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, that if they took five Law Lords for this Committee, the Court of Appeal would have to be shut up during the time of its sitting. In his opinion, two Law Lords would be quite sufficient for the purposes of the Committee. He had sat on several Committees in that House, and he had never seen one in which the business was very well done, on which there were more than eleven Members. If they limited the number to eleven or twelve, they would have a Committee quite large enough to represent the House, as well

  1353
  as quite large enough for all purposes of concentration and information.
  EARL GRANVILLEfelt bound to say that he thought the business would be better done in a small Committee—more especially as a great deal turned on the wording of the clauses; it would only cause confusion to have a large body like twenty-three. At the same time, he did not agree with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury), that he had never seen business very well done in a Committee larger than eleven. He thought twenty-three was a very unusual number; but having looked at the list proposed, he would acknowledge that the names chosen were those of persons who took a great interest in the subject.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that, in selecting the Committee, it had been thought advisable to place a certain number of Prelates and a certain number of learned Lords upon it; and to these had been added a number of lay Peers. If, however, it was the opinion of their Lordships that the Committee would be better if it consisted of only fifteen instead of twenty-three, he should not object to the lesser number being agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was wholly indifferent as to whether the Committee consisted of fifteen or twenty-three Peers.
  LORD REDESDALEwas anxious to know who was to nominate the fifteen Members?
  The Question "That the Committee do consist of fifteen Members" was then put, and agreed to.
  Naming of the Select Committee put off to Monday next.
  And, on April 26, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  L. Abp. Canterbury.

  V. Halifax.

  L. Abp. York.

  L. Bp. Oxford.

  L. President:

  L. Bp. Ripon.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Bp. Gloucester and Bristol.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  E. Portsmouth.

  L. Portman.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Westbury.

  E. Beauchamp.

  L. Cairns.

  DUBLIN CITY ELECTION.
  Message from the Commons that they have agreed to an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.