Sitting of 29 April 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Sheriffs (York County)*.
Committee—Irish Church [27]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment [37–99].
Third Reading—Naval Stores * [88]; Merchant Shipping (Colonial)* [91], and passed.

IRELAND—RIOT IN LONDONDERRY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have received official information of a riot last night in the City of Londonderry?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that he had received a telegram confirming the statement in the papers respecting a riot last night in the City of Londonderry, which resulted in the loss of two lives, but it added no-

  1849
  tiling to the information contained in the newspapers.

IRELAND—ASSASSINATION OF CAPTAIN TARLETON.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he wished to inquire, Whether the Government have received information of the assassination of Captain Tarleton at Athlone?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: I regret to say that I have reason to believe it to be true; but I have no particulars.

STAMP DUTIES EXEMPTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been drawn to the exemption from Stamp Duties on mortgages and other instruments, extending even to cheques on their bankers, permitted to cities, towns, and places adopting the Local Government Act, 1858; to inquire how this privilege arises, as it forms no part of the Local Government Act, 1858; and, if such exemptions are allowed, why the principle is not extended to all towns and to all persons that aid public improvements?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the manner in which this exemption arose may be easily explained. It appeared first in the Public Health Act of 1848, by which it was enacted that all the instruments under that Act should be exempt from stamp duty. In 1858 the Local Government Act was passed, which enacted that that and the former Act should be read together, and thus the claims of exemption were imported into the second Act. When the hon. Gentleman asks why the principle of these exemptions should not be extended, I reply, for the reason that they ought not to exist at all; and that, therefore, I am not willing to extend them. This is an instance of the levity with which large exemptions are inserted in Acts of Parliament, to the injury of the tax-payer in general and the loss of the Revenue.

LICENSE DUTIES ON SERVANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state whether any and what classes of Servants will be subject
  1850
  to the new License Duties who have hitherto been exempt from Assessed Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that if the hon. Gentleman would look to the 18th clause of the 3rd section of the Act, and take the trouble to compare it with former Acts, he would find that no exemption now granted by those Acts was taken away by the system of Excise Licenses.

CONSTABULARY RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will give directions to the Inspectors of Constabulary for the Northern District, and South of England, and South Wales District, to include in their future Annual Reports, Statistical Tables relating to Public Houses and Beer Houses in their respective districts, similar to those furnished annually by the Inspectors of Constabulary for the Eastern Counties, Midland, and North Wales Districts?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, his attention had been called to the discrepancies referred to in his hon. Friend's Question, and he had directed that for the future the Returns should be made in a uniform manner.

IRELAND—AGRARIAN OUTRAGES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the intention of the Government to take any steps or propose any measures for the better security of Life in the counties of Tipperary and Westmeath?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, the noble Lord has accurately and justly framed his Question, so as to indicate that the deplorable system of agrarian outrages in Ireland is in the main confined to the counties of Tipperary and Westmeath, or to portions of them. That is, at all events, some consolation; at the same time, I am far from wishing to palliate the state of agrarian crime which exists in some districts of Ireland; and I can assure the noble Lord in the strongest language that this state of things has engaged and will engage the most serious and anxious attention of the Government, and of the Irish Government

  1851
  in particular. There is nothing in the power of the Government which we are not doing and are not willing to do for the purpose of repressing and detecting this state of crime. As an instance, I may say that the powers which have been conferred on the Lord Lieutenant under the Peace Preservation Act (Ireland) with respect to the possession of arms, and to the stationing in any district or locality of an extra force of constabulary, and charging the expense of that force upon the district or locality that ought to bear the burden, are now being used to an extent never before exercised. Beyond that it would be improper, as tending to defeat our object, to state the means which the Government are employing for the purpose of detecting and repressing these dangerous crimes. With respect to the report of the last crime but one, it was probably not of an agrarian character; and as to the last, I have seen the telegram in the public papers, but am unable to give the House any information as to its character.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, that, inasmuch as the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was not consonant with the gravity of the occasion, he would, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on the following evening, call the attention of the House to recent events in Ireland.

FACTORY ACTS—HOURS OF LABOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the different regulations of the Inspectors of Factories, whereby in one town manufactories may work till 8 p.m., and in another only until 6 p.m.; and, if it could not be arranged that the rules should be the same in both districts?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, it is doubtless very desirable, that in the same trades, there should be, as a general rule, uniformity in the hours of labour. But the habits of the workpeople differ in different parts of the country, and absolute uniformity might sometimes be a positive inconvenience. There will in a few days be a Return on the table of the House, showing what modifications of the hours of labour have been allowed in different trades. The subject is a very difficult
  1852
  one, and is having my anxious attention, with the aid of the Inspectors of Factories.

METROPOLIS—NIGHT HOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his atten has been called to the different opinions as to the state of the Law recently expressed by the Middlesex Magistrates, and by the Police Magistrate, Mr. Knox, on the subject of "Night Houses in the Metropolis;" and, if so, whether he is prepared to introduce any measure to render the Law clearer and more definite on this point?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, The difference of opinion between Sir William Bodkin on the one hand, and Mr. Knox and the police magistrates generally on the other, is not so much on the question of law as on the amount of evidence necessary to justify a conviction under the Refreshment Houses Act. That Act imposes certain penalties on persons licensed to keep refreshment houses who shall "knowingly suffer prostitutes, thieves, or drunken and disorderly persons to assemble at or continue on their premises." The Court of Queen's Bench held that the mere assemblage of prostitutes for no immoral purpose was not within the Act. They might be there for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. Mr. Justice Blackburn, in the ruling judgment on this subject said—
  "I do not think that the mere fact that the persons happen to be prostitutes or thieves would cause their meeting to be un assembling of prostitutes and thieves within the Act. It may be well that a number of thieves and prostitutes may meet, and yet they may not assemble as thieves or prostitutes; but as soon as it is shown that they meet in the capacity of prostitutes or thieves, to the knowledge of the keeper of the house, then the case comes within the provisions of the Act. It is not necessary that prostitution or some act of thieving should be shown to have been actually planned on the premises; but if the assembling is a sort of thieves' club, or the house used as a house of call for prostitutes to meet men, that is sufficient to bring the keeper of the house under the provisions of the Act."
  In this opinion Mr. Knox and Sir William Bodkin agree; they differ as to the amount and nature of the evidence necessary to prove the immoral purpose of the assemblage. Mr. Knox thinks that the presence of several known

  1853
  prostitutes in a night-house in the Haymarket for half-an-hour continuously in the company of men, between midnight and one o'clock, was sufficient evidence that they were there for the purposes of their miserable calling. Sir William Bodkin thinks these circumstances not inconsistent with their being there for purposes of refreshment, and demands more positive proof of immoral intention. I may add that I have received a letter from Mr. Serjeant Payne, informing me that two appeals on the same point will be heard to-morrow at the Sessions House, Westminster. It would be well to await the result of those decisions. Should they coincide with that of Sir William Bodkin, it will be necessary to consider whether it is possible so to amend the Act as to facilitate uniformity of decision, and give effect to its obvious intention.

NAVY—THE GREENWICH SIXPENCE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the compulsory deductions of sixpence per month from the wages of Merchant Seamen before 1834 for Greenwich Hospital, were transferred to the credit of the Merchant Seamen's Fund on its establishment after 1834; and, if not so transferred, to statp how the accumulated deductions for years from the Merchant Seamen have been disposed of; and whether for their benefit, and to what extent?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply, Sir, to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that no accumulation of deductions from merchant seamen's wages existed before 1834. Those deductions were annually paid into the income of Greenwich Hospital and expended on the maintenance of in-pensioners and the schools. With reference to the Merchant Seamen's Fund, I must correct a misapprehension of my hon. and gallant Friend. It was established in 1731, not 1834; and in the latter year the sixpence a month formerly paid to Greenwich was, instead, paid to the fund; and by the same Act pensions to widows and children of merchant seamen were granted out of the fund. But it does not appear to have been calculated whether the fund would bear them; and, in fact, it became insolvent
  1854
  in 1851, and an Act was passed under which the State undertook its liabilities, taking over about £200,000 of assets. These liabilities, up to the present day, have amounted to £997,000, and are now about £48,000 a year; so that merchant seamen will have received from the Exchequer, under the Acts of 1834 and 1851, above £1,000,000 beyond their contributions to the Merchant Seamen's Fund.

THE O'FARRELL PAPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of, and the Evidence taken before, the Committee appointed by the Legislative Assembly of Australia, to consider the Papers with respect to O'Farrell, produced on the Motion of Mr. Parkes?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that he had learned from inquiry that the Report of the Committee appointed by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales to consider the Papers with respect to O'Farrell occupied 150 closely-printed pages, and the Government were of opinion that there was not sufficient reason to justify them in putting the country to the expense of re-printing it. But, a copy of the Report would be placed in the library, where the hon. Member might consult it.

CHURCH RATES—PRIVATE ACTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FEENCHsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. White), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, under the fifth section of the Act for the Abolition of Compulsory Church Rates passed last Session, Church Rates are not or may not be made, levied, and enforced, although under another name or form, by virtue of private or local Acts; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to bring in a Bill to relieve parishes or places from the operation of such Acts, and so give to such parishes or places the full benefit and advantage of the Act of last Session?
  MR. BRUCE: I am not aware, Sir, of any cases in which church rates are levied in the manner indicated by the

  1855
  Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. By the Act for the Abolition of Compulsory Church Bates, no church fate can be levied under the authority of any general or local Act, unless either money is due on the security of the rate, or the rate is clearly the equivalent of tithes or other property, or of some valuable consideration which has been surrendered. Unless my hon. and gallant Friend can show that church rates are still levied under circumstances different from these, Her Majesty's Government is not prepared to recommend legislation.

IRELAND—PRISONS.—QUESTION.
MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the intention of Government to introduce a Prisons Bill for Ireland; and if they have it in contemplation to place the County and Convict Prisons under the same superintendence?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he hoped a Bill relating to prisons in Ireland would be introduced this Session, either in this or the other House. The important subject of the latter part of the hon. Member's Question was under consideration, but the Government had not yet decided upon it.

RELATIONS WITH CHINA.—QUESTION.
MR. DILKEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a Telegram, dated Shanghae, March 31st, and published in the London newspapers of yesterday, in which it is stated that, in a Despatch from Sir Rutherford Alcock to the British Consul at Shanghai, the former says that—
"The Government at Pekin shows no desire for progress, according to Western ideas and desires; but, on the contrary, will not yield to the introduction of any such projects, except under pressure and coercion;"
And, whether such a Despatch from Her Majesty's Minister in China to a Consul has been published by the authority of the Foreign Office?
MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that the Government had only seen the statement in the papers, and had not authorized its publication. From another portion of the telegram, to which his hon. Friend had not referred, he thought it very likely
1856
that no such Despatch had been sent. The China Papers would soon be on the table, and from the first Despatch his hon. Friend would see how clearly Lord Clarendon laid down the policy of this country towards China.

PARLIAMENT—THE IRISH CHURCH BILL —MORNING SITTING.—NOTICE.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would give notice that, with a view to making progress in Committee on the Irish Church Bill, and at the same time, to secure ample time for deliberation, he would propose a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. The Sitting would, with the permission of the House, last from two to seven.
IRISH CHURCH BILL— [BILL 27.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
IRISH CHURCH BILL— [BILL 27.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 27 (Enactments with respect to ecclesiastical residences).
  Amendment again proposed, in page 12, line 14, to leave out from the word "therein" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  MR. GLADSTONE, in order to obviate any misunderstanding, wished to explain what he apprehended to be the precise effect of the Motion upon which the Committee was to vote. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had moved to omit all the words from the fourteenth line of the clause to the end, the practical effect of which would be that no payment was to be taken in respect of the glebe houses in Ireland. Should, however, the Committee negative the Motion—as the Government trusted they would—the effect of that decision would be to determine that some payment should be taken, but would not fix the precise amount of that payment. The question before the Committee did not, therefore, directly raise the question of the amount of the sum which should be taken in respect of glebe houses; but he thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee that he should state the view he took of the second and main part of the clause. In the second part of the clause two kinds of payment

  1857
  were named, corresponding with two classes of glebe houses. In the case of the first class of glebe houses there was no building charge, and, with respect to that class, the clause stipulated that their sites should be sold to the representative body of the Church at the moderate valuation of twelve years' purchase. In his opening statement, however, he had mentioned ten years' purchase as the amount fixed upon by the Government; and, consequently, he had give notice of an Amendment to reduce the terms of purchase to that amount. The question was not a large one as far as money was concerned. The more considerable question arose where there was a building charge, and where there was such charge he asked for the re-payment of it. In the first instance, it would be necessary to liquidate the charge. He did not propose to take a larger sum than a moderate valuation, and proposed that the maximum should be ten years, at the Poor Law valuation of the house together with the site. Looking to what had been said the other night, he wished to submit to the Committee, with great respect for the opinions of those who thought differently from the Government, that the plan he now laid before them was founded upon principles of equity as regarded the Church about to be disestablished. When he had spoken last year of giving the parsonages to the Church he had not been aware of the large sums which the State had been called upon to pay in respect of them, or of the sums which the State would be called upon to pay before it could obtain posseesion of them. The effect of the Bill would be to recoup to the State, not the whole, but a considerable portion of those sums. The Government had been able to trace about £1,200,000 as having been expended for these purposes. Undoubtedly, the value of the glebe houses was greater to the Church than to any other body. The Poor Law valuation of them amounted to about £18,000 or £19,000 per annum, and probably their annual letting value would not exceed £24,000 or £2,5,000. With regard to the proposition that the glebe houses should be made over without any payment whatever, it should be remembered that they had been a very notable sign and token in the public eye throughout Ireland of the position of the Established Church, and that in
  1858
  many cases, if not hundreds, of cases, they afforded both to the eye and to the mind of the public a contrast between the position of the clergyman of the small minority, who was comfortably—and, in many instances handsomely—lodged, and that of the position of the clergyman of the large majority, who, in very many instances, was wholly without an official residence—if he possessed one he owed it entirely to private sources—and who was, unfortunately, in many cases neither handsomely nor comfortably lodged. In dealing with that matter they had not, on the one hand, wished to put out of view the low marketable value of those houses, nor allowed themselves to be guided by the high figure of the cost incurred in respect to them; on the other hand, they had felt that fidelity to their engagements, with respect to the general principle of the Bill, did require that they should, at all events in respect to the land, which was always marketable, fix some condition in the shape of a price for the possession of the glebe houses; and with respect to the large building charges, which must be paid for by the general fund, they should endeavour, within the limits of equity, to obtain some compensation for the payment. Under these circumstances, the Government—ho hoped, without imparting any exaggeration or passion into their view of the ease—had deemed it to be their duty to adhere to the clause as it stood with the Amendments they proposed, and of course it would be for the Committee to decide whether that view was right or wrong.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to decline to accede to the appeal of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin) to hand over the glebe houses without exacting any payment for them. Last year the right hon. Gentleman had given the country to understand that he was prepared to hand over those houses without charge to the Church Body; but he now stated that he was not then aware of certain circumstances with regard to them which had since come to his knowledge, and which had led him, upon reflection, to recommend the Committee to adopt the proposal he now made. So far, he could follow the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman; but, when he came to assign a reason for that recommendation, he must confess

  1859
  he could not follow Ms meaning. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the necessity of giving back to the State the money which it had expended. But what money had the State expended, beyond the £150,000, to which the right hon. Gentleman made reference for the first time the other night? The right hon. Gentleman talked about having traced an expenditure of £1,200,000 by the State upon these houses, and about being anxious to get back a portion of that sum. It appeared to him that the £1,200,000 was not expended on behalf of the State, but by individual clergymen and laymen interested in the Church of Ireland. Did the right hon. Gentleman come forward and claim the whole of the sums which had been expended by these persons during the last two or three centuries on the glebe houses in Ireland? Such a claim was the most extraordinary rhetorical artifice he had ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman, when asked to do by the glebe houses as he was prepared to do by Maynooth, had refused to do so on the singular ground that, in his opinion, fifteen years ago, Parliament had acted very unjustly towards Maynooth in refusing to continue the annual Yote for the repairs of the College. But the right hon. Gentleman was the last man in the House who could impeach the wisdom of Parliament in refusing that grant, because he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a Member of the Government during the greater part of that period, without having, on any single occasion, proposed to Parliament—as it would have been his duty, under such circumstances, to have done over and over again—a renewal of that grant. Then the right hon. Gentleman told them that if those glebe houses were handed over to the Protestant Episcopal Body free of charge, as he himself last year proposed to hand them over, they would remain as a symbol of that Protestant ascendancy which it was the object of this Bill to put an end to. If that would be the effect of handing over these modest glebe houses, what would be the effect of the gift of the cathedrals and churches? Again, the right hon. Gentleman had said,—and this was the only argument—if argument it could be called—in favour of the proposition of the Government—that, at some remote period, a sum of £152,000 had been voted by Parliament for those
  1860
  glebe houses. But was it not true that a sum of £37,000 or £38,000 had been voted by Parliament for the erection and repairs of the College of Maynooth? If it was just to remit the payment of this latter sum, what became of the argument against handing over those glebe houses founded on the Parliamentary Vote? He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman had made out no case for his present proposition, which was a signal departure from the principle which he himself laid down last year when introducing this question of the Irish Church. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the significant appeal made to him on Monday night by the hon. Member for Rochester ought to be sufficient to show those simple-minded persons who had pledged themselves to support the right hon. Gentleman that they had handed themselves over bound hand and foot to the Government. They now found that this was a measure without a single provision of a compensatory character.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he did not know that, during the many years he had sat in the House of Commons, he had ever risen to speak under greater difficulty than that which he experienced on this occasion. He believed that if the Government had acceded to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin) they would thereby have sent a message of peace and conciliation to the 700,000 members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland. Who had made that body of 700,000 Protestants? The English Government, at a time when it had not statesmanship enough to rule Ireland as an Irish country, but tried to force upon the Irish people English religion and English law. He was one of the 700,000 to whom he had alluded; but ever since he had been first able to form an opinion on political matters he had been of opinion that the principle of religious equality was essential for Ireland. He believed that he had held that opinion before any man on the Treasury Bench, except the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. But was a Church going out on the world without anything in a position of religious equality? Was such a Church in the position of Churches which had been established for hundreds of years? You might as well say to a young man going out to Australia—"Go out and

  1861
  flourish; you will enjoy full liberty, and be on an equality with every one in the colony." Such a young man would soon find himself in a different position from that of persons who had been established in the colony for fifty or sixty years. He was sure he spoke the feeling of the great majority of the 700,000 when he said that if they were compelled to give up their churches and glebe houses they would themselves build handsomer churches and more commodious residences for their clergy. But would not the Government say anything to conciliate these people? This was a paltry matter. He did not care whether the Government took the Bishops' palaces, which were handsome residences, and with the demesnes would fetch a great deal of money; but, as a rule, the glebe houses were miserable residences, single-bodied houses, standing on high hills, and without a bush to shade them. He did not believe any speculator would buy them for the old materials. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had not listened to the appeal made to him on that side of the House, because the right hon. Gentleman must know how difficult it was for hon. Members who came there pledged to this great measure—pledged to the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church—pledged to make all religions in Ireland equal before the eye of the law—the right hon. Gentleman must know how difficult it was for such Members to give any vote which might seem to present an obstacle to the passing of the Bill. As for himself, he would see every church and every glebe house in Ireland blown up rather than that this Bill should not pass, because he believed that the time for peace, happiness, and good-will in Ireland never would arrive till this question was settled on the principle of complete religious equality. Of course, he knew that anything which he might say on the point now under discussion would be useless; but he must express his opinion that the action of the Government in respect of the glebe houses was not generous or conciliatory.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he was very glad to hear it stated in that House, what he had known before, that his hon. Friend the Member for Colonel (Mr. Bagwell) had been as great an advocate for religious equality in Ireland as he himself
  1862
  was. He must say, however, that he could not, under any circumstances, agree to any proposition for blowing up the Irish churches and glebe houses. He thought that much better might be done with the glebe houses, and be done with the sanction of all classes in Ireland ultimately, by the proposition contained in this Bill. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin) and some other hon. Members the other night—he (Mr. Bright) was not present in the House—quoted observations made by him, he was not sure whether in the House of Commons last Session, or in a speech to his constituents at Birmingham. There was nothing that he had said in regard of a gracious and generous treatment of the now Established Church of Ireland that he was anxious or willing to retract; but the Committee must bear in mind that unless they could convey to the minds of the whole of the people of Ireland that they did what they pretended to do—that they dealt with this question in a spirit of perfect equality—they failed in the essential object of the Bill. He believed that nobody—no member of the Roman Catholic Church—who had spoken or written in public on this matter, had disputed the propriety of leaving the Protestant congregations the buildings in which they were accustomed to worship. Nothing, in his opinion, would have been more harsh or unjust than to have disturbed those congregations in the possession of those buildings in which they meet for public worship; but after that it would, he thought, be seen that the congregations had not the same right—indeed he doubted whether they had any right—to contend that Parliament ought to make them a present of the glebe houses. In his proposition, made, if he recollected rightly, not in that House, but at Birmingham, he had, he believed, proposed to give the Church the glebe houses and a certain limited portion of the land. That proposition extended in his mind to this—that a quantity of land not exceeding five acres should be left to the glebe houses. But then he had another proposal, which was, that in taking that course they should deal with the Presbyterians and the Roman Catholics on the same principle. He had even gone so far, as hon. Gentlemen knew, as to make a proposition which many of his friends regarded as

  1863
  most unreasonable and unjust—a proposition which was distasteful to many people in the Church and in general to the Nonconformists—that the House in distributing this fund might make some allowance to each of these three Churches. The Committee would, therefore, see that he was not one of those who desired to be severe, harsh, or unjust towards the Church which was about to be disestablished. Indeed, he suspected that he had just as much sympathy for these congregations and for their faith as any Gentleman sitting opposite. But the Government had a great work to do, and they had to show to every man in Ireland—even to the Protestants themselves if they would ultimately admit it—that they had been actuated by a wish to do complete and equal justice upon this matter to all religions in that country. Now, the basis that he had proposed a year or two since was not acceptable, as he had said—it was so unacceptable that he did not make the proposition in the House—but in the last Parliament the House passed Resolutions and exhibited a spirit which made it absolutely impossible for the Government to submit his plan to Parliament in their Bill, even if they had regarded that plan as a wise one. The present plan, therefore, was the only possible one, and the Government proposed that every life interest should be fully considered. There was no question in the House now upon that point. The Government had done what he thought was admitted to be just and fair. They had given up the churches to the congregations throughout the country. They proposed to give up the glebe houses, subject only to the debts which were due upon them, but they objected, and, in his opinion, they wisely objected, to hand over any land to the new Church, or to make any further provision for it. The question which came on first in this clause with regard to the land for the sites would not be worth disputing about, if it were not for its principle. His hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had spoken about it as if it were a small matter. The question of the sites would not amount to more than £5,000, and, therefore the Committee would see that were it not for the principle involved in it, the Government would not have opposed the appeal of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin), on the appeals from
  1864
  the opposite side of the House. They did oppose them, because they believed that a just line had been drawn, and that it might lead to other proposals which, if adopted, would materially alter the principle of the Bill. The fact was that the 700,000 people to whom his hon. Friend had referred were not unanimous on this question, but he thought they would feel, as a great political matter, that if the Irish Church were to be disestablished and disendowed, and, if it was hoped that any great results would follow in what he might call the pacification of Ireland, it was not the interest of any Protestant that anything should be done which might destroy that feeling of justice and equality which the Government wished to spread and instil in the minds of the whole Roman Catholic population. The Bill had been considered, as would be seen from its clauses, with a care and minuteness never probably exceeded in the case of any measure submitted to that House. It had been balanced, as far as it could be, with a view to carry out what they believed to be the general opinion of the great body of the people of this country, and he hoped that the Committee, seeing the principle upon which it was founded, the care taken in arranging its clauses, and the general justice and equality involved in them—even if they should think that, on some small points, it would be better to make this change or give away that—would give the Government the credit of having done what they believed to be the best; and, in the hope that they would sustain them in what they had done, he confidently appealed to the majority of the Committee.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had told them that this measure was founded on principles of equality; but he did not understand how that could be made out when they considered the difference in the treatment of the Established Church as compared with the treatment of the College of Maynooth. The right hon. Gentleman had told them they would come to the question of Maynooth by-and-by; but he did not think it was for the right hon. Gentleman to say in what order they should consider these questions, or whether they might compare the mode adopted by the Government in dealing with one part of the question with the mode they adopted in dealing with another part. In dealing with the Es-

  1865
  tablished Church the Government declared that there was a building charge upon glebe houses, and that those glebe houses could not be handed over without the building charges going with them, But in the case of the College of Maynooth there was also a building charge which the Government proposed to excuse altogether. If they dealt with the subject on principles of equality, why should the debt on the College of Maynooth be excused, while the debt on the glebe houses was exacted from the Church Body? When the Bill was last under discussion, the Prime Minister had said it would be a breach of faith on the part of Parliament if they did not pay the charge on Maynooth, and he said, moreover, that it was the original intention of Sir Robert Peel that these charges should be paid. But the question did not concern Sir Robert Peel; in fact, in the language of the day, they might say that it was merely an expression of opinion on the part of Sir Robert Peel; it was a question of the action of this House, which, in 1853, deliberately refused to pass a Vote for repairing the College of Maynooth, and since that time the Vote had never been proposed. It was, therefore, the deliberate intention of Parliament and of successive Governments to pass no Vote for that purpose, and the College of Maynooth ever since had had to go to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to obtain loans for the purpose of carrying on repairs. Was Parliament now to treat Maynooth as though that Vote had been going on ever since, while it treated the Established Church in so different a fashion? If so he could see no such equality in the treatment of the two as the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of.
  COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) should find fault with the Government for adhering to the clause, while at the same time he told the House that he was pledged to disendowment. If the Government were to hand over the glebe houses in the manner proposed, it would amount to a re-endowment of the Church. If all denominations could be endowed in the same manner he (Colonel-Greville Nugent) would have no objection to it; but that would be against the principle of the Bill, which was a measure for general disendowment.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he could hardly understand how it was that so much confusion in the matter of figures had been introduced into this question. According to one estimate the glebe houses were valued at £1,200,000; according to another the value was put at £250,000; a third estimate gave the amount at £24,000; and the latest estimate, just put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bright) was £5,000. It was, however, a question more of principle and of feeling than of money. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown had spoken of broken faith in connection with the College of Maynooth. "Broken Faith!" Why, what is the whole of this Bill—from beginning to end—but one gigantic act of "broken faith?" Broken faith with the Act of Union; broken faith with the Coronation Oath; broken faith with the whole body of loyal Protestants throughout the whole of Ireland, and with the clergy and curates, who had spent their money in education for the profession which they had undertaken, and who were now to be left without the means of furthering their prospects. On the question of equality and justice, of which so much capital had been made, he would ask what equal justice was there in giving the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth fourteen years' purchase of their Parliamentary Grant, which would amount to an annual endowment of £12,000 or £18,000, according to the mode of investment, and giving to the Protestant clergymen only a life interest in the Irish Church? This measure had been called a message of charity, of conciliation, of pacification. To whom was it a message of pacification? Was it to the Fenians? They do not accept it in that spirit. Was it to those who committed the agrarian outrages which were so frequent? Their acts seem to tell us a different story. Was it a message of pacification to the loyal Protestants of Ulster, or to the clergy of Ireland? I shall be much surprised if it be viewed in that light by them. He could not understand how such language could be applied to such a measure. As to its being a measure of charity, it was curious charity to take money from the Protestant Church in order to give it to the Roman Catholics and to lunatics. It was not charity to give away other people's money. They should remember

  1867
  two good old proverbs—"Charity begins at home," and "Be just before you are generous." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would not think it too late to change his mind, but would give the clergy of Ireland their glebe houses, with the gardens and land attached to them.
  MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he was glad they reported Progress on Monday, because the discussion which then ensued and that which had occurred since was worthy consideration and re-consideration. He had considered and re-considered, and the result in his own mind was that the glebe houses rested upon a totally different basis from other endowments with which the Bill dealt. No one could reasonably accuse him of any proclivity towards the Irish Church Establishment. A Catholic who paid tithes in seven parishes in which there was neither church, minister, congregation, nor Protestant communion was not likely to feel much favour towards the Establishment, nor could an Irishman, who for more than twenty-five years had denounced the Irish Church as the fount and origin of all the miseries of Ireland, consistently falter in the work of disendowment. At the same time he thought that disendowment should be carried out not only with a strict regard to justice, but also with much consideration for the feelings of the men affected by it. He was not prepared on this occasion to go into the question of divorce of Church and State upon the strict principles of the system of double entry. Whether the building fund had been paid, what amount of the building fund had been paid out of the resources of the Church, and what amount had been paid out of the resources of the State, and what might be the market value of the glebes compared with their original cost, were matters upon which he intended to say nothing, although there was much to say; he preferred to deal with the matter upon the larger and nobler grounds upon which honourable men were accustomed to act in other matters. Viewing the matter in that light, he saw a great difference between depriving a man of his estate on a question of title and turning him out of doors. These glebe houses—the prices of which they were haggling about—were the old homes of the Protestant clergy of Ireland, and in this respect we
  1868
  ought to acknowledge the prescriptive right of occupation they have, though it be only an occupation of 300 years, and even though those 300 years may have been years of spoliation and oppression. He would, therefore, be inclined, and he hoped his co-religionists in Ireland would join him, in an appeal to the Government to make a concession to the Protestants and clergy of Ireland, even if it were only as a mark of consideration and good-will. He did not think the Catholics in Ireland had ever been wanting in consideration and good-will to the Protestant clergy in Ireland, whenever they had shown consideration and good-will to the Catholics, and this had been generously and justly acknowledged. An archdeacon, writing from Ireland, said that not only had the Catholics of Ireland always acted towards their Protestant fellow-countrymen with consideration and good-will, but never was that consideration and good-will more favourably shown than now in their period of trial. Such consideration and good-will it should now be their business to show. While he had no sympathy with the Protestant faith, he had every sympathy with the Protestants, and he intended to show it. It had. been said by the President of the Board of Trade that the Government could not make the concession asked for in accordance with the principles of religious equality. If religious equality meant equality of wealth between two denominations, the Bill would not, under any circumstances, confer that. Whatever the Bill might do, the Protestants and the Protestant clergy would be richer than the Catholics; but, if this concession would tend to produce an equality of charity and good-will towards each other, then it would be a great been to Ireland.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he felt it necessary to say at once and emphatically that he could not join in the appeal of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He did not think the Roman Catholics of Ireland generally would join in that appeal to make a free present of the glebe houses of Ireland, not to their present occupiers, but to the Disestablished Church. The hon. Gentleman said they ought to be slow to turn the clergymen out of their houses. But this Bill did not propose to turn any man out of his home. If it did he would op-

  1869
  pose it. Every family dwelling in those glebe houses would still dwell in them. They were their homes, and would continue so; the only question was whether those houses were to become the property, not of those who inhabited them, but of the Disestablished Church. As to the question of the sites he could join with the hon. Gentleman in saying that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had not shown any spirit of captious objection to the concessions proposed by this Bill. They had fully assented to the proposal for giving the churches to the Protestant congregations, and had not stopped to point out how many churches there were in which no congregations at all, or utterly insignificant congregations, worshipped. He wished to point out how practically this matter would be viewed in relation to equality of treatment of the different religious bodies in Ireland. To the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians they gave no sites, or houses, or lands, and no special facilities for acquiring them. To the Episcopal Church, however, the existing glebe houses were handed over, but where a debt existed the Church was to pay a small purchase money. If the Roman Catholics did not cavil with this, it certainly ill became those to whom it was given to clamour for more. In his own parish the Roman Catholics were three-fourths, and certainly not the richest, of the population. With considerable difficulty they had within the last year raised, by voluntary subscription among themselves, a sum of £1,000 to build a house for their clergyman. They had great difficulty in finding a site; the Legislature afforded them no assistance, and they would leave a debt on the building which the Legislature would not assist them to discharge. Within a very short distance stood the rectory, with a very valuable house, which could not be re- built for £2,000. They did not grudge that to their Protestant neighbours. They were content they should have it; but it was not too much that they should recognize the principle of paying a small sum—say £60—for the site. He thought that was a very small concession to the principle of equality; anything else would be a departure from the principle of the Bill; and if, even in a small matter, they tampered with its principle, they would find themselves, when dealing with other Amendments, and Amend-
  1870
  Ments made, perhaps, elsewhere, involved in interminable difficulties.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he must call attention to the very conjectural character of the legislation which this clause proposed. They were asked to prescribe the conditions of action between a Commission not yet named, which was only in embryo, and a Church Body not even in embryo, which might never have existence or funds to carry out the object in view. In fact, they seemed to be dealing with that question in a spirit very similar to that of a proposal which he had lately seen put forward for the union of the two branches of the house of Bourbon in Spain, and the purport of which was that a daughter of the head of the Carlist party should be married to the Prince of the Asturias, while there was this difficulty in the way of the arrangement, that the bride had not yet been born. Why not adopt the very moderate concession, departing to a very small extent from the principle of the Bill, and assented to by many of the Roman Catholic Members, that the glebe houses should be handed over to the Church Body without payment? He had expected that the Government would have been prepared to make some concessions on this subject which would not have done them any harm in Ireland. He did not know what influence had been brought to bear; but it was hard and unfair for the Church Body to be called on to defray these building charges when the Government proposed to take away the property of the Church. It was only fair that they should at the same time take upon themselves the charges to which that property was liable. George Herbert, addressing his successor in a vicarage, said—
  "If thou should find a house built to thy mind within thy cost,
  Serve thou the Lord, give to the poor; my labour is not lost:"
  and that was the labour which they were about to take from the Church.
  SIR JOHN ESMONDEsaid, that although he had numerous connections among the Roman Catholics in Ireland yet he did not know of one who was in favour of this Amendment. They wanted equality, but they desired that it should be obtained in the most merciful manner towards those who differed from them, and without surrendering one particle of principle. They felt very

  1871
  grateful to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for having persevered in carrying it out, and he would find that instead of losing by it he would gain the hearty support of the people of Ireland. He should support the clause as it stood
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he felt the great difficulty in which the Government were placed in dealing with this question; but he could not help expressing his wish that, consistently with their duty, they might consider themselves justified in deferring, in some measure, at least, to the opinion of many Members on that side of the House who had given them a constant and steady support through all the stages of the Bill. He thought they might have drawn a distinction between ecclesiastical residences that were subject to no building charge, and those that were subject to such a charge. With regard to the latter class, the proposal of the Government was perfectly defensible, and to surrender those glebes which had no building charge without exacting payment would be, in fact, endowing again the Disestablished Church to the amount of that charge. But, with regard to those residences which were subject to no building charge, it was hardly worth while to contend for the principle laid down by the Government. They said that if these glebes were given to the Disestablished Church it would be pro tanto an endowment. But the Government took credit for offering them to the Disestablished Church on terms far below their real value. Now, if that were so, their principle would not be fully carried into effect, and they must upon their own assumption expect that dissatisfaction would be created by their parting with that property for prices much below what they would fetch in the open market. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he had no hesitation in voting against it, because his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had clearly shown that if the Committee adopted it and omitted the words, the whole of the residences, including those which were subject to the building charge, would necessarily be given to the Disestablished Church without exacting any payment for them. By voting against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli)—which was the only question before the Committee—they left open
  1872
  the other question as to whether any distinction should be made between the two classes of residences. Upon this point he should be glad to find that the Government were prepared to make some concession. ["No!"] He knew there was some difference of opinion between hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House; but they would excuse him if he and others who sat near him, and who were anxious to give the Government the utmost support in carrying this measure, differed from them on this point. He felt bound to add that he entirely concurred in the equity, justice, and policy of the proposal made by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade at Birmingham, that these residences should all be given to the Disestablished Church, and that the principle of equality should be carried into effect by also giving residences both to the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian clergymen. He could not help thinking that they had been rather hasty in assuming that to carry out such a proposition was impossible, and that there had been a want of moral courage in abstaining from dealing with this question, and taking the sense of Parliament upon it. And although he believed there was a strong prejudice in the country against what was supposed to be the endowment of a Church holding doctrines which so large a portion of the people believed to be erroneous, yet such an arrangement would have been distinct from an endowment in the ordinary sense of the word, and would have had the effect of producing religious equality more fully than will otherwise be the case. He did not know whether it was now too late for such a plan to be considered; but he thought that if it were carried out it would afford by far the best solution of the question.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) that the adoption of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would establish perfect religious equality, and to such a proposal he would offer no opposition, but that was not the question before the House. What would happen if the Government gave way upon the present question? There would then be places in Ireland where the Roman Catholics could not even obtain a site for erecting a church

  1873
  or a building for their clergymen, while another religious body, which comprised but a comparatively small portion of the population, would have obtained, free of all expense, a church and a residence for their minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had alluded to the Maynooth Grant. Now, he (The O'Conor Don) did not think that was the proper time for entering into any general discussion of that subject. But, as one of the trustees of Maynooth College, and on behalf of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he would make a fair offer to the right hon. Gentleman. They were quite willing that the proposed remission of its debt to Maynooth College, and the proposed giving over of the buildings of that College to the trustees, should be expunged from the Bill, and that the College and all its offices and buildings should be put up for sale and disposed of as the Government might think fit, provided the same measure was extended to all the churches and glebe houses of the Established Church in Ireland. He would also make this further offer—that if the money which had been expended on the erection of Maynooth College and its appurtenances, exclusive of the sums granted by Parliament either for their erection or maintenance, were re-paid to the trustees of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland, they would be ready to hand over those buildings the moment the Bill came into operation. They would, in fact, rather receive back the money expended on the buildings from other sources than Parliamentary Grants, than to have such large, and, to some extent, unsuitable erections thrown upon their hands when the Parliamentary Grant was withdrawn. When so much was said, therefore, of the advantages to Roman Catholics of Maynooth, it was sufficient to say that they were willing to give up all those advantages on being re-paid the money expended from sources other than the Parliamentary Grants made for this purpose on the buildings of the establishment.
  MR. STEWART HARDYpointed out that the Committee had wandered from the question which had been put from the Chair, and to which he proposed to address himself. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin) did not, apparently, so much object to the proposal of the Government upon
  1874
  its merits as to feel that, in quoting the expressions made use of by the now Prime Minister, he had pledged himself to do all in his power to hand over the glebe houses to the Church Body without any payment whatever being made for them. Hon Members on the other side of the House could not have forgotten those expressions, and, if they did, those on his side of the House well remembered the use that was made of those expressions during the contest last year. The question was, whether the supporters of the Government were bound by the expressions they made use of in the country to hand over the glebe houses without any further payment. The questions of equality and justice had nothing to do with the matter; it was a question of conscientiousness. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had stated that further information had led him to believe he was wrong in his anticipations, and that he was, therefore, not bound by what he had before said. The conscience of the hon. Member for Rochester appeared to be more tender, and he had no doubt many others felt with him that they were being placed in a false position by being urged by their Leader to go back from what they had said in canvassing, if not in their speeches, during the contest last year. In the name of the Opposition he thanked the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) for the only kind word for the Irish clergy, backed by the offer of a deed which had come from the Government side of the House during this debate; and he thanked the Committee for the hearing accorded to him.
  SIR JOHN GRAYappealed to the Government not to abandon a vital principle of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) who had suggested that an equal amount of glebe lands be given to Catholics, Presbyterians, and Wesleyans, and that the existing Protestant glebe houses and lands form the standard, as to amount, he could understand the proposition as one based on the principle of equality. But that was not his proposition. The suggestion made upon the other side was that the glebe houses were built by the incumbents, and were their own—not State property or part of the public fund enjoyed by the State Church. If that were so, why did not the heirs of the builders claim and retain them. But

  1875
  it was not so. These houses were all built as part of a contract with the State. When the incumbent came into possession, he came in on the condition of building a parochial residence, or maintaining it if built. That is the law to this day; it was the law at all times, and the old charters of the first Charles, under which such large grants of the glebe lands were given to the Church in Ulster out of the lands of the Catholic owners who were expelled, conveyed these lands on the express condition that a parochial residence be built "within three years," and maintained in good repair. All the charters contained a covenant that the incumbents and "their successors, rectors and vicars" should build houses "of stone or brick, with lime and mortar;" and in default, that the King should enter, seize the issues, and profits by the dean, archdeacon, and two justices of the peace, and expend the same in building mansions. In all the grants and in every Act now in force, down to the Act of 1851, known as Napier's Act, the identical principle of sequestration in case of default was included. The glebe houses, then, were as much parts of public property as the glebe lands, for the incumbent got the land and incumbency on the condition of building a house and maintaining it for himself and handing it down to his successors in good repair. But they had been told it was ungenerous not to give up the glebe houses in globo. He wished to remind the Committee that all the houses that were not incumbered with building charges, were, under the Bill, to be handed over, free of charge, to the new body. The Commissioners would have to pay the building charges, wherever they existed; and to hand them over, without purchase, would not only be giving a present, as was the case with the uncharged houses, but would be buying with public money from private individuals, in order to make gifts to the Church community. These building charges were due to the heirs of the incumbents by the succeeding incumbents, and would not go back, in any form, to the State. The public must pay them; and having paid them it was not consistent with the principle of the Bill to hand over the purchased property as a new endowment for the Church, and he hoped the Government would not do it.
  Question put, "That the words" upon the payment to the Commissioners of such sum as is hereinafter mentioned, that is to say,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 318; Noes 227: Majority 91.

  AYES.

  Acland, T. D.

  Clay, J.

  Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.

  Clive, Col. E.

  Akroyd, E.

  Cogan, rt. hn. W. H. F.

  Allen, W. S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Amcotts, Col. W. C.

  Coleridge, Sir J. D.

  Amory, J. H.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Anderson, G.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Cowen, J.

  Antrobus, E.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Armitstead, G.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Crossley, Sir F.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Dalglish, R.

  Backhouse, E.

  Dalrymple, D.

  Baines, E.

  D'Arcey, M. P.

  Baker, R. B. W.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Davies, R.

  Bass, M. A.

  Davison, J. R.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Delahunty, J.

  Bazley, T.

  De La Poer, E.

  Beaumont, Capt. F.

  Denison, E.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Dent, J. D.

  Bentall, E. H.

  Devereux, R. J.

  Biddulph, M.

  Dickinson, S. S.

  Blake, J. A.

  Digby, K. T.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Dilke, C. W.

  Bolckow, H. W. F.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Dixon, G.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Dodds, J.

  Bowring, E. A.

  Downing, M'C.

  Brady, J.

  Dowse, R.

  Brand, right hon. H.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Duff, R. W.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Dundas, F.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Edwardes, hon. Col. W.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Edwards, H.

  Brinckman, Capt.

  Egerton, Capt. hon. F.

  Brocklehurst, W. C.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Brown, A. H.

  Ennis, J. J.

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Erskine, Vice-Ad. J.E.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Esmonde, Sir J.

  Buller, Sir E. M.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Burke, Viscount

  Eykyn, R.

  Bury, Viscount

  Fagan, Captain

  Cadogan, hon. F. W.

  Fawcett, H.

  Campbell, H.

  FitzGerald, right hon. Lord O. A.

  Candlish, J.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Carington, hon. Cap. W.

  Fletcher, I.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  Carter, Mr. Alderman

  Forster, C.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C. P.

  Cave, T.

  Fortescue, hon. D. F.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Fothergill, R.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Fowler, W.

  Chadwick, D.

  Gavin, Major

  Chambers, M.

  Gilpin, C.

  Chambers, T.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

  Childers, rt. hn. H.C.E.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Cholmeley, Capt.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Cholmeley, Sir M.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  1877

  Gower, Lord R.

  M'Laren, D.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  M'Mahon, P.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Graham, W.

  Maitland. Sir A. C. R. G.

  Gray, Sir J.

  Magniac, C.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Marling, S. S.

  Greville, Captain

  Martin, C. W.

  Greville-Nugent, Col.

  Martin, P. W.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Mathews, H.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Miall, E.

  Grosvenor, Earl

  Milbank, F. A.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Milton, Viscount

  Grosvenor, Capt. R. W

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Grove, T. F.

  Monk, C. J.

  Hadfield, G.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Hamilton, E. W. T.

  Moore, C.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Morgan, G. O.

  Harcourt. W. G. G. V.V.

  Morley, S.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Morrison, W.

  Harris, J. D.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Muntz, P. H.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Murphy, N. D.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Nicol, J. D.

  Henderson, J.

  North, F.

  Henley, Lord

  Norwood, C. M.

  Herbert, H. A.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Hoare, Sir H. A.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Holms, J.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Hoskyns, C. Wren-

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir C. M.

  Howard, J.

  Hughes, T.

  Onslow, G.

  Hughes, W. B.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Hutt, rt. hon. Sir W.

  O'Reilly-Dease, M.

  Hyde, Lord

  Otway, A. J.

  James, H.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Jardine, R.

  Parker, C. S.

  Johnston, A.

  Parry, L. Jones-

  Johnstone, Sir H.

  Pease, J. W.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Peel, A. W.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Pelham, Lord

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Pim, J.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Platt, J.

  Kirk, W.

  Playfair, L.

  Knatchbull - Hugessen, E. H.

  Plimsoll, S.

  Pochin, H. D.

  Layard, rt. hon. A. H.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Lambert, N. G.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Lawrence, J. C.

  Potter, E.

  Lawrence, W.

  Potter, T. B.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Power, J. T.

  Lea, T.

  Price, W. E.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Lee, W.

  Rathbone, W.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Lewis, J. D.

  Reed, C.

  Lloyd, Sir T. D.

  Richard, H.

  Loch, G.

  Robertson, D.

  Locke, J.

  Roden, W. S.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Rothschild, Brn. L. N. de

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Rothschild, Brn. M. A. de

  Lush, Dr.

  Rothschild, N. M. de

  Lusk, A.

  Russell, A.

  Lyttelton, hon. C. G.

  Russell, F. W.

  M'Arthur, W.

  Russell, H.

  M'Clean, J. R.

  Rylands, P.

  M'Clure, T.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  M'Combie, W.

  St. Lawrence, Viscount

  MacEvoy, E.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Macfie, R. A.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Mackintosh, E. W.

  Samuelson, B.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Samuelson, H. B.

  1878

  Sartoris, E. J.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Scott, Sir W.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Seely, C.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Shaw, R.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Shaw, W.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Sherlock, D.

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

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Walter, J.

  Simeon, Sir J.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  West, H. W.

  Smith, J. B.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Smith, T. E.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Stanley, hon. W. O.

  Whatman, J.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Whitbread, S.

  Stapleton, J.

  White, hon. Capt. C.

  Stepney, Colonel

  Whitwell, J.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Whitworth, T.

  Stone, W. H.

  Williams, W.

  Strutt, hon. H.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Sullivan, rt. hon. E.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Wingfield, Sir C.

  Syrian, E. J.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Woods, H.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Young, A. W.

  Tite, W.

  Young, G.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  TELLERS.

  Torrens, R. R.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Tracy, hon, C. R. D. H.

  Adam, W. P.

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hn. C. B.

  Conolly, T.

  Allen, Major

  Courtenay, Viscount

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Annesley, hon. Col. H.

  Croft, Sir H. G. D.

  Archdall, Capt. M.

  Cross, R. A.

  Arkwright, A. P.

  Cubitt, G.

  Arkwright, R.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Damer, Capt. Dawson-

  Ball, J. T.

  Dawson, R. P.

  Baring, T.

  De Grey, hon. T.

  Barnett, H.

  Denison, C. B.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Dimsdale, R.

  Bartelot, Colonel

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Dowdeswell, W. E.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Beach, Sir M. H.

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Bective, Earl of

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Benyon, R.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Bourke, Hon. R.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Bright, R.

  Elliot, G.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Brodrick, hon. W.

  Fellowes, E.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Figgins, J.

  Bruen, H.

  Finch, G. H.

  Buckley, Sir E.

  Floyer, J.

  Burrell, Sir P.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Butler-Johnstone, H. A.

  Forde, Colonel

  Cameron, D.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Cartwright, F.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Cave, right hon. S.

  Galway, Viscount

  Cawley, C. E.

  Gilpin, Colonel

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Goldney, G.

  Chaplin, H.

  Gooch, Sir D.

  Charley, W. T.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Child, Sir S.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Clifton, Sir R. J.

  Grant, Col. hon. J.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Graves, S. R.

  Clowes, S. W.

  Gray, Lieut.-Col.

  Cole, Col. hon. H. A.

  Greaves, E.

  Collins, T.

  Greene, E.

  1879

  Gregory, G. B.

  North, Colonel

  Guest, A. E.

  Northcote, right hon. Sir S. H.

  Gurney, rt. hon. R.

  Hambro, C.

  O'Neill, hon. E.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Paget, R. H.

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Hardy, rt. hon. G.

  Parker, Major W.

  Hardy, J.

  Peek, H. W.

  Hardy, J. S.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Pell, A.

  Henley, rt, hon. J. W.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Henniker - Major, hon. J. M.

  Percy, Earl

  Phipps, C. P.

  Henry, J. S.

  Raikes, H. C.

  Herbert, rt. hn. Gen. P.

  Read, C. S.

  Hermon, E.

  Ridley, M. W.

  Heryey, Lord A. H. C.

  Round, J.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Sandon, Viscount

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Saunderson, E.

  Hick, J.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Hill, A. S.

  Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Hoare, P. M.

  Holford, R. S.

  Seymour, G. H.

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Shirley, S. E.

  Hood, Captain hon. A. W. A. N.

  Sidebottom, J.

  Simonds, W. B.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Smith, A.

  Hornby, E. K.

  Smith, F. C.

  Howes, E.

  Smith, R.

  Hunt, right hn. G. W.

  Smith, S. G.

  Button, J.

  Smith, W. H.

  Ingram, H. F. M.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Jenkinson, Sir G. S.

  Stanley, Lord

  Jervis, Colonel

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  Jones, J.

  Stopford, S. G.

  Kavanagh, A. M.

  Stronge, Sir J. M.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Keown, W.

  Sturt, Lieut.-Col. N.

  Knight, F. W.

  Sykes, C.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Knox, hon. Colonel S.

  Taylor, rt. hon. Col.

  Langton, W. H. P. G.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Lefroy, A.

  Tipping, W.

  Legh, W. J.

  Tollemache, J.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. H.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Turner, C.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Turnor, E.

  Lindsay, hon. Col. C.

  Vance, J.

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Lopes, H. C.

  Verner, E. W.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Verner, W.

  Lowther, J.

  Vickers, S.

  Lowther, W.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Walsh, hon. A.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Manners, rt. hon. Ld. J.

  Welby, W. E.

  March, Earl of

  Wells, W.

  Meller, Colonel

  Wethered, T. O.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Milles, hon. G. W.

  Whitmore, H.

  Mills, C. H.

  Williams, C. H.

  Mitford, W. T.

  Williams, F. M.

  Montagu, rt. hn Lord R.

  Wilmot, H.

  Moore, G. H.

  Winn, R.

  Morgan, C. O.

  Wise, H. C.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Wright, Colonel

  Mowbray, rt. hn. J. R.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  TELLERS.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Noel, Hon. G. J.

  Newport, Viscount

  Dyke, W. H.

  VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Church Body would have power to dispose of any glebe houses that might be conveyed to them by the Commissioners? In some cases it might be desirable that they should do so, with the view of purchasing more suitable buildings.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, there would be no restraint whatever in the matter referred to by the noble Lord.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he had heard, with surprise, the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His strong impression was that, as the Church Body would take under this Bill, and as this Bill did not give any power of alienation, there would be restraint.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, perhaps the learned Attorney General for Ireland would turn his attention to the point, and, if necessary, make an alteration in the Bill to remove all doubt upon the subject.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERassumed that it was the intention of the Government that tenants holding under Church leases should, after the passing of this Bill, have the right of renewal which they now possessed. He thought it would be desirable to introduce a provision which would make this matter more clear.
  DR. BALLsuggested that a clause should be introduced which would more clearly define the power of the Church Body to deal with individuals in respect of houses and land.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, that in his opinion, and that of other lawyers, the leasing power of Bishops and the right of tenants to have renewals were strictly preserved in this Bill. At the same time, he admitted that it was desirable to use words of abundant caution in Bills of this kind, and therefore the matter would be further considered.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Power to convey additional land to church body).
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, that he had given notice of an Amendment in line 42; but, after the division that had just been taken, he felt that he had no chance of inducing the Committee to adopt it. He hoped that the Government would consider the subject, and

  1881
  not limit the number of acres which the Church Body might buy in connection with an ecclesiastical residence, as there might be many cases in which such a course would be very injurious. The hon. Baronet then moved—
  "Line 42, leave out all after 'the Commismissioners' to the end of the Clause, and insert 'shall vest in the said representative body of the said Church all glebe land which at the time of the passing of this Act belongs to and has been usually occupied with such ecclesiastical residence; and any vesting order made by the Commissioners in pursuance of this Clause shall have annexed thereto a map accurately defining the land thereby vested."
  MR. GLADSTONEthanked the hon. Member for not pressing his Amendment, and whilst declaring that he felt compelled to retain the limitation of the number of acres as the general rule, said that he was not averse to an extension of the quantity of land in exceptional cases. It might be either that the value of the land, or what the Scotch called "amenities" of the residence might suffer from a strict rule of this kind, and therefore, an Amendment had been prepared to meet such cases by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, with the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), who in this matter had acted in a very conciliatory manner.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) moved an Amendment, the object of which is to empower the Commissioners to vest in the Church Body a greater quantity of land than ten acres in connection with an ecclesiastical residence, where it shall appear to them, that for the convenient enjoyment of the residence, an additional quantity should be granted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Enactments with respect to private endowments).
  MR. G. GREGORY MR. G. GREGORY moved that the date 1608 should be substituted for 1660, and the lands held or derived under any Royal Grant or letters patent subsequent to that date should be treated in the same manner as these endowments. The Amendment involved two points, the date, and the property with which the clause dealt. As regarded the date
  1882
  at present standing in the Bill, it had been stated, when the Bill was introduced, that it had been adopted because it was at that period that the Churches of England and Ireland became harmonious, or identical in creed. That statement had, however, to a great extent, been met by the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), and of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), from which it appeared that it was but for a period of nineteen years that there was any difference in the Articles of the two Churches, and that with that exception they had been identically the same since the Reformation. As to the property involved in the Amendment, it consisted of a series of grants of land, comprising 130,000 acres, about 113,000 of which were in Ulster, which grants were made, as was proved by the terms of the deeds and letters patent conveying them, for the establishment of the Protestant religion. After reading the recitals from several of these grants, he contended, upon that evidence, that they were clearly intended as donations, not to the religion of the majority of the people of Ireland, but of the minority. When Ulster was settled, inducements were held out to the settlers that their religion would be maintained, and those endowments were given for that purpose, and it was shown that in that province the Episcopalian congregations averaged in each parish from 700 to 800 souls. You had, therefore, all the elements of property—namely, a grant from the Crown, an uninterrupted possession of 250 years, and the purposes for which the grant was made fulfilled in every respect. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side were fond of deriving analogies from Canada and the United States. He would remind the Committee that in Canada certain lands of considerable value were reserved to the Church, and they now formed a permanent endowment, while Holy Trinity Church in New York had property yielding an immense annual income. He might not agree with all the language which had been used by those opposed to this Bill, but, seeing how property of this nature had been dealt with in other countries, one could not be surprised that those in this country who felt strongly had expressed themselves strongly, and

  1883
  the Government would do well to regard their language not as idle menace, but as the expression of strong conviction. He asked whether it was worth while for the Government, by the passing a stringent measure, to run the chance of discontenting what had hitherto been the most loyal portion of the Irish population? The alienation of this property had been justified on the ground of the supreme right of the State, and he did not question that abstract right; but to exercise it without sufficient grounds was not only the conduct of the despot, but of the tyrant—in fact, the simple sic volo sic jubeo. Again it was argued that the purposes to which it was intended to apply this property not only justified but sanctified the proposal. He, for one, could not sympathize with the sentiment or understand this vicarious charity. It appeared to him merely the alienation of the property of one man for the purposes of another, and reminded him of the conduct of some testators, who endeavoured on their death-bed to compound for their misdeeds by leaving their property away from their families, and being guilty of what an eminent lawyer had to call charity, was a profanation of the word. It might be said that he had treated the question on narrow and what were termed Chancery principles. He was content that it should be so; and, if it was alleged that his profession was tenacious of the rights of property he admitted it as a distinction. For himself he desired no more enduring record than that he respected in others, and strove to maintain for them those rights which he believed to be guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the country, and which, as such, he desired to exercise and to enjoy himself. In conclusion, he moved to amend the clause, by making it read that where any real or personal property becoming vested in the Commissioners "is held or derived under any Royal Grant or letters patent bearing date subsequently to the year 1608," it should, on the application of the Representative Body of the Church, be vested in the body of the Commissioners, the Amendment being to insert the words quoted in the clause.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, a point had been reached in this work of peace and conciliation at which the most earnest labourer might ask permission to pause
  1884
  and take breath, and at which even the Prime Minister might venture to take a look into the future. He himself was not sanguine as to the future of the Irish Church. History showed that the landlords of Ireland had received more from the Church than they had ever given to it; and although no doubt some noble efforts would be made by the landlords for the support of the Church in the future, he was very much deceived if those numerous landlords, who would continue to pay the rent-charge for forty-five years, would have any considerable sum left at their disposal for the service of the Church. The support of the Church and the clergy then became a matter of private endowment. The principle of the Bill was to respect private endowments, and he wished the Committee to consider the mode in which they were to be dealt with. This was a question which affected every religious body in Ireland. The Roman Catholics had very large private endowments which he wished to see respected, and he called upon them to assist others in respecting the right of private endowments. The Prime Minister had fixed a line antecedent to which he refused to recognize private endowments. That line was drawn at 1660, and, as he thought, most unfortunately chosen, for 1660 was the period of the Restoration. The first Act passed after that event was the Act of Succession, which not only restored and settled the property of the Church, but the estates of almost all the proprietors of land in Ireland. Their estates were held under precisely the same title as that by which the Church property was held; and it was a curious fact that the 101st clause of the Act of Succession conferred on the ancestors of Lord Lansdowne great estates in the South of Ireland. By fixing that period the Government by their Bill proclaimed to the landlords of Ireland the insecurity of the titles by which they held their property. An arbitrary line had been drawn, rather for the purpose of extricating the Government from a difficulty, than any particular regard to the interests of the Church. The Prime Minister stated that he had fixed upon the period, because after that time the people knew what they were doing, and to whom they were leaving their property. The right hon. Gentleman rested his arguments on two main points—the schism which had prevailed in the Church

  1885
  previous to that time, and the adoption of the famous, or infamous, as the case might be, Lambeth Articles by the Irish Convocation in 1615—and said that the clergy could not be looked upon as legally enjoying the property. There could be no doubt that at that period some of the ordinations were very irregular; but he would ask was the House to be told that, because certain loose Prelates and looser Puritans condescended to base subterfuges, and ignored the law of God and Apostolic usage in order to acquire and enjoy the emoluments of the Church—that, because these irregularities had been connived at, therefore, the property was not the property of the Church? He contended that this did not invalidate the title of the Church estates and revenues, and that any argument based on such grounds ought not to be accepted as a reason for not respecting the property of the Church. There could be no doubt that the men who had been irregularly ordained entered the Church for the purpose of enjoying the property of the Church, and Bishop Bramhall, the Primate of Ireland, in 1661 called upon some of them to produce their certificates of ordination; he said he disputed not the value of their ordination, but now that there was a national Church limited by law and a prescribed ordination, he knew not how they could recover the means of the Church if anybody should refuse to pay the tithe because they were not ordained as the law required. This showed how they came into possession of the property which the Church then possessed, and of which the arbitrary line now proposed would deprive the Church. But the evil did not stop there. There was a great deal more involved in the principle laid down. It involved the property of Trinity College, of the London companies, and of the endowments of many schools founded for the education of the clergy at that time. It made him tremble for the property of Greenwich Hospital, which was derived from estates escheated for certain acts of so-called rebellion. He must own that he was much alarmed by one expression which had been used by the Premier. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the case of Trinity College must be, at no distant day, considered. Now, there was a great and marked difference between considera-
  1886
  tion of a thing and consideration for a thing. One implied pity, but the other implied plunder; and if they were to part without a struggle with the Ulster grants, he was afraid any further struggle would be useless. Entertaining these views, he implored the House to consider well what was involved in the desecration of private endowments, and therefore should cordially and warmly support the Amendment, hoping thereby to secure, at least, for the Disestablished. Church of Ireland the whole of her private endowments.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he could not understand why the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Gregory)' had fixed upon the date mentioned in the Amendment. He (Sir Roundell Palmer) thought that the year 1560 was the true date which ought to be selected, and not 1608. If the hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to divide to give effect to his opinion, he would vote with him. The question was, however, different from private endowments, and it was not expedient to mix up the two together.
  MR. G. GREGORYexplained, that he had taken 1608 because it was an early date in the reign of James I.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. It would be desirable for the House first to confine itself to private endowments, and then to proceed to mixed endowments.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought they ought not to pass from this matter without recollecting that there was a period of our history, during the Commonwealth, when this country was ruled by a Legislature, and led by an authority who, although he did not admit the validity of ordination more than the President of the Board of Trade, still respected the private endowments of the Church, and did not consider that their titles rested on what that right hon. Gentleman called ecclesiastical rubbish. Throughout the whole period of his power, Cromwell respected that property—not on account of any supposed title on the part of the clergyman individually, but on the real ground that it was the property of the Church, by which he meant the congregations. As he (Mr. Newdegate) was descended from Cromwell's Chief Justice he had a right to state the principles on which the Church property was preserved du-

  1887
  ring that period. As those rights of the laity—of the congregations—were always respected by Cromwell, he hoped they would not be ignored now. Cromwell's legislation with the Long Parliament would compare favourably in this respect with that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DISRAELI, in rising to move, page 13, line 19, after the word "resources" to leave out "since the year 1660," said, the language of the right hon. Gentleman opposite at the time he gave his reasons for the limitation contained in the clause was not very satisfactory to me, and, after the greatest consideration, I am confirmed in my first impression. We are on a clause of the Bill on which there is no diversity of opinion as to the principle, which is a very great advantage. We all agree that private endowments to the Church should be preserved to the Church after it is disestablished and disendowed. The Government and the Gentlemen on this side of the House are agreed on this principle, and it is generally accepted by the Committee. I think also we agree in this, that the only point to ascertain is that these private endowments should have been made to the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland. I use that phrase because it is the accepted description in the Articles of Union. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman, when he made the exposition of his policy, that he could not recognize that private endowments were made to the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland before the year 1660, and his reasons were these—that before that period, there was no identity between the Churches of England and Ireland, and that they were not of the same legislative frame and character. That is a broad and intelligible reason, and one with which one can fairly grapple. The right hon. Gentleman also declared that the same doctrines were not maintained by the two Churches, and that they had not practically the same form of government. As to the identity between the two Churches, I will confine myself to the reigns of Elizabeth, James and Charles, embracing a period which extended from 1562 to 1641. I have looked to some of the principal Episcopal appointments made to the Church of Ireland, and I
  1888
  see that Queen Elizabeth, on her accession, found the Archbishopric of Armagh vacant, and presented her own chaplain, Adam Loftus, to the archbishopric. That looks very much like identity. In 1568, Thomas Lancaster, Archbishop of Armagh, had a license from Queen Elizabeth to hold in commendam the treasurer ship of Salisbury and certain livings of England. In 1582, Marmaduke Middleton, Bishop of Waterford, was translated to St. David's. In the same year Hugh Allen, Prebendary of Sarum, was made Bishop of Ferns. In 1593, John Thornborough, Dean of York, was made Bishop of Limerick, translated to Bristol in 1603, and to Worcester in 1617. Coming now to the reign of James I., I find that in 1604, Eichard Bancroft, Prebendary of St. Patrick's, was made Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1605, Roger Dod, Dean of Salop, was made Bishop of Clonard. In 1605, George Montgomery, Dean of Norwich, was made Bishop of Meath and Bishop of Clogher. In 1611, Andrew Knox, Bishop of Orkney, was made Bishop of Raphoe. I now come to the reign of Charles I. In 1627, William Murray, Bishop of Kilfenora, was translated to Llandaff. In 1629, William Bedell, ordained in England, was made Bishop of Kilmore. In 1633, John Leslie, Bishop of Orkney, was made Bishop of Raphoe. In 1634, George Webb, chaplain of Charles I., was made Bishop of Limerick. In 1640, John Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, in Scotland, was made Bishop of Killala, and Archbishop of Tuam in 1645. In 1641, James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh, held the Bishopric of Carlisle in commendam from that year until 1656. One word as to the reign of Charles II. In 1660, John Bramhall, Prebendary of York and sub-dean of Eipon, was made Archbishop of Armagh. In 1667, Dr. William Fuller was translated from Limerick to Lincoln. That list of Bishops of England and Ireland, reciprocally preferred to important dioceses in either kingdoms during these three reigns, is strong primâ facie evidence of identity between the two Churches. I do not, in fact, see how you can have primâ facie evidence which is much stronger. In regard to Adam Loftus, he was not appointed with any carelessness. I see in a letter written by Walsingham, that after Queen Elizabeth had appointed Loftus to the

  1889
  archbishopric of that Church, which the right hon. Gentleman tells us had no identity either in government, doctrine, or legislative frame and character, the Queen appeared to have heard something not favourable to the religious opinions of Loftus, for she kept her eye on him for some time. About 1567 he laboured under some suspicion of favouring the Puritans, and in the same year he addressed a letter to Walsingham (to be found in the State Paper Office, but not contained in Walsingham's published letters), in which he says—
  "Some little inkling hath been given mo (whether truly or not God knoweth) that Her Majesty hath been informed I am a Puritan, and favour Cartwright and his doctrine. Truly, I am ignorant of what the term and accusation of Puritan meaneth."
  That was the language of an English Prelate, preferred to an Irish see in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and I think that, taking the large and generous view which should be taken on such a question, that that was a feeling which always prevailed. The right hon. Gentleman has said much upon the difference of doctrine between the Church of Ireland and the Church of England, and he has referred to certain Articles which was drawn up by Archbishop Usher in 1615. Now, Usher was not an Archbishop in 1615. He held then a subordinate position in the Church, but he certainly drew up those Articles in which the Lambeth Articles were contained. The Lambeth Articles, however, were drawn up by Bishops, and they formed but a small portion of the Articles drawn up by Dr. Usher, who was afterwards the celebrated Archbishop. But are we to understand, when this important question of the right of the Church to its private endowments is before us—are we to understand that the profession of Calvinistic doctrines at that time deprives the Church of those endowments, or shows that the Irish Church had not the same legislative frame and character as the English Church? I can hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman can seriously lay down that principle as one which ought to influence our legislation. But I will refer now to very recent incidents in our own Church history. I do not mention them either to blame or to maintain them, but merely as historical facts. The late Lord Palmerston recommended Her Majesty to prefer to bishoprics clergymen of
  1890
  great eminence and of very high moral and intellectual character, who professed strong Calvinistic opinions, who acted upon those opinions, and do in their dioceses form, I believe, a majority of the northern Bishops. But no one would maintain that, in consequence of their professing those opinions, and acting upon them with great decision, they alter the legislative frame and character of the Church of England. I think that is hardly an opinion which the right hon. Gentleman could for a moment insist upon. We know very well that in those times, as the necessary consequence of great religious changes, there was a long struggle going on between Presbyterians and Episcopalians in Ireland, but that was not peculiar to Ireland, and was just as rife in England at that time. It is a fact beyond doubt, that in the Temple Church, Venerable Hooker and Cartwright, the Presbyterian, used to preach on alternate Sundays and answer each other; but the right hon. Gentleman, I hope, will not adduce that fact, if the private endowments of the English Church are ever in question, as a reason why the Church could not claim those endowments at that time. What then was the use of the right hon. Gentleman calling our attention to this point, and impressing it upon us in language so very strong? He has told us very impressingly—
  "It may not be known to all who hear me—though it ought to be known, and it tends strongly to justify us in not going beyond the Restoration—that the very Confession, the doctrinal Confession, of the Irish Church in the resign of James I. and Charles I. was not the same as that in England."
  I say that the facts to which I have referred do not in the least justify the right hon. Gentleman in using such strong expressions and drawing such inferences. Grant that in 1615, Dr. Usher—not yet an Archbishop, though he was quoted as such—and, therefore, his name would have the greater weight with the House—grant that he did. draw up these Articles. I suppose at the time they were very serviceable Articles—at least, I observe they bear a different title to that which the right hon. Gentleman would assume to be their object; for, instead of enforcing the severe principles of the Lamboth Articles, they are called "Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops and the rest of the Clergy of Ireland in

  1891
  the Convocation held in Dublin in 1615, for the avoiding of diversities of opinion and doctrine;" and the consequence is that throughout the Articles they avoid anything like definition of dogma. But this is in 1615. We are to fix upon 1660 as the first period when the Church of Ireland has identity of character with the Church of England, and has the same legislative form and character, because, in 1615, Dr. Usher drew up Articles of a Calvinistic character, and the Church of Ireland did not accept the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Now, that was the Convocation of 1615. I turn to the proceedings of the next Irish Convocation, in 1634, when, that eminent man, Dr. Usher was really an Archbishop, having become Archbishop of Armagh, and presided over the Convocation. What was the first thing they did? It was to accept and recognize the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Therefore, the whole argument of the right hon. Gentlemen, that, because in 1615 the Irish Church did not recognize the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, it was not entitled to its private endowments till 1660, entirely falls to the ground, since in the Convocation of 1634 the Church of Ireland did formally recognize and accept the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. I think I have shown the Committee that there was complete identity between the Churches of England and Ireland, for a long list of Prelates—many of them selected from England, and in communion always with the English Bishops—prove that identity, and I say you could not have stronger primâ facie evidence of it. I think I have shown to the Committee that there is really no strength in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman—that there was not the same legislative shape and character between the Irish and the English Churches, because the Thirty-nine Articles were not accepted, and, therefore, that 1660 must be fixed upon as the date for private endowments—for, if the point were worthy of consideration, it could not support the inference of the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that the Irish Church formally accepted the Thirty-nine Articles in the Convocation of 1634. Now, I come to the third point made by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that there was a difference in the form of government be-
  1892
  tween the constitution of the Church of Ireland and that of the English Church. Now, the constitution of an Episcopal Church is government by Bishops and by presbyters. The constitution of a Presbyterian body is a government by presbyters alone. We have heard some stories from my hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) illustrating some laxity by which ordination was granted in those days in Ireland. I do not doubt that similar stories might be found in the history of the English Church at that time. But questions of this magnitude are not to be decided by stories of that kind. You have before you the strongest evidence in the world as to the identity of government and the form of government—namely, a list of Prelates who during the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I. were alternately preferred from the two Churches, the Irish Prelates being always in constant communication with the English Bishops. Some of these stories respecting the laxity of ordination in Ireland have recently been given in a periodical publication. I do not approve as a general rule making quotations from periodical publications in this House, nor am I now about to quote from Punch or Judy or the Pall Mall Gazette, or attempt to answer any of those leading articles written by master pens which from day to day and week to week enlighten the world as to the principles on which it should be governed. But there are some periodical publications, published at those sober intervals which allow of research and reflection, and which are quoted in the House of Commons, partly because they are recognized as the organs of great parties, and partly because they recall the memory of eminent men who had occupied seats in the House and who at various times had been contributors to their pages. I am alluding, of course, to the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews. The Edinburgh Review may, I believe, be regarded as being still partially the organ of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or, to use the memorable words of the Postmaster General, as being, at all events, the organ of the "educated section of his party." Now, I saw in an article which appeared conveniently in that Review on the subject of the Irish Church at the time when the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was delivered, or immediately previous,

  1893
  some stones respecting the ordinations of clergymen of the Church of Ireland in the reign of the Sovereign to whom I have referred; but I had no idea that those stories were to be made the foundation of so portentous a result as the projected legislation of the right hon. Gentleman on this question. In the article of which I am speaking we are told first, with extraordinary inconsistency, that James I. established a great many Presbyterian ministers in Ulster; "but," continues the Review, "we must not at all suppose from that fact that those Presbyterians were not sincerely members of the Church of England, or rather of the Church of Ireland.'' Then we are told that the ordinations were carried on in a very peculiar manner, that the presbyters and Bishops were both in a room together, and that then, somehow or another, the ceremony of ordination was fulfilled. But if an ordination was held, and a Bishop was present, it was an Episcopal ordination, and nothing more was required. No ordination occurs in England otherwise, there are always Bishops and presbyters present, and so far, therefore, as these wild and inconsistent tales are concerned, they only tend to prove Episcopal ordination. The most peculiar thing, however, in the article in the great organ of hon. Gentlemen opposite is the wonder with which it announces that, notwithstanding all this, those Presbyterian clergymen were members of the Convocation of 1634. Now that remarkable statement led me to look into the canons of the Irish Convocation of 1634, and the point is one to which I would particularly invite the attention of the Committee. Not to mention Canon 2 of that Convocation, which states that any person who shall impeach in any part the Royal supremacy shall be excommunicated, and not be restored except by the Archbishop, Canon 3 lays it down that no form of Liturgy shall be used except the Book of Common Prayer, and any one who spoke in derogation of it should. also be excommunicated, and Canon 4. that—
  "No ordination shall be used in the Church of Ireland but that contained in the Book of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to be ordained, allowed by authority, and hitherto practised in the Churches of England and Ireland, and whosoever shall contravene it, would separate himself from the Church of Ireland, and set up any other congregation shall be excommunicated."
  1894
  Now, I want the Committee, looking calmly at what I have stated, to say whether it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has endeavoured to persuade us, that there was no identity between the Churches of England and Ireland; that there was a difference in the doctrines of the two Churches; that the form of government was so different that they had not the legislative shape and character which now prevailed in the Church of England? It may be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to divide the future Church Body in Ireland from those private bequests, and he may do so conscientiously and in the performance of what he believes to be a great act of policy; but that he can found that policy on the facts of history is a conclusion from which I must beg altogether to demur. I have, I maintain, shown the Committee that there was a complete identity between the two Churches; that their doctrines did not differ, or, if they did differ, not more substantially than the doctrines of the Church of England among different sections of it, that there was complete Church government; and that the order of government had never for a moment been remitted. All. at the utmost, for which the right hon. Gentleman can contend—he cannot prove it—is that there was an interval between 1615 and the Convocation of 1634 when there was not an identity between the two Churches—that is to say, between the drawing up of the Articles of Usher and the time of the Convocation. But, supposing that there was an interval of nineteen years of that character, would that fact, I would ask, justify the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived and the date of 1660 on which he has fixed? In a case of this kind, when you appeal to history, you must, whether you be in a majority or a minority, decide in accordance with that which is the truth, and to my mind the facts, as I have laid them before the Committee, destroy the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Here I would again remind the Committee there is no contest of principle. The Government concurs in the view that the Church is entitled to these private bequests, and only expresses a doubt as to whether during a certain period she possessed a legislative shape and character. I think I have shown that she fully possessed

  1895
  that shape and character, that there was identity in all respects between the two Churches, and complete communion. I trust, therefore, that if the Government does not assent to the Amendment which I propose, it will, at all events, receive the sanction of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 19, to leave out the words "since the year sixteen hundred and sixty."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he would presume to follow, at a respectful distance, the very lucid argument which had been addressed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. In the absence of all other reasons for choosing the date which had been fixed upon as affecting private endowments, he might assume that it was selected with the view of excluding the endowments of Archbishop Bramhall. He had reason to believe that an authentic record of that Prelate's endowments was preserved at Lambeth Palace, and he felt inclined to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the production of that record. The endowments in question amounted to no less than £40,000 a year, and he certainly thought the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had acted somewhat shabbily in fixing the date so as to exclude them from the operation of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments in favour of choosing that date were perfectly threadbare, and had been completely refuted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. For his own part, he entertained a very strong opinion that Archbishop Bramhall's endowments ought to be preserved to the Church in Ireland.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTthought that, before discussing the propriety of fixing on the particular date at which private endowments should be dealt with, the House ought to ascertain what relation private endowments bore to the question now under consideration. Everybody was aware that, with reference to the private estates of individuals, the law had declared that entails should be limited, and should not extend beyond the existence of lives in being, or twenty-one years afterwards. But with regard to other property than private estates the case was different. Subject to the limitations of the Law of Mortmain,
  1896
  there existed a legal power to create what were termed endowments in connection with charitable and religious foundations; but, when the law permitted endowments to be extended beyond that period to which the law limited the entails of private estates, the State also claimed to exercise over these endowments a public control which it never pretended to exercise over private property. Was this a new doctrine? a revolutionary doctrine? ["Yes!"] Let them test this. He saw opposite the right hon. Gentleman who represented the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy). The University abounded in private endowments which had been diverted to public purposes. He might refer, as a further illustration of his argument, to the case of close fellowships and close scholarships in the Universities. A person in Westmoreland, for instance, left property to found a scholarship for the inhabitants of his county; but it had not been held contrary to the law to prevent that endowment being perpetuated, in the precise form specified in the gift, beyond the ordinary term for which an entail would be suffered to be created. He ventured to say, in the presence of his right hon. Friend, that he would not condemn such a diversion of the original destination of the foundation, because to maintain it would be injurious to the University which he so worthily represented. Limitations had been repeatedly broken, and the property applied to purposes wholly different from those named by the founder. His right hon. Friend and himself had frequently enjoyed the hospitality of the great foundation of All Souls' College, which had been endowed by funds originally bequeathed by Archbishop Chichele to insure the perpetual offering up of prayers for the souls of the dead; but the present managers of that establishment devoted themselves to what was, perhaps, the more useful object of taking care of the living; and, very recently, a portion of these funds had been devoted to the creation of a professorship of modern history, a science for which it cannot be supposed that Archbishop Chichele had any particular value or any special knowledge. The State claimed these rights with reference to endowments of that character for the general advantage of the nation. Were it not so, endowments would be positively unendurable, as stereotyping the obsolete

  1897
  ideas and antiquated habits of another age, and to prevent the objectionable results which must ensue the Act of Mortmain had been passed by our ancestors. It was on this ground that the Court of Chancery was often applied to to alter the application of charitable funds; and Sir William Grant, one of the greatest masters of equity principles, had said that if once any charitable intentions were discovered in a testator, the Court at once proceeded to make him charitable in its own way and according to its own principles, even to the extent of devoting his bequest not only to objects within his intention, but wholly adverse to it. This being the doctrine of Chancery with regard to testators who died yesterday, could it be said that Parliament should have no control over the destination of an endowment because the testator died in the 17th century? The State wisely refused to allow any men to impress for ever the thoughts and habits of one generation on the land of England. That was the principle on which the Irish Church Commission, of which the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) was a distinguished member, had acted. There was a certain corporation in Ireland called "The Vicars Choral of Armagh," which held an estate in the county of Down, of the value of about £900 a year, under a bequest made by Primate Lindsay at the commencement of the last century. The Report of the Committee in reference to that and similar property contained the following passage:—
  "We recommend that all those minor corporations, or quasi corporations, including the Vicars Choral of Armagh, be dissolved."
  That was the way in which the Irish Church Commissioners proposed to deal with a corporation which enjoyed its property under a bequest made within the last 150 years. But that was not all. There was another class of corporations in Ireland called deans and chapters, and with respect to them he found the following passage in the Report of the same Commissioners:—
  "We accordingly recommend that, with the exception of eight, all the existing corporations of deans and chapters be dissolved, and the deaneries and other dignitaries connected therewith be suppressed."
  Yet these are the gentlemen who denounce us for disregard of the rights of
  1898
  property! Had these corporations no private estates, and were none of them created subsequently to 1660? To say that the endowment of these prostrate corporations would be given back to the whole body of the Church was small consolation to the individuals dispossessed. What would the corporation of London say if it were proposed to abolish it and hand over the funds to the corporation of Newcastle? Would his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Dr. Ball) tell him that if he had been dealing with a private estate he would have dealt with it as he had dealt with Church property in the Report of the Irish Church Commission? If they took property away from a corporation to which it belonged the whole act of confiscation, if they chose to call it so, was complete, and they would not modify the character of the act in any manner by the way in which they should afterwards dispose of it. If they deprived a man of his property it made no difference whether they gave it to his brother or to a stranger. When they took property away it was no longer a question of property, but of policy as to how they might ultimately deal with it. He did not see his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) in his place; but his right hon. Friend was one of the last men whom anyone would regard as an ecclesiastical spoliator, and yet he was lately an Ecclesiastical Commissioner of England. What was the nature of the operations conducted by the Ecclesiastical Commission of England? Why to deal with property that had been spoliated. Almost all the capitular property of the English cathedrals had passed into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and his right hon. Friend had not thought it wrong to distribute those funds for other purposes than those to which they had been specially devoted by the founders. As far as the argument founded upon the nature of private estates went, it was not the question how they dealt with this property, but that they dealt with it at all. Whether the property was to be dealt with in one manner or another was a question of policy for Parliament to decide. The State had always claimed the right to deal with it, and had in fact always dealt with it, and therefore the only question they had to discuss was how it was fit and expedient that this

  1899
  property should be disposed of; whether it should be left in its present hands or devoted to some other purpose which should be more beneficial to the public and to the State.
  MR. CHAPLIN, as a new Member, asked the indulgence of the Committee whilst he ventured to make a few observations upon the immediate question before them. Up to that time he had refrained from taking any part in the discussions, whether on the second reading of the Bill or in the earlier stages of Committee, because he thought it would have been presumptuous in him to urge his own. views as to the expediency of the measure, in opposition to hon. Gentlemen of such vast experience, and still more if he ventured to predict what would have been its probable results. But the question of a measure was a question quite apart from its expediency, and he thought any person of ordinary intellect, however deficient in political experience, competent to pronounce 'an opinion on a question of justice and good faith. Indeed, he thought that the absence of this experience might even be an advantage, for it appeared as if, in some cases, the sense of justice became nearly blinded through a long course of political experience. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, he maintained that in this Bill not only was perfect justice not done, but in more than one instance, and notably in this clause, that injustice might deliberately be perpetrated. He had the less hesitation in expressing his views on this clause, because it appeared to him that the discussion was of a somewhat different character to any that preceded it. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, were bound no longer to maintain that almost absolute silence which had been so marked a characteristic of the earlier discussions of the Committee. Although right hon. Gentlemen opposite might prefer to rely rather on the majority at their backs than upon argument or reason, and although the country had through their majority given an unmistakable evidence of its opinion on the general question, he nevertheless contended that the present clause raised a totally different question, and upon which the voice of the country had not been heard. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was bound, for the satisfaction of the
  1900
  country, to substantiate his policy upon this point, and to vindicate his method of proceeding with respect to private endowments, on which not only the country at large, but he believed also a majority of Members of that House, were completely ignorant until the night he made his announcement. He admitted—indeed, it would be folly to deny—that the voice of the country had expressed an undoubted opinion on the main principles of the Bill. Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that the country had expressed its opinion that there should be legislation on the subject without pledging itself to any particular Bill, for that was impossible, as there was no Bill before it. If there was one thing more strongly instilled into the notion of the country at large more than another by the right hon. Gentleman himself as one of the essential principles of the Bill it was that private endowments were to be considered not as gifts to the State, but as gifts to those religious persuasions to which, in the first instance, they had been given, and that all private endowments were therefore to be religiously respected. But private endowments as spoken of then were totally different from private endowments as now understood by the right hon. Gentleman, which dated, according to him, from 1660. But that was a reservation which the country never contemplated. He was at a loss to know by what process of reason or argument the right hon. Gentleman had been able to satisfy himself that private endowments given for the game purpose precisely, and possibly in some instances by the same people, were to be treated as such from and after 1660 and fail to be so treated in 1659. The right hon. Gentleman, on the night he introduced the measure, stated that the reason why he had fixed upon 1660 as the limitation was that that was the year of the Restoration and the period when the Church of Ireland first assumed its present legislative state and character, and he went on to say that the doctrinal Confession of the Church in Ireland in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. was not the same as that in the Church of England, in fact, that the constitutions of the two Churches up to this point were totally different. Now what was the fact? From 1565 to 1615, in all essential respects the two Churches were practically the same. It was quite true that in 1615 the Articles to which the right hon. Gen-

  1901
  tleman referred, and which wore designated as the Lambeth. Creed, were adopted in the Convocation of that day, but they were never made legal by Parliament. And what happened? In 1634, only nineteen years afterwards, they were again superseded by the Irish Convocation which then assembled, and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England declared to be the doctrine of the Church. In point of fact for 300 years, the Liturgy and Articles of the two Churches were precisely the same, with the exception of nineteen years and nineteen only; and it is upon that nineteen years, in a period extending over three centuries, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government at once seizes as a pretext for despoiling the Church of a great portion of her private property. On the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, if there was to be any limitation as to private endowments, the year 1634 ought to have been taken instead of 1660; for from the first of those dates—and he defied contradiction on that point—the constitution, Liturgy, Articles, and Prayer Book of the two Churches had been exactly the same without any interregnum, and they had remained the same up to this moment. It was matter of undoubted history that large private endowments had been given to the Church previous to that date. In 1633, Bishop Bramhall resigned all preferment in England, and went to Ireland at the earnest request of Lord Deputy Wentworth, being specially induced to go there by the lamentable state into which the affairs of the Church there had fallen. He applied his attention to those affairs with such remarkable success that, by dint of personal exertions, by loans from the rich, by large voluntary contributions, but chiefly and mainly from his own private resources, he was enabled to place to the credit of that Church a sum which, with subsequent accumulations, was estimated by some at £30,000, and by others at £40,000 a year. In 1637, on his return to England, he gave an account of his labours to the Archbishop of Canterbury. If these facts were correct, he had a right to ask by what rule of justice or reason had the right hon. Gentleman recognized the principle that private endowments must be respected from 1660, and not before? There was another point on which he was anxious to say a few words. Although the endowments to which he
  1902
  was now about to refer were not, strictly speaking, of a private character, they were somewhat akin to them. They formed part of the terms of an arrangement resulting from an agreement entered into between two contracting parties. In the reign of James I., by the rebellion of certain Irish chiefs, a large tract of country in Ulster, consisting of six counties and 500,000 acres, was escheated to the Crown; and at that time a project was conceived by the King to colonize that territory. One of the principal points in that scheme related to the proportion of land to be divided among the settlers; the second point provided that the whole of the land in each county was to be divided into four parts, and those four parts were to be subsequently re-divided; and the third—with which they were now more particularly concerned—was that each proportion should be made into a parish, that in each parish a church should be built, and an incumbent should be endowed with certain glebe lands and other endowments. The county of Tyrone was dealt with first in that way; and, after the whole of the land had been divided in the prescribed proportions, the Commissioners, before any allotment or division was made to the intended settlers, proceeded to declare that they thought it convenient first to make a deduction from the whole for the support of the clergy and the Church in that county. The motive of that was obvious. The King knew that full security for the enjoyment of their religious worship would be a special inducement to the settlers to come from England and Scotland, and without some such security it was only reasonable to suppose that probably they would never have gone into Ulster at all. All these arrangements being concluded, and provision made for the service of the Church, the division of lands among the settlers was decided upon, and the project of colonization was carried out by a few of the native Irish, but mainly by Protestant emigrants from Scotland and England. Having in view, then, the terms of that arrangement with the settlers and the conditions on which they held their lands, the settlers and their descendants had a right to regard the provision made for the Church as part and parcel of the agreement entered into with them by the King. How the settlers had fulfilled their part of the

  1903
  compact was shown by the contrast between the state of Ulster and that of the rest of Ireland. By their energy, peacefulness, and industry, they had faithfully carried out, in every respect, their share of the agreement, and they had formed a nucleus of loyalty and attachment to the Crown of this country which had frequently proved a source of strength to the Empire in time of need. And now, in recompense for all that, what did the Government propose to do by that Bill? Although it was not denied that the Protestant settlers had, in every respect, fulfilled their part of the bargain, the Government proposed no longer to fulfil its share of the agreement; it proposed to repudiate its engagement, to break faith with the Protestant people, and take away from them endowments of which it had no more right to deprive them than of the land itself which was originally divided among them. They were, therefore, entitled to demand from the right hon. Gentleman a fuller and more ample justification of his policy on those points than any he had yet adduced. When charged with injustice towards the Protestant curates of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman said that justice had two sides; that they must be just not only to the curates, but also to the unfortunate classes to whom the residue of the Church funds were to be applied. In Heaven's name, then, let justice be done to those unfortunate persons; but, let it not be justice to one class at the expense of another. A weaker defence than that of the right hon. Gentleman for a sterner act of injustice had never proceeded from the lips of a Minister. He thanked the Committee for the patience with which they had listened to him; and he apologized to them if the strength of his feelings had betrayed him into any undue warmth of expression. He knew well that by many who sat opposite to him that measure was thought to be urgently needful for the welfare of the country, and he was ready to admit that by none was it believed to be more necessary than by the statesman who had first introduced it. But he could not allow that it was right to commit the slightest injustice. Let the benefit be what it might in future, he had yet to learn that it was lawful to do evil that good might come. He refused, for one, to subscribe to that doctrine; and he trusted the day was far distant when the House of Commons
  1904
  would affirm that justice, however small, must give way to expediency, however great.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Member who has just sat down has admonished us, and myself in particular, that the sense of justice is apt to grow dull under the influence of a long Parliamentary experience. But there is one sentiment which I can assure him does not grow dull under the influence of a long Parliamentary experience, and that is the sense of pleasure when I hear—whether upon these Benches or upon those opposite to me—an able, and at the same time frank, ingenuous, and manly statement of opinion, and one of such a character as to show me that the man who makes it is a real addition to the intellectual and moral worth and strength of Parliament. Having said this, I express my thanks to the hon. Member for having sharply challenged us; it is right we should be so challenged, and we do not shrink from it. If there be a distinction between expediency and justice in this question, it is not we who seek to shelter ourselves behind that distinction. If this measure is anything else than just, in God's name let it perish. We support it as wise, we support it as politic; but, above all, we support it as just in the highest sense of the word. We may differ in our views as to what is just; it is permitted to men so to differ. These claims, which grow up out of the complications of past ages, are matters which it is difficult indeed for human judgment to penetrate and order; but the hon. Gentleman, who has, I must say, done us full justice in giving us credit for sincerity, may rely upon it we shall never be backward in meeting him or others upon the grounds that he marks out for us; it is then we shall be ever ready to descend and do our best for the cause which we believe to be right. Now, it would, perhaps, be more convenient to postpone the discussion of that portion of the hon. Member's speech relating to what I may call the Ulster Covenant until we come to the Amendment in which it is proposed virtually to include the grants of James I., because the Amendment upon which we are now engaged would not include them. I will, therefore, say only that when the hon. Member speaks of the bargain that was made and the necessity of keeping it, I must observe that, though a covenant

  1905
  may have been made between James I. and the Protestant settlers of Ulster, in the first place, I know not how those who look down the pages of history can think that the bargain has ever been kept as respects the major portion of these Protestant settlers in Ulster—namely, the Presbyterians. And I may also say that from that covenant was absent the men who had a paramount right to be consulted—namely, the men of the Irish nation. I will now confine myself to the question of private endowments, and firstly I will inquire what is a private endowment? Why are we to establish in this Bill a separate category for private endowments, and, dividing them from the mass of what we affirm to be national property—namely, the property of the Church—to keep them back and attach and appropriate them to the particular religious community that is about to exist in a disestablished condition? Let us consider what are the points necessary to make up the definition of private endowments, such as we are justified in keeping from the general mass. In the first place, it must be an endowment from the private resources of a private person; in the second place, it must be devoted to the endowing of a particular religious persuasion; and if it is given to an establishment, it must be given to it not in its character as an establishment, but in its character of a definite religious persuasion; lastly, it must be a gift to the same distinct religious persuasion as that on whose behalf it is proposed to be severed from the general mass. Now, these are not unreasonable descriptions of the convictions which we have in view as framers of the Bill when we speak of private endowments; and we have construed private endowments in a manner the most liberal and most favourable to what is now the Established Church of Ireland. We have never once inquired whether the private donor, since 1660, gave his donation to the Established Church of Ireland because it corresponded with his private convictions in religion, or because it was the national Established religion of the country—and that is no unimportant distinction. I suspect that if we were to examine these private endowments we should find there were multitudes of them given to the national Established Church because it was the national Established Church. [Opposition cheers.] Just so, and there-
  1906
  fore the endowment must follow the fate of the national Establishment. I do not suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite will find it difficult to make a case satisfactory to their own minds for sparing these private endowments; but we also have to make a case satisfactory to our minds. We thought it wiser, on the whole, to overlook this point; but, if we had not overlooked it, and had proceeded in the pettifogging spirit with which some may be ready to charge us, we might in many cases have discovered that these endowments were given to the national Establishment of Ireland, and not to the professors of the Episcopal religion. These things happen every day; my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Robertson) could name to us many Presbyterian churches which have been founded and endowed by men who are not Presbyterians, who have no special sympathy with the body, and who do not desire the spread of its peculiar opinions. We all know of one instance which applies. Miss Courts founded two bishoprics in the colonies, but when she discovered that there was no regular appeal from those dioceses to the ecclesiastical authorities at home and through them to the Privy Council, which she had thought existed, she claimed a restoration of the endowments. In the same way it might be argued that these private endowments of the Irish Church should revert to the successors of the original donors, because the real conditions they contemplated had not been carried out as soon as the religion came to be disestablished. We have traced back with considerable definiteness to 1660 a well-understood religious system as the Established religion, because that was a time when Puritans or Nonconformists—call them what you will—became a body external to the Established Church. Down to that time they were, more or less, within its pale, struggling for the mastery, and that in all the three countries. In England least, in Ireland more, and in Scotland with a distinct and unfailing preponderance over the Episcopal party. The argument of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire has been founded upon a total misconception of the nature of the argument I have endeavoured to put before you. I never considered for a moment that the title of the Irish Church to its possessions was one whit better or worse after 1660 than before. I never meant that conformity to, or dissent

  1907
  from, the Church of England was a test of a good or bad title to the property of the Church in Ireland. I argued to show that to make out the case of a private endowment you must show it was given to a definite religious system. Since 1660 there have been definite religious systems in both countries, but before that it was by no means so definite. I adhere to the proposition. We have been told to night that there was a perfect system of law and profession from the time of Elizabeth, but who heard of the Thirty-nine Articles during Queen Elizabeth's time? Nobody heard of them before 1634; and who brought them in? Archbishop Usher? The hard hand of Strafford brought them in, and Strafford, the Lord Deputy, sending for the prolocutor, gave them to him and ordered him to take them down to the Convocation, but charged him not to put the question "aye'' or "no" whether they should be accepted. The old Confession did not cease in 1634 to be law in the Church of Ireland. It had the same authority as the Thirty-nine Articles. But it is the want of definiteness in the system upon which my argument entirely turns. We have had a little illustration of this lately, because I have had the honour of receiving a Presbyterian deputation from the General Assembly of Ulster, and the demand put forward by them was that we should not stop at 1660, but go behind that date. "Upon what ground do you ask that?" I inquired. "Upon this ground," they replied. "that if you can go back so as to bring in the glebes of the Ulster settlement, we, the Presbyterians, shall be in a position to claim a large share in those endowments." [Opposition cheers.] Very well, let us see how far we are to go upon this point. We will take that admission from hon. Members opposite; it is of some value. Supposing, therefore, we go back behind the year 1660—and it may, perhaps, be news to some hon. Members that a great multitude of these glebes were purchased out of the proceeds of taxation levied upon the citizens of London—we shall have to set about the pleasant task of dividing them between the two great sections of the Protestants of Ireland—an operation which I need not say would be eminently calculated to secure the harmony and peace of Protestantism. Some hon. Members have asked us not to stop with the private endowments of 1660, but to go
  1908
  back to 1560. But, if we assented to that proposition as respects private endowments, they would obtain a most barren victory, because the amount of the private endowments of the Church in that country stands at precisely zero. The right hon. Gentleman is deluding himself—no, I will not use that word, it is rather too strong—but he is misled when he supposes that £30,000 or £40,000 per annum was secured by that good and learned man Archbishop Bramhall to the Irish Church out of his own or out of private means. Archbishop Bramhall did sell property he possessed in England for himself and his family, and did buy for himself and his family another property in Ireland, but that property never became a portion of the ecclesiastical property of the Irish Church. What Archbishop Bramhall did was this—he made use of the strong arm of the law and the public authority to compel the Irish landowners, right and left, to disgorge the appropriations they had made in times of trouble from the ancient property of the Church. Strong as the Irish landowners then were, Archbishop Bramhall was as strong as they, and Strafford was stronger still; and in those days it was a formidable thing for a man to be hauled up before the Privy Council to account for the manner in which he had become possessed of ecclesiastical property. It was thus, by making use of the authority and the law in a manner that modern judicature might qualify by the odious appellation of "extortion," and perhaps by some slight money payments, he was enabled to appropriate large endowments for the use of the Church. The present Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, like all his other Amendments relating to this subject, has been most astutely framed. He is not satisfied with going back to 1560—he looks, as I do, upon that 100 years as not worth fighting about as far as private endowments are concerned—he, taking a larger and more comprehensive view, disdains all limits, and says at once—"Let us go back to the Flood." Now, that is the effect of the well-advised Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. I have said that between 1560 and 1660 the period was very barren; but if the centuries before these were well wrought and worked by good ecclesiastical antiquaries, they would yield a good deal. They would find that there

  1909
  were still in existence numerous private documents quite apart from the larger and more general controversy. But I must say a word or two upon the larger and more general controversy. I know that there are persons who think that the tithes themselves are to be regarded in the light of private endowments. That certainly was an opinion which in the 17th century was disputed between learned men, and therefore the whole tithes of Ireland might be brought in as private endowments, provided that the right hon. Gentleman, who has approached us to-night with the blandest accents—assuring us that his Amendment meant nothing more than an unimportant distinction of figures—could persuade us to change the date 1660 to an anterior date. Therefore, one effect of the Amendment being carried would be that most serious claims would be raised to the whole of the tithes of Ireland. But, independently of that, there are plenty of parochial glebes, and, probably, no inconsiderable number of episcopal and capitular estates, of which the original deeds of gift are in existence to this hour, which would, perhaps, if the Amendment were carried, all have to come out of our unfortunate surplus as coming under the head of private endowments, although I cannot regard that as a very powerful argument. But, putting that on one side, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting by his side knows perfectly well that there are plenty of pre-Reformation documents in existence granting land to the Church, and that, therefore, in the event of the Amendment passing, they would be entitled to sweep into the net of this society, which is about to exist in a disestablished form, all the property to which they refer. The question, therefore, that we have to ask ourselves is, do these gifts of land satisfy or do they not satisfy, the true conditions of private endowments for the purposes of this Bill so as to justify the right hon. Gentleman in coming to us and saying—"I claim this property under your own principles—I merely ask you to extend them a little further, and to give us the pre-Reformation as well as the post-Reformation private endowments?" It is quite evident that neither in policy nor in justice can such a proposal be entertained by us. We cannot assent to the pre-Reformation endowments re-
  1910
  maining the property of the present Irish Church after it has passed into a state of disestablishment. Observe what we should do if we agreed to go back to the reign of James I. The Presbyterians would claim a share in the Crown grants of that reign. [Opposition cheers.] I understand from the cheers of hon. Members opposite that they are prepared to admit that claim; but they are not aware that if they go back to the time of Elizabeth and Henry VIII. they must be prepared for the claim of the Roman Catholics to the endowments granted before these reigns? Either we are or we are not to proceed upon the principles of religious equality, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman must by this time be beginning to see that his Amendment if agreed to would have a very serious effect indeed. How far that Amendment might go I am unable to say; but I am convinced that it would go very far indeed. I deny the justice and propriety of looking to a remote period at all for private endowments; but, if the Committee could be persuaded to look to such a period for them, it would be difficult to persuade the Roman Catholics that they were not entitled to them, and thus we shall revive the old controversy about St. Patrick, and give rise to an interminable theological controversy. I think that the sense of the House will feel that the only wise course for us to adopt is to avoid entering upon such a contest. I warn them not to listen to the Siren's voice, but to deal with the question in a spirit of common sense. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) behind me goes rather to bring the date of 1660 down rather than force it up to an earlier period. In fixing upon the date 1660 we were actuated by the feeling expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he said—if he did say so—that the Bill would be a gracious and a generous one, and we felt that in fixing upon that date we had reached the furthest limit to which we could go and yet preserve intact the principle of the Bill, Under these circumstances I trust that the Committee will adhere to the date 1660 in the clause, and that they will reject the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: I do not wish to address the Committee at any great length on this subject, but there

  1911
  are some things in connection with it to which I should like to refer, and more especially the latter part of the speech of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. My right hon. Friend has addressed the Committee, as he always does, in a speech of great ability and power, and, as I think he has done throughout these discussions, with the greatest candour and courtesy towards those from whom he differs. Now, I. cannot but concur with my right hon. Friend to this extent—that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) does seem open—whether intended to be so or not, probably it is not intended—to the charge that it goes back indefinitely, and beyond the period of the Reformation. Looking to the decisions at which the House has already arrived, I do not think it would be consistent to ask the House to treat as private endowments of the Protestant Church in Ireland anything going back beyond the Reformation. If 1560 were taken instead of the date stated in the Bill, that would not be open to the same objection, as it would only cover private endowments subsequent to the Reformation. It appears to me that the arguments in favour of the proposition of the Government have been entirely at variance with each other. My hon. and and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) addressed an exceedingly able speech to the Committee; but it was a speech against the whole of the clause—against respecting any private endowments. Hon. Members may remember that, in some observations which I took the liberty of addressing to the House on a former occasion, I expressed myself as perfectly sensible of the force of the principle contended for my hon. and learned Friend. No doubt the State must continually regulate private endowments as well as public, if those private endowments are not for purposes strictly private. As my right hon. Friend the First Minister said we cannot dive into the minds of men who gave particular endowments to a Church which was at the time established, and say whether they were influenced more by the fact of that Church being established, or by sympathy with the religious tenets of the body in question. But the Government have settled that for us; and I think we may reasonably conclude that, in general, men do make these private
  1912
  endowments, not for political reasons, but from religious feeling and sympathy for the Church of which they are members. Yielding to that view, the Government thought it right to draw the line between public and private endowments. The sole question now is, whether, in point of time, the line is drawn on a consistent and intelligible principle. My right hon. Friend might have gone the whole length to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford has gone, and might have refused to recognize any distinction between private endowments and public endowments; but as he has recognized it, the sole question for us is, as to whether a sound, rational, and consistent principle has been acted upon in choosing the particular date fixed by the Bill. Now, having listened to what has been said tonight by my right hon. Friend, with that respect as well as admiration which one cannot help feeling at hearing a case put in the best conceivable manner, by the best possible advocate, I confess I fail to see how the arguments can hold water which he has addressed on this subject to the Committee. I should like to put this case to hon. Gentlemen of the Roman Catholic religion in this House. Suppose that in Italy something like what has been done here should hereafter be proposed—for this Bill may possibly form a precedent in Italy and other countries, as well as in England—those who may desire to deal with ecclesiastical property in Italy may say—"This is the way in which the thing was done in England, and we find that Roman Catholics in England approved of and co-operated in this way of doing it." But I should like to know what those Roman Catholic Gentlemen would say, if a statesman in Italy, dealing with private endowments, should propose to draw the line at a time when the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church first pronounced a particular dogma to be an article of faith? This is a thing which occurred very recently, and it may occur again. Or suppose the Italian statesman were to draw the line at the Council of Trent, when we know that a new aspect and character were impressed on the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church. Will any Roman Catholic admit that the Roman Catholic Church was a different Church before from that which it was after the Council of Trent, or a different Church before the promulgation of the

  1913
  dogma of the Immaculate Conception from that which it has been since? No, the common-sense way of drawing the line is to draw it at a point when there was a great interruption of the communion—a great break in the continuity of the body—when the faith of the adherents of the religion was disturbed in such a way as may be said to have altered the basis of the Church. Though legally and organically the old Church of England and the new one were the same, there can be no doubt the Reformation introduced changes which led to a separation of those who had before been of one communion, and which in many respects made the Church of England, as it is, different from the Church as it existed before. But in a case where a Church, without any interruption of communion, in the exercise of its inherent powers, makes laws from time to time which cause no schism—to say that any action of that sort can interrupt the continuity and identity of that Church is to lay down a doctrine which never was held before, and which certainly would be capable of a very enlarged application. The adoption of the Lambeth Articles, which themselves, as the very name proves, came from England, did not, in any true or substantial sense, alter the ecclesiastical relations between Ireland and England. As has been remarked, there was Puritanism enough in those days here. Many persons say there was a new Church from the time of the Reformation. That depends very much on the different meanings which different minds attach to the same words; but this is the first time anyone has suggested that there was a new Church of England in 1660. There is no more ground for suggesting that there was a new Church in Ireland then, than there is for suggesting that there was a new one in England. Archbishop Whitgift endeavoured to impose the same Lambeth Articles on the clergy of England. But these theological discussions are, in truth quite beside the question. The real question before the Committee is, will you or will you not limit the grace of the reservation of private endowments by fixing an arbitrary date? The date of 1660 is, in reality, quite arbitrary. By its legal constitution, the Church in Ireland before that date was Protestant, was Episcopal, had the Liturgy of the Church of England, recognized the same kind of ecclesiastical supremacy in the Crown, as much before as afterwards;
  1914
  and the declaration of the doctrines and faith already entertained, by the formal adoption of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, was made not in 1660, but in 1634. The Committee will, I am sure, deal with the subject as men of common sense. The argument of my right hon. Friend really conies to this—"If we acted on principles of law with strict consistency we should give you no private endowments at all; but we are disposed to act very generously towards you in giving you what you have no right to. We shall therefore go back to 1660 and stop there." I could understand your stopping at 1660, if there were any particular practical object to be gained by it; but my right hon. Friend says that the Protestant Episcopal Body would get no benefit from going back to 1560, because in the century between that and 1660 there were no private endowments. If that be so, nothing would be lost by your going back; but this would be gained—that you would be legislating upon a consistent principle. You say it is from generosity rather than anything else you are going to give those endowments, and that you are going to give them from the proper date—namely, the date at which you say the Church in Ireland assumed its present character by its union with the Church of England. But I take leave to say that the fact is otherwise; and that the argument by which you profess to establish that fact is one which no human ingenuity could make good. If a justification of it were possible it would have been placed before us by my right hon. Friend.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)thought that when they came to examine the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) he would show that it was utterly unmaintainable. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen must hear before they decided. The hon. and learned Member had suggested that the line for private endowments should be drawn at the date of the 2nd of Elizabeth. The reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman fixed that date was that, in that year, an Act of Uniformity was passed in Ireland in relation to the Liturgy of the Established Church. But what was the history of the Irish Church at that date. Any man who had read Irish history, even in the most cursory manner, must be convinced that at that time the Established

  1915
  Church was not adopted by Ireland, but was forced by conquest upon the people of that country, and no Protestant historian of any authority had ever written who had not pronounced that opinion. No one but a person whose wits had been overturned by prejudice would state, in the face of intelligent men, that the Irish people belonged to the Protestant Church in the reign of Elizabeth. ["Oh, oh!"] The question was one which must be dealt with by argument, and not by interruption. He would prove his argument from the statute itself; and, indeed, it would be just as well that those hon. Gentleman who interrupted him should know something about the Act. By the 15th section of the Act of Uniformity it was enacted that, inasmuch as ministers were frequently unacquainted with the Irish tongue, they might dispense with the English Liturgy and say the prayers in Latin, and the same Act made it lawful for the same minister—
  "To say and use the Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord's Supper, administration of each of the Sacraments, and all their common and open prayers in the Latin tongue."
  It was, therefore, absurd to say that any argument worthy of consideration could be adduced from this Act of Uniformity in favour of the Irish Church. Was not the provision that the service might be performed in Latin sufficient to annihilate the value of this statute as an Act of Uniformity? Lord Clare, an authority whom his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Dr. Ball) would not despise, had in his speech on the Union in the Irish Parliament, for this very reason, declared the Act of Uniformity to be a solecism in the history of legislation. It made the Liturgy binding on the people of Ireland, but such an enactment was a farce. Now, the Convocations of 1615 and 1634 had been alluded to, and it had been contended that the Lambeth Articles in substance were never recognized in Ireland, and that the Thirty-nine Articles after 1634 were universally adopted. But, in Mant's History of the Irish Church, Usher is said to have stated, in a private letter, that, notwithstanding the Thirty-nine Articles were adopted, they were adopted with this qualification—that the Lambeth Articles were to remain in force, and that the Thirty-nine Articles were only to be adopted as far as they were consistent with the Lambeth Articles, which the
  1916
  earlier Convocation had agreed to. But there was a much stronger argument than any that could be founded upon the Convocations of 1615 and 1634. What was the state of Ireland when the so-called Glamorgan Treaty was entered into? They knew what the basis of that treaty was—
  "That the Roman Catholics should hold and enjoy all the churches and glebes by them enjoyed in the kingdom"—namely, Ireland—"or by them possessed since the 23rd of October, 1641, and all the churches in the kingdom other than those actually enjoyed by His Majesty's Protestant subjects."
  The reason why 1660 was fixed on as the date in the measure was, that all before that was confusion, change, incoherence, and difference of opinion. It was to prevent the gross injustice that otherwise would follow that they had fixed that date; for they wished to prevent the new representative Church Body being able to capture private endowments never intended for the Established Church of Ireland, and thus perpetuate the very injustice which it was the aim and object of the Bill to prevent. He therefore hoped that the date of 1660 would be adopted.
  DR. BALLsaid, that when he stated the extent of property which he believed would be affected by the Amendment, the Committee would see how very little reason there was in the arguments which had been addressed to them from the opposite side of the House. He was aware of only two classes of property which could be regarded as private endowments from the 2nd of Elizabeth down to 1660. One was the gifts of Archbishop Bramhall—gifts which were by no means the gifts of that Prelate personally—and the other the glebes given by the London companies in the time of James I. to those of the clergy in their parishes for whom no provision of the kind had been made. Now, of the gifts of Bramhall, part of the money came from that Prelate, Laud gave a large sum, and Charles I. also contributed out of his private resources. He at once acknowledged the truth of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that a greater engine than money was employed to recover the Church property—the power of Lord Strafford. There was at Lambeth at that moment a Return made with the object of showing what Strafford had done for the Church of Ireland, and what had been

  1917
  obtained by Archbishop Bramhall. But the Committee were not asked to give anything to the Church that had been obtained through the power of Strafford—solely to allow the Church to retain what was the produce of monies given by private persons out of their own resources. Then, with regard to the second gift, could any one doubt that the London companies were Protestant? Why, they were established in the country for the purpose of spreading a Protestant faith. In going back to Bramhall, he might state that Bramhall was the very Prelate employed by Stafford and Charles I. to bring the Irish Church back from their tendency to the Lambeth Articles and the doctrine of predestination. He was made Bishop of Derry in 1634, and attended the Convocation held in that year. It was through him that the communications were made, and by his influence that the Church then enacted a canon declaring its Articles to be the Articles of the Church of England. The property in question undoubtedly came from Anglican Episcopal sources. Even if it did not, he protested altogether against these miserable, minute, theological investigations; he protested, also, against it being laid down that the Church of England necessarily excluded Calvinism outside of her Articles. He asserted that the Articles were framed to include the doctrines of St. Augustine as well as the doctrines of those who opposed them. There was no single theological tenet which you could less take as a line of demarcation between different Churches than that of predestination. St. Augustine held it, St. Chrysostom denied it. Among the Catholics the Jansenists held it and the Jesuits denied it; in the English Church one Prelate had held it and another denied; in short it was a question on which, inside every Church, men differed, because it was a matter of abstract reasoning, not, except in the Scotch Church, incorporated into their creeds or formularies. Therefore, this description of investigation was wholly unworthy to occupy the time of the Committee, and wholly unworthy of pursuit by a great statesman; indeed, it was descending from the position of a statesman to that of a school divine, to weigh and balance these extreme niceties of opinion on one of the most difficult questions that ever occupied the human mind. The real question was, not the
  1918
  tenets but the existence of a Protestant Episcopal Church which received the private endowments prior to 1660. It could not be denied that the Presbyterians were excluded by the Act of Uniformity, because it expressly enacted Episcopacy; it also broke with Rome, and that and the concurrent Act enacted the supremacy of the Sovereign in Ireland, and excluded that of the Pope. There was, therefore, a tangible line of demarcation between the Episcopal Church in Ireland and the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic Churches; and any man who gave money in the interim between the two periods of 2nd Elizabeth and 1660, knew he was giving it to a Church which was not Presbyterian, and which had shaken off allegiance to Rome. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had met the Amendment in a bold way, by asserting principles which would expunge the clause from the Bill. The clause admitted that private endowments ought to be saved; and none were so interested in resisting the doctrines of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford as the Roman Catholics of Ireland, for by those doctrines a large amount of property which had been given by testamentary disposition to the institutions of that Church, monastic and conventual, was imperilled, because, according to those doctrines, it made no difference whether endowments came from a public or a private source, and what gave the State dominion was that the endowments were for religious purposes. They were, therefore, to inquire, not as to the source, but as to the destination of endowments. This was an extremely dangerous doctrine; it would discourage gifts to the new body which, under the provisions of the present Bill, was to be formed for the Church; and therefore, in the name of the Church to which he belonged, and which in future must depend upon the generosity of the Protestants of Ireland, and also in the name of the Roman Catholic Church, which for its advancement and improvement must depend upon gifts and bequests of property to raise the priests above dependence on the fees of their flocks, he protested against a doctrine which would shake to their foundation the rights of men in the disposition of their property.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) had

  1919
  spoken only of private endowments, they had only to turn over a page of the Amendments to see what was in store. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire would propose to hand over to the Church Body all land held by the Church of Ireland, under Royal or public grants, from the second year of Elizabeth. So far from defending the Amendment, which, as it had been said, by leaving the date out of the clause, would carry its operation back to the Mood—the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone back only to the date of Archbishop Bramhall: he ought to have taken an historical cycle, instead of a single generation. Having made it his business to read as much as, perhaps, any hon. Member had about Archbishop Bramhall, he was convinced that that able and energetic man conferred by far the greater part of the benefits he did upon the Irish Church—not at the cost of his own pocket, but at the cost of others—and that what had been said that night was within the mark with respect to the extraordinary advantages and powers which that Prelate possessed in the then state of the government of Ireland, through his connection with the Lord Deputy Strafford, and from the confused state of the times and the powerless condition of the Irish landlords who had acquired Church lands. One method of procedure which was adopted had not been alluded to; and that was borrowing large sums of money upon the security of the lands, and afterwards repudiating liability. The amount of endowment to be discovered in the gifts or rather the restorations of Bramhall was infinitesimal; and to discover and distinguish these endowments would require a vast and portentous amount of antiquarian research. The right hon. and learned Gentleman deprecated theological research; but he was ready to embark in any amount of antiquarian research. So far, he was in harmony with the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, who proposed that the Commissioners, in deciding upon private endowments, should receive and act upon "historical and other evidence;" but what that meant he was at a loss to understand, and the Government were not inclined to commit Parliament and the Commissioners to such a task. If this were a matter of absolute right and strict justice, re-
  1920
  search would be necessary; but these ancient private endowments had become incorporated with the public property of the Irish Church, and were to be dealt with upon considerations of expediency, while to go back beyond 1660 would involve only confusion and uncertainty. The Bill did substantial justice in drawing the line at this point, and he hoped the Committee would adopt it.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had repeated the taunt of the Prime Minister, that this Amendment would carry them back to the Mood. But if he had perused the page he would have found a subsequent Amendment which limited them to the second year of the reign of Elizabeth. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: For public and Royal grants.] True; but his right hon. Friend never intended to go beyond the post-Reformation times. His present Amendment was to omit the year 1660, and he must be judged not by what he proposed to leave out, but by what he proposed to insert in its place. They said that the date 1660 was an improper date. How had it been defended? The Attorney General for Ireland said, that the Church of Ireland was forced on the Irish people in the second year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Well, suppose it was, and suppose that people gave out of their private resources endowments as a means of supporting that Church, was that a reason for depriving her of them now? These endowments were not forced from the people, but were given to the Church willingly. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Act of Uniformity, and said it allowed prayers to be read in Latin. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of Matins and Evensong, he was apt to produce the impression that these were the prayers of the Church of Rome that were permitted to be said; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was too good a scholar not to know, that the prayers here referred to were the prayers of the Liturgy of the Church of England which had been translated into the Latin tongue and were permitted to be used by the Irish priests. It was true that, in 1615, the Lambeth Articles were adopted by Convocation, but they were adopted irregularly, for they were never sanctioned by Parliament, and, in 1634, the Thirty-nine Articles were implicitly

  1921
  and fully adopted by the Convocation. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said that Strafford did not allow them to say "Yes" or "No." But in 1634 the Church in Ireland was in the same condition as it was at present, and whatever bequests were given to the Protestant Church were given to it as severed from the Church of Rome, and as severed from Presbyterianism by Episcopacy. With respect to 1641, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had appealed to the great violence of the time when the Churches and glebes were taken possession of by the Roman Catholics, and said that there was an intention that some terms should be made with them. Those terms, however, were never made, and it was usurpation on their part to take possession of the glebes and churches. That usurpation arose in consequence of the great violence of the times; but that circumstance could not alter the condition of the Irish Church, which was the same now as it was then. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had laid down the principle that the bequests in order to come within the benefit of the Bill must be bequests to a definite religious persuasion, and such, it must be admitted, was the character of the Irish Church from the time of the Reformation. How, then, could it be shown that there was anything different in the state of the Irish Church in 1660? There was only the restoration of the King; and the Act of Uniformity then passed did not alter the creed of the Church, but only bound the Church down to a particular way of testing the creed, and to a certain mode of action in the conduct of Divine service, but it did not alter that service materially. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had adverted to him personally. All that he would say was that the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman were not addressed to the question before the House, and when he was arguing as to the question of altering endowments at Oxford, there was never any intention of taking them away. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued against protecting private endowments at all. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) contended that a case had been made out for protecting private endowments, and that there was no difference between the century pre-
  1922
  ceding 1660 and the period which had elapsed since that time.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEinquired whether it was proposed to limit the Amendment to post-Reformation grants?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied in the affirmative.
  Question, "That the words 'since the year' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYproposed an Amendment to alter the date in the clause from "1660" to "1560."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "sixteen" in order to insert the word "fifteen."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must detain the House for a few words, for I find that the issue has changed at the latest moment. We have been debating all night the entire removal of the limit. What we are now called on to do is to recognize the principle of private endowment as to the basis of our measure as far back as it can go—that is to say, for 300 years beneficial in its operation to Protestantism, and when we have gone back these 300 years, we then come to 400 more, during which the Irish Church was historically, undoubtedly, and undeniably, Papal. We then stop the principle of private endowment and refuse to apply it on behalf of Roman Catholics, and that in a measure which is fundamentally based on religious equality.
  MR. DISRAELI: I do not think the issue to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has ever been introduced into this debate. The real issue before us is very simple; but we are dealing only with the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the clause of the right hon. Gentleman which I propose to amend refers only to that; and the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing it was solely confined to the Protestant Episcopal Church. He says—"I have fixed the year 1660, because that is the first time in which I find a legislative character and form given to the Irish Church," and the argument has been that, on the contrary, from the moment the Protestant Episcopal Church was introduced into Ireland by Elizabeth, there has been a continuous spirit there, and the

  1923
  same form, and the same character, and the same shape have been maintained. Therefore, the opinion of the Committee has not for a moment been diverted to any other subject, and we have hitherto been arguing substantially whether the post-Reformation endowments by private persons shall be respected in this spoliation of the Protestant Church.
  Question put, "That the word 'sixteen' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 306; Noes 220: Majority 86.

  AYES.

  Acland, T. D.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G. F.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Allen, W. S.

  Chadwick, D.

  Amcotts, Col. W. C.

  Chambers, T.

  Amory, J. H.

  Childers, rt. hon. H.C.E.

  Anderson, G.

  Cholmeley, Captain

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Cholmeley, Sir M.

  Antrobus, E.

  Clay, J.

  Armitstead, G.

  Cogan, rt. hon. W. H. F.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Coleridge, Sir J. D.

  Backhouse, E.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Bagwell, J.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Baines, E.

  Cowen, J.

  Baker, R. B. W.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Bass, M. A.

  Crossley, Sir F.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Dalglish, R.

  Bazley, T.

  Dalrymple, D.

  Beaumont, Capt. F.

  D'Arcey, M. P.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Davies, R.

  Bentall, E. H.

  Davison, J. R.

  Blake, J. A.

  Delahunty, J.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  De La Poer, E.

  Bolckow, H. W. F.

  Denison, E.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E.P.

  Dent, J. D.

  Bowring, E. A.

  Devereux, R. J.

  Brady, J.

  Dickinson, S. S.

  Brand, rt. hon. H.

  Digby, K. T.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Dilke, C. W.

  Brassey, T.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Brewer, Dr.

  Dodds, J.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Downing, M'C.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Dowse, R.

  Brinckman, Captain

  Duff, M. E.G.

  Brocklehurst, W. C.

  Duff, R. W.

  Brogden, A.

  Dundas, F.

  Brown, A. H.

  Edwardes, hon. Col. W.

  Bruce, Lord C.

  Edwards, H.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Egerton, Capt. hon. F.

  Buller, Sir E. M.

  Ellice, E.

  Bury, Viscount

  Enfield, Viscount

  Buxton, C.

  Ennis, J. J.

  Campbell, H.

  Erskine, Vice-Ad. J. E.

  Candlish, J.

  Esmonde, Sir J.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Carington, hn. Cap. W.

  Eykyn, R.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Fagan, Captain

  Carter, Mr. Ald.

  Fawcett, H.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  FitzGerald, rt. hn. Lord O. A.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Cave, T.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  1924

  FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

  Lyttelton, hon. C. G.

  Fletcher, I.

  M'Arthur, W.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  M'Clean, J. R.

  Forster, C.

  MacEvoy, E.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Macfie, R. A.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C.P.

  Mackintosh, E. W.

  Fortescue, hon. D. F.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Fothergill, R.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Fowler, W.

  M'Laren, D.

  Gavin, Major

  Maitland, Sir A. C. R. G.

  Gilpin, C.

  Magniac, C.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Marling, S. S.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Martin, C. W.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Martin, P. W.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Matthews, H.

  Gourley, E. T

  Miall, E.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Graham, W.

  Milton, Viscount

  Gray, Sir J.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Monk, C. J.

  Greville, Captain

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Greville-Nugent, Col.

  Moore, G. H.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Morgan, G. O.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Morley, S.

  Grosvenor, Earl

  Morrison, W.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Grove, T. F.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Hadfield, G.

  Murphy, N. D.

  Hamilton, E. W. T.

  Nicol, J. D.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  North, F.

  Harcourt, W. G. G. V. V.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Harris, J. D.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Hartington Marquess of

  O'Donoghue, The

  Haviland-Burke, E.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Hay, Lord J.

  O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir C. M.

  Henderson, J.

  Henley, Lord

  Onslow, G.

  Herbert, H. A.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  O'Reilly-Dease, M.

  Hoare, Sir H. A.

  Otway, A. J.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Holms, J.

  Parker, C. S.

  Hoskyns, C. Wren-

  Parry, L. Jones-

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Pease, J. W.

  Hughes, W. B.

  Peel, A. W.

  Hutt, rt. hon. Sir W.

  Pelham, Lord

  Hyde, Lord

  Philips, R. N.

  James, H.

  Pim, J.

  Jardine, R.

  Platt, J.

  Jessel, G.

  Playfair, L.

  Johnston, A.

  Plimsoll, S.

  Johnstone, Sir H.

  Pochin, H. D.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Potter, E.

  Kirk, W.

  Potter, T. B.

  Knatchbull - Hugessen, E. H.

  Power, J. T.

  Price, W. E.

  Lawrence, J. C.

  Price, W. P.

  Lawrence, W.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Rathbone, W.

  Layard, rt. hon. A. H.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Lea, T.

  Reed, C.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Richard, H.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Richards, E. M.

  Lewis, J. D.

  Robertson, D.

  Lloyd, Sir T. D.

  Roden, W. S.

  Loch, G.

  Rothschild, Brn. M. A. de

  Locke, J.

  Rothschild, N. M. de

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Russell, A.

  Lush, Dr.

  Russell, H.

  Lusk, A.

  Rylands, P,

  1925

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  St. Lawrence, Viscount

  Tomline, G.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Torrens, R. R.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Samuelson, B.

  Tracy, hon. C. R. D. H.

  Samuelson, H. B.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Sartoris, E. J.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Scott, Sir W.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Seely, C.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Shaw, R.

  Vivian, Cap. hn. J. C. W

  Shaw, W.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Sherlock, D.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Wells, W.

  Simeon, Sir J.

  West, H. W.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Smith, J. B.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Smith, T. E.

  Whatman, J.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Whitbread, S.

  Stanley, hon. W. O.

  White, hon. Cap. C.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Whitwell, J.

  Stapleton, J.

  Whitworth, T.

  Stepney, Colonel

  Williams, W.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Stone, W. H.

  Wingfield, Sir C.

  Strutt, hon. H.

  Winterbotham, H. S. P.

  Sullivan, rt. hon. E.

  Young, A. W.

  Sykes, Col. W. H.

  Young, G.

  Synan, E. J.

  TELLERS.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Adam, W. P

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Clowes, S. W

  Akroyd, E.

  Cole, Col. hon. H. A.

  Allen, Major

  Collins, T.

  Amphlett, R. P.

  Conolly, T.

  Annesley, hon. Col. H.

  Corrance, F. S.

  Archdall, Capt. M.

  Courtenay, Viscount

  Arkwright, Aug. P.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Arkwright, R.

  Croft, Sir H. G. D.

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Cross, R. A.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Cubitt, G.

  Ball, J. T.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Baring, T.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Barnett, H.

  Damer, Capt. Dawson-

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Dawson, R. P.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  De Grey, hon. T.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Denison, C. B.

  Beach, Sir M. H.

  Dick, F.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Dimsdale, R.

  Bective, Earl of

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Biddulph, M.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Bingham, Lord

  Dyott, Col. R.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Bourke, hon. R.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Bright, R.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Brise, Col. R.

  Egerton, Sir P. G

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Egerton, hon. W

  Brodrick, hon. W.

  Elliot, G.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.

  Bruen, H.

  Feilden, H. M.

  Buckley, Sir E.

  Fellowes, E.

  Butler-Johnstone, H. A.

  Fielden, J.

  Cameron, D.

  Figgins, J.

  Cartwright, F.

  Finch, G. H.

  Cave, rt. hon. S.

  Floyer, J.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Forde, Colonel

  Chaplin, H.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Charley, W. T.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Child, Sir S.

  Galway, Viscount

  Clifton, Sir R. J.

  Garlies, Lord

  Clive, Col. E.

  Gilpin, Col.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Goldney, G.

  1926

  Gooch, Sir D.

  Morgan, hon Major

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Neville-Grenville, R.

  Grant, Colonel hon. J.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Graves, S. R.

  Newport, Viscount

  Gray, Lieut.-colonel

  Nicholson, W.

  Greaves, E.

  North, Colonel

  Greene, E.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Guest, A. E.

  O'Neill, hon. E.

  Gurney, rt. hon. R.

  Paget, R. H.

  Hambro, C.

  Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Parker, Major W.

  Hardy, rt. hon. G.

  Peek, H. W.

  Hardy, J.

  Peel, A.

  Hardy, J. S.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Percy, Earl

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Phipps, C. P.

  Henniker - Major, hon. J. M.

  Raikes, H. C.

  Ridley, M. W.

  Henry, J. S.

  Round, J.

  Herbert, rt. hon. Gen. P.

  Sandon, Viscount

  Hermon, E.

  Saunderson, E.

  Hervey, Lord A. H. C.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Hick, J.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Shirley, S. E.

  Hill, A. S.

  Sidebottom, J.

  Hoare, P. M.

  Simonds, W. B.

  Holford, R. S.

  Smith, A.

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Smith, F. C.

  Holt, J. M.

  Smith, R.

  Hope, A. J. B. B

  Smith, S. G.

  Hornby, E. K.

  Smith, W. H.

  Howes, E.

  Stanley, Hon. F.

  Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.

  Stanley, Lord

  Hutton, J.

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  Ingram, H. F. M.

  Stopford, S. G.

  Jenkinson, Sir G. S.

  Stronge, Sir J. M.

  Johnston, W.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Jones, J.

  Sturt, Lt. Col. N.

  Kavanagh, A. Mac M.

  Sykes, C.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Keown, W.

  Taylor, rt. hon. Col.

  Knight, F. W.

  Tollemache, J.

  Knox, Hon. Col. S.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. H.

  Laird, J.

  Turner, C.

  Langton, W. H. P. G.

  Turnor, E.

  Lefroy, A.

  Vance, J.

  Legh, W. J.

  Verner, E. W.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Verner, W.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Walpole, hon. F.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Lindsay, Hon. Col. C.

  Walsh, hon. A.

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Lopes, H. C.

  Welby, W. E.

  Lowther, J.

  Wethered, T. O.

  Lowther, W.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Whitmore, H.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Williams, C. H.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Williams, F. M.

  March, Earl of

  Winn, R.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Wise, H. C.

  Milles, hon. G. W.

  Wright, Colonel

  Mills, C. H.

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Montagu, rt. hon. Lord R.

  TELLERS.

  Noel, G. J.

  Morgan, C. O.

  Dyke, W. H.

  MR. DISRAELIthen moved the following Amendment:—
  Line 28 after "one" leave out "but," and insert, "and in determining whether any property so claimed is a private endowment it shall he lawful for the Commissioners to receive and act upon such historical and other evidences as may seem to them to be satisfactory, although the same may not he evidence of a legal character, and also to allow the reasonable costs, charges, and expenses of such application, and of tracing the history of such endowments."
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked that the Amendment divided itself into two parts—the first relating to the character of of the evidence upon which the Commissioners were to act, and the second to the question of costs. With respect to the first part he would simply remark that, although he hoped the Commissioners would embrace in their number a strong infusion of real power of investigation, and possess a sufficient knowledge of the habits and rules by which their inquiries ought to be directed, they yet would not be bound by the technical rules of evidence in any way. The reasonable object of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as that point was concerned, might, therefore, be regarded as being already attained. As to the allowance of costs, he did not think the present clause was the most convenient part of the Bill to specify anything on that subject; but he entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in the view which he took in the matter, and words to carry that view into effect would be introduced into the Bill.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied that, under those circumstances, it was not necessary to press the Amendment,
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DISRAELI MR. DISRAELI moved, in line 33, to leave out "within twenty-five years before the passing of this Act," and insert "since the year one thousand eight hundred."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE, in rising to move an Amendment, of which he had given notice, on line 42, observed that, since its purport had been so eloquently explained by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), it would be unnecessary for him to enter at any length into the history of the Plantation of Ulster. A large proportion of those who settled in
  1928
  Ulster professed the Presbyterian form of religion, and were induced to go over to Ireland in consequence of the promises of the Government to give assistance to their Church. He confessed he sympathized very much with these Presbyterians, and thought an endowment for them ought to be preserved. He felt that a great deal was to be said in favour of those Presbyterians. The total amount in dispute was not more than £30,000 or £40,000 per annum, and this sum would provide for the parochial system in that province and the services of religion in parishes where there were respectable, not to say numerous, congregations; for it was an undoubted fact that the Church population in Ulster, if equally divided, amounted to an average of 580 individuals in each parish. Was it right, he would ask, to put a stop to the parochial system when the congregation was so numerous? The hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), had stated that every trust must be subject to revision at the end of a certain number of years; but the hon. Gentleman had omitted to state that revisions of this kind invariably occurred on the supposition that the original trust had either expired or entirely changed in its character. With regard to Ulster, however, nothing of the kind had occurred. There the parochial system was still required, and the congregations were at the present moment in existence. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government admitted that documents might be found by which endowments to localities could be traced. At this late hour he would not go fully into the argument, but would content himself by asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it was wise to refuse to listen to the united cry of the most loyal and populous part of Ireland. Why should they be mixed up in the treatment of the treasonable part of Ireland?
  Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 42, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
  "When any real property so becoming vested in the Commissioners consists of glebe lands, or other hereditaments which have been appropriated, or granted, by or in pursuance of any Statute, or Royal Grant, or Letters Patent, since the second year of Queen Elizabeth, for the endowment of any rectory, vicarage, or other parochial benefice, the Commissioners shall, on the application of the said representative body, made

  1929
  within six months after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, by order Test such property in such representative body, subject to any life interest subsisting therein."—(Sir Frederick Heygate.)
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, it must be evident to the Committee that it would be impossible for the Government, in common consistency, to agree to the Amendment, because the grants referred to by the hon. Baronet were in no sense private grants, but in the fullest sense of the words grants of a public character. Indeed, the very words used in the Amendment stamped them with that character. Not only were these Royal grants of the Crown, but it was an interesting historical fact, which was not without some bearing on the present discussion, that in the main these were not grants of new lands for the first time devoted to the purposes of the Reformed Church, but were almost solely restoration of the old Church lands. [Mr. CONOLLY: Not at all.] It was, he believed, a matter capable of historical proof that these lands had in the main belonged to the old Church, and had either been directly handed over by Elizabeth to the Reformed Church, or had been restored to it, after having passed for a brief period into the hands of lay occupiers, who had obtained them by means which it was not necessary for him to specify on the present occasion. The broad facts were that these were Royal grants made by the Crown to the National State Church of Ireland; and now that that Church was about to cease to exist it would be extremely inconsistent if those public grants were treated as though they were of a private nature. For these reasons he hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.
  MR. CONOLLYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that his hon. Friend (Sir Frederick Heygate) was Member for the county of Londonderry, because his audacious—he would not say insolent—denial—[" Order."]—
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Gentleman was approaching to the use of expressions which were not Parliamentary.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid he would withdraw the expression, which had slipped from him by mistake, for no one knew his right hon. Friend's amenity more than he did. But the right hon. Gen-
  1930
  tleman's denial of the hon. Baronet's request was not so well founded as he seemed to imagine. The question at issue was not whether any Royal grants should be taken into consideration; but that the grants made by the London companies to the Irish Church should be necessarily considered before that Church was swept from the face of the earth by a tyrannical majority. That question had two aspects—one as it affected the Protestants and the other as it affected the Catholics. The right of the Protestant landlords of Ireland to their estates depended upon the Act of Settlement. But what was the Catholic view of the matter? Mr. O'Connell had often alluded in that House to the Act of Settlement, and always in terms of the greatest reprobation. Mr. O'Connell had held out to his followers the repeal of the Union and the resumption of the forfeited estates; and the ignis fatuus presented by that great agitator to Ms countrymen was now being offered to them by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. If by this Bill they tore up the first page of the Act of Settlement the estates of the Irish landlords would come to be dealt with as the next stage of the transaction. The most serious interests hung upon the clause they were discussing. They were not only disestablishing and disendowing the Church, but striking a heavy blow at the loyal relations between Ulster and this country, and destroying the peace and harmony of Ireland. Those great questions were hardly to be settled by a majority rushing in after dinner to vote on a matter which they had not carefully considered; and it would be a serious thing if, about the 12th of July next, they heard of something in the North of Ireland which would show that the Plantation of Ulster was not ignored there, as a majority of that House seemed to suppose.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he was sorry that that subject had been mooted at so late an hour, and he would reserve to himself the full right of entering into it on another occasion. He would now, however, just notice the unsatisfactory manner in which the Prime Minister had met the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), the ability of which the right hon. Gentleman had fully acknowledged. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that

  1931
  they could not refuse to be guided by the dictates of justice; but then he argued that if they followed out that principle the Presbyterians would get all the advantage, and not the Established Church. That was not a fair way of treating the matter. If the Presbyterians were really entitled in justice to those endowments, let them have them; but it was not consistent for the right hon. Gentleman to fly off from the question, and to tell the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire that, even admitting his argument based on justice to be sound, the Established Church would not be the body to profit most by their adhering to the principle of justice.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 283: Majority 103.
  MR. GLADSTONE: On the next clause no notice of Amendment has been given, and there is convenience in now taking it, for we shall then have arrived at the close of one of the divisions of the Bill.
  MR. VANCE MR. VANCE moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should not resist that Motion; but with regard to proceeding with the Bill to-morrow, he wished to say that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory), who had Motions on the Paper, had promised to give way, with a view to promoting the progress of the Bill, and he hoped that other Gentlemen might be disposed to follow their example. But the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had given notice that he would raise a discussion to-morrow on the recent occurrences in Ireland. He could not say anything at present beyond this, that it was very possible it might be his duty to appeal to the hon. Member on public grounds not to proceed so early with that discussion. Of course, what the hon. Member had said had reference a good deal to the language attributed to the Mayor of Cork, which language, if really used, could not be too severely condemned. He (Mr. Gladstone) had received a telegram in the course of the evening, which he thought the House would be glad to hear. It was from Mr. Thomas Lyons, who, he was in-
  1932
  formed, was an eminent citizen of Cork, and who said that he intended to ask the Mayor of Cork in public meeting if he adopted the words relative to the assassin O'Farrell attributed to him in the local papers; and if so, to call upon him to resign his office. It was obvious that the House would wish to be in complete possession of the facts before proceeding with the discussion.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYhoped that if he postponed his Motion, he should have an early opportunity afforded him by the Government of bringing it on.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, Mr. Lyons might be a very important person; but, inasmuch as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them the Lord Chancellor himself could not remove the Mayor of Cork if he declined to resign, he did not see why Mr. Lyon's intention of asking the Mayor a question should influence the proceedings of this House.
  MR. GLADSTONEtrusted the Committee would not misapprehend him. He referred to the telegram to establish the fact that the Mayor of Cork was to be publicly challenged to deny the words. Whether he would deny the words or not was an important matter for them to consider.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, his hon. Colleague (Mr. Graves) was the last person to give a Notice of so much importance if he did not intend to bring it before the House. He did not think he was simply actuated by the news recently received. His Colleague was not actuated by anything like a party motive, but by a sense of the highest duty.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSpointed out that the Notice of Motion had been given, not in consequence of what had appeared in the papers respecting the Mayor of Cork, but from the unsatisfactory answer given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to his Question respecting the condition of Westmeath and Tipperary.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PHARMACY ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 37.]
(Lord Robert Montagu, Sir Graham Montgomery.)
PHARMACY ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 37.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  DR. BREWERsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper that the Bill should be committed that day six months. The Bill would not secure the purposes it contemplated, and would raise objections of a more serious character than those at present entertained on the subject. The word "poison" was used in the Act of last year, which this Bill proposed to amend, in a way that would lead to great inconvenience; and it was of the utmost importance that the wide application of the word in that Act should not be permitted to remain law. The word as used would include paregoric lozenges and other preparations which were of a comparatively harmless character. It was highly objectionable that such substances, when sold, should be labelled "poison;" and, in many cases, medicines so inscribed would have a very injurious effect upon patients, simply from the patient being aware that the medicine was so described.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Dr. Brewer,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Bill was not to extend to veterinary surgeons, and a great deal of confusion would arise in consequence of it, especially in Scotland, because anybody, a mere farrier for instance, who called himself a veterinary surgeon, would come within the provision.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the House would be allowed to go into Committee, and that his hon. Friend (Dr. Brewer) would not press his opposition.
  DR. BREWERsaid, he could not resist anything the Government determined
  1934
  on, and would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUexpressed his willingness to accept the Amendments which had been put upon the table by the Lord Advocate.
  DR. BREWERtrusted that they would now report Progress.
  MR. POCHINsaid, he was sure that those who knew anything of the matter would feel that neither the Bill nor the Amendments met the difficulties of the case. The provisions of the present Act were grossly disregarded, and if it was to be amended it must be by some more radical Amendments than any he had seen proposed. He moved that the Committee report Progress.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, this Bill was to amend a mistake in the Act of last year. When the Act came down from the House of Lords last year it contained a clause that nothing in it was to interfere with the practice of legally qualified apothecaries. The present Act was to remedy an error which would otherwise be serious.
  MR. NEWDEGATEurged that if the Royal Highland Society received power to grant certificates, the Royal Veterinary Society of Camden Town ought to receive similar powers.
  MR. WHALLEYsupported the Motion to report Progress on the ground that the legislation of last year upon this subject had caused the deaths of many persons. The question before the Committee was evidently one of life and death; and if it came to a vote he should be quite at ft loss to know whether he would be voting for the life or death of a person.
  MR. M'LAGANexplained that it was only after a most careful and searching examination the Highland Society granted certificates to veterinary surgeons.
  Motion negatived.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

IRELAND—CASHEL ELECTION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) moved that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her to cause an inquiry to be made into the corrupt practices reported by Baron Fitzgerald to have existed at the last election for Cashel.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he hoped the Motion would be postponed, as he would have to object to the names of some of the Commissioners. The three gentlemen chosen were all members of the same political party, and were all Roman Catholics. With regard to the latter point, he might observe it was notorious that three-fourths of the Irish Bar were Protestants, and therefore it was extraordinary that three gentlemen of the opposite religious opinions should have been selected.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)defended the appointment. The three gentlemen named were of the highest honour and ability. He did not inquire into the religion of the gentlemen he appointed to such offices, and in this case there was no question either of religion or party politics involved in the matter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That an bumble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Tour Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that the Honourable Baron Fitzgerald, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and one of the Judges selected for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, has reported to the House of Commons that, from the evidence at the trial before him of the Petitions relating to the last Election for Cashel, he had reason to believe that the corrupt practice of bribery did extensively prevail at the said Election.
  We therefore humbly pray Tour Majesty, that Tour Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, "An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointment of George Waters, esquire, one of Her Majesty's counsel, Constantine Molloy, esquire, barrister at law, and William Griffin, esquire, barrister at law, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices.
  1936
  Address to be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

  SHERIFFS (YORK COUNTY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill for the appointment of two Sheriffs in the county of York, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Religious, Educational, &c. Societies Incorporation* (81); Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (No. 2)* (82); (£17,100,000) Consolidated Fund*; Children, &c. Protection* (84); Vaccination Amendment* (85); Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment* (86); Metropolitan Regulations* (87); Education of Children * (88); Infant Life Preservation * (89).
Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (25), withdrawn; Government of India Act Amendment (62); Park Gate Chapel Marriages, &c. * (59).
Committee—Militia (76–83).
Third Reading—Norfolk Island Bishopric * (73), and passed.
Withdrawn—Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (25).

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL—(No. 25.)
(The Archbishop of York.)
ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL—(No. 25.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in moving that the Bill be now read the second

  1819
  time said, that the subject had often engaged the attention of their Lordships. Little need be said in vindication of the principles of the Bill; for the present state of the Law of Dilapidations was admitted to be unsatisfactory, and pressed hardly upon the clergy. It was extremely unequal in the mode of valuation; cases often occurred where an incumbent was called upon to repair the parsonage house upon entering on a benefice, and received a small amount of dilapidations from his predecessor. In spite of these repairs, in two or three years the dilapidations might be consummated in complete ruin; but if the incumbent then went out he was liable to rebuild the house entirely. The next defect of the law was that, owing to the uncertainty, there was not sufficient inducement to the clergy to keep their houses in good repair. The Bill, though by no means a complete measure, proposed to deal with these two points, and to provide for the appointment of official surveyors in each archdeaconry, in order to secure the uniform administration of the law, and to give the incumbents sufficient encouragement to keep their houses in proper repair. They would be appointed by the archdeacon and the rural deans. The Bill also provided that during a vacancy in a benefice, a survey should take place by order of the archdeacon, and upon the surveyor's report the incoming incumbent would be required within a certain time to execute the work; but, in order to lighten the burden upon the successors of insolvent or imprudent incumbents it was provided that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty should be empowered to advance money on mortgage, in the usual way to the new incumbent, to assist him in executing the necessary repairs. There was also a provision for the inspection by the surveyor of benefices belonging to livings under sequestration. If an incumbent chose to have a survey during his incumbency, and put his glebehouse or other buildings in perfect repair, he would be insured against any further demands for dilapidations for the next five years. The Bill did not at present contain clauses affecting episcopal houses, or the residences of deans and canons, because it was based on the recommendation of the Committees of the Lower Houses of Convocations of Canterbury and York, who had shrunk from dealing
  1820
  with that part of the question; but he hoped the clauses dealing with them would be inserted when the Bill got into Committee. Another omission was that the rights of patrons seemed to be insufficiently protected, inasmuch as it did not provide that the patron's consent to all loans should be obtained; nor was there any provision to enable patrons, in their own interest, to have buildings inspected from time to time. Provision on these points would, he hoped, be made in Committee. He thought, that with these additions, the Bill would prove a great benefit to the clergy. He believed that no objection could be made to the principle of the Bill, and that the details could be best considered in Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Archbishop of York.)
  LORD PORTMANthought the time of the House would be saved, if the most rev. Prelate withdrew his Bill, and substituted the measure, framed by a Select Committee in 1862, with the valuable co-operation of Lord St. Leonards. That measure was very carefully considered, and avoided some of the defects of the present Bill, while it contained valuable provisions which were not comprised in this measure.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he concurred in this suggestion. Having been a Member of the Select Committee, he could bear testimony to the careful consideration the subject received, and to the time and attention devoted to it, in particular, by Lord St. Leonards. His most rev. Brother's attention had, probably, not been directed to that Bill, which, in his opinion, would best carry out the object he had in view.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the subject urgently required consideration, and, as another Member of the Select Committee, he also would advise the withdrawal of the present Bill, and the substitution of that of 1862.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXalso recommended the adoption of the Bill, which had been carefully considered by the Committee of their Lordships' House.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he felt that he had no alternative but to accept the friendly advice offered him from such influential quarters. Through the courtesy of the noble Lord (Lord Portman), he had had an opportunity of examining the Bill of 1862 as it issued

  1821
  from the Select Committee—his ignorance of which was due to his not having been at the time a Member of the House—and of seeing the care with which it was drawn. It was almost impossible to carry a beneficial Bill on this subject, without the consent of the clergy, and he must therefore consult with others on the subject. He would, therefore, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Bill, and introduce that prepared by the Select Committee of 1862—reserving to himself, however, the privilege of reviving his Bill, which had been extensively circulated and generally approved by the clergy, in a future Session, if he thought fit. He would also consider whether many of its provisions might not be advantageously introduced into the Bill of 1862, in Committee.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  The Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the amendment of the law relating to Ecclesiastical Dilapidations—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of YORK; read 1a. (No. 82.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 62.)
(The Duke of Argyll.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 62.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he was anxious to obtain their Lordships' attention for a few moments to a question connected with this Bill, which was of great importance and great interest. The question was the precise position and powers of the Secretary of State for India with respect to his Council, as regarded the revenues and expenditure of India. Their Lordships would readily conceive how important it was that no misapprehension should exist on this subject, for nothing was more to be deprecated than that at a future period, through a careless interpretation of the present law, a misunderstanding should arise between the Secretary of State and his Council. But their Lordships might remember that two very antagonistic views had
  1822
  been expressed on this point. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who had himself held the Office of Secretary of State, in a speech delivered at Manchester last autumn, said it was to be regretted that, as he understood the law, a Secretary of State was liable to be checked, with regard to any undertaking which he thought of importance to the Government of India, by the refusal of the Council to sanction the expenditure necessary for giving effect to that undertaking. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) the present Secretary of State, had, on the other hand, stated that, as he understood the law, the Secretary of State on this subject was supreme, and not liable to the control of his Council, with a trifling exception as to grants of pensions and salaries. Now, the question depended upon two sentences in the Act of 1858, which brought the government of India directly under the control of the Crown and of Parliament. It provided that a Secretary of State should perform all such powers and duties in any wise relating to the government or revenues of India as had been exercised or performed either by the East India Company or the Board of Control, "save as herein otherwise provided." Now, a later section, the 41st, was in these terms—
  "The expenditure of the revenues of India, both in India and elsewhere, shall be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council, and no grant or appropriation of any part of such revenues, or of any other property coming into the possession of the Secretary of State in Council by virtue of this Act, shall be made without the concurrence of a majority of rotes at a meeting of the Council."
  This seemed exceedingly clear. He should have supposed that the phrase "grant or appropriation" had no limited or peculiar meaning, but was to be understood in its popular and ordinary sense, and that the section required the consent of a majority of the Council on any question of expenditure. But it was important that on a great question—what he might almost term a great constitutional question, for in reality it touched the constitution of the government of India—they should not confine themselves to merely scanning the words of an Act of Parliament. If it were really the law that the Secretary of State could not direct the expenditure of the revenues of India without the con-

  1823
  sent of his Council, the responsibility of the government of India to Parliament was lost; because you might have the Secretary of State compelled to come down to the House and say—"I think a certain expenditure necessary to the welfare and good government of India; but I am over-ruled by my Council," and the Council were irresponsible to Parliament. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), indeed, on introducing the present Bill, stated that if he believed the law to be in this state he should ask Parliament to modify it. It was clearly desirable to know what the law was, and if it required amendment the Bill afforded a convenient opportunity for making such amendment. The noble Duke had stated that he entertained no doubt that Parliament did not intend, in 1858, that the Secretary of State should be controlled by the Council on questions of finance; and though lawyers might say it was not a legitimate mode of construing an Act of Parliament to refer to what was said or done at the time, it was convenient to do so when the object was to arrive at a proper perception of the spirit which actuated the Legislature. Now, in 1858, three India Bills were introduced into the House of Commons, the first being that of Lord Palmerston's Government; and the noble Duke said he had reason to believe that it was never intended by the Government of Lord Palmerston that the Secretary of State should be controlled by his Council on questions of finance. The noble Duke, however, was, he thought, mistaken on this point, for Lord Palmerston, in introducing the Bill, stated that the full power of the President—his Bill proposed a President and a Council of eight—would not extend to matters involving the expenditure of the Indian revenues, since for purposes of that kind it would be necessary that he should have the concurrence of four Members of the Council to any proposal he might have to submit. The President and four Members would of course form a majority of the Council; and the Bill contained a clause giving effect to this proposal. Owing to the change of Government the Bill was not proceeded with. A second Bill was introduced, but this was also abandoned; and then a third Bill, which ultimately became law, and now regulated the government of India. In its original shape
  1824
  that Bill contained no check upon the Secretary of State in matters of expenditure. His noble Friend, Lord Stanley, on moving the second reading, said—
  "With regard to the question of finance, it was provided in the Bill of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) that no increase of expenditure should take place without the consent of four members of the Council. In omitting that provision we certainly did not do so from ignorance of the perils which may arise if an uncontrolled discretion of increasing expenditure be conferred upon a Minister, nor from any desire to assume that power to ourselves. But it appeared to us that such a provision was totally inadequate for the purpose aimed at. We thought a check of that nature would be illusory rather than real, and that, being illusory, it would only servo as a screen, and would prevent the application of that other and more efficient kind of control upon which we rely. It seemed to us that the object would be better attained by that on which I think Parliament has a right to insist, and which Parliament has it in its own hands to secure—namely the regular, the periodical, and the minute publication of Indian accounts, and the submission of them to this House.—[3 Hansard, cli. 326.]
  Thus far there was a clear contrast between Lord Palmerston's Bill and the Bill No. 3. But this matter received much consideration, and on the 25th of June Sir Charles Wood—the present Viscount Halifax—made this remark—
  "If it was intended under the 39th clause"—regulating the mode in which grants were to be made—" that the Secretary of State should have no power to order the payment of money at home without the consent of a majority, or at least a certain number, of the Council, all he had to say was that some words must be added to make the meaning clear. The clause, however, was confined to home expenditure, and did not touch the much larger item of Indian expenditure, on which there appeared to be absolutely no check whatever. At present the President of the Board of Control could certainly order an extraordinary expenditure for war purposes through the Secret Committee, which in itself was some sort of control; but with regard to ordinary expenditure he had not the power to increase a single salary, except through the Court of Directors. But in this Bill there was no check whatever upon the Indian expenditure."—[Ibid. 456.]
  In the same debate Sir James Graham, who took a prominent part in the discussion on the subject, said—
  "With regard to the home expenditure, he must say he did not find the words of the 39th clause, to which the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had referred him, sufficiently explicit, and, with regard to the Indian expenditure, he did not find in the Bill any restraint whatever."—[Ibid. 457.]
  A number of Amendments were then placed on the Paper—especially by, a Member connected with the East India Company—proposing to restrict, in the closest and most severe way, the action

  1825
  of the Secretary of State with reference to Indian expenditure; and, before the Bill reached the next stage, Lord Stanley placed on the table an important despatch from the Court of Directors, together with a Paper of Amendments prepared by him in consequence of the objections which had been offered to the Bill. The despatch recommended, in Paragraph 9, that in all questions of expenditure the Council ought to have more than a consultative voice; that financial matters should be dealt with exceptionally; and that the Secretary of State should not, on those matters as on others, be able to set aside the opinion of his Council; one of the reasons urged for this being that the propriety of this had been recognized in Lord Palmerston's Bill, and that its omission in the third Bill must have proceeded from inadvertence. Lord Stanley, accordingly, included in his Amendments that which ultimately became the 41st section of the Bill, which he had already quoted. The change thus proposed in the Bill attracted its due share of attention, and in Committee, on the 2nd July, the noble Earl (Earl Russell), then Lord John Russell, said—
  "The noble Lord (Lord Stanley), at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle and others, proposed a clause that the Secretary of State should not be able to dispose of the revenues of India without the consent of the majority of the Council. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen had said that the Burmese war cost £9,000,000, and that the expense had been incurred in consequence of an order of the Minister for India alone, and yet it was said that £10,000 was not to be spent without the consent of the Council."—[Ibid. 895.]
  Mr. Roebuck, too, he remembered said the whole thing was a sham, for that while appointing a responsible Minister, he was not to be allowed to spend any money without the concurrence of his Council, who would check him at every turn. The clause, however, was passed by the House of Commons; and, on the second reading of the Bill in their Lordships' House, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) pointed out with great ability what he regarded as its defects, some of which were, perhaps, more perceptible now than at that time. Alluding to the way in which the Secretary of State would be placed at the mercy of his Council with regard to finance, the noble Earl said—
  "With regard to the very difficult and complicated questions of restriction upon expenditure,
  1826
  here again we proposed that no increased charges should be made on the revenues of India, except with the consent of the majority of the Council. The present Government, in their first Bill, entirely omitted this restriction. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) shakes his head; but the Bill in this respect had undergone such a change that the restriction which it proposes is much more stringent than that which we proposed. It goes to (his extent, that there shall be no appropriation of the revenues of India without the consent of the majority of the Council. In fact, if they choose to fully exercise their powers, they can, like the House of Commons, 'stop the supplies,' and so put a stop to the proceedings of the Government altogether. By this clause you render perfectly nugatory the other clauses by which you give, in case of urgency, power to the Secretary of State to act secretly and speedily, because there is hardly an imaginable case, in which he would be called upon so to act, in which some appropriation of revenue would not be necessary in order to accompany that exercise of his power. I do not believe that these powers will be fully exercised by the Council; I do not think they will go to such a length as that; but there is some absurdity in leaving this matter to the control of a Council, while you, at the same time, refuse to give them powers which I think ought properly to be exercised by them. I think that in this respect you are doing what is a great sham"—[Ibid. 1469.]
  There was plainly no misapprehension as to the relative positions of the Secretary of State and his Council. When the Bill was in Committee the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) also addressed himself to this point and proposed the omission of the 7th clause, on the ground that it tied the hands of the Secretary of State and would prevent him from making expenditure necessary for India. The noble Duke said—
  "The House of Commons passed this Bill under the idea that they would make the Secretary of State responsible; but they, nevertheless, established a Council which, whenever money was wanted, would have him entirely under control, for he would be unable to move in opposition to the views of a majority of the Council. Perhaps the Council might say they wished to lay by so much money for purposes of irrigation, but the Secretary of State might think it was more desirable to expend it on barracks, in order to improve the health of the army. In such a case, whenever a question as to the health of the troops was raised in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State would be compelled to say he was no longer responsible for the health of the troops because his hands were tied. How could they say there must be divided management and not divided responsibility? This was a problem which they must solve, and unless they could solve it the best thing they could do was to strike the present clause out of the Bill If the Council were given up, the Bill would be worked much more efficiently, the Secretary of State would be able to originate measures and to carry them out with more energy than would be possible if it were retained."—[Ibid. 1571.]

  1827
  The Amendment, however, was not pressed, the feeling of the House being against it, and the clause remained in the Bill when it became law. Now, of course, it was possible that both Houses were at that time under a delusion as to the meaning of the clause, but of the meaning they attached to it no doubt could be entertained. In fairness to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) he would now quote his view of the clause. The noble Duke said—
  "In this country, of course, all expenditure is voted by Parliament, and an Appropriation Act is passed sanctioning the application of the money to particular purposes; and I quite admit that, though the Secretary of State would have the power to order any services to be performed, yet, if the majority of the Council could veto the payment for those services, they would have it in their power to checkmate the power of the Secretary of State. But, according to the usual practice of the Government of India, no system of vote or appropriation is necessary for the payment of services in India, and it is the opinion of all whom I have consulted, including the Law Officers of the Crown, that, under the present statute, it is unquestionably in the power of the Secretary for India to order in India any service which may appear to be required, and that payment for this service is made in India, and the disallowance of that payment is not competent to the Council without the sanction of the Secretary of State. It follows from this argument—which I believe to be well founded both upon the historical facts of the case and the words of the Act—that the Secretary of State is supreme in all matters whatever, except simply such matters as were included under the financial veto of Mr. Pitt—that is, direct grants of appropriations of money to persons either here or in India which might be made for purposes of political jobbery. That I believe to be the state of the law; and if it be, I need hardly say that it makes the Secretary of State supreme in all matters, whether they do or do not cost money."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 1074.]
  Now he must remind their Lordships of what the Act actually said. The affirmative and enacting part of the clause said—
  "The expenditure of the revenues of India, both in India and elsewhere, shall be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council."
  Then came the exceptive and negative part—
  "And no grant or appropriation of any part of such revenues, or of any other property coming into the possession of the Secretary of State in Council by virtue of this Act, shall be made without the concurrence of a majority of the votes at a meeting of the Council."
  Now the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said that that provision was inserted because there was in reference to India no Appropriation Act like that
  1828
  which was annually passed in reference to the expenditure in this country. But the Government of India Act contained nothing to show that any technical sense was attached to the word "appropriation;" and when the section provided that "no grant or appropriation" should be made, without the concurrence of the Council, he (Lord Cairns) could not but conclude that the words were to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, and that there could be no application of any part of the revenues of India to any particular purpose without that concurrence of the Council. For instance, the Secretary of State might wish for a certain railroad to be constructed, the Council of India might differ from him as to the policy of such a work, and object to the expenditure being provided out of the revenues of India; yet the Secretary of State might send out orders for the railway to be constructed, and for the expenditure to be provided out of the revenues of India; or without their consent, he might direct a scheme of irrigation to be carried out at the expense of the revenues of India; in the following week the Secretary for India might think that it would very much conduce to the health of the troops that barracks should be erected, and, though the Council might be in direct antagonism, send out to India an order for the erection of barracks. The result would be that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 would be applied from the Indian revenues to that particular purpose; and yet, according to the view of the noble Duke, though thus expense was incurred against the will of the majority of the Council of India, the payment of this expenditure out of the revenues of India did not come within the meaning of the words "grant or appropriation of revenue" in the clause in question. Since the Act of 1858 was passed there had been three or four Secretaries of State for India, and, though he could not speak with certainty as to the opinions of all of those eminent persons, yet he could say with respect to some of them, that, up to the present time, they had acted on the construction of the law which he had submitted to their Lordships. He was confident that in no single instance had any appropriation of the revenues of India, in the sense in which he used the words, been made by any Secretary for India without the consent

  1829
  of the majority of the Council. What he wished to show was the grave importance of settling this matter. As far as he knew, no antagonism up to the present time had arisen between any Secretary for India and his Council, and therefore the opportunity was favourable for re-considering the law of 1858. There might come a time when a difference of opinion or antagonism would arise between the Secretary and his Council, and then, if the law were as he had stated it, the consequence might be great embarrassment with respect to the government of India, and the difficulty would have to be relieved by special legislation at a time, perhaps, when feelings of a warmer character than now existed might have been excited. He therefore urged on the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India, the expediency of taking the opportunity afforded by the passing of this Bill through the House, to explain this views of what ought to be the policy of the State on this subject, and to ask Parliament to make an alteration in the law, if he thought that the law ought to be changed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the House was indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) for calling attention to the difficulty which, he conceived, might arise under the present Act of Parliament from a collision between the Secretary for India and his Council on questions of an important character. If there was really ground for the apprehension expressed by the noble and learned Lord it would be desirable to remove it; but the noble and learned Lord appeared to give a meaning to the words of the Act which they could not bear in any sound legal construction. If the question were brought in any way before a court of law, in construing the Act, the first thing the Court would do would be to discard any argument founded on the debates and discussions in Parliament during the passing of the Act through the Legislature. It would look at previous Acts regulating the government of India, would consider the grievances intended to be remedied by an alteration in the constitution of the government and the reason for passing the Act of 1858, and, judging in that way of the scope of the Act, would proceed to interpret its enactments. The court would find that at one time a kind of double government had been estab-
  1830
  lished for India—a government administered through the Board of Directors and the Board of Control. The Board of Control was entrusted with the control over the government of India by the Board of Directors; and, among other high powers committed to it, it was invested with authority to compel the Court of Directors to send out secret despatches on which the Directors had not been consulted, relating to important matters, such as peace or war. When the present Act of Parliament displaced the government of India through the Board of Directors as it had before existed, it transferred the government of India to Her Majesty, and placed it under the entire control of the Executive Government of this country. By the 3rd section of the Act all the powers of the Directors and of the Board of Control were transferred to the Secretary of State for India, and that transfer involved, of course, the power of making peace or war, which would involve serious expenditure. The first thing a court of law would say was that that was the primary scope of the Act. There was, to be sure, the restriction, "save as hereinafter provided;" but of course the court would give the largest construction to the large powers intended to be conferred and would narrow the effect of the restrictive words to the strictest legal construction. The meaning of section 41 was plain enough. It stated that no grant or appropriation of the revenues was to be made without the concurrence of a majority of the Council. The only two things pointed at by the restrictive words were a grant of money and appropriation; and to say that every direction or order given by the Secretary for India, which might and must involve an expenditure of money, was contrary to that clause would be to enlarge the restriction beyond any reasonable construction of an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, an order to the Governor General to declare war against a border State would not require the assent of the Council, though, of course, it would in its consequences involve expenditure. Surely his noble and learned Friend could not mean to say that all the powers heretofore exercised by the Board of Control could not be exercised by the Secretary of State without the consent of the majority of the Council? [Lord CAIRNS: Hear, hear!] Clause 49 con-

  1831
  firmed his view. What was meant was that on questions of high policy the Secretary of State might give what orders he chose. For example, if troops were on their way to China, the Secretary of State might telegraph that they were to join the forces in India, or he might telegraph that some regiments were to be marched to Lucknow. Such orders would be clearly and definitely within the powers given to the Secretary of State under the 3rd section, and would not be in the slightest degree affected by the 41st section. It might so happen that the Governor General might answer—"I have not the means of complying with this order. Give me a distinct order that I am to apply the revenues of India to the object you desire me to carry out." If such an answer were sent it would be upon the responsibility of the Governor General; and the Secretary of State might say—"I simply make the order that the emergency requires: I make no order as to the appropriation of money to carry it out." If the argument of his noble and learned Friend as to the interpretation of this clause were correct, the Secretary of State would have no power to make peace or war, or to do any other act that required secresy and despatch, without the consent of the Council—and his noble and learned Friend himself owned that that would be a monstrous provision, and upon that point they were at one. Did anyone suppose that, if that view were correct, the Legislature would have passed the clause containing such a restriction in the original Act? No one would contend that Parliament intended to do that which would be so irrational as to say that, whatever might be the emergency, the Council should be able to control the decisions of the Secretary of State. In point of fact, the intention was to give the largest powers to the Secretary of State, subject only to the provision that, with a view to prevent anything like jobs, the assent of the Council should be necessary to every grant or appropriation of money—that the Secretary of State, for instance, should not make any new loans or sanction any new railway without the consent of the Council. The meaning of the Bill, in short, was that in one way the Secretary of State should have any imaginable power, and in another, purely the actual expenditure of money,
  1832
  should not act without the sanction of his Council. This was the rational, statesmanlike scope of the Bill, and he did not believe that a court of law would give ear to any other interpretation of the statute. Surely, therefore, it was not wise to try to define the exact border of demarcation between the cases in which the Secretary of State could act alone and those in which he required the assent of the Council, and it would be better to leave this line to be drawn by the good sense of the Council and Secretary of State. He could not suppose that any such preposterous claim would be set up by the Council as that they were entitled to over-rule the Secretary of State on questions of high policy, and thus virtually take the government of India out of his hands. If such a provision as that were really in the Act, other provisions which it contained would be idle. For instance, there was a provision that the Secretary of State might over-ride at his discretion the opinions of the Council. The primary object of the Bill was to increase the power of the Secretary of State. But his noble and learned Friend seemed to think that Parliament had stultified itself on this question.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that having been President of the Board of Control at the time when Bill No. 1 was introduced, and having prepared that Bill with Lord Palmerston's consent, he might perhaps be permitted to state what had been the intention in framing the Bill. Until he heard the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who had been a Member of Lord Palmerston's Cabinet also, he had never had the slightest doubt that the intention of the Bill was to establish a check upon the Secretary of State. Lord Palmerston wished to have a Secretary of State without any Council at all; but the East India Company wanted a Council to check the Secretary of State in reference to expenditure—and at the time the general feeling was this—that the Secretary of State should not be put into such a position that he could have unlimited control over revenue. There had recently taken place the Persian War, and objection was taken to the power of the Secretary of State in such a case to declare war against Persia for European objects, and throw the charge on the revenues of India. The result

  1833
  was that one-half the charge of the war was borne by the Indian revenue, and one-half by the Imperial revenue as for an Imperial object. That question was rife at the time when Parliament was considering this subject, and the intention then was to establish a check upon the power of the Secretary of State over expenditure. The President of the Board of Control had theretofore acted as a check upon the East India Company, and the Council was intended to be a similar check upon the Secretary of State. The real question of importance which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had raised was whether, there being this doubt, it would not be wise to insert a clause clearing up the doubt. He himself (Lord Lyveden) thought it high time that that important question was settled, for the satisfaction not only of the Secretary of State, but of his Council, and he saw no good reason why the noble Duke should oppose the introduction, if it could be framed, of a clause into the Bill with that object.
  LORD CHELMSFORDthought that no one who had heard the arguments on this occasion could hesitate to come to the conclusion that the matter was not at present clear, and that it was desirable that the doubt which existed should be cleared up. He could not agree with the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack that it was not desirable to define the powers of the Secretary of State; for, on the contrary, he thought that it was absolutely necessary that, considering the very extensive powers given to the Secretary of State, the amount of limitation to them should be perfectly and clearly laid down. The question brought before their Lordships was a very short and simple one. It was the question of the construction of a single short section in an Act, which section was expressed in no ambiguous terms, but in words that could be very clearly interpreted. Their Lordships should understand that this question had not been brought forward with any hostile intention either towards the Government or to the measure under discussion; the only object was that they should be able to understand the exact position of the Secretary of State for India—whether he had the absolute power that was attributed to him, or whether he was liable to be checked and controlled by his
  1834
  Council. It appeared to him that the interpretation of the 41st clause of the existing Act was perfectly clear, and that it did not require a lawyer to put a construction upon it. He felt quite sure that a court of law, in dealing with it, would not enter into those considerations which his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack seemed to suppose would be relied upon in the formation of a judgment upon it. The 3rd section gave powers to the Secretary of State, but gave them "save as hereinafter provided" so that there could be no doubt that there was some qualification of the powers given by Clause 41. The clause sot forth in words, which were so clear as to be their own interpreters, that the expenditure of the revenues levied in India should be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council, and then came the limitation that—
  "No grant or appropriation of any part of such revenues, or of any other property coming into the possession of the Secretary of State in Council by virtue of this Act, shall be made without the concurrence of a majority of the votes at a meeting of the Council."
  The meaning of the word "appropriation" in that section was quite clear—it meant the application of the revenue; and if an order were sent out by the Secretary of State for the construction, for instance, of a railroad, on which money must, of course, be expended, he could not see how such an outlay could be regarded otherwise than as coming completely within the operation of the Act. Under these circumstances it was, he maintained, most desirable that the limitation of the powers of the Secretary of State should be defined with perfect precision, while the present furnished a favourable opportunity for the purpose.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the noble and learned Lord who had raised this question had done so in a very definite and clear manner; and he quite concurred with him in the opinion that their Lordships were asked to deal with it under circumstances of peculiar advantage, inasmuch as there was not only no dispute at the present moment, but although there might have been some differences between the Secretary of State and the Council of India during the last ten years, there had not been a single instance in which any antagonism had been brought to the point of an absolute rupture. As for himself, he

  1835
  felt that he was placed in a false position in seeming to attack the powers of the Council, whereas his desire was to uphold those powers. In bringing in a Bill respecting the government of India he did not propose to alter the existing law; and, in taking that course, he was but following the example of his predecessor in Office; for he had some reason to believe that, although Sir Stafford North-cote wished to settle the question more immediately before the House, he found it beset with so many difficulties of detail that he declined, in the Bill which he brought in—with, no doubt, the advice and concurrence of the noble and learned Lord—to deal with it. The present Government, having duly considered the subject, came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the decision at which Sir Stafford Northcote had arrived, was a wise one. During the ten years the existing law had been in operation the largest and most important questions connected with expenditure in India had been brought under the consideration of the Secretary of State and his Council; there had been expensive wars, and the construction of great public works, involving a great outlay of money, and charges of every sort and kind, and yet during those ten years, no hitch or difficulty had been felt by the Secretary of State or the Council with regard to their respective powers. He should not, he might add, have dreamt of mentioning the subject had not an appeal been made to him by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), whose position went beyond that which he understood the noble and learned Lord to take up, because the noble Marquess appeared to be of opinion that the Council had the power of exercising an absolute veto in all questions involving expenditure. Now, first and foremost, came the question of peace and war—war having been the greatest cause of expenditure in India; and he did not believe that any member of the Council had ever dreamed of the power of the Council to veto any measure of the Secretary of State upon questions of that kind by the votes of a majority; and this furnished one test of the incorrectness of the interpretation which the noble Marquess had put upon the law. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) had expressed his belief that the Secretary of State could not declare war
  1836
  without the consent of the majority of the Council. [Lord CAIRNS was understood to say that he did not withdraw his opinion.] If the noble and learned Lord gave up the application of this principle to the declaration of peace and war he gave it up altogether. [Lord. CAIRNS was understood to remark that it was not likely that the Secretary of State would order the Governor General to declare war without having consulted his Council.] Would the noble and learned Lord venture to say it was not in the power of the Imperial Government to order Lord Mayo to despatch troops to the frontier of Afghanistan, on the threat of an invasion, without consulting the Council? He maintained that such an order could be issued by the Imperial Government, and that it would be incumbent on the Government of India to obey it, while the majority of the Council at home could not disallow a single rupee of the expenditure thereby incurred. He agreed, however, with the. noble and learned Lord that, although the Imperial Government ought to be supreme, it would be the duty of any Secretary of State to take the opinion of the experienced men by whom he was surrounded. Then, as to the words of the Act, it might be contended by legal Members of that House that they should be interpreted very strictly; but he maintained that the intention of the Legislature in these words must be interpreted in consistency with other portions of the same statute and with the whole proceedings of Parliament when it was passed. Now, on referring to the Resolutions passed in the House of Commons, on which the Bill for the government of India was afterwards based, the first Resolution laid down absolutely the expediency of transferring to the responsible advisers of the Crown all the powers which formerly existed both in the Court of Directors and in the Board of Control; and the second Resolution went on to say that it was for assisting the Secretary of State in his duties that the Council was appointed. Now, he wished to point out that the effect of the Bill as it originally stood, and as it was drawn up by Lord Derby's Government, was to place at the absolute disposal of the Secretary of State the whole revenues of India, both in India and England, without any restraint or control whatever. His right hon. Friend the late Sir James

  1837
  Graham immediately hit the blot, and raised an objection on that point. His right hon. Friend, however, did not complain that the Bill did not restrain the Secretary of State in such great matters as peace and war, but remarked that the measure would give him the uncontrolled power of pensioning any number of persons both in India and England. His noble Friend (Lord Lyveden), who was then in the House of Commons, said he was sure the Committee would think there ought to be some check in this respect on the Secretary for India, who would otherwise possess the most enormous power ever given to any Minister. The clause as it stood (he added) would enable the Secretary of State to distribute the revenues of India among his own political creatures. That remark of Sir James Graham was perfectly correct. Under the former system the Secretary of the Board of Control could not spend a single shilling in England without the consent of the Court of Directors; and it was to obviate that objection that the 41st clause was brought in—and in his opinion most properly—by Lord Stanley. It would not have been right, and it would not be right now, to place an uncontrolled power in any Secretary of State, or in any Government, of disposing of £50,000,000 of revenue. Before the Secretary of State disposed by direct appropriations of such an enormous revenue he ought to consult his Council, and to obtain at least eight votes out of the fifteen. That was the aim and object of all the objections made to the Bill as it originally stood, and it was in order to obviate these objections that the new clause was brought in. If it were the intention of the Government of Lord Derby to go beyond that, and to prevent the Secretary of State and Parliament from deciding the great question of peace or war, they committed a great blunder in acting as they did. With regard to the word "appropriation," used in the Act, he was willing to put the most literal interpretation upon it; but he would ask whether, if it was the intention of Parliament to limit the power of the Secretary of State in the way now contended for by the noble and learned Lord, anything could have been easier than for them to say so, and enact a provision that it should not be lawful for the Secretary of State to order any service in India that would cost money
  1838
  without the consent of his Council. In point of fact, however, they did nothing of the kind. But the noble and learned Lord opposite, and others, might, perhaps ask—"If the Council of India had not this power, what could it veto in regard to expenditure?" He (the Duke of Argyll) believed it had powers very grave and important, and he could mention two or three instances to illustrate the range of these duties, and to show what, in his opinion, was the meaning and intention of Parliament. Take the case of the subsidy recently granted to the Ameer of Cabul. That had a great political object. He apprehended that under the Act of Parliament, as it stood, it would not have been competent to Sir Stafford Northcote to order that appropriation without the consent of his Council; but, as it happened, the order was not given by the Home Government; his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) gave the subsidy on his own responsibility, and, the money having been paid, it was not in the power of the Council without the consent of the Secretary of State to veto that act. Then there was another case that showed the important and valuable power which, according to his interpretation of the Act, was left in the hands of the Council. The other day his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) adopted a measure involving expenditure and an appropriation of money. He desired to bring natives of India to this country in order that they might enter the Civil Service under more favourable conditions than hitherto. Accordingly his noble Friend proposed that scholarships of £200 or £300 a year should be given to certain young men in India, and that the gainers of those scholarships should be brought over hero to undergo the competitive examination for the Civil Service. That involved questions of expenditure and of principle. It came before the Council of India, where the principle of the appropriation underwent much discussion; but it would not have been in his power nor in the power of Sir Stafford Northcote to order the Government of India to appropriate moneys for such a purpose. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) had carefully avoided all reference to military expenditure, and he would therefore take as a further illustration a case respecting great public works. The public works of India, such as the

  1839
  great Ganges Canal and the railways now being constructed, involved the payment of large sums, which could not be obtained from the ordinary resources of India—great loans must be raised for the purpose of defraying that expenditure; and, under the existing law again, he apprehended it would not be competent for the Secretary of State to saddle the revenues of India with that expenditure, unless he obtained the consent of a majority of the Council. This was a most important check, which, if his interpretation of the terms of the Act was correct, was left in the hands of the Council. He would mention another case by way of illustration. Some years ago it was determined to abolish the local navy in India. Many members of the Council thought at the time, and he believed still thought, that that was an unwise measure. At this moment he was in communication with the Admiralty for the purpose of adjusting the cost of particular squadrons which might be set aside for the service of the Indian Government—one, for example, in the Persian Gulf. Now, he said, it would be a most monstrous proposition to enable a member of any Cabinet to saddle the revenues of India with an unlimited expenditure for Imperial purposes without bringing it before his Council, and having the support of a majority of that Council in regard to it. That was another case in point. He said it was perfectly right, before the Secretary of State saddled the Government of India with any amount of expenditure for such purposes as those, that he should have to go to the eminent and experienced men by whom he was surrounded and say to them—"Do you think this a purpose which is fit to be charged on the India revenue?" And that if the majority of the Council answered "No," the only recourse the Secretary of State should have would be to appeal to the Government and to Parliament, with whom the final decision in such a case must unquestionably lie. He thought he had shown, then, that the interpretation he put on the words of the Act of Parliament was consistent with the whole stream of statutes since the days of Mr. Pitt—consistent with the objections which were made to the Bill of 1858, as it was brought in by Lord Derby's Government; consistent with
  1840
  the purpose that that Government avowed of obviating those objections; consistent, finally, with leaving in the hands of the Indian Council a real and most important power in financial matters. And he for one, as at present advised, was not disposed to ask Parliament to lower the authority or diminish the power which that Council had in these matters. He must entreat their Lordships to remember that they must look at these things to a certain extent as they were viewed in India; and he believed that nothing would be more unpopular in India than to lay clown the doctrine that the Secretary of State had the sole power and authority, without any check—except the check of Parliament—which must necessarily be very imperfect; because the details of Indian administration were not noticed in Parliament, although they might involve millions and millions of money. He said it was not expedient in the eyes of the people of India that the power should exist of saddling them with any amount of expenditure on the sole authority of one Member of the Government, without some assurance that the matter should be fully and fairly considered by men thoroughly acquainted with the affairs of India—men who had the interests of that country sincerely at heart, and whose duty it was to defend those interests. On these grounds he was not prepared to jump at the proposition of the noble and learned Lord opposite, which imposed on the Government the duty of changing the law in respect to a point as to which no proved inconvenience had been shown. [Lord CAIRNS made a remark which was not heard.] Was he really to understand from the noble and learned Lord that Sir Stafford Northcote believed that he and the Government of the Queen could not in the extremest emergency declare war or move the troops to the frontier without consent of the Council? [Lord CAIRNS said, that was not the question.] He had asked the noble and learned Lord if he applied his doctrine to the ease of peace or war; and being driven logically in a corner, he said—"Yes, I do." And now, when asked whether the late Government would not have been able to order the Governor-General to move the troops to the of Affghanistan, even to resist a Russian frontier invasion, without the assent of a majority of the Council, the noble

  1841
  and learned Lord said that was not the question.
  LORD CAIRNSwas understood to say his opinion certainly was that the Secretary of State could not, oven in the event of an invasion, order the movement of troops or do any act that would cost money, without the consent of his Council.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, until he found that doctrine actually laid down in a judicial manner he declined to accept it. An observation had once fallen from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the solitude of the Secretary of State in regard to the administration of Indian affairs. That observation was perfectly correct. All the other great Departments of the Government were so fully occupied that, in respect to the details of Indian administration, the Secretary of State could not practically be assisted by them, but was obliged to rely upon his Council, and it was a matter of the first importance that the position of the Council should be a high and a strong one. He did not wish its power to be so extensive as the noble and learned Lord seemed to think it was; but as applicable to the important cases to which he believed it did extend, it was a power which he was not pre-pared to see taken away or diminished.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the discussion in which they were engaged partook somewhat of an Irish character. They were disputing whether there was a dispute, and doubting whether there was a doubt. He confessed that, after listening to the speeches of the two Cabinet Ministers, he did not see that the difficulties originally suggested by Ms noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had been in any degree removed. His own belief had been that the Secretary of State for India had no power to pledge the Government of India to the expenditure of a farthing without the sanction of a majority of his Council. He did not mean to say that j he could not give orders for particular services to be performed; but that, without the assent of a majority of his Council, he could not pledge the Indian Government to pay for them. His position was precisely analogous to that of the Crown at home—the Crown had the right to declare war, but the supplies must be granted by the House of Commons. He confessed that he was ab-
  1842
  solutely unable to draw from what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack what the law of the the matter was. That noble and learned Lord should remember that it was not an acute lawyer but an ordinary layman who had to discharge the functions of Secretary of State, and that the law ought to be made as dear as possible for his guidance As far as he could understand the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the law amounted to this this—that the Secretary of State might order troops to go to the frontier, which would cost money, but that he might not order the construction of a railway, which would also cost money; and the distinction which he understood the noble and learned Lord to draw between the two cases was that the one involved a matter of high policy and the other did not. [The LORD CHANCELLOR said the noble Marquess had entirely misunderstood his meaning.] Surely it was some proof that the state of the law was doubtful when so distinguished a lawyer as the noble and learned Lord could not explain to the comprehension of an ordinary layman like himself what the law to be carried out really was. The view of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was plain enough, although strange—namely, that the Secretary of State could not spend money in certain cases without the sanction of his Council, but that the Governor General could. That might be the state of the law; but if so, it was open to this difficulty—that under the mask of the Governor General the Secretary of State might walk round the Act of Parliament. He could not conceive that it was the idea of the noble Duke that the Governor General's independent powers were to be put forward whenever the Secretary of State wished to act without the concurrence of his Council. He was not there, however, to enforce his own interpretation of the law—he only desired to add his own opinion, to that of others who had spoken, that the present state of things was not such as to make a declaratory Act un-advisable. He had risen chiefly to add his entreaties to those already addressed to the noble Duke to consider whether the present state of things was not such as to make some declaratory enactment desirable. He did not ask him to change the law; he quite concurred in the absolute necessity of some control and a

  1843
  great deal of advice to support the Secretary of State in the difficult duties which he had to perform; but, above all, it was imperatively necessary, where such vast interests were at stake and where so many jealousies might be aroused, that the law should be unmistakeably clear. And when the noble Duke told them there was no doubt about the law, he maintained that about the doubtfulness of the law there could be no doubt whatever When the Lord Chancellor said a thing was black and two ex-Chancellors said it was white, there must certainly be some doubt about the law, and all the eloquence of the noble Duke would not persuade him to the contrary. If the Secretary for India should order an expenditure which the statute forbade, his impression was that the Secretary for India would be liable for that expenditure; and the noble Duke would hardly feel comfortable if he had made two or three mistakes of that kind, and had to pay for them. It was the greatest mistake not to provide proper shelter for oneself because at present there was fine weather. The present Council of India was appointed under unusual circumstances, its Members were selected with great care, and they were all men of very great discretion and ability. But could their Lordships be certain that the same discretion would be always exercised, and that the same harmony which had existed hitherto would continue to prevail hereafter? He submitted that the present state of the law was not satisfactory, and all he asked was to have some words introduced of a declaratory kind, which would remove all difficulty on the subject.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that it was with great regret he had heard this question raised. No practical difficulty had ever arisen. During the six years that he had the honour of being Secretary for India no difficulty of the kind had occurred. He never had proposed anything of consequence to which his Council objected, nor did he remember that there was ever a difference between himself and the great majority of the Council in any matter whatever involving expenditure. He confessed, therefore, that his attention had never been directed to the precise meaning of the words of the statute until the noble Marquess opposite raised the question. He had taken
  1844
  part, as his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) had stated, in the debate in the House of Commons in which the clause originated, and his noble Friend had correctly quoted what he then said with respect to salaries and Indian expenditure. The Bill of the Government of Lord Derby was introduced without any check on the power of the Secretary of State to order expenditure; but almost all the House of Commons were perfectly agreed that there should be some limit on the power of the Secretary of State. His noble Friend who sat near him (Lord Lyveden) very truly said in that debate that, if the Secretary for India were without any check at all, it would be giving him the most enormous power which was ever given to a Minister of the Crown, and many Members protested most strongly against such an unlimited power being given. Sir George Lewis, Sir James Graham, and Sir Francis Baring all pointed out that whatever check existed under the old law, as framed by Mr. Pitt, was swept away entirely by the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley). The noble and learned Lord had said that Lord Palmerston's Bill proposed that there should be no increase of expenditure at all without the consent of four members of the Council, but that number, with the President, constituted, according to his Bill, a majority of the Council. The words of his noble Friend's Bill were "no grant of money," and the words of the present Act were "no grant or appropriation." It was from the interpretation of that word "appropriation" that the whole difficulty had arisen. There was no question that the Secretary of State could not order without the consent of the majority of his Council any grant of money, subsidy, or anything of that kind; but he did not conceive that he was prohibited by the clause from ordering services which would entail expense. That would limit the power of the Secretary of State beyond what was desirable. Of course there must be a limit somewhere; but he thought it would be practically impossible to define, with the precision required in Acts of Parliament, what services might, and what might not, be ordered without the sanction of a majority of the members of Council present. He would say, their Lordships would find it uncommonly difficult to draw such a strict definition

  1845
  as to say what the Secretary for India might and what he might not order. He believed the noble and learned Lord opposite, acute and ingenious as he was, would find it very difficult to draw up such a clause that not only an acute lawyer but, as the noble Marquess had said, an ordinary layman might understand what things might be done by the Secretary for India on the one side, and what should be subject to the check of the Council on the other. There must be some exercise of common sense and common discretion in all these cases. Independent powers could not be exercised to their extreme limit. Everybody knew the powers of the two Houses of Parliament; and yet if they were exerted to the utmost, or even if the rights of individual. Members were exercised to the utmost, it would be impossible that Public Business could be carried on. Was it likely that such men as constituted the Council—and he did not believe that they would find any difficulty hereafter in finding men of very much the same character—would be likely without reason or any good cause to oppose the Secretary of State in anything he might think desirable, or that the Secretary of State would urge anything to which they might entertain serious objection. Was it likely that men who had administered districts as large as half-a-dozen counties together would do anything which the Secretary of State might think unreasonable? He confessed he entertained no such fear. As he had said before, he was as strongly in favour as anyone could be of maintaining the position of the Council in all respects, and he quite agreed with those who held that if there was to be any check upon the Secretary of State it must be in the Council. He agreed with the course Sir Stafford Northcote had taken, and which had been followed by the noble Duke in the present Bill, and he thought rightly. Whatever Sir Stafford Northcote's opinion was as to the powers of the Council or the Secretary of State, he did not think it expedient to bring in a Bill to alter the clause as it stood. It was immaterial to his argument whether Sir Stafford Northcote thought the Council or the Secretary of State supreme, for at all events he thought it expedient to leave the clause unchanged. That was the course which the noble Duke had also taken, and which he (Lord
  1846
  Halifax) thought was the vise and proper course.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  MILITIA BILL—(No. 76.)—COMMITTEE.
  (The Lord Northbrook.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he understood one of the objects of this Bill was to give greater scope to the arrangements with respect to the Militia which had acted so beneficially—namely, placing them in the camp under general officers. He hoped that would be extended wherever practicable, for he was convinced of the necessity of doing everything possible to render the Militia more effective. As to the next point, that relating to officers of the Line and the Militia, he quite approved the provisions of the Bill; but he hoped the measure would be temporary, because he thought the deficiency of officers in Militia regiments was becoming very serious. The Government had done quite right in giving inducements to gentlemen to join the Militia, by the allowance of 4s. a day and honorary rank after a certain number of years' service; but he feared that eventually something further might be necessary to secure that object in the way of giving commissions in the Line, as was done during the Crimean War. Retirement upon half - pay he looked upon as an undoubted been and privilege, and he never had been able to understand why some quid pro quo should not be given, by officers placed upon half-pay in the shape of service with the Reserve Forces. If an additional number of men were to be raised he considered that the Militia regiments ought to be recruited up to their full quota; mere economy upon this point could hardly be regarded as productive of efficiency.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETERsaid, that the system of raising men known as General Peel's was not as destructive of the efficient organization of Militia regiments as the plan of volunteering into the Line adopted during the war. He was quite aware of the difficulty of obtaining efficient officers for the Militia. He regarded the proposal to do away

  1847
  with the property qualification of Militia officers as unwise, and injurious in its probable effect; and should be glad if that clause were erased from the Bill. The retiring pension of Militia adjutants, only 6s. a day, after, perhaps, forty years' service in the Line and the Militia, was too small; and an increase in the amount would not only, he suggested, be an act of justice to meritorious officers, but one which, by promoting retirements, would tend to increase the efficiency of the service.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKthought that care would have to be taken lest by mixing up two distinct classes of officers some confusion should arise. As regarded the appointment of subalterns, it was quite necessary that something should be done; but it must be borne in mind that slowness of promotion in a local service was a standing difficulty in the way of obtaining the class of officers they desired.
  House in Committee.
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, that the necessity for the 1st clause, giving power to place the Militia under the command of general officers of the Army, was generally admitted. The 2nd clause was intended to allow of the employment of officers of the Line in training the Militia, but he thought it would practically be found inexpedient to employ any officer for that purpose higher in rank than lieutenant. The 3rd clause abolished the property qualification for Militia officers, which, he thought, might safely be got rid of. The position of adjutants was under consideration. He believed that, in spite of express regulations to the contrary, adjutants frequently paid money for their appointments, but the Secretary for War had it under his consideration how best to put an end to that practice.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 83.)

  RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL, &C. SOCIETIES INCORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to facilitate the incorporation of Religions, Educational, Literary, Scientific, and other Charitable Societies or Bodies, and the enrolment of certain Charitable Trust Deeds—Was presented by The Lord ROMILLT; read 1a. (No. 81.)
  CHILDREN, &C. PROTECTION BILL [H.L.], (NO. 84.) A Bill for the better protection of Children, Servants, and Apprentices: And also
  VACCINATION AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.], (NO. 85.) A Bill to further amend the practice of Vaccination:
  Were severally presented by The Marquess TOWNSHEND; read 1a.
  METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.], (NO. 86.) A Bill to amend the Metropolis Local Management Acts: And also,
  METROPOLITAN REGULATIONS BILL [H.L.], (NO. 87.) A Bill to provide Regulations for the government of the Metropolis in certain matters:
  Were severally presented by The Marquess TOWNSHEND; read 1a.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL [H.L.], (NO. 88.) A Bill to make further provision for the Education of Children: And also,
  INFANT LIFE PRESERVATION BILL [H.L.], (NO. 89.) A Bill to provide for the better preservation of Infant Life: Were severally presented by The Marquess TOWNSHEND; read la.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.