Sitting of 18 July 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Public Departments (Purchases, &c.)[No. 311]; Locomotives on Roads [No. 312]; Coal [No. 313].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* [244].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Rating (Liability and Value) (re-comm.) [205–250].
Considered as amended—Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* [229].
Withdrawn—Valuation * [147].
The House met at Two of the clock.

CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL—ALLEGED "PILGRIMAGE."—QUESTIONS.
MR. WHALLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the recent pilgrimage of Roman Catholics to the tomb of Saint Thomas à Becket, Whether he is aware that the Reverend A. J. Christie, a Jesuit Priest, was permitted to have the exclusive use of Canterbury Cathedral while lecturing, for above an hour to a large concourse of pilgrims in eulogy of the abbots, monks, and priests of old who built and were connected with that Cathedral, and in disparagement of the Protestant Reformation; and, whether he deems it expedient that any and what steps should be taken to prevent the recurrence of such proceedings?
MR. GLADSTONE: I need hardly observe, Sir, that I have no authority which enables me to give to my hon. Friend any account of the proceedings which occurred in Canterbury Cathedral on the occasion in question; but as an old College friend of mine has been canon of that Cathedral for some 30 years, I wrote to him, and mentioned this Question, and said if he gave me any information I should be happy to communicate it to my hon. Friend. Well, Sir, after a careful perusal of my friend's letter in reply I have arrived at the conclusion that, as far as I can see, there are only two suspicious circumstances connected with the case. One is, that a body of Roman Catholics did visit the Cathedral of Canterbury upon a day which seems to be in some manner connected with the memory of St. Thomas a Becket; and the other is, Sir, the colour of the paper which they issued, containing the announcement of the projected visit, and which seems to have some mysterious connection with his martyrdom. [Laughter.] In all other respects I think my hon. Friend will consider my answer satisfactory. The facts are these:—In the first place, there was no "pilgrimage." A local paper referred to this visit as a "pilgrimage," but the Roman Catholic priest of the congregation which exists at Canterbury put a letter into that paper stating that it was simply a visit of pleasure and not a religious ceremonial. Then as regards the conduct of the Dean
604
and Chapter, I am not aware, and I have not been informed, that there was any exclusive use of Canterbury Cathedral. The gentlemen to whom my hon. Friend refers very judiciously paid their visit during the hours when the Cathedral is open to the public, and. they, of course, were not excluded. There is no limitation as to the particular number of persons, and I hope there never will be, who may enter our cathedrals; and they went—and I cannot blame them for it, under the guidance of a gentleman, who it appears is a Priest, and has made himself thoroughly conversant with the history of a great deal of the extremely interesting matter that is connected with that great metropolitan church. But I am told they behaved themselves in a most unexceptionable manner; they made no assumptions whatever. They endeavoured apparently to get what they could from the lecture of Mr. Christie, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would think them quite right, as he himself shows great interest in obtaining information in this House. I am told there was nothing whatever in the conduct of the visitors, nor, as far as my informant knows, in their language which could give offence to anyone. I hope that, upon the whole, is a pretty satisfactory account of the matter. My hon. Friend asks me whether any steps will be taken hereafter to prevent the recurrence of such proceedings. I can only understand two modes of preventing the recurrence of such proceedings, one is to shut the cathedrals against the public. But as one of the great triumphs, as I may call it, in a small way that has been achieved in recent times is, that whereas the cathedrals used to be shut against the public, they are now thrown open free of fee or cost of any kind, except where much inspection of valuable monuments-may be required, for whose safety it may be requisite to levy a small fee, I think it would be a very great pity to reverse that practice. The other mode would be to administer a religious test, which I do not think would be satisfactory, and I doubt whether it would be effectual. Moreover, there is very great reason for doubting it; for although many Roman Catholics belonged to this party, yet I believe it is a fact that a considerable number of Protestants also were so injudicious as to be anxious to be present and themselves

605
take advantage of the lecture. I wish, at all events, to appear not disinclined to give my hon. Friend the information he asks for.
MR. WHALLEY: I am extremely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he will allow me to ask him this Question—Do I understand that I, who take a great interest in St. Thomas á Becket, might be allowed to address a number of persons in Canterbury Cathedral?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have no authority in Canterbury Cathedral; but I have no doubt, if my hon. Friend likes to issue an advertisement of this character—to have a party come down and give them the same kind of useful information as that which appears to have been given on this occasion—that he would receive the same courtesy and kindness which they received, and which I believe is afforded to all who visit that Cathedral.

IRISH LAND ACT.—QUESTION.
MAJOR TRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has, under the sixty-third section of the Irish Land Act of 1870, directed any and what sums to be paid to the clerks of the peace for the additional duties imposed upon them by that Act; and, if so, whether he can state how soon the issue of the additional salaries to those officers will be authorized, and what has been the cause of the delay in approving of them?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, the question with respect to the remuneration of clerks of the peace for additional duties imposed on them by the Act had been answered yesterday.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—RULES AND PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. HERMONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the fact that the House could not be made till one o'clock on Wednesday last, it is the intention of the Government to appropriate the remaining Wednesdays of the Session for the despatch of Government Business?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we are very desirous, and I believe it would be for
  606
  the convenience of the House, to obtain as large a portion of time as possible for Public Business during the remainder of the Session. At the same time, that must be clone within the rules and precedents which I find are applicable to cases of this kind. It has been usual to ask the House to give up Tuesday evenings to the Government about three weeks before the termination of the Session, and as I hope the Session will terminate within three weeks or somewhat less from the present time, it would not be unreasonable to ask the House for the remaining Tuesday evenings. There is, however, on the Notice Paper a Motion for Tuesday evening of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), who intends to ask the House to agree to a very important question with respect to the distribution of seats and matters connected therewith. That may constitute a reason why we should not ask for that particular evening; but my impression is that, on the whole, viewing the period of the Session, the House would not be disposed to entertain it, or think it a practical proposal at the present time, particularly as a Bill stands for Wednesday which has stood on the Paper for several months, which should be discussed, and the discussion of which will give my hon. Friend the opportunity of advancing all he wishes on the question. If, however, my hon. Friend wishes to bring it on, of course he will be at liberty to do so; but the Government must meet the Motion with a direct negative. I do not think, then, it would be quite fair to ask for next Wednesday, because it would not be quite conformable to usage, and I do not wish to go beyond usage. The practice appears only to have been to ask for the very last Wednesday in the Session. I hope the hon. Member will approve that method of proceeding. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton is out of town; but after this public intimation, I shall probably give Notice on Monday that on each remaining Tuesday evening Government Orders have precedence.
  In reply to Mr. R. N. FOWLER,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the prospects of the Session would justify the Government in asking that Wednesday, the 30th of July, should be given to Government Business.

THE VALUATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. ASSHETON CROSS,
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was reluctantly obliged to withdraw the Valuation Bill, in consequence of the advanced period of the Session.

  METROPOLIS—BETHNAL GREEN MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it be intended immediately, or if not immediately, when, to put the land within the iron railing now surrounding the Museum at Bethnal Green into proper order?
  MR. AYRTON,in reply, said, that instructions had for some time been given to lay down the piece of land within the railings of the Museum with turf, and he hoped it would soon be done.

  IRELAND—THE LETTER-MULLEN COASTGUARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he can now give the House an explanation of the circumstances attending the arrest and imprisonment for eight days of John Larkin, one of the chief witnesses against the coastguard in the Lettermullen shooting case; and, whether the Government is aware that this man was imprisoned on the charge of perjury upon the sole testimony of the person already awaiting his trial for manslaughter, and at a time when Larkin had voluntarily visited Galway for the purpose of obtaining his salvage money, thirty miles from where the inquest had been held, at which the accused person said Larkin had perjured himself?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had received a report on the subject from Mr. Hill, the resident magistrate in Galway, and he did not think he could answer the hon. Member's question more briefly than by reading an extract from that report. Mr. Hill stated that John Larkin was brought before him charged with being drunk and disorderly in the public streets of Galway, and was fined 5s. and costs, or in default, seven days' imprisonment. Immediately after his conviction for the above offence, Lieutenant Drew, of the
  608
  Royal Navy, tendered an information, in which he charged Larkin with having committed willful and corrupt perjury at the coroner's inquest, and added that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Larkin was about to leave the country, and upon that information, tendered in open Court, he (Mr. Hill) considered it his duty to remand Larkin to the next petty sessions, but he subsequently went to the gaol and informed Larkin that he was ready at any time to take ordinary bail for his appearance. No one appeared to bail him, and when he was brought up on the remand warrant eight days after, he got one man to enter as security for his appearance at the petty sessions, and he was forth with discharged. Having appeared at the petty sessions, he was fully committed for trial at the next Galway Assizes for willful and corrupt perjury, bail being offered and accepted for his appearance. He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not know that there was anything in that statement absolutely inconsistent with that contained in the question of the hon. Member; but he was unable to perceive that the resident magistrate, under the circumstances, could have acted otherwise than he did. He trusted that pending the trial, which would take place next week, there would be no further discussion on this subject.

ARMY—ROYAL MARINES AND ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. HENRY SAMUELSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to his statement of June 30th, that—
  "A proposal to grant the identical promotion to the Royal Marine Artillery which had been granted to the Royal Artillery had never been placed before the Admiralty, and, therefore, he never had an opportunity of consenting or refusing,"
  Whether Petitions or Memoranda were not received by the Admiralty in 1872 from the Senior First Captains serving (1) at Head Quarters, (2) in the Channel Fleet, and (3) in the Mediterranean, praying for the same promotion which had been granted to First Captains in the Royal Artillery; and if such Petitions were received, whether he has any objection to state what answers were given to them?
  MR. GOSCHEN,in reply, said, that Memorials were received from three First Captains serving at Head Quarters, in the Channel Fleet, and in the Mediterranean in the course of July, relative to the general position of the Royal Marine Corps. They were only individual Memorials, and dealt, not exclusively with the position of the Royal Marine Artillery, but generally with the position of the Royal Marine Corps; nor did they pray, as a practical remedy for the grievances complained of, the same promotion which had been granted to First Captains in the Royal Artillery. The answer given to them was, that proposals had been made to the War Office, in which the Admiralty endeavoured to remedy the position both of the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery and of the Light Infantry. But the officers themselves never suggested that any difference ought to be made in their position.
  MR. HENRY SAMUELSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true, as stated in the "Times" of the 7th July, that—
  "There is considerable discontent at present existing among the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery at the head Quarters of the Corps at Eastney, Portsmouth, at what they consider the unjust way they are treated for promotion in comparison with Officers of the Royal Artillery stationed in Portsmouth garrison. It is averred that many Officers of the Royal Artillery have been promoted to Majorities over the heads of Marine Artillery officers, where the latter have had very much greater length of service;"
  And, whether the allegation contained in the last sentence is a true one?
  MR. GOSCHEN,in reply, said, that all he could say on the subject was that he had received a Memorial from an Artillery officer at Eastney, Portsmouth, expressing dissatisfaction. No doubt, the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery felt dissatisfied at being superseded in certain cases by the officers of the Royal Artillery. The allegations of discontent were so far correct. On the other hand, as he had endeavoured heretofore to explain, the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery were never treated on different grounds in respect of promotion from those on which the officers of the Royal Marines and of the light Infantry were treated. If promotion were granted to the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery now in the same way as had been granted to officers of the Royal Artillery,
  610
  those officers would supersede the officers of the light Infantry, with long services, and in thus endeavouring to redress one grievance they would be establishing another. The Admiralty had applied to the War Office for the rank of major, both for the Royal Marines and the light Infantry, but the objection of the War Office was that such a concession would have the effect of superseding a large number of the officers of the Line. A compromise, however, was being effected which he trusted would give satisfaction to all parties concerned, and by it the Government had met the grievance as far as they could.

  RATING (LIABILITY AND VALUE) (recommitted) BILL— [BILL 205.]
  (Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Hibbert).
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause—
  (Valuation of land used as plantation, &c.)
  (The gross value of any land used for a plantation or a wood, or for the growth of saleable underwood, or for both such purposes, shall be estimated as follows:—

  (a.) If the land is used only for a plantation or a wood, the gross value shall be estimated as if the land were in its natural state, and let for agricultural or grazing purposes without any trees growing thereon;

  (b.) If the land is used only for the growth of saleable underwood, the gross value shall be estimated as if the land were let for that purpose;

  (c.) If the land is used for the growth of trees and of saleable underwood, the gross value shall be estimated either as if the land were used only for a plantation or wood, or as if the land were used only for the growth of the saleable underwood growing thereon, as the assessment committee may determine,)—(Mr. Stansfeld,)

  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  Amendment proposed, in sub-section (a.) line 3, to leave out the words "in its natural state."—(Mr. Goldsmid.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in its natural state' stand part of the clause."
  MR. STANSFELDexplained that the words of the sub-section would be taken in their natural sense, and in the case of laud used for a plantation or wood, the value of the land would be assessed simply as if the trees were not there.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL RUGGLES BRISEmoved, as an Amendment, in line 5, to insert after "natural" the words "or unimproved." He said if they were not inserted the clause would introduce a new principle into rating—namely, that you were not to be rated on what you have, but on what you ought to have. Many woodlands, indeed, would be rated at less than they were at present under the word "natural" only. What he and his hon. Friends complained of was, that land such as that alluded to was rated at its full value before any money was laid out upon its improvement. At the same time, there were many lands which, through long rest and the deposit of leaves, would, if cultivated, be as valuable as the lands by which they were surrounded; but the clause as it stood would require that these should be rated without any consideration for the outlay which would be required to bring the lands into a state of cultivation; and that suggested the question how far the principle was to be carried, and whether fens and marsh lands were to be assessed at that which might be made their value by a largo outlay.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "natural," to insert the words "or unimproved."—(Colonel Brise.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was not prepared to say whether the words proposed to be added would cover the difficulty. Upon consideration, however, he thought the words ought to be inserted. He would wish to see the right hon. Gentleman introduce into the measure some provision for making allowance for bringing the soil into cultivation, not that that would do away with all injustice, but it would render it less unjust. There would not be much difficulty in dealing with little bits of woods; but the clause would involve injustice in its application to large masses of woodland which could not be cultivated without large outlay for grubbing, farmhouses, and water supply, which in some cases there was great difficulty in procuring.
  MR. CLARE READthought the word "natural" might meet all the right hon. Gentleman had in view, because the assessment committee would have very little difficulty in arriving at a just conclusion by applying the word "natural" in its natural sense. That word would
  612
  give more information than the word "unimproved." Farm buildings were not natural improvements. Where there was woodland surrounded by arable land people were very likely to consider it of the same value as the land by which it was surrounded; whereas the one when the trees were removed was in its natural state, and the other in an improved condition. They therefore should not be rated on the same scale; and when the woodland came into cultivation, it was but reasonable that an allowance should be made for the capital to be invested, with the view of bringing about that result. But as the words proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend could do no harm, and might do some little good, he hoped the Government would accept them.
  MR. STANSFELDopposed the Amendment, and considered the word "natural," being a comparative expression, met all the difficulties of the case.
  MR. HERMON,in supporting the Amendment, suggested that it would be better to use the word "unreclaimed," as having reference to the great cost of clearing the land of stumps and roots when the timber was cut down.
  MR. HIBBERT,on the part of the Government, said, he would accept the Amendment.
  MR. CANDLISHcomplained that the time of the House should have been taken up in the discussion of a matter so trivial, and opposed the Amendment. He should press the matter to a division.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 21: Majority 133.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause—
  (Valuation and rating of rights of shooting, &c.)

  (1.)There any right of fowling, or of shooting, or of taking or killing game or rabbits is severed from the occupation of the soil and is not let, and the owner of such right receives rent for the land over which such right is exercised, the said right shall not (save as in this section mentioned) he separately valued or rated, but the gross value of the land shall be estimated as if such right were not severed, and the occupier of the land were entitled to exercise the same;

  613

  (2.) In the following cases, namely,—

  (a.)Where any right of fowling, or of shooting, or of taking or killing game or rabbits is let to some person who is not the occupier of the land over which such right is exercised, or

  (b.) Where the owner of any right of fowling, or of shooting, or of taking or killing game or rabbits severed from the occupation of the soil does not receive rent for the land over which the right is exercised,

  the owner of the right may be rated as the occupier thereof;

  (3) Where the rateable value of any land occupied under any lease or agreement existing at the commencement of this Act is increased by reason of the gross value of such land being estimated in pursuance of this Act as if the right of fowling or shooting, or taking or killing game or rabbits, were not severed from the occupation of such land, the occupier of such land shall be entitled during the continuance of such lease or agreement to deduct from any rent he may pay for such land, or to recover as a debt from the person to whom such rent is payable, the amount of any poor or other local rate payable by such occupier in respect of such increase of rateable value, and any payments so authorised to be deducted shall be a good discharge for such amount of rent as is equal to the amount of such payment, and shall be allowed accordingly;

  (4.) Every assessment committee, on the application of the occupier of any land who is authorised by this section to deduct any part of any rate, shall certify in the valuation list or otherwise the increase in the gross value and rateable value of such land by reason of the same being valued in pursuance of this section as if the right of fowling or of shooting, or of taking or killing game or rabbits were not severed from the occupation of such land;

  (5.) Where the occupier is authorised by this section to deduct from any rent any sum in respect of any increase of rate, the person receiving such rent shall have the same right of appeal and objection with reference to such rate and to the valuation of the hereditament in respect of which such rate is payable as he would have if he were the occupier of such hereditament;

  (6.) The owner of any right of fishing when severed from the occupation of the soil may be rated as the occupier thereof;

  (7.) For the purposes of this section the person who, if the right is not let, is entitled to exercise any right of fowling, of shooting, or of taking or killing game or rabbits, or of fishing when severed from the occupation of the soil, or who, if the right is let, is entitled to receive the rent for the same, shall be deemed to he the owner of such right,"—(Mr. Stansfeld,)

  —brought up,£ and read the first and second time.
  On Question? "That the Clause be added to the Bill,"
  MR. STAPLETONmoved, as an Amendment, in sub-section 2, division (b), after "exercised," to insert the
  614
  words "either the tenant or." His object was to ensure that where the owner of any right of shooting, &c., severed from the occupation of the soil did not receive rent for the land over which the right was exercised, either the tenant or the owner of the right might be rated as the occupier thereof.
  MR. MUNTZthought that there would be considerable difficulty in settling who was to pay the rent under the clause. In his opinion they should rate the shooting.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  MR. J. S. HARDYmoved, as an Amendment, in sub-section 3, line 1, after "land," to leave out "occupied under any lease or agreement existing at the commencement of this Act," and in line 6, after "entitled," to leave out "during the continuance of such lease or agreement." His wish was that not only during the existence of any lease or agreement, but also in the absence of any lease or agreement, the tenant-farmers should be entitled to deduct from the landlord on the next payment of rent the amount of rate paid in respect of the increase of rateable value caused by the gross value of the land being estimated as if the right of shooting, &c., were not severed from the occupation.
  MR. STANSFELDexpressed his willingness to accept the Amendment, on condition that words should be inserted with the view of making the arrangement subject to any future contract or agreement between the landlord and the tenant.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINthought the rate for game should be paid by the landlord, he therefore opposed the Amendment.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTfeared that such an Amendment would not be for the interest of the tenant, because it would lead to the re-valuation of estates and an increase of rents.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question? That the Clause be added to the Bill.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTprotested against the principle of the clause, and contended that all land should be assessed irrespective of the purposes for which it was used.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, new clauses (Rating of property occupied by local authority); (Saving of special enactments as to valuation); and (Repeal of 43 Eliz. c. 2, as to saleable underwood) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  MR. COLLINS,in rising to move a new clause, providing for exemptions from rating of public elementary schools said, he desired to put the non-board schools on the same footing as the board schools, and the elementary schools on the same footing as the ragged schools with respect to exemption from rating. If it were right to exempt Sunday and ragged schools, which were not a public necessity, the case in favour of public elementary schools was far stronger, because the State ordered the latter to exist, and their existence was a saving of the money of the ratepayers.
  Clause (Exemption from Rates of Public Elementary Schools,)—(Mr. Collins,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  On Question? That the clause be now read a second time,
  MR. J. G. TALBOT,who had on the Paper a new clause of a similar kind, supported the Motion. A great portion of the property of the country was exempt from taxation, such as places of worship and public roads, and therefore the only thing to be considered was, whether the exemption now proposed was a fair one. He contended that it was. Whatever the State required to exist must be considered a public necessity. The country could go on without hospitals; for if there were none, the man who could not be treated in his own home could go to the workhouse infirmary. But the law said that elementary schools must exist, and they should therefore be exempted from rates. If the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. C. Reed) were present, he (Mr. Talbot) would claim his vote on the ground that these public elementary schools were used as Sunday schools. There was no beneficial occupation; on the contrary, such schools were rather a source of loss to the managers. In some cases, the managers had to pay, not only a poor
  616
  rate and a highway rate, but a school board rate as well.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he wished to remind the House, that that was not a Bill to create exemptions, and such being the case, he maintained that the case of public elementary schools was entirely different from that of Sunday and ragged schools, which were exempt under the provisions of the Act of 1869; and the Bill merely allowed that exemption to continue. His hon. Friend, however, desired to extend the number of exemptions; but after the feeling expressed by the House in favour of rendering all property liable to rating, the Government could not consent to this proposal.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEdenied that the Bill did away with all exemptions. It did not remove the exemption of Sunday and ragged schools, which might be considered the luxuries and fancy articles of elementary education. That being so, it would be most unfair that the great class of schools which by the Act of 1870 had been elevated into the position of national institutions should be liable to rates. He could see no logic or consistency in the exemption of the less necessary institutions, and insisting on the rating of the more necessary.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that elementary schools were often the private property of the owners and conducted for their profit. It might be illogical to exempt Sunday and ragged schools; but the country had determined that they should be exempted. But if elementary schools should also be exempted, where were they to stop? There was no wish in the country for that unjust exemption, and he considered it mischievous and absurd.
  MR. DIMSDALEsaid, he thought that if Sunday schools, which were principally supported by Nonconformists, were exempted, and elementary schools, which were principally supported by Churchmen were not, an advantage would be given to Nonconformists which was denied to members of the Church of England.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that every public elementary school received a grant equal to half its expenditure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but Sunday schools and ragged schools did not receive a farthing.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, on the contrary, that many of such schools received no public money whatever. He believed the refusal of exemption in this case would increase the difficulty of passing the Bill.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that after all their labour, he feared the Bill had got plenty of anomalies, if not of injustices, in it, and those who wished it to have a chance in "another place" should be anxious not to send it up bristling with more anomalies than need be. In a matter of that kind, it would strike everyone as an anomaly that one class of schools should be rated and another free from rate. He could not see why ragged schools ought to be exempted and public elementary schools rated, more especially when it was considered that the latter were in 19 cases out of 20 used as Sunday schools, and therefore he should vote for the clause.
  MR. STANSFELDrose to say in the most unmistakable manner, that it was impossible for him to assent to the clause, and he was not tempted by the suggestion that by doing so he might facilitate the passage of the Bill in "another place." It was not necessary for him to satisfy the House that Sunday schools ought to be exempted in order to justify him in refusing the clause. When the Bill was introduced it contained a clause abolishing the permissive exemption of Sunday schools, but hon. Members knew that they were compelled in this instance to yield to superior force. There was all the difference between continuing a statutory exemption which already existed and creating another by a Bill the object of which was to abolish all exemptions.
  MR. REEDsaid, understanding that reference had been made to himself during his absence, he wished to explain that the object of the proposal which he made in 1870 was, that one-half the Sunday schools in the country should be placed on the same footing as the other half. All the Sunday schools attached to churches and chapels were previously exempt from rates, and a legal question having arisen with respect to the others, it became necessary to settle the matter by legislation. He did not come to the House to ask for exemption as a new thing in the case of Sunday schools.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 130: Majority 39.
  Clause 6 (Abolition of exemption of property used for local Government purposes).
  MR. CAWLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in line 40, to leave out from "otherwise" to end of clause. That qualification of the clause was surplusage, and the last three words were an invitation to the assessment committee to invent or imagine any purpose for which, in private hands, a building would command a high rental.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from the word "otherwise" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Cawley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the clause had been drafted by the best legal ability the Government could command, and he could not consent to any alteration. At best the words objected to were mere surplusage, and could do no harm.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsuggested that the omission of the last three words, "for any purpose," would meet the difficulty.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had no objection to the omission of the words "for any purpose," as verbal Amendments which he would at a later stage propose would, if adopted, secure that the object of the clause should be attained.
  MR. HENLEYwas glad the words were to be omitted, as, if they were surplusage, as he thought they were, their retention might lead in the carrying out of the Bill to mischievous results.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Amendment made by leaving out, at the end of the clause, the words ''for any purpose."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Payment of poor and other local rates for Government property, and scheme for defining and valuing the same).
  MR. CAWLEYmoved, as an Amendment, to omit lines 28 to 35, inclusive, containing words which provided that the acquisition, appropriation, and use

  619
  of Government hereditaments should be taken into consideration by the assessment committee in dealing with the rating of Government property.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, to leave out from the word "mentioned," to the word "together," in line 36.—(Mr. Cawley.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 42: Majority 105.
  MR. CLARE READhoped the Government would adopt some mode of rectifying an omission in the Bill with regard to the liability of a tenant to assessment in the case of timber. He had moved an Amendment on the subject which the Government were willing to accept, but through some oversight it had not been inserted in the amended Bill. He only asked in this case what was admitted in other cases—namely, that the tenant should be entitled to deduct any increase of rates arising out of the operation of the Bill from the landlord.
  MR. HENLEYhoped the Bill would be reprinted before the third reading.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, it was proposed to read the Bill a third time on Monday, and in the meantime it would be reprinted.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]
  And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MERCANTILE MARINE—LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.

  MOTION FOR A COMMISSION.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLErose to move—
  "That it is expedient that a Commission be appointed to inquire and report to the Board of Trade as to the practicability of stowing con-
  620
  veniently in Passenger Ships such a number of Refuge Boats or Rafts, or other insubmergible appliances, as may be sufficient in their aggregate capacity to receive all on board in the event of accidents to the ships."
  The right hon. Gentleman was addressing the House in support of his Motion, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000)* (222); Treasury Chest Fund * (217); Steam Threshing Machines (210).
Committee—Conveyancing (Scotland) (141–227).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No.3)* (166); Highland Schools (Scotland) * (205).
Report—Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) (Grand Juries)* (224).
Third Reading—Blackwater Bridge* (197); Public Works Loan Commissioners (School and Sanitary Loans)* (193); Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, Amendment (201), and passed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS— DENBIGH FREE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE BISHOP OF BANGORrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School and of the Blue Coat School Charity at Denbigh, in the county of Denbigh, North Wales. The school was in an altogether exceptional position, and ought not to be brought under the operation of the Act of 1869. This was a denominational school, and as such had received the annual Parliamentary grant, and therefore came under the exemption of the 19th clause. He understood that the Rector of Denbigh had applied for the necessary certificate from the Education Department, but he had not received it. The endowment possessed by these schools had hitherto extended the benefits of education over a very large population; but if the scheme of the Commissioners was approved of, the advantages would be taken from the poorer classes and transferred to the middle and well-to-do class. Another effect of the scheme of the Commissioners would be to sever the connection of the schools with the Church of England; but they were founded expressly in connection with that Church.
  Moved that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School and of the Blue Coat School Charity at Denbigh in the county of Denbigh, North Wales.—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that the legal advisers of the Endowed Schools Commissioners and those of the Education Department had given opinions against the claim of exemption from the operation of the 19th section of the Act which the opponents of the scheme had set up. It was not correct to say that these endowments were intended solely for the poor—it was distinctly stated that they were intended for the children of the labouring class and poorer tradesmen. What was intended by the Commissioners was to amalgamate these schools so as to make the several endowments belonging to them more serviceable than they could possibly be under the existing system. He denied that these schools were expressly Church of England schools. It was true that the boys had been sent to the National School, and that some of the funds had been applied to building the National School. But this he contended was a breach of trust, though not an intentional one, on the part of the Governors. There could be no doubt that the education of the poorer class of children at Denbigh would be provided for by the Elementary Education Act; and it was proposed by the aid of these endowments to provide the district with the means of higher education. The scheme had been much discussed in North Wales and had received general approval; and the town council of Denbigh were in its favour.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdenied that in considering any scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners either House of Parliament was bound by the precise words of the Act of 1869. If the terms of the Act were not properly carried out, there was an appeal to the Privy Council; but it was further provided—without limiting the grounds on which the House had to exercise its power—that either House should have power to see whether the Act was carried out in the spirit in which Parliament had passed it, or whether words and technicalities had been taken advantage of in order that the Act might be used in a way that had never been intended. What those who opposed this scheme complained of was the same as had been complained of in other and similar cases—not that the letter but that the spirit of the Act had been violated. The school with which it was now proposed to deal had hitherto been regarded as
  594
  a Church school—the fact that the Rector of Denbigh for the time being had been appointed by the founder an ex officio Trustee plainly indicated his intention that the school should be conducted as a Church school. The effect of the scheme of the Commissioners would be to hand it over to the Dissenters; and he submitted that it was not in accordance with the spirit of the Act of 1869, nor with any fair and honest dealing that a school which had hitherto belonged to the Church should be handed over to the Dissenters. If the Commissioners proposed to give over the school to the Dissenting Bodies, they ought openly to avow it, and discuss the question upon that basis. The Endowed Schools Act, however, was not passed with any such purpose, and he demurred to any scheme by which that object would be carried into effect. But the ground that attracted his sympathy most on the present occasion was the operation of the scheme in respect of the poor. It was said that elementary education in. Denbigh would be cared for under the Act of 1870, and that middle-class education would be promoted by this scheme. But this was an elementary school. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) said it was a school for the labouring class and poor tradesmen. He seemed to imagine that labourers and poor tradesmen were not proper subjects for an elementary school. Under the scheme it appeared that the tuition fees would amount to not less than 2s. 6d. per week, and not more than 5s. Such fees, he submitted, poor tradesmen would not be able to pay for the education of their children. The result therefore would be to throw the benefits of the endowment into the hands of the middle classes. The best way to encourage education was to treat educational endowments as sacred. Did they seriously believe that any man, anxious for a middle class or any other education, would give his money and alienate it from his family for ever if he knew that some generations hence it would be dissipated to suit the peculiar theories of the Lytteltons and the Robinsons of that day? There was another reason why this scheme should not be adopted. In a Bill now before the other House of Parliament it was provided that in the case of endowments under £100 a-year the Educational Department, and not

  595
  the Endowed Schools Commissioners, should deal with the endowment. The Government had accepted that policy—the endowment of this school was only £70 a-year—yet, while their Bill was still before Parliament, they introduced a scheme in direct contravention to their own policy. It seemed hard upon the Governors of the Denbigh schools that they should be punished only because they were a little too early to come under the provisions of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he did not dispute the proposition of his noble Friend opposite, that the reference of those schemes to both Houses of Parliament was with the view that each House might object if it thought that the spirit of the Act was not fairly carried out. He thought, however, that his noble Friend had entirely misunderstood the provisions of the Act of 1869, and the principles on which it was founded. He must deny that the foundation in this case was for elementary education, and also that the endowment was under £100 a-year. If his noble Friend would refer to the provisions made by the Founder, he would find that he intended his endowment for the benefit of the children of the labouring class and the poorer tradesmen, and he distinctly laid down that the children should be educated separately and not in a public school. He (the Marquess of Ripon) therefore contended that the Governors in applying these funds to elementary education and sending the children to national schools had been guilty of a distinct breach of trust. On a former occasion the Rector of Denbigh took a view the very opposite to that for which he now contended. In 1865, a grant was made to the Denbigh School by the Department of Education. It was then the rule that when there was an endowment for elementary education, the amount of the endowment was deducted from the grant. Well, the Department proposed to make a deduction in this instance; but the Rector met that proposition by the statement that the endowment was not connected with elementary education. The rev. gentleman's assertion was accepted in 1865, and up to the present time the managers had been receiving a grant of public money in consequence of the Rector's representation that the endowment was not connected with elementary educa-
  596
  tion. It was said that the scheme which their Lordships were asked to reject took advantages from the poor and handed them over to the middle-class; but he must point out that the scheme provided for exhibitions which were to be competed for in the public elementary schools of Denbigh. Was not this an effectual method of fostering and raising the education of the labouring class? The exhibitions would enable those who gained them to pass to schools of a higher class. By agreeing to this scheme an undoubted stimulus would be given to the educational power of this school, which would be greatly injured were their Lordships to accept the Motion of the right rev. Prelate.
  LORD CAIRNSremarked that the Bill now before the other House of Parliament—the Endowed Schools Act (1869) Amendment Bill—would exempt from the control of the Endowed Schools Commissioners all schools the aggregate educational endowments of which were less than £100 per annum. Seeing that the educational endowment of the present school only amounted to £70 per annum—for though its income as a charity amounted to £127 a-year, only £70 of that was applicable to the purposes of education—the establishment would undoubtedly come within that exemption if the Bill to which he referred had become law; and, in his opinion, it was unwise and unfair to allow the Commissioners to exercise with regard to this school a power which in a very few days would altogether cease. He had always protested against one of the views taken by the Endowed Schools Commissioners as being erroneous. The Commissioners seemed to consider that since the Elementary Education Act was passed—two years after their own appointment—they were entitled to take up that Act and say that now that Parliament had provided for the elementary education of the country, they must direct their efforts to devoting educational endowments to middle-class education, inasmuch as the rates levied under the Act would provide for primary education. But this was an entire perversion of the spirit and intent of Parliament in passing the Elementary Education Act. What they intended by that was, not that it should be exhaustive with regard to the primary education of the country, but that it should fill up any vacancies in that

  597
  education wherever it might be found. The Endowed Schools Commissioners went upon the reverse principle, and sought to increase the vacancies by applying endowments intended for elementary education to the purposes of middle class education. This, he ventured to say, was a breach of faith towards Parliament and the country. For these reasons he should support the Motion for the Address.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 68; Not-Contents 46; Majority 22.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS— HEATH FREE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School of Queen Elizabeth at Heath, in the borough of Halifax, in the county of York, and of all the endowments thereof. The only question at issue in this matter was whether this school was or was not a Church of England school. The school was founded by the Vicar of Halifax in 1584, by a patent from Queen Elizabeth, under which the Archbishop of York was to have the power of making statutes for the management of the school. The school had been, since its foundation, a Church of England school on the strictest principles. As often as it had been dealt with by the Court of Chancery the consent of that Prelate had always been obtained, and its scholars had always up to the present time received a religious education according to the doctrine of the Church of England. To all intents and purposes, therefore, it had been a Church of England school. But the Endowed Schools Commissioners had refused to recognize that character in the constitution of the new trust. The Vicar was no longer, as all his predecessors had been, one of the ex officio members of the Governing Body—the Archbishop of York disappeared; and, in fact, the school was filched altogether from the Church of England, and handed over to the chances
  598
  of management and co-optative governorship. He thought this scheme ought to be set aside.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School of Queen Elizabeth at Heath in the borough of Halifax in the county of York, and of all the endowments thereof.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONwas understood to say that the Archbishop of York offered no opposition to the scheme of the Commissioners. Neither by the will of the Founder, nor according to the scheme settled by the Court of Chancery in the reign of George II., was the Vicar of Halifax constituted an ex officio member of the Governing Body, and he had never been one of that body except as an elected member. There was no desire to deprive the Vicar of his position, and by the present scheme not only the present Vicar, but every one of the existing Governors, was placed upon the Governing Body. Therefore he did not think the scheme was fairly open to the objection of the noble Marquess. There appeared to be a disinclination on the part of the Governing Body of this school to have an interview with the officials of Education Department for the purpose of discussing its condition with reference to the provisions of the Endowed Schools Act. He regretted that the noble Marquess should have thought it his duty to propose this Motion, when no complaint had been made with reference to the new plan for the government of this school either to Mr. Forster or to himself.
  After a short discussion, in which Lord Cairns, the Marquess of Ripon, and the Marquess of Salisbury took part, but which was almost inaudible,
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)
  (NO. 141.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Estates of superiority and property to be separate. Certain reserved rights shall import an estate of property.)
  LORD COLONSAYsaid, the Bill looked like an attempt to reconcile two things which were in themselves irreconcilable—namely, the conversion of feu tenure and the preservation of the right of superiority. Hitherto the superiors had in law been held to be the proprietors of the land, subject to the burden of such feus as had been granted, and as such they had been in the enjoyment of important rights. That system had hitherto worked well. It was now proposed to divest the superiors of these rights, and to leave them only the name. This clause went to upset the existing systems, to which no objection had been taken, but which, to judge by the reception this Bill had met with, was popular in Scotland. Men of business throughout the country were opposed to the change. Petitions against it had been presented from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and other places in Scotland, where feuing was much resorted to. It was the favourite practice of persons who had been successful in trade to feu small pieces of land for the purpose of building dwelling-houses which they could call their own and of which they could never be deprived. They preferred land on this tenure to leases of any length; feus were rights in perpetuity and maintained their value throughout, whereas leases were temporary rights and diminished in value with the efflux of time. But the provisions of this Bill interfered so much with the safety of superiors in regard to feus that they would be compelled to limit themselves to the granting of leases only, which would be much less satisfactory to the people. Feu duties were at present a favourite investment, and money could be borrowed upon them on more favourable terms than on leases; but he was informed that since this Bill had been introduced this species of property had fallen two, three, and even four Years' purchase. Nobody in Scotland wanted this change, and for himself he doubted much whether it would be an improvement. He certainly thought that before accepting a legislative change of this kind, there ought to be some Parliamentary inquiry whether the change was wanted. It seemed to him that it was a mere speculative view, opposed to the Report of a Royal Commission made in 1838, and also opposed to the opinion both of those interested
  600
  and of those who were best qualified to judge of the effects of such a change. He therefore felt bound to move the omission of the clause.
  Moved, to omit Clause 3,—(The Lord Colonsay).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that notwithstanding the high authority of the noble and learned Lord, he felt bound to differ from him. The Bill would certainly introduce changes in the existing system of land conveyancing in Scotland, but he did not believe that these changes would have any but a beneficial effect upon such transactions. It was not intended to alter substantially any of the rights of the superiors or their feuars. What was intended by the Bill was to introduce a system whereby those rights might be more conveniently enjoyed. However, to meet the wishes of the noble and learned Lord, he had no objection to omit from the clause the definitions of estates of superiority and property, and leave only that portion of the clause which provided that estates of property should, with respect to title, be independent of any estate of superiority.
  LORD COLONSAYsaid, this did not at all meet his objection.
  On Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill? Resolved in. the Negative.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 4 (Renewal of Investiture abolished).
  On the Motion of Lord COLONSAY, the latter part of the clause struck out and new paragraphs inserted—(Infeftment to imply confirmation. Implied confirmation not to affect rights of superiors to feu duties, &c. Action in lieu of declarator of non-entry.)
  New clauses added.
  Clause (A.) (Corporation to pay composition every 25 years).
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 struck out.
  Clause (B.) (Conveyance to vassal to operate as consolidation of superiority with property) in lieu of Clause 7.
  Clause (C.) (Memorandum of allocation of property) in lieu of Clause 8.
  Clauses 9 and 10 struck out.
  Clause (D.) (Completion of title when deceased heir not served).
  Clauses 11 to 20 agreed to, with Amendments.
  New Clause (E.) after Clause 20—(Where feu rights with casualties are contracted to be granted).
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 227.)

  STEAM THRESHING MACHINES BILL.
  (The Earl of Morley.)
  (NO. 210.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the Bill was to prevent accidents arising from the use of these machines owing to their not being properly fenced. Last year 12 of those accidents occurred to women and children, some of them being of the most horrible description. The Bill, therefore, required that the drum of every steam threshing machine shall be provided with a sufficient fence whenever it shall be in use, and inflicted a penalty of £10 on the owner of the machine for not so providing it. Another clause provided that if any person suffers bodily injury in consequence of default of the owner of the machine, after notice in writing has been given to him by an Inspector of Factories that such machine is dangerous, such owner shall be liable to a penalty of £50. The measure was very much needed, and the Government had been strongly pressed to bring it in. There was ample precedent for it in their factory legislation; and altogether there was sufficient justification for its introduction, even at this late period of the Session. It had been suggested that it was necessary to give some time to enable the fencing to be effected before the Bill came into full operation, and the Government would therefore consider, before the Committee was taken, what the length of that time should be.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Morley.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMthought that five or six months should be given for the putting up of the requisite fencing.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a. Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Earl Cowper.)
  (NO. 201.) THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a according to Order.
  LORD REDESDALEmoved an Amendment restricting the increase of rates to cases where the companies could prove, that in spite of careful economy, they were likely to incur a loss.
  Amendment moved, Clause 7, line 25, to leave out ("with a view to prevent undue loss.")—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  EARL COWPERsaid, that the companies' dividends having been limited while the price of materials was low they were entitled to increase their rates, provided the dividends obtained by the increase did not exceed 5 per cent.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDalso thought the increased price of coal entitled companies to increase their rates so as to secure dividends of 5 per cent.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the companies had had a monopoly, and in many cases the works were expensively carried on. Some companies still earned dividends with low rates.
  On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 13: Not-Contents 9; Majority 4.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at half past Ten o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.