Sitting of 26 June 1873

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar Mail Contract, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Municipal Elections (Cumulative Vote)* [206]; Endowed Schools Act (1869) Amendment* [207].
Committee—Report—Rating (Liability and Value)* [146–205]; Canada Loan Guarantee* [159]; Prison Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* [142] Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) (Grand Juries)* [198]; Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment* [7].
Report—Blackwater Bridge* [176].
Third Reading—Petitions of Right (Ireland)* [189], and passed.
Withdrawn—Fires* [31]; Capital Punishment Abolition* [46].

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) INSPECTORS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Minute of the Board of Supervision, dated the 8th May last, relating to Inspectors of Poor in Scotland, has or has not been found to be in excess of the statutory powers conferred upon the Board by the Act of the 8th and 9th Vic. c. 83; and, whether, in the event of this being the case, it is his intention to instruct the Board of Supervision to cancel the Minute referred to?
  MR. BRUCE: In answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I may say that in reply to an inquiry addressed to me by the Board of Education in Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informed them that, in

  1411
  his opinion, the Minute issued by the Board of Supervision was beyond their powers, and that, so long as the Inspectors of the poor performed their duties "faithfully and efficiently," they had n power to deprive them of their appointments. In reply to the second Question, he begged to say that the Secretary of State had no power to instruct the Board of Supervision to cancel the Minute.

  ARMY—COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE FORCES IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If it be not the fact that the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland has been absent from duty about fifteen months out of the last thirty; and, if not, how many; and whether, during all that absence, he was allowed to draw command allowance and table allowance, while the duties and expenses for which these allowances are made devolved on others?
  MR. CARDWELL: In order to answer the Question which has been put by the hon. Gentleman it has been necessary for the Adjutant General to refer to the general officer commanding in Dublin, and as soon as a reply is received from him I shall be in a position to give the information asked for.

GUNPOWDER ACT—SHIPMENT OF GUNPOWDER AT NEWHAVEN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MILLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to take measures to avert the imminent danger to Edinburgh, Leith, and neighbourhood, arising from the shipment of gunpowder at Newhaven Pier, and from the transmission of it from the manufactory to the pier, as now carried on, and as brought out in the Report of Major Majendie to the Government; and, if so, whether he is prepared to state what the measures are?
  MR. BRUCE: Major Majendie's Report, which was very full and elaborate, was received at the Home Office on the 26th of May, and forwarded to the Leith Harbour Commissioners on the:30th. The Report contained several recommendations for the purpose of diminishing the risk now incurred both in the conveyance of powder and its shipment.
  1412
  These are now under the consideration of the Commissioners. With respect to any danger which may arise from the conveyance of gunpowder in disregard of the provisions of the Gunpowder Act, it is the duty of the local authorities, not of the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps for enforcing the law.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1872—THE POOR LAW.—QUESTION.
  MR. MILLERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, under the provisions of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," a parent would be rendered a pauper by having his child or children provided with Elementary Education under the sixty-ninth section of that Act; and, if there is any dubiety as to this, whether he will take such measures as to make it clear for the guidance of parochial boards?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: My attention has been called to the paragraph in the Minute of the Board of Education in Scotland which I presume has suggested the Question. When the Scotch Education Bill was under consideration in this House it was stated more than once that the payment of school fees under the clause referred to would not have the effect of rendering the parents of the child paupers. I expressed that opinion unhesitatingly, and I have expressed it to the Board of Education.

SALMON FISHINGS (SCOTLAND.)

  QUESTION.
  MR. ELLICEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can give an assurance that, as a general rule, proprietors of, or public bodies interested in, lands ex adverse of the sea shore where Salmon Fishings belonging to the Crown are situate, shall have the refusal, of such Salmon Fishings; and, where exceptional circumstances appear to warrant a departure from such rule, that such proprietors or public bodies shall have full opportunity for representing their case to the proper department?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests inform me that it would be inconsistent with their duty to give such an absolute assurance as my hon. Friend seems to desire; but they will give every consideration to ap-

  1413
  plications of proprietors of lands ex adverso of the sea shore wherever Salmon Fishings belonging to the Crown are to be let.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND) ACT, 1870—THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether at a recent examination of a school in Wiltshire the Government Inspector refused to allow the children to sing "God save the Queen," as being contrary to the principles of the 7th section of "The Elementary Education Act, 1870;" and, if so, whether such refusal has the sanction of the Committee of Council on Education?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, in consequence of the information given to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I made inquiries in regard to this ease, which I had not previously heard of. I found that the Government Inspector did think it his duty to prohibit the singing of the National Anthem during the hours for secular education, as being contrary to the Education Act. I need not say that he, like every other Inspector, would, from feelings of loyalty, have had great pleasure in hearing the Anthem sung, but he thought its singing under the circumstances contrary to the Act. The opinion of the Department, however, is that it is not so, and we have informed the Inspector that he laboured under a mistake.

  ARMY—RECRUITS—INACCURATE RETURNS.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,who had given Notice of his intention to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question with reference to a Return as to Recruits, said, In asking the right hon. Gentleman the Question that stands in my name, I am anxious it should not be assumed that any suspicion exists in my mind that the right hon. Gentleman personally gave any instructions to those who made these Returns that any Return should be made other than what was strictly conformable to the truth. I beg to ask the Secretary of' State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from Colonel Anson in the "Times" of the 24th instant, in
  1414
  which Colonel Anson states, with reference to a "Return of the age and chest-measurement of Recruits since July, 1870," presented to the House of Lords on the Motion of' the Duke of Richmond, that
  "when the forms sent down to the various regiments to be filled up from their records were sent back, the Returns in some cases disclosed the fact that a certain laxity existed somewhere, and that men had been enlisted under regulation measurement. Where this was found to be the case, the Returns were sent back from the War Office with orders to the commanding officers to transfer the men enlisted under the regulation measurement from a column in the Return noting that fact to a column which showed them to be over the regulation measurement, and in such altered form was the Return presented;"
  and, whether this statement is true; and, if so, what explanation can be given of the orders so sent to commanding officers to alter the figures with which they had filled up the column for chest-measurement in the Return?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, when I saw the letter in The Times, I sent to the Adjutant General's Department for information upon the subject, and I am informed that the following are the circumstances of the case:—Under the Queen's Regulations the Commanding Officer of the regiment is bound to ascertain the chest-measurement of every recruit he passes, and no recruit is accepted who is below the regulation measurement without the special permission of His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. When the Duke of Richmond's Return was moved for, it appeared that in some regiments recruits had been accepted, without any application for that special permission, who were below the regulation measurement. When this became known at the Horse Guards, the following Memorandum was issued:—
  "Horse Guards, War Office,
  "April 16, 1873.
  "His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief directs that the accompanying Return be amended in the following way—viz., all the men shown therein as under 33 inches chest-measurement to whom no objection was raised by you or by the Officer commanding at the time being, on their being finally passed into the service, must be accounted for as of the regulated chest-measurement of 33 inches.
  "C. A. EDWARDS."
  It cannot be disputed that this was a grave error. The matter in question was the preparation of a Parliamentary Re-

  1415
  turn, and the actual fact alone ought to have been looked to. Directions have been given which will prevent a recurrence, and for the amendment of the Return.
  Afterwards—
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, with reference to the answer of the Secretary of State for War just given on this subject, he would ask, Whether, if an Officer connected with the War Office directed that false Returns should be sent in, he was merely to be told not to do so again?
  MR. CARDWELL; Sir, that is a Question which the hon. and gallant Member had better put upon the Paper, if he wishes to ask it. I have already stated how this error—and it is a grave error—occurred, and that steps have been taken to prevent its recurrence.

  LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL—QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will arrange to introduce his Irish Licensing Act Amendment Bill at an hour when it can be fully discussed, seeing that the honourable Member for Oxford has given Notice of an Amendment calculated to raise a Debate on the whole Licensing system?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he feared it would be impossible that his Motion could come on in time to enable the House to have a full discussion of the subject, and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt) to re-consider his intention to raise the whole question of Licensing upon the Motion. Certain practical defects had been found in the working of the Licensing Act in Ireland which did not in any way touch the principle of the measure, and it was extremely desirable to remedy those defects; but if the Bill for this purpose was to be made the means of re-opening the whole policy of the Licensing Acts, he feared he should have no opportunity of proceeding with it.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, if the Government would give him any other opportunity of raising the question of amending the English Licensing Act, he should be very happy to give the noble Marquess every facility for proceeding with the Bill; but if they could
  1416
  not hold out any hope of that kind, he was afraid he must persist in raising that question on the Motion of which the noble Marquess had given Notice.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE KHAN OF KALAT.—QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that relations have been broken off with the Khan of Kalat, and that the roads in the direction of Quetta are stopped?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that no information has as yet reached us with respect to the alleged rupture with Kalat.

POST OFFICE—MAIL CONTRACTS— CAPE OF GOOD HOPE AND ZANZIBAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOURKEasked the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Motion for the nomination of the Committee on the Zanzibar Mail Contract which stands amongst the Orders of the Day?
  MR. BOUVERIE,in reply, said, that the last time the question was before the House it came on in an extraordinary way, and at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, when there was no time to discuss it properly. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) thought that the Committee to be named should be named not in the ordinary way, but by the Committee of Selection, and subsequently it was proposed that the debate be adjourned. Now, he (Mr. Bouverie) knew that if an adjournment took place, he had no command of the time of the House, and therefore he had no possible chance of bringing it on again, and he stated then that he should give up the whole question; but since then the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, seeing that the question must be settled somehow, had given him precedence that night, when he hoped the question would come on in the ordinary way.

MERCANTILE MARINE—UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS — THE "ELEANOR."

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. E. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it

  1417
  is true that the "Eleanor," one of the ships condemned as unseaworthy by the Board of Trade, has been sold to Norwegian owners, and has sailed away with British seamen on board?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, it was true that the ship Eleanor, which had been declared by the Board of Trade to be unseaworthy, was sold to Norwegian owners, and she either had sailed or was about to sail away under the Norwegian flag. Whether she had British sailors on board or not he did not know; but if that were the fact, it would not give the Board of Trade power to stop her now that she was in her new hands. But he had communicated with the Foreign Office for the purpose of informing the Norwegian Government as to the history of the ship.
  MR. T. E. SMITHgave Notice that he would on that day week ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he had considered the advisability of introducing a clause into the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill to prevent the recurrence of such a transaction?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: That clause is already in the Bill.

  ARMY—INDIAN OFFICERS—SIEGE OF LECKNOW.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR TRENCHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any Royal Warrant or Horse Guards General Order depriving certain Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army who, by length of service become entitled to promotion and increased pay, of the privilege of reckoning the additional year's service towards pay and pension, granted to them by Her Majesty for service in connection with the relief of Lucknow, under Horse Guards General Order dated June 2nd, 1862, when the additional year's service, if allowed to reckon, would bring with it increased pay; if there is no such Royal Warrant or General Order, whether he will state to the House why it is that Officers have not been allowed to reap the advantages to be derived from this additional year's service; and, whether he will read to the House the Horse Guards General Order of the 2nd June, 1862 (Lucknow, 1, 1862,) granting this boon?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to my hon. and gallant Friend's first Question, I have to say that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no such Royal Warrant or Horse Guards General Order; but the question whether there is or is not is more properly one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's second Question, I have to say that I am not aware that any Officers have been deprived of any benefits with respect to the year's service to which he alludes, granted to them by Royal Warrant or Horse Guards General Order. In reply to his third Question, I shall have much pleasure in complying with his request to read the Horse Guards General Order of the 2nd June, 1862, of which I have obtained a Copy from the War Office; but before doing so I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that that document could have no sort of bearing on the Officers of the Indian Army who were at Luck-now, but only on those Officers of the British Army who happened to be there, except in so far as it may have been made specially applicable to the Officers of the Indian Army by the Government of India. This is the document—
  "HORSE GUARDS GENERAL ORDER, NO. 810, JUNE 2, 1862.
  "Her Majesty having been graciously pleased to grant to the Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Soldiers who comprised the garrison of Lucknow, in 1857, the permission to reckon an additional year's service towards pay and pension, and having been pleased to extend this boon to the force which entered that place under the late Sir Henry Havelock, in September of that year, is now further pleased to direct that the troops composing the detachment left by that Officer in the Alumbagh, on the 25th of September, together with those that subsequently entered it and remained there until the relief by Lord Clyde, on the 18th of November, 1857, shall also participate in the above-mentioned advantages. The additional year's service in all such cases is allowed to reckon towards the qualifications for 'medal and. gratuity.' This grant is to be entered at once in the record of service of all those who are entitled to its advantages."

BANK ACT—THE CHEQUE BANK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BIDDULPHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to an Institution called "The Cheque Bank;" and, whether he is of opinion that this

  1419
  Institution, if successful, will not tend to infringe the principle of the Bank Act?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the nature of these banks seems to be this:—They receive money on deposit, and against that deposit issue cheques which cannot be filled up with a greater value than-£10. These cheques are drawn payable either to the drawer or to the order of the drawer. My hon. Friend asks me whether I consider that such an institution interferes with the principles of the Bank Act. Now, Sir, the only principle clearly laid down with which I can think it would interfere is Section 11 of the 7 & 8 Vic., which says that bankers shall not issue bills, promissory notes, or Bank Notes payable on demand. These cheques, however, are not payable on demand; they are payable to the drawer or his order, and do not, therefore, come within the words of the section. They are, in fact, in the nature of Bills of Exchange which have not been accepted, and payment is coupled with the condition that there should be assets to meet them. It is not everything which economizes or dispenses with currency which contravenes the Bank Act, otherwise it might be objected that the general system of deposits economizes currency, and therefore contravenes the Act. The question really is, whether these notes are so much in the nature of Bank Notes that they do the duty of Bank Notes, and thereby infringe the Law. Now, I think this is not the case, because they are Bills of Exchange not accepted, and the nature of them is that the person holding them, if not paid, has no remedy against the person accepting them, but against the person who gave them to him. As the holder, therefore, has no remedy against the Bank, but only against the person who gives him the bill for payment, it is a matter of personal credit between these two persons, and the question of interfering with the currency does not arise.

  IRELAND—THE LETTER-MULLEN COASTGUARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Before I ask the noble Lord the Question which stands in my name, I wish to say a few words in explanation of it. In January or February last some logs of timber
  1420
  either from a derelict vessel or, coming direct from the Atlantic, drifted on a remote island on the coast of Galway, and the timber was taken in charge by the coast guards in the usual way with the assistance of some fishermen. Shortly after the coast guards had taken possession of it, some persons from the main island came in a boat and attempted to remove the timber, whereupon the coast guard fired upon these men, who were unarmed, and killed two and wounded several others. A Coroner's inquest was held on the dead bodies in due course, and in February I asked the noble Lord the Chief Secretary what steps were being taken on the part of the Government to investigate the circumstances of the case, to which the noble Lord replied that he could give no answer to my question until the result of the Coroner's inquest was known. The result of the Coroner's inquest was that the commander of the coast guards and the chief boatman were committed for trial on a charge of manslaughter, and they are now awaiting their trial for that offence. The principal witness against these persons at the Coroner's inquest —["Agreed."] This is a matter that refers to human life, and, therefore, I trust that the House will be patient. The Coroner's inquest was prolonged for a period of three months, but last month two of the principal witnesses, John Larkin and another, to whom my Question refers, were charged by the accused persons with perjury. ["Order!"] If necessary I will put myself into Order by concluding with a Motion. One of the accused persons having charged one of these principal witnesses with having committed perjury at the Coroner's inquest, and the resident magistrate who took these informations having committed the man to prison during the period of eight days, at a distance of thirty miles from where the alleged perjury had been committed. ["Order!"] As the House does not seem inclined to listen to me, I only say that the result is that the principal witnesses in a case of manslaughter have been committed on a charge of perjury, and the consequence is that the people in the neighbourhood are afraid to give evidence against the accused persons. Under these circumstances I wish to ask the noble Lord the Chief Secretary the following Question:—Whether he will explain the circum-

  1421
  stances under which John Larkin, a principal witness against the Coast Guard in the fatal occurrence at Letter-mullen, county of Galway, has been sent to prison on a charge of perjury, before the persons accused of manslaughter have been tried in the usual way; and, further, what action the Government is taking to insure a proper investigation into all the facts attending the use of firearms by the Coast Guard at Lettermullen?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that all the information the Government had received on the subject was that there was an investigation before two magistrates, and upon the deposition of two persons, supported by the evidence of five other witnesses, John Larkin was committed for trial in the regular way upon the charge of perjury, but was admitted to bail. As to the second part of the Question, the inquiry before the Coroner, which was extremely protracted, terminated in the committal to prison of an officer of the coast guard and one of the boatmen, and these men would be tried on the charge of manslaughter at the next Assizes. Pending the trial it was, of course, impossible for the Government to institute any general inquiry into the circumstances under which use was made of firearms on the occasion referred to. But even should the result of the inquiry be to show that the two men accused were not the persons who fired the shots, still, as there was no doubt that shots were fired, and that considerable loss of life resulted, the Government would think it necessary to institute a full and searching inquiry into the facts of the case.

POST OFFICE—MAIL CONTRACTS.

  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE AND ZANZIBAR.
  MR. BRUCE (for the Prime Minister)moved—
  "That the twenty-seven Orders of the Day following next to the Order for the Committee on the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill be deferred till after the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the nomination of the Select Committee on the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar Mail Contract."
  MR. DISRAELI: What is the latest hour at which it will be taken?
  MR. BRUCE: It will be taken at a reasonable hour.
  MR. OSBORNE: That is very unsatisfactory. After what hour will it not be taken?
  MR. BRUCE: The words "reasonable hour" have never received an exact definition in this House, and, with reference to the importance of the subject, the Government will take the most convenient opportunity for allowing the Order to come on.
  MR. OSBORNE: What is the most convenient opportunity?
  MR. MONKsaid, he did not understand the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) to complain of the course he took the other night as to the nomination of the Committee; but he felt that some explanation was due to the House. It was not till he entered the House on Monday that he ascertained there was a general feeling that the Committee as proposed by his right hon. Friend consisted of too many Members, and that it should be appointed by the Committee of Selection. Entertaining those views himself, and having regard to the hour at which the Motion was brought on, the only course open to him was to move the Adjournment of the Debate. Finding when he came down to the House yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had placed a Notice on the Paper with reference to the question, he considered that no further action was necessary on his part.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he must appeal to the Home Secretary to state distinctly at what hour he intended the Debate to come on.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, it was extremely inconvenient to fix the hour exactly; because if by any accident the discussion on the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill were protracted five minutes beyond the hour named the Government might be charged with breach of faith in going on with the debate on the nomination of the Zanzibar Committee.
  MR. OSBORNE: I confess that I am not satisfied.
  MR. BOUVERIE: I may state that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government assured me he intended to give an opportunity for this question to come on at a fair hour of the evening. I understood before 12 o'clock.
  Motion agreed to.

  RATING (LIABILITY AND VALUE) BILL.— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Hubert.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 14 (Application of Act to Metropolis, 32 and 33 Vict. c. 67.), agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Definition of Occupier.)
  MR. PELLmoved, in page 5, line 26, to leave out all after "The," to the end of sub-section 1, and to insert—
  "occupier of any land shall, for the purposes of this Act, be taken to be the person entitled to the exercise of any right of fowling, shooting, sporting, or fishing on such land, although such right be severed from the occupation or ownership of the soil."
  If this Amendment were adopted excessive disputes and excessive references to the assessment committee would be avoided.
  MR. LOPESsaid, that as the Bill stood this would he the first time that the right of shooting severed from the land was to be rated, and it would cover the case of a landlord who reserved the right of shooting, but who did not exercise that right or preserve game.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, there was no doubt something in the criticism which the hon. Gentleman had just offered; but, practically speaking, the valuation which an assessment committee would put upon the right of sporting over an estate which was not exercised, and where there was no preserving, would be very nearly nominal. But if there was a right which was capable of being exercised, and was becoming of value some value must be attached to it, though it would probably be the minimum. The Amendment before the Committee had not met with much discussion, and he should content himself with referring to a subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which appeared to raise a question well worth the attentive consideration of the Committee—namely, what person should be rated with reference to the enjoyment of the right of sporting. As far as he was concerned, he had gone on this line of argument—that the occupation of the land and the enjoyment of the right of sporting were not, as a matter of fact, commonly in
  1424
  the same hands. Those who enjoyed the right of sporting were not necessarily the occupiers of the land. If the owner occupied the land, he probably reserved the right of sporting; but there was no difficulty in that case, because the ownership, the occupation, and the right of sporting were all in the same hands. But suppose the owner of an estate had divided it into 20 different farms, occupied by 20 different tenants, but retained the right of sporting over it, or let the right to another person, his proposal was that in either case the owner should be rated. This proposal was founded on a principle of convenience, because the right of sporting might be let to one person or to a great number of persons. The hon. Member (Mr. Pell) proposed to rate the occupying tenant for the right of sport as if he enjoyed it on his own farm; but he thought the Committee would require more argument than they had yet heard to induce them to adopt that proposal, for it would place on one class of the community a liability they ought not to bear. His proposal, on the other hand, was that liability to pay rates in respect of the right of sport should fall on those who possessed and enjoyed that right, and it was only when it was let that the proprietor would, as a matter of convenience, be rated.
  MR. CLARE READobserved that the moment they got away from the simplicity of rating hereditaments and proposed to rate the right of "sport" and all sorts of rights they would get into confusion. Game was a product, and they did not rate products. Even in the case of underwood, they rated, not the underwood, but the land on which it was grown. His proposal was to apply that rule everywhere. Game of all products was the most likely to vary, not only with the seasons, but with the caprices of the owner; but whether the land grew corn, sheep, or hares, he would have but one simple assessment. The difficulties of assessing "rights" would be innumerable. It would be almost impossible for the overseer to collect the rate. He might not know where the game tenant lived, and he could not distrain his hares and rabbits. he hoped the Committee would adopt his simple proposal.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had created a monster. The

  1425
  "owner" was actually made "occupier" in order to carry out this proposal.
  MR. DODSON,said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would adopt the excellent suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which seemed to be the only one that would meet the difficulty. By the law of England game belonged to the occupier, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk would allow the assessment to proceed in every case on the supposition that the law was to be carried out in practice. The assessment committee would have only one person to deal with, and the value of the game would have to be settled as between the landlord and the tenant. In cases where there was very little game on the land, and where the owner reserved the right of sporting —and this was the ease in many counties of England—it was absurd to put a rate-able value on the reserved right and levy a separate rate.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was glad these Amendments had been suggested on behalf of the tenant farmers by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read) and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). Everyone must know it was in the interest of the whole community that one person should be responsible for the payment of rates. This was the most simple and straightforward way of doing the business, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.
  MR. MUNTZagreed that the only practical way was to rate the occupier. If the owner were rated would they distrain upon the tenant because the owner had not paid? Again, if the shooting were let to a third person, how could they enforce the rate against him? Would they distrain upon another man's land for Ids default? Further, there were millions of acres in England which were not preserved, and on them any rate upon the shooting could only be nominal in amount.
  MR. PELLsaid, it appeared to him that it would be utterly impossible for any assessment committee to apply the usual rule to hereditaments of so new and extraordinary a nature as those comprised under the name of game. It would be very difficult to arrive at a rateable value.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought it was a great mistake to cut up the land into these small allotments. Supposing a tenant had a farm of 20 acres and was rated for game, of course he could only be rated for those 20 acres, which would not be of much use to any person for sporting purposes. It seemed to him there was as much difficulty in rating the occupier as in rating the person who had the right of sporting.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Committee had already passed a clause enacting that these incorporeal hereditaments should be rated when severed from the occupation of the soil. It was therefore of no use to go back to the earlier part of the Bill, and say it was inconvenient that one matter was to be subjected to two rates. The question arose as to who was to be rated—whether the person who was, in the ordinary sense, the owner of the land, or the person who was the tenant? He admitted that there might, in particular cases, be some difficulty in getting at either the owner or the occupier for the purposes of rating; but that was not a difficulty of the law, but of the application of the law. What the Committee had endeavoured to do was to settle what should be done by the local authorities in all cases of rating. The proposition of the Government had, at least, this convenience—that it did not enact an absolute rule, but said that the occupier or the owner might, according to the view of the assessment committee, be rated, leaving it to the assessment committee to settle each case according to its merits, and to rate the occupier or the owner, as appeared most convenient. It would have been impossible for the Government to have laid down a strict rule, which might, in many cases, be at variance with the facts.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that according to the wording of the clause to which the Attorney General alluded, the man who had the right of sporting was the person to be rated, and not the occupier. It seemed to him that that was an imperative clause, and not an optional one; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman now said the assessment committees were to choose between the tenant of the land and the person who had the right of shooting over it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the proposition of the Government, as

  1427
  amended, was that the right might be either in the hands of the owner or of somebody who let it, and that the assessment committees would deal with each case as convenience dictated.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYobjected to the rating of game altogether, and he did not think that the matter was one that should be left in the hands of the assessment committee, who, in order to assess the rate fairly, would have to enter into laborious calculations as to the precise value of the game on every person's land. It would be better to require the occupier rather than the landlord to pay the rate.
  MR. PEASEsaid, the whole of the counties in England were not like the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, which abounded in game, and therefore could not bear to be rated in the same way as those two counties. In many districts in the North of England the game was worth little or nothing, and yet for that they had all degrees of preservation. If they began to rate for game in those districts, they would put it upon the assessment committee to find out that which it was almost impossible to discover.
  MR. CLARE READexplained that it was on behalf of those counties where little game existed that he was anxious to carry his Amendment.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMobjected to the rating of game as involving a double rate upon the land. It was quite a new principle to rate game if the owner let the shooting, but not to rate it if he kept the shooting for himself.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEwished to know, in the case of a gentleman giving away the fishing on a river on his estate, who would be required to pay the rate in respect of it?
  MR. LOPESfelt that there would be this difficulty in adopting the proposed Amendments—that the land would be rateable for no more than it was now, whilst the Bill declared that rating should be extended. Rating at present applied to the whole value of the land. Subject to this difficulty he agreed in the proposed Amendments.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHpointed out that moors in such counties as Derby and York, in the neighbourhood of large towns, let at a higher figure for shooting than for pasture, and said the difficulty he felt was that under
  1428
  the Amendment the tenant would not be rated more highly for the moor when it was let for shooting than if it were let for pasture. On the whole, he thought it would be better to take the words of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) and leave the responsibility with the Government. It could hardly be expected that in the first year of rating these incorporeal hereditaments everything would go quite straight.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he was not disposed to leave the responsibility with the Government. He objected to sending the Bill to the country to be worked by assessment committees, while the House of Commons was itself unable to say absolutely what was the meaning of the clause. In his opinion, the rateability ought to be one and undivided, as was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that in the event of the land being let for shooting as well as for pasturage, he would let the assessment committee assess at the joint value; for instance, supposing it were let for 1s. 6d. an acre for pasturage and 1s. an acre for shooting, he would have it assessed at half-a-crown.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the advice of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) was very sound. He (Mr. Henley) put the case of a man refusing to pay the game assessment and inquired how the rate collector was to distrain. Was he to chase the hares as if they were so many Welsh sheep and impound them? This might, he considered, be a convenient way of making faggot votes, for all that an extensive landed proprietor had to do was to apportion out his shooting and sporting rights in sections of £15 each, when each of these tenants would as a matter of course come upon the Parliamentary register. He was afraid that if they passed the clause as it stood inconveniences would arise out of it which they by no means expected. He would suppose a man rated at 3d. in the pound for £5 valuation to be paid quarterly. How could they expect a rate-collector to waste his time in making those collections? The proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Poll) was a simple one, and he thought our forefathers were very wise in saying that the man who occupied the land must pay the burden upon it.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsuggested that for the purpose of any poor rate the occupier of land should be the person rated in respect of any right of shooting, fishing, &c., but that such rating should not prejudice or interfere with any arrangement made between the landlord and tenant when such right was enjoyed separately from the occupation.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he did not see any inconsistency in adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), which he thought was the simplest way of meeting the difficulty. As to the moors of which the value for shooting was greater than for pasture, that was an exceptional case. The clause must be framed to meet ordinary cases, and the proposal of the hon. Member for South Norfolk seemed the best calculated to secure that purpose.
  MR. HUNTsubmitted that in the case of a common where the lord of the manor enjoyed both the right of sporting and the right of the soil he should be held to be the occupier under this Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that in deference to the general feeling which appeared to prevail in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read), he was prepared to accept that Amendment. He would also accept the Proviso of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), if it were slightly amended, by leaving out the words "for the purposes of this Act," and, at the end, the words "or ownership."
  MR. BRANDsuggested another difficulty. In the event of one man being the lord of the manor and another the owner of the soil, which of them would be rated for the game?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would consider whether some words might not be introduced with the view of meeting cases of that kind.
  Amendment (Mr. Pell) amended and agreed to.
  MR. CLARE READmoved to add at the end of the clause the following—
  "Provided, That the gross value of any land let or occupied by the owner for agricultural purposes shall be the full rent at which the land, irrespective of any reservation of game and timber, might reasonably be expected to let one year with another, free of all tenants' rates and
  1430
  taxes, and tithe commutation rent charge if any. Provided always, That when any tenant shall pay any increase of rate by any such assessment of game or timber on any land which he may occupy under any lease or agreement at the time of the passing of this Act, he shall be entitled dining the currency or continuance of such lease or agreement to deduct from any rent he may pay for such land the amount of the increase of such rate from such rent, and the amount of such increase shall be fixed and determined by the assessment committee of the union in which the land is situate."
  MR. STANSFELDsuggested that the second Proviso should be withdrawn, as his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Read) would see at a moment's reflection that the amount of increase in the rates could not be settled beforehand.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the Amendment as it now stood would throw on the assessment committee the duty of arbitrating between landlord and tenant, which was something very different from what they were bound to undertake.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, suppose a man was now assessed at 30 s. an acre, and the assessment committee raised the assessment for the future to 31 s., what he wished was that the committee should have the power to say that the additional shilling was put on for the purpose of assessing the game.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16 (Definitions, 32 & 33 Vict. c. 67.) agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Commencement of Act).
  MR. LIDDELLobserved that the clause referred to the "Valuation Act, 1873," and would require to be altered in the event, which he considered very probable, of the Valuation Bill not passing during the present Session.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not at all despair of the Bill in question becoming law this Session. If, however, he saw reason hereafter for being less sanguine than he was on the subject, he would propose an alteration of the clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Saving as to mine where dues payable in kind).
  MR. PEASEmoved to add at the end of the clause the words—

  1431
  "and no mine shall be rated under this Act until a portion of the produce thereof shall have been conveyed away from it for the purposes of sale or manufacture."
  The object of this Amendment was to protect those parties who were searching for minerals, and who might produce small quantities and lay them on the surface, and then have to abandon the work because of its not being likely to be remunerative.
  MR. STANSFELDobjected to the Amendment, observing that one might just as well propose that no farm should be rated until the tenant had reaped his first crop.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Saving clause) agreed to.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, after Clause 7, to insert new Clause.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clauses:—
  "(Application of Act to Scotland.)
  "This part of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following provisions:—
  "1. The expression 'hereditaments,' shall have the meaning assigned to the expression lands and heritages,' in the Act of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled 'An Act for the Valuation of Lands and Heritages in Scotland, and hereinafter called The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act:'
  "The expression 'local rate,' shall mean any county, municipal, parochial, or other local rate or assessment:
  "The expression 'valuation list,' shall mean the valuation roll in force for the time made up under The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act, and any Acts amending the same:
  "The expression 'Assessment Committee,' shall, with regard to any assessment, mean the authority empowered by law to impose such assessment:
  "The expression 'umpire' shall include oversman.
  "2. In Scotland the provisions of this part of of this Act with respect to arbitration shall be read and construed as if sections twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-three, and thirty-four of The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845,' were substituted for the corresponding sections of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. 1845.'
  "3. Nothing in this part of this Act shall be construed to prevent the Treasury from recovering from the owner of any lands and heritages in Scotland, or retaining out of the rent, in like manner as any other tenant or occupant, any share of any local rate chargeable on such owner.
  "(Application of Act to Ireland.)
  "This part of this Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the provisions following:—

  "1. The expression 'Assessment Committee,' shall mean, in relation to each poor law union, the board of guardians of the poor of such union;

  "2. The expression 'valuation list' shall in relation to each Poor Law Union mean the list or lists of the valuation of rateable hereditaments and tenements, and of any revision of the same transmitted to the clerk of the board of guardians of such union under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland;

  "3. The expression 'local rate' shall mean and include grand jury cess, city, town, or borough rate, and any local rate or tax leviable under any public general Act or under any local and personal Act;

  "4. The costs of and incident to an arbitration and award shall, if either party so requires, be taxed and settled by the principal taxing officer in common law business in Ireland, and not in the manner prescribed by section one of The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1860.'

  "5. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the Treasury from deducting from any rent payable in respect of any hereditament in like manner as any other occupier paying rent, any share of any poor or other local rate;

  "6. In any scheme or valuation list the rateable value only of Government hereditaments shall be stated."

  MR. BRUENmoved, as an Amendment to Mr. Stansfeld's proposed new Clause, "Application of Act to Ireland," line 1, before "This part of," to insert "Clause 6," and before sub-section 1, to insert—
  "1. The expression Poor Rate Act shall mean and include the Act for the more effectual relief of the destitute Poor in Ireland, 1838,' and the Acts amending the same."
  MR. HIBBERTassured the hon. Gentleman that Government property in Ireland could not be exempted from taxation, when the present Bill abolished such exemptions in England. Separate Bills would be introduced for Scotland and Ireland, and every exertion made to pass them during the Session. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
  MR. VANCEwished to know whether the Bill repealing the exemptions in Ireland would be introduced and carried during the present Session?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was afraid it would not be possible to carry a Bill through this Session; but Bills were being prepared which would give Ireland and Scotland the benefit of the same exemptions as England.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that after the assurance given by the right hon. Gen-

  1433
  tleman he should withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, before Clause 12, to insert—
  "Part III.
  "(Liability of property to local rates as well as poor rates.)
  "After the commencement of this Act, the hereditaments to which the Poor Rate Acts are extended by this Act, and which are thus made rateable to the relief of the poor shall be rateable to all county rate, borough rate, highway rate, and other local rates which are leviable upon property rateable to the relief of the poor, in like manner as if the Poor Rate Acts had always extended to such hereditaments."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—
  "(Gross and rateable value of tin and copper mines.)
  "Where a tin or copper mine is occupied under a lease or leases granted without fine on a reservation wholly or partly of money dues, or rent, the gross annual value of the mine shall be taken to be the annual amount of the whole of the dues payable in respect thereof during the year ending on the sixth day of April preceding the date at which the valuation list is made, in addition to the annual amount of any fixed rent reserved for the same which may not be paid or satisfied by such dues.
  "The rateable annual value of such mine shall be the same as the gross annual value thereof, except that where the dues or rent are liable for repairs, insurance, or other expenses necessary to maintain the mine in a state to command such annual amount of dues or rent, the probable average annual cost of such repairs, insurance, and other expenses shall be deducted from the gross value, for the purpose of calculating the rateable value.
  "In the following cases, namely—
  "1. Where any such mine is occupied under a lease granted wholly or partly on a fine; and
  "2. Where any such mine is occupied by the owner;
  "and in all cases to which the foregoing provisions of this section do not apply, the gross and rateable annual value of the mine shall be taken to be the annual amount of the dues or dues and rent at which the mine might be reasonably expected to let without fine on a lease of the ordinary duration, according to the usage of the country, if the tenant undertook to pay all tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe rent-charge, and also the repairs, insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain the mine in a state to command such annual amount of dues or dues and rent.
  "The purser, secretary, and chief managing agent for the time being of any tin or copper mine, or any of them, may, if the overseers or
  1434
  other rating authority think fit, be rated as the occupier thereof.
  "In this section—
  "The term 'mine' includes the underground workings and the engines, machinery, workshops, tramways, and other plant, buildings (not being dwelling houses), and works and surface of land occupied in connection with and for the purposes of the undertaking, and comprised in the lease or leases under which the dues or dues and rent arc payable or reserved;
  "The term 'dues' means dues, royalty, or toll, whether in money or partly in money and partly in kind, and the amount of dues which are reserved in kind means the value of such dues;
  "The term 'lease' means lease or sett, or licence to work, or agreement for a lease or sett, or licence to work;
  "The term 'fine' means fine, premium, or foregift, or other payment or consideration in the nature thereof."
  MR. LIDDELLmoved to add the words "or lead" after the word "copper."
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsuggested that the words "or zinc" should also be added.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that he had accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Cornwall with regard to tin and copper mines, because that hon. Member had in his opinion made out a good case for rating those mines in the manner proposed by the clause he was asking the Committee to assent to. But as to the extension of this Bill to lead mines he was satisfied there was a difference of opinion both in the House and in the country, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northumberland.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYmoved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 17:—
  "Nothing in this Act or in the said recited Act of the forty-third year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth shall be deemed to render any person or persons or body corporate liable to be assessed or rated, either as owner or occupier, to any county, borough, parochial, or other local rates or cesses, in respect of any land, houses, or buildings, or parts of houses or buildings, in the United Kingdom, which shall be used exclusively as a hospital or infirmary for the relief of the sick poor, or for the transaction of the business relating to such hospital or infirmary, and shall yield no pecuniary profit to the governors, trustees, or other administrators of the charity aforesaid."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that charitable institutions had been virtually exempted from rating from the

  1435
  passing of the Act of Elizabeth until a recent decision in the House of Lords. In former discussions much stress had been laid on the fact that Chief Justice Holt had in the reign of Queen Anne decided adversely to charities; but this case was of no authority. The report of it occupied four lines only of print, and from the report itself it was evident that some artifice had been resorted to to escape from rating. But however this might be, it was clear that the Legislature, by whom the Act of Elizabeth was passed, contemplated the exemption of charities, for by one of the sections of that Act, a portion of the rates raised under it, were to be appropriated towards the support of hospitals for the relief of the poor. This view was adopted by Lord Mansfield in the cases of St. Luke's and St. Bartholomew's Hospitals, in the middle of the last century, and was thenceforth continuously acted upon. The principles, however, upon which Lord Mansfield's decisions were founded were carried beyond their legitimate consequences, and, in process of time, claims for exemption were made and allowed in the cases of land devoted to public purposes generally. This view was rejected by Lord Westbury in the case of the Mersey Docks Company, on grounds which were subsequently held by the Court of Queen's Bench to be equally applicable to charities. If this modern construction of the statute of Elizabeth was to be accepted as a true exposition of the law as at present existing, it was time that some sufficient steps should be taken to secure a recognition of the older construction, which had prevailed for upwards of 200 years, for public policy, and to a great extent public opinion was in favour of the exemption. The poor were the parties chiefly concerned, it was the poor who would suffer if the claim was rejected. He might refer by way of illustration to the case of St. Thomas's Hospital. It appeared from a Petition which he had presented from that hospital, that if the clause were not adopted they would have to contribute a sum of £3,000 a-year in the shape of taxation. The practical result would be the closing of no fewer than 140 beds out of 600. Now, of the 4,000 in-patients in the year, more than one-third came from the parish of Lambeth, and so also did more than one-half
  1436
  of the total number of out-patients. The parish, therefore, would have had to pay, but for the existence of the hospital, more for the relief of its sick poor than it would gain by the rating in question. If the principle of the Bill had been to impose liability to rating on property of all kinds he would have felt difficulty in pressing his Amendment; but the principle of exemption had been accepted by the Committee in the case of ragged and Sunday schools, and he hoped it would be extended to the case of hospitals and infirmaries.
  New Clause (Saving in favour of hospitals for the sick poor,)—(Sir Richard Baggallay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALopposed the clause. He regretted to hear the account his hon. and learned Friend had given of St. Thomas's Hospital, and hoped that he (Sir. Richard Baggallay) was right in saying that the proportion of patients he had referred to belonged to the poor of Lambeth, and not to a class who could afford to pay for medical aid. He could not think the Committee would be induced to change the resolution which they had arrived at on the question as to literary and scientific institutions by now introducing a number of exemptions which had not hitherto existed. It must be remembered that in that case an exemption was expunged; whereas now the proposition was to insert an exemption which did not obtain even under the present law. The principle of the Bill was to abolish exemptions, which meant that no person had a right to compel his neighbour in a given parish to subscribe to any charity he thought fit against the will of his neighbours in such parish. If instead of a large parish like Lambeth they took the case of a small parish in which a great hospital was built, extending over one-third or one-fourth of its entire space, on which rateable property would otherwise be erected, would they allow the governors, who at their own will selected the site, to compel the remainder of the occupiers of property in the parish to pay out of their own pockets an enormous contribution towards the maintenance of the hospital?

  1437
  That was virtually what they were asked to do. Suppose a railway came in and took possession of the site of a hospital, and the hospital was transferred to a new parish, was that parish to be taxed for its support? As regarded the exemption of the ragged schools, the Government objected to that exemption on principle, but had deferred to the majority by which the House expressed its opinion on a former occasion in favour of maintaining that particular exemption. That exemption, however, was of a totally different kind from the one before them, being entirely at the option of the parish. These hospitals for the sick were charities now maintained by voluntary contributions; but if the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was accepted they would be maintained by involuntary contributions, and the parish of Lambeth, for example, would be taxed for St. Thomas's Hospital to the amount of £3,000 a-year. But we could not possibly tax people for the maintenance of an institution over the government and expenditure of which they had no control whatever. He hoped the Committee would not be led away by feelings of benevolence, which were so easily indulged at the expense of other people, to accept the clause.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought the able legal argument of the Solicitor General cut both ways, and cut very strongly against himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the case of a small parish in which a body of benevolent persons might erect a hospital, and said that if you exempted the establishment it would be at the expense of the inhabitants; but supposing those benevolent persons took off the streets of that parish a large number of sick poor who were previously chargeable upon its rates, surely in that case the existence of the hospital would relieve the ratepayers. He should certainly support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Richard Baggallay.)
  MR. RYLANDSasked if they were to indulge in feelings of benevolence in the case of hospitals where were they to stop? There were many of these institutions supported by a few benevolent persons while the bulk of the people rendered no assistance. But if the Committee decided that the public should
  1438
  pay, they must give them control over the management.
  MR. CAWLEYcontended that the argument of the Solicitor General was founded upon an entire fallacy. Hospitals were not property in the same sense as those establishments which yielded a benefit to an individual occupier. It was therefore begging the question to say that if they did not rate them they would be imposing a tax upon the rest of the community. This was not a Bill to extend the area of rating, but to alter the law in respect to it. Where an order to clear the site for the building of a hospital, property which had been contributing to the local Exchequer was removed, the hospital which took its place ought to contribute to the rates; but otherwise those institutions ought to be exempted from local taxation. For these reasons he would support the clause.
  MR. LEEMANagreed with the Solicitor General. In York there was a large hospital which received patients from all parts of the country. It was situated in one small parish, and property having been cleared for its erection which formerly contributed to the rates he did not see on what ground of justice it could be exempted from rates. There was a second large hospital in another small parish of the same city, as to which the circumstances were precisely the same. Li fairness to the ratepayers they ought both to be rated. In the case of the ragged schools there was simply power given to the parish to exempt from rating, whilst in the instance now under consideration an absolute exemption was asked for.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) were altogether exceptional. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) thought hospitals deserved all the support which could be given to them. They were essential to the benefit of the country, and he should vote for the clause of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, the question was whether hospitals were entitled to a forced support levied upon the poor by means of removing the rates of the establishment to other persons' shoulders. He did not think that an exemption coupled with such consequences should find support in the Committee; and he hoped that the Government would resist

  1439
  the Amendment. The exemption in favour of Sunday and ragged schools was one for which the people and not the House were responsible.
  Mr. BIRLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) would rate the Pyramids of Egypt if they were in this country; or, perhaps, if it were brought under his notice, he would rate the Duke of York's column. He (Mr. Birley) saw no beneficial occupation in a hospital which could bring it within the area of taxation according to the statute of Elizabeth. If a hospital was unable to pay the rates, was a collector to distress upon the beds of the patients or the bottles of the dispensary? All the great jurists had held that hospitals were exempt, and until the decision of the House of Lords in the Mersey Docks case, hospitals had been established upon that understanding. Hospitals should not be rated until it was shown that such establishments contributed to produce burdens upon the poor rates.
  MR. GILPINsupported the clause, and said that though a hospital did not directly tend to increase the poor rate it certainly maintained within its walls many persons who would otherwise have been chargeable upon their own parishes. It was hard that the parish in which a hospital stood should be burdened for the benefit of other parishes.
  MR. SCOURFIELDobserved that this was simply a proposition to continue an old exemption, not to create a new one, and he should vote for the exemption.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the argument that hospitals should be exempt because they were useful public institutions was open to considerable objection, because there was a great variety of hospitals, and some were well and some badly managed. But admitting the general proposition, if they took land for a hospital which otherwise would pay rates and exempted it, they clearly made a deduction from the rateable value of a parish and enforced a contribution to the hospital of that amount. It was also impossible to prove that a hospital for the sick poor in any degree relieved a parish from a portion of the rates or of the cost of maintaining its poor. The tendency might even be in the other direction. A hospital or other charitable institution planted in a given locality
  1440
  attracted to that locality poor persons who, sooner or later, expected to benefit from it. Did anyone suppose that the establishment of St. Thomas's Hospital on the other side of the river did not attract a poor population to the neighbourhood? Permissive exemption had existed ever since the Act of 14 & 15 Vict. It was then enacted that—
  "The guardians of any union or parish may, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, pay out of any fund of such union, or in the case of the parish out of the fund in the hands of such guardians, any sum of money as an annual subscription towards the support and maintenance of any public hospital or infirmary for the reception of sick or disabled persons or persons suffering from any permanent or natural infirmity."
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman must have very much amused the Committee, because he gravely stated that wherever hospitals were built paupers would come to live near them. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have argued that wherever you constructed a cemetery people would come to live near it for the purpose of dying. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the existence of a permissive provision enabling the local authorities to contribute towards the exemption of hospitals from rating; but it was a matter entirely at the discretion of the Poor Law Board, which always refused its assent when applications of that kind came before it. [Mr. STANSFELD said, the hon. Member was mistaken.] He (Mr. Muntz) contended that it was absurd to exempt places of religious worship from the rate, and fix it on hospitals. What was religious worship to one was gross idolatry or heresy to another, and the most pestilential doctrines of Mormonism or any other "ism" might be preached, and the preachers charged what they liked at the doors, and yet they were to be exempted; while the hospitals, which were founded entirely on Christian principles, were to be taxed. He maintained that the popular feeling was decidedly in favour of the exemption of hospitals from rating, and would on that assertion challenge any Member in public meeting in any town in England. The Act of Elizabeth never intended to charge poor rates upon charitable institutions; and feeling, as he did, very strongly upon it, he should support the exemption clause.
  MR. MACFIEsupported the Amendment, believing that the rating of hos-

  1441
  pitals would have the effect of restraining the contributions of the rich towards their support.
  MR. CAWLEYasked in whom the beneficial occupation of a hospital rested?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would put the case of the Chester County Hospital. There were 64 parishes in the Union. Why should that hospital in Chester be supported at the expense of those 64 parishes? Upon what principle of justice were all the parishes within that union to be made to contribute compulsorily for the relief and support of that institution which was for the benefit of the whole county of Chester, and not only so, but likewise for the county of Flint? There were many other arguments against the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman to prevent the Committee from adopting it. In the first place, he contended that the present state of the law was satisfactory and sound, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) completely broke down when he came to this vital point. The president of the Local Government Board showed that the existing law empowered the representatives of the local committees, who were able to judge of all the circumstances of the case, to subscribe at the public expense to the local hospitals. But then it was subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member for Birmingham said that the Poor Law Board refused its consent. The President of the Local Government Board, who was at the head of that Department, denied this, and said that applications made to the Poor Law Board of the present Government had been acceded to. [Mr. MUNTZ said he had referred to a previous time.] It was in that state of the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Baggallay) proposed a clause insisting that by this enactment they should make every local community subject to a compulsory tax for the maintenance of these hospitals. Was that desirable, or was it not? The hon. and learned Gentleman moved mainly in the interest of the rich and endowed hospitals which possessed £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, and in at least one instance he believed more than £50,000 a-year. Not content with such incomes, he contended that they should by Parliament be allowed to tax the community.
  1442
  He did not think those hospitals were managed with the economy they ought to be. He would not name the hospitals, but he would give the hon. and learned Gentleman the names if he wished. A short time ago there were two hospitals in London which relieved with equal efficiency as nearly as possible the same number of cases annually; but with this difference, the one relieved them out of an income of £15,000, and the other out of an income of £30,000 a-year. That was the income of the endowed hospital, and it was to that income the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to add £3,000 a-year by compulsory taxation on the community. Was that rational? When they had a law by which the local authority could tax the community for these purposes, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, was Parliament to interfere and over-ride that authority and tax local communities for the support of those great wealthy endowed bodies, which undoubtedly did a great deal of good, but he would say fearlessly at a much greater cost than need be. He did not even admit that voluntary hospitals stood on different grounds, or that they should be supported by taxation imposed by the will of Parliament. Taxation by exemption was essentially vicious. When people were taxed it was desirable they should know it, but exemptions hid from the people the fact that they were taxed. Where there was public taxation there ought to be public control. He was the oldest Governor of Guy's Hospital, and he wanted to know why the community in the neighbourhood should be taxed for its support, having nothing to say in its management, and no control over it? But that was the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If an amendment of the law were required, should it not be in the direction of striking out the veto of the Poor Law Commissioners? His hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) desired no doubt to be consistent with the principles he had laid down; but, if so, that was an Amendment to which he would not object. With respect to the main question, he hoped the Committee, considering the power contained in the existing Act, would not accept a measure so retrogressive as that now proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. His hon. Friend said he was ready to

  1443
  meet his opponents at the hustings. If he were, let him vote in favour of the voluntary principle to this extent—namely, to place in the hands of the Guardians the power to decide whether the different localities should be taxed in the manner now proposed.
  SIR RICHARD BAGGALLAYsaid, he was prepared at any convenient time and place to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman and discuss the circumstances of the two hospitals which he had referred to; and in reference to the one which expended £30,000 a-year, the Committee must bear in mind that the large endowed hospitals not merely received the sick poor, but were also engaged in preparing, by their medical schools, a large number of well educated professional men to go forth into the world. With regard to Chester Hospital, and other hospitals in large towns, the parishes which were taxed would derive a larger amount of benefit by the relief of their sick poor than they would by the taxation. The clause which he proposed did not provide for absolute exemption; it only provided that nothing in this Act, or in the Act of Elizabeth, should make hospitals and infirmaries liable to rating, the Act of Elizabeth being included in order to remove the doubts raised as to the extent of that Act by the judgments of the House of Lords in the cases of the Mersey Dock Company, and Gray v. the University of Edinburgh. The only part of these institutions which his clause would relieve from liability to rating under these Acts was that which was entirely devoted to the purposes of the sick poor. The principle of exemption had been recognized in the case of ragged and Sunday schools; he asked the Committee to extend that principle to the charitable and deserving institutions the subject of the clause.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had asked him to be consistent. He was consistent, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be the same. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that he was prepared to leave the question of rating hospitals in the hands of the Guardians and other local authorities. So also was he, and he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed the clause (Sir Richard Baggallay) would be so too.
  1444
  If an undertaking were given that on the Report the powers conferred on the Poor Law Board would be struck out of the Bill, he was sure the clause would be withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved that the control of the Poor Law Commissioners was salutary as a check, and would not be exercised to nullify the operation of the law. If the hon. Gentleman could show that the board had exercised the veto improperly he should be inclined to agree with him.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that these institutions were of infinitely more benefit to the localities in which they were immediately situated than they were to the outlying districts. In addition to this, the immediate locality had the advantage of supplying all the stores wanted by the hospital.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he lived close to Chester Hospital, but in a parish which was not in Cheshire. His district derived the greatest benefit from the county hospital, but would not have to pay one farthing towards its maintenance in return for the advantage it received.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 50; Noes 70: Majority 20.
  On Question, "That the Preamble be agreed to,"
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman on the second reading of the Bill had stated there were certain Government properties which he did not propose to make subject to rates, and especially alluded to the Royal Parks, he wished to point out that those Parks would distinctly come within the purview of the Bill if it remained in its present shape. He therefore desired to ask whether before the right hon. Gentleman took any further steps, he proposed to bring in a scheme for the exemption from rating of any portions of Government property. He was also anxious to draw attention to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not propose to interfere in any way with the statutory bargains made with respect to property taken over for Government purposes in regard to rates. With respect to the land purchased for the New Courts of Justice, if it were to continue to be rated as heretofore the amount would be

  1445
  about £4,000 a-year. They all knew that a large sum was about to be expended upon building a Palace of Justice on that site—probably £1, 000, 000—but according to the right hon. Gentleman's plan, the parish in which the land was located would only receive the commuted sum of £4,000 a-year. That he thought was quite right; but take the case of the Houses of Parliament. These buildings cost £3,000,000, and the parish in which they stood would be entitled to require that an assessment should be placed upon them somewhat in accordance with their value and cost. The same remark would apply to Chelsea Hospital, the Horse Guards, the Treasury, and other buildings of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had by this Bill opened the door to attacks upon the public purse which might well be avoided, and he wished to know what he intended to do in this matter.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought they would be in a better position to discuss the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman when the Bill, as amended in Committee, was reprinted for the purposes of Report. He, however, did not intend to touch any of the statutable bargains which had been made in reference to particular properties, for if he had done so he could hardly have hoped to pass the Bill this Session.
  MR. LIDDELLprotested against the assumption that this House should be assessed upon the cost of its construction. If a man spent £500,000 in building a mansion and impoverished his descendants to future generations, the mansion ought not to be assessed on that account on the cost of construction.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

POST OFFICE—MAIL CONTRACTS—CAPE OF GOOD HOPE AND ZANZIBAR.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE RESUMED.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Nomination of the Committee [23rd June],
  "That Mr. Dodson be one of the Members of the Select Committee on the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar Mail Contract."—(Mr. Bouverie.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. HUNTmoved, as an Amendment—
  "That the Committee do consist of Seven Members, Five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and Two to be added by the House."
  He wished it to be clearly understood that in making this proposal he was actuated, not by any invidious feeling towards those hon. Members whose names had been proposed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), but by a desire to act strictly in conformity with precedent. In his opinion, the Committee ought to be chosen by the especial machinery provided for this purpose in the form of the Committee of Selection. In former times, Committees of this nature were chosen by the Committee of Elections; but since the House had surrendered its jurisdiction over Election Petitions, the Committee of Selection had generally nominated five, and the House itself two of the Members of the Select Committees. In the ease of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances relating to the Inman and Cunard contracts which he, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had entered into in 1868, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), it was ordered that five Members of the Committee should be nominated by the Committee of Selection and two by the House. That Committee was so nominated with the consent of the present Government, and he submitted that the present was on all fours with that case, and that, therefore, the precedent then set should be now followed.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Committee do consist of Seven Members, Five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and Two to be added by the House," —(Mr. Hunt,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that this was a matter which, except as a question of precedent as to the mode of appointing Select Committees, was really not of much importance. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) had suggested itself to him before he had brought forward his Motion for

  1447
  the appointment of the Committee, and he should have been glad had it recommended itself to his judgment, because had it been adopted he should have been relieved from the very invidious and ungrateful task of himself selecting the names of those who should serve on the Committee. He had, however, discovered that there were great objections to its adoption. In the first place, the Committee of Selection strongly objected to having this duty cast upon them. The right hon. Gentleman was accurate in his statement of facts connected with the precedent that he had referred to; but the decision of the House in that case had not been arrived at deliberately, after mature consideration by the House, but hastily, on the spur of the moment, in consequence of hon. Members opposite having declined to serve on the Committee. Moreover, on one or two previous occasions a similar proposal had been rejected by the House on the ground that the Committee of Selection had been appointed for a totally different purpose—that of nominating Members of Select Committees on Private Bills. In this instance the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no objection whatever to the hon. Members whose names he had submitted to the House, and who were gentlemen of unexceptionable character, bearing considerable weight in that House. The first name on the list, that of Mr. Dodson, was one universally respected in that House, and that Gentleman happened to be a Member of the Committee of Selection, who could not, therefore, have selected him to perform the duty he was so well calculated to discharge—that of Chairman of this Select Committee. He was aware that objections had been taken to the proposed constitution of the Committee on the ground that it was highly desirable that members of the legal profession should have been appointed; but he did not consider it a question for lawyers at all, and he deprecated the principle of referring subjects even of a simple character on all occasions to lawyers. As the poet Gay had said—
  "We know that lawyers can with ease Twist words and meanings as they please,"
  All they wanted in the Committee was good sound sense, honesty, and independence. He was sure that those qualities would be found in the names already placed upon the list. He had
  1448
  originally contemplated proposing a Committee of five Members; but, in consequence of what had occurred with reference to the Committee appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. O'Keeffe, when the House appointed seven in order that the Chairman should not have too great a preponderance, it had occurred to him that seven would be a better number than five. He had originally contemplated appointing two more members to represent the opposing views of this subject, and without votes; but then it was suggested that they might as well vote, as they would always vote contrary ways and thus neutralize each other. He had accepted this suggestion, and as both these Members sat on the same side of the House, he had thus destroyed the original balance of the Committee between the two sides of the House. But he did not think this was a question between one side and the other. It was a question as to what were the facts, and they would be easily ascertained by seven or eight Gentlemen of honourable and independent minds. He did not think it mattered whether the Committee was nominated by the Committee of Selection or by the House; but if the names he submitted met with acceptance it would be best to adhere to the usual practice, and to allow the Mover for the Committee in this case himself to nominate it, rather than to follow a precedent adopted in a hurry, and which was protested against by the Committee of Selection.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had very little to say on the subject. The Government should be very happy with either of the two alternatives proposed. He knew of no substantial objection to be taken to the one or the other. The precedent quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) was perfectly fair and unexceptionable; but the Resolution was adopted at a moment's notice, and that diminished its weight as a precedent. He should have been glad if there had been such an indication of opinion on the part of the House as would have enabled the Government to judge what was the prevailing sense of the House upon the subject, for by such indication they would have been guided. But if the House should remain mute, and give no utterance of their opinion before they went to a division, he thought, considering that the right hon. Member (Mr.

  1449
  Bouverie) had been at the pains to make a selection, which on all hands was admitted to be unexceptionable, and the Gentlemen had been requested to serve, he should be inclined to vote with his right hon. Friend, at the same time declaring that they did not object to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite if the House thought fit to adopt it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the House in considering this question should have regard to possible future proceedings. There could be no doubt that the names proposed were those of Gentlemen of character and position who would deal with the subject with ability and justice. If this Committee was appointed the House would feel sure that the inquiry would be conducted in a manner which was satisfactory and creditable. But the important consideration was whether it was a tribunal which would command public confidence. There had been many occasions on which the House had proceeded, not on the principle of allowing a Member of the House to submit a number of names to to be voted upon—and with respect to whom it was always rather delicate and invidious to vote—but of arranging these matters by the intervention of an intermediate body. It was stated in Sir Erskine May's book on the Law and Practice of Parliament, to which they had been accustomed to look as authority of late years—
  "Where the inquiry has been of a judicial character it has been usual to delegate the nomination of a Committee to the General Committee of Elections."
  A good number of cases occurring between 1848 and 1864–5 were mentioned. No doubt an impression prevailed that Committees named by the House were constituted by private arrangement, and when a list was presented it was difficult to vote upon it without appearing to reflect on the names it embraced. The proposal to refer the choice of names to the Committee of Selection was met by the reply that they existed for a wholly different purpose, and that they were not particularly well fitted for the duties of the former General Committee of Elections, which, indeed, might be disagreeable to them. As the Committee was not likely to be renewed, was the House to abandon nomination through an intermediate body? That was the question rather
  1450
  than the eligibility of the names submitted. It seemed to him more desirable to conform to the old practice than to set it aside by making a precedent which might be found inconvenient in the future.
  MR. MASSEYremarked that the practice of referring to a Committee upstairs the appointment of a Select Committee was comparatively modern, and ought to be restrained within precise limits. It had been adopted when the characters of Members of the House were involved, or when the questions at issue were of a similarly delicate nature, which it was thought desirable should be investigated by a body appointed in a judicial manner. The present inquiry related to a matter of primary interest to the House—namely, the proper expenditure of public money; there was nothing in it of a delicate nature, and he did not think it was necessary to delegate the appointment of the Committee. On the contrary, it was the duty of the House to take upon itself the responsibility of appointing this Committee. Here, there was no question involving the character of any of the Gentlemen concerned in the transaction, for during the discussions he had heard on the subject not a shadow of an imputation had been cast on the motives of any GI the parties concerned in making what, according to the present impression in the House, was an improvident contract. He saw nothing which ought to induce the House to depart from the practice of appointing a Committee in the ordinary way. The General Committee of Elections that formerly existed was certainly a very convenient tribunal, it being constituted for the express purpose of nominating gentlemen to try judicial questions. He would suggest that in a future Session the Committee of Selection might be advantageously reconstituted with a view to particular exigences.
  MR. SCOURFIELD,as a Member of the Committee of Selection, thought that tribunal ought not to be charged with the duty of nominating a Committee on this subject. The business of the Committee of Selection was to choose gentlemen to consider Canal, Railway, Gas, and other Private Bills, and there was, in fact, no reason why all its Members should not be taken from either side of the House exclusively.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 85: Majority 39.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Select Committee nominated:—Mr. DODSON, Mr. BENYON, Mr. LEATHAM, Sir ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT, Mr. WATERHOUSE, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Viscount SANDO.N, Mr. HOLMS, and Mr. GOSCHEN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  VOTE 1. —PUBLIC EDUCATION.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1,083,603, to complete the sum for Education, England and Wales.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in rising to move the Vote for Public Education, said, the Vote showed a considerable decrease on that of last year. The sum which he was about to ask for was £1,299,603, or in round numbers £1,300,000. That showed a decrease on the Vote of last year of £101,952. There was an increase in three items of £11,000–£4,500 for Inspectors, it having been found necessary to appoint four additional Inspectors; £1,000 on new extra grants, under Section 97 of the Act of 1870; and £5,390 for training colleges, in consequence of the large increase in the number of students, which he felt sure the Committee would not be disposed to regard with regret. There was a decrease of £509 for the Central Office, of £13,000 in the sum allowed for the working of the Act, and of £52,900 for building grants, in consequence of the buildings not having been erected as quickly as might have been possible, though, perhaps, as quickly as could reasonably have been expected. In making the Estimate last year, however, it was deemed desirable to take every contingency into account, and to err, if at all, on the safe side. There was a decrease of £12,500 in the sum for night schools, which was chiefly owing to the new regulations adopted with regard to these schools. He regretted on account of their good social effect that night schools should have been diminished; but they were social rather than educational institutions, and he was still of opinion that the House had done right in stipulating by the new regulations that the money expended on edu-
  1452
  cation should be really given for educational results. He came, in the next place, to a considerable decrease of £34,000, which was due to the day schools. The reason of the decrease was that matters did not get on quite so quickly as had been thought possible, and that it had, as he had before stated, been deemed wise to err on the safe side. Taking that view, there had been an over-estimate last year; but, notwithstanding, nearly the same amount was asked for in the present. That was done because there were good grounds now for being confident that the Act was getting into work; that the number of schools was increasing, and the number of scholars, and, as a consequence, the number who had to be paid. He found that the increase since August was very considerably greater than for the corresponding period last year, and that new schools were coming in very quickly. From 1862 to 1869, the average number of new schools brought under Government inspection and receiving Government grants in England and Wales was 492 each year. In 1870, the number was 1,114; in 1871, 1,353; and in 1872, 1,530. It was found in addition that the attendance was greatly on the increase, and it was only due to those gentlemen throughout the country who were engaged in the working of the school boards with such devoted energy that he should give two or three facts to show the results of their labours. He found that in Stockport the average attendance had increased 15 per cent since compulsion was introduced, and in Bath 17 per cent. In Manchester the weekly average attendance had increased 36 per cent in 15 months; while in London the average increase had been in the two years ending last December 36,041, and in Hull 3,580 since February, 1872; while in Leeds the average attendance had increased since 1869 to 8,475, or 63 per cent. As yet the increase had not told in the Returns published in the yearly Estimates; but it was an increase which was telling in the inspection which was now going on from month to month. The monthly increase in the actual payments as compared with last year furnished very striking facts as regarded the larger number of schools and the larger average attendance, and he believed he might safely put the average number of attendances this year at

  1453
  1,557,910. In 1869—the last year previous to the passing of the Act—the number of average attendances was 1,062,999, so that there had since been an increase of 500,000, or 50 per cent. The actual results, he might add, of inspection in England and Wales were as follow: — The number of departments of day schools inspected in 1872 was 14,101; the day scholars present at examination, 1,607,511; the average attendance at the day schools, 1,336,158. Those scholars were taught by 14,771 certificated teachers, 1,646 assistant teachers, and 21,297 pupil teachers. The population of England and Wales had increased from 1869 to 1872 5½ per cent, and during the same time the number of day scholars instructed 24½ per cent; the scholars present at examination rather less than 21 per cent; the average attendance rather more than 25 per cent; the certificated teachers also rather more than 25 per cent; and the pupil teachers more than 70 per cent. That was the increase up to last year; but the present would show a much larger proportionate increase—a very pleasing fact so far as the progress of education was concerned, but one which would necessitate next year probably a much larger Bill. He did not wish the Committee to suppose that the increase which he had just mentioned did not still leave much to be done. In 1872, the population of England and Wales might be put at about 23,000,000, and, as far as he could estimate, we should aim at an average attendance at elementary schools of about 3,000,000. Our schools would now hold 2,300,000, which, as the Committee would see, would leave a large deficiency in the accommodation, which ought to be considerably in advance of the average attendance. Some of the deficiency with regard to school accommodation was no doubt already supplied; and one of the good results which had followed the inquiries instituted under the Act was that, even in cases where the managers had not thought fit to come under Government conditions, they had in several respects improved their schools, and were improving them, so as really to supply education; while also a larger number of those schools were every day coming under the conditions of Government aid. The building grants, when completed,
  1454
  he estimated would give room for 300,000 more children than they had before. That was without touching the large sums being expended by the different school boards in building schools, taking advantage of the means of obtaining money through the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The London School Board was at work now for 100,000 children, a number which that Board itself, and the Education Department also, believed was the least they could start for, being considerably under the deficiency given by the actual Returns. Besides the case of London, the Department had already recommended loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners that would afford accommodation for at least 115,000 more children. The Committee would, perhaps, expect a few words as to the progress made in getting the Act into operation. Taking the Census of 1871 as his basis, the population of England and Wales might, in round numbers, be divided somewhere in this fashion:—In the metropolis and in boroughs, 9,800,000; and in 14,082 civil parishes not in the metropolis and boroughs, 12,900,000. For this population of 22,700,000 there were school boards in London and in all the larger boroughs–103 in number—for 8,500,000 of the population; and also school boards in 445 civil parishes, which, although a small proportion in number of the 14,082 he had mentioned, yet comprised a very considerable number of the larger of those parishes. There were school boards in these parishes for 1,500,000 of the population, so that altogether there were school boards for 10,000,000 of the population, leaving 12,700,000 without school boards. The Committee must not suppose that those places were now either without education or without great efforts being made to give it; but, undoubtedly, it was the business of the Department and the object of the Act that in all those parishes there should be strict inquiry as to whether there was sufficient education or not. The only part of the country where it was not necessary to make an inquiry before ordering the adoption of a school board was in the metropolis, in which it was decided to have such a board at once. In the rest of the country school boards were to become necessary if there were no other means of supplying the deficiency. The large towns and several of

  1455
  the large parishes had of their own accord declared that they would rather meet the requirements of their position by voluntarily forming a school board. With regard to the other parishes, it had been the duty of the Department to make inquiry and to act according to the results of that inquiry. Some hon. Members might think that process took rather longer time than it need do; but those who had practically to conduct it found that it proceeded as quickly as could reasonably be expected. It might have been possible to have put on more Inspectors, and covered the country at once with a larger staff; but there was a limit to the extent to which any Department could carry on work of that kind, because difficult points were constantly arising which had to be decided by two or three persons at its head. The permanent heads of his Department had done as much work as it was possible for any human being to do in the time, and he did not believe it could be done much, if at all, quicker with a due regard to doing it well. It was no slight task to institute a searching inquiry throughout the kingdom. That inquiry came to an end in the Spring of last year. The first notices were issued on the 16th of May, 1872. By the 31st of May, 1873, they had published the notices for 8,551 districts, and they hoped to complete those notices in August, or within 16 months of their commencement. The Committee might be interested to hear that of those 8,551 notices, as regarded 3,465, or about 40 per cent, the amount of accommodation was sufficient; and in regard to 5,086, or about 60 per cent, it was more or less deficient. Of those last, in respect to 2,817 they found strong reasons to order a union of parishes, and they had sent out notices that they should be formed into 989 united districts. Out of the 8,500 and odd parishes they had dealt with up to the 31st of May last, although they found 5,000 deficient, he should mislead the Committee if he did not state that in many cases the deficiency was very slight and would be easily filled up, while it was impossible to say to what extent it might be filled up even where it was rather large. So much for the working of the Act. With reference to the report of the examination, it was impossible this year to compare the results of the examination with those
  1456
  of the previous year, because they had not got a year of the New Code with which to compare this year. The New Code introduced a considerable change in the mode of examination one most important alteration being that the age for infants was raised from six to seven. The consequence was an apparent diminution in the number presented for examination. Then the standards of examination were a step higher than last year, and the number of attendances demanded was also larger. Therefore, they were not in a position to compare the results with any previous year. He should be interested, however, in comparing next year with this. In one respect such a comparison might be expected to be rather discouraging. As the school boards and the voluntary managers succeeded in sweeping up the neglected children of the country, they must necessarily bring down the average results of the examination; and they must bear that in mind in justice to the teachers; for nothing was more arduous than to deal with a big boy or girl who was brought into the school utterly untaught; and in some cases the number of such children would lower the general result; but it must not, therefore, be imagined that good work was not being done. As to special subjects, they were making to some extent satisfactory progress. Of 118,799 children presented in standards 4 to 6, the three higher standards, 71,507 were examined in one or more special subjects, and of those 18,958 passed in two subjects, and 30,515 in one subject. Thus about 50,000 out of 71,000 passed their examination in special subjects. This educational business was and must be hard work. Sometimes they seemed to be making very little progress; but, on the whole, he believed their progress was considerable, and also sound and sure as far as it went. They had three great problems to solve?—First, to get the schools; second, to get the children into the schools; and third, to get as much teaching as possible for them during the time they were at school. Their first problem they were very quickly solving. They would speedily have schools throughout the kingdom. The attendance also was increasing, though it was still deficient. They had in that respect to contend with the very prosperity of the country, because work competed with education. Yet they

  1457
  were making progress, and he trusted the House would take measures to insure its being still more rapid. Then he came to what was to be taught to the children. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) took great interest in that. He entirely agreed in principle with the hon. Baronet. The principle he would lay down was that they should aim not merely at giving the children elementary instruction in reading, writing, and ciphering, but strive to teach them everything useful which they could learn during the time they could keep them at school. He believed that under the present Code the children of the poorer classes would receive education from which they had before it existed been practically excluded. They should not, however, go too fast. The foundation should first be laid—the elements of education be imparted before they could hope to go further. They had the encouraging example of Scotland before them, and it was one which he trusted they would follow. With respect to the sum asked for Scotland, he had only to say that, the Scotch Act having only been passed last Session and the New Code only now coming into operation, it was not probable that a larger grant would in consequence be required for Scotland during the current year. He expected this to be the case, judging by the English precedent; but should this turn out to be a mistake, a supplementary vote would be asked for next Session. He hoped the Committee would vote the sum for which the Government asked.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken—whether there was, under the present regulations, any provision made for the examination of masters for certificates in schools which had not hitherto received a grant from the Government? He believed that in the last Code proficiency in teaching music had been rendered an essential qualification in the examination of masters of elementary schools. Admiring, as he did, music as much as any man, he did not think that music formed such an element of education as should render the capacity to teach it an essential qualification for a certificate to the master, or for a grant to the school. He wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman thought on the subject?
  MR. RATHBONEcomplained of the inadequacy of inspecting power in the town of Liverpool, and of the disadvantages in an educational point of view resulting therefrom. There were 157 schools to be inspected, and there was but one Inspector, who had one assistant. He would suggest the appointment of supernumerary Inspectors, who would by their training become fitted for the higher office.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was of opinion that everybody must have been satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and he believed the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) must now see that education was progressing favourably, notwithstanding the fact that school boards were not general throughout the country. He thought that much more would be done by encouraging voluntary effort than by compulsory education. He disapproved, however, of taking away anything because children could not sing, though he would encourage singing as much as possible, and believed that "God save the Queen" would be the most popular song among them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) stated that a great want of school accommodation existed; but some of the Inspectors demanded a great deal more than the necessity of the case required. Some allowance should be made, and the Inspectors should not ride roughshod over those who were trying to do their duty.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had listened with great interest to the lucid statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Education Department. It was, no doubt, a matter of congratulation that the number of children sent in for examination in the extra subjects was increasing; but it appeared that even now, out of 1,500,000 of children in our schools, only 70,000 were examined in anything more than the mere rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic, nor did he think we could expect that under the present provisions of the Code there would be any great improvement in this respect. He therefore congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the improvements he had introduced in the Scotch Code, and hoped that similar modifications would be introduced into that for England. As regarded those

  1459
  who passed in the fourth and higher standards, 3s. per scholar was allotted by the New Scotch Code to history and geography. Again, the grants for extra subjects were no longer to be reducible by the excess over 15 s. a-head. He had always argued that this limitation rendered the grants offered for extra subjects practically delusive, in confirmation of which he observed that the Education Department estimated the amount which would be earned this year at 12 s. a-head on the average. It was obvious, therefore, that if the schools averaged 12 s. by reading, writing, and arithmetic alone, the best ones would earn the full 15 s., and there would be no inducement to take up any of the so-called extra subjects, under which term it must be remembered, was included everything except mere reading, writing and arithmetic. He regarded the alterations in the Scotch Code, therefore, as great improvements. When on former occasions he pressed the question on the right hon. Gentleman he was supported by the Chairmen, both of the Education League and of the Union, by every Member of the London School Board who had a seat in the House, and indeed, by almost everyone in the House who took an interest in education. He hoped, therefore, that the boon now granted to Scotland would next year be extended to England.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped that this Vote would never again be proposed until the Report of the Committee of Privy Council had first been laid on the Table. He regretted that the extravagance of some school boards was in flitting unnecessary burdens upon the ratepayers; but he congratulated the Committee on the great progress which education was making throughout the country. He hoped the Government would take care that there was an uniformity of action among the Inspectors, some of whom, he understood, had a much higher standard than others. It was also to be desired that Inspectors should be more accessible to the teachers.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONasked whether the Government would take some security that schools should not be closed in districts in which children did not attend by reason of attending Sunday schools?
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he hoped that a better supply of certificated
  1460
  teachers would be found for rural districts. In his parish, a school which had been kept open every day except during holidays for 35 years since its establishment, had been closed during the last nine months, because a certificated teacher, as ordered by the Privy Council, could not be obtained, although a most ample salary had been offered.
  MR. WHITWELLalso complained that the supply of certificated teachers was not sufficient, and expressed a hope that the item for normal schools would be increased next year. He, however, could not but congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) on the increase of education throughout the country.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEbore testimony to the great value and importance of night schools. It was a most interesting sight to see such numbers of young men, women, and grown-up people sitting side by side of an evening after their day's work, endeavouring to make up for their deficiencies in education. These were schools which were particularly susceptible of discouragement, and he regretted to think that the action of the right hon. Gentleman might tend in that direction.
  MR. DIXONcomplained that the usual Report had not been placed before the House prior to the discussion on this Vote. It was delayed last year, and was still further delayed this year. This placed hon. Members at a disadvantage in the present discussion. In country districts the people seemed to be afraid of school boards; but facts proved their great practical value. The increased attendance at schools in Birmingham during the last 12 months under the school board system was 50 per cent, as against 50 per cent increased attendance at school throughout the whole country during the last four years. The Vice President of the Council had said that there were 5,000 districts where a deficiency of school accommodation existed, and he should like to know in how many of these districts school boards had been formed? He should like also to know what had been done with reference to normal schools?
  MR. W. H. SMITHtrusted that, however valuable the work done by school boards might be, there was no disposition on the part of those who were interested in education to endeavour to thrust school boards on districts where

  1461
  they were not really required by proved deficiency of the means of education. School boards were, at the best, an expensive mode of proceeding— which would tell largely on the people's minds when they came to reckon the costs, and which would tend to discourage education if they were forced upon districts where it was not shown that they were necessary. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Forster's) statement, it did not appear to be so sanguine as the one he made last year; but it was one on which the House and the country might be congratulated. For his own part, he was not so sanguine as to the effects of direct compulsion as he was last year and the year before. Considerable results had been obtained, no doubt, by the application of direct compulsion; all the children most readily got at had been swept into schools, but the difficult work remained behind. Those parents who were indifferent to the value of education were beginning to find out how they might evade the regulations that were laid down, and by some means or other managed to keep their children at home, or to continue that irregularity which had been the bane of the schools in this country. He looked with longing eyes in the direction of indirect rather than direct compulsion. He believed that better results would be obtained if some system could be established under which a certificate of attendance at school should be made a condition of employment in ordinary pursuits as well as in manufacturing districts. There were many difficulties which had to be met, and he would earnestly entreat hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in education not to be too sanguine, but to wait patiently, expecting smaller results than were calculated upon last year, but not to be discouraged, and to look right and left for means of inducing rather than of compelling parents to send their children to school.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the discussion had been full of useful hints, and afforded a hopeful sign of that interest in the subject throughout the kingdom, without which the Department would be altogether helpless. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. A. Johnston), as to whether the Education Department would take steps to ensure that the schools now considered efficient should
  1462
  continue to be efficient, it was impossible to say when the Department might think it necessary to institute fresh inquiry; but of course it would be the duty of the Government to find out, from time to time, if districts were supplied in the sense of the Act. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had asked in how many of the 5,000 odd districts in which a deficiency existed school boards had been formed? The Act did not give the Department power immediately to issue an order for a school board. They had first to give notice of the deficiency, and that might be disputed. If it was not, there was still a final notice to be issued intimating the ascertained deficiency, and notifying that unless it was supplied within some period not exceeding six months a school board would have to be established. These final notices had not yet been issued to any great extent, because it was thought better first to finish issuing the first notices throughout the country, and that would be done by August this year. The hon. Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) said that the Inspectors of the Department ought not to proceed by hard-and-fast-lines in ascertaining deficiencies. It had been their object not to do so; and although they had not given universal satisfaction, they had not had any overpowering evidence of dissatisfaction. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had asked two questions. With regard to the examination of masters, there was in the Code a means by which the master of a school which was not in receipt of a Government grant could obtain a certificate without going up for examination, under certain conditions. With regard to such cases as that which the hon. Member had stated, he (Mr. Forster) would undertake to consider the matter fully before the next Code was settled. With regard to the Musical Fine, the rule had not been unsuccessful. The Code required that singing should be part of the teaching of the Elementary Schools, and that a shilling should be deducted from the grant for average attendance where singing was not taught. The final result had been that for all the schools which had been inspected last year the deductions under the Musical Fine had been only £262 10 s. out of the total grant of £848,319. Music and singing were generally taught in the

  1463
  schools with very successful results. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell) seemed to think that school boards might be extravagant in consequence of the grants made to them; but he (Mr. Forster) would rather have thought that complaints, if any were made at all, would have been that the grants were rather too much than too little fenced round. As to the staff of Inspectors, he could not honestly say that it was at present too small; but there were circumstances connected with last year which were exceptional, and in some cases untried men had to do the work. The mode of conducting examinations was becoming more uniform, and the President of the Council and himself had revived the custom of having an annual meeting of the senior Inspectors to give suggestions as to the mode in which inspection should be conducted, especially as to the mode of conducting it with uniformity. Hitherto the Government had not set to work to start any establishment in which suitable masters might be trained, as it was a serious matter to do so. He thought however that the suggestion that training halls might be started was one well worth considering, although he hoped it would not be left to the Government to originate them. With reference to the question of compulsion, he might point out that the great size of London made the work of the London School Board much more difficult than that of any other board in the country, for they had to deal with such an enormous multitude of persons who were neglected and more or less degraded. They must also bear in mind that there was a considerable difference between the town and country, and that though there might be some villages and districts in the country where there was great neglect, there were not those masses of neglected children which they saw in towns. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had said that modes had been discovered for evading the Act; but he (Mr. Forster) had endeavoured to meet those cases in the Bill which he had lately introduced. With regard to the night schools, although the regulation that every school must be open 60 times in the course of a year and the average attendance of the scholars must be 40 might have had the effect of shutting up some schools, he thought
  1464
  that any institution which was worthy of support on educational grounds should be able to comply with that condition. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote which he now asked.
  MR. SCOURFIELDgave the right hon. Gentleman credit for great earnestness and zeal in his endeavours to promote the education of the people; but he regretted that the results, as compared with the cost, were not as satisfactory as might be expected; and he thought that the heads of schools might receive a caution on the subject.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £218,503, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
  In reply to Mr. BOWRING,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was quite true that Mr. Cole had resigned his position as Superintendent of the Science and Art Department, at South Kensington, and the important question of the appointment and duties of his successor would be taken into consideration by Lord Ripon and himself, with the assistance of his Colleagues in the Government. He could not allude to the resignation of that gentleman without saying that he had always found him a most efficient, devoted, and painstaking public servant. He only wished that in every Department they had such good servants. He had found very few persons to compare with Mr. Cole either in devotion and industry or in ability and knowledge. He had also been most successful as an administrator.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Mr. Cole's successor was not satisfactory. He objected at so late an hour to go on with this Estimate; particularly as the Government intended, as he understood, to take Supply at the morning sitting this day.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £129,413, to complete the sum for Public Education in Scotland.
  MR. MILLERasked how it came that this year the sum allowed for education in Scotland was only £3,000 more than when they had no Act, and he also wished to know why the building grants were put down at the very small sum of £1,400, while the Vote for building grants in England was £105,000?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the reason why the Estimate for Scotch Education was not larger was they did not think it necessary to make it so during the first year of the passing of the Act. If they found more money was wanted, a Supplemental Estimate could be introduced next Session. As to the Scotch Code, that had been drawn up with a view to consult the feelings and wishes of the Scotch people, and he should be very much surprised if Scotland did not earn more money per child than England did.
  In reply to Mr. DALGLISH,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not undertake to alter the Scotch Code at once, provided it did not come up to his expectation.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £4,610, to complete the sum for the Board of Education, Scotland.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (CUMUTATIVE VOTE) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Election of Aldermen in Municipal relating by the application thereto of the Cumulative Vote."—(Mr. Collins.)
  Debate arising;
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Sir Hedworth Williamson,)—put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLLINS and Mr. MORRISON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 206.]

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Bill to continue and amend "The Endowed Schools Act, 1869," ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 207.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
.—PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision * (174); Crown Private Estates* (175).
Second Reading—Public Worship Facilities (.56), negatived; Register for Parliamentary and Municipal Electors (133), negatived.
Committee — Canonries * (169); Admission to Benefices and Church warden ships, &c. * (153–176); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (134–177).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (110); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) * (154), and passed.

PUBLIC WORSHIP FACILITIES BILL.
(The Earl of Carnarvon.)

(No. 56.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he had hoped that the second reading would have passed without opposition; but the Notice for its rejection given by his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) rendered it necessary for him to give an explanation of the measure; and whatever its fate, he was desirous that it should be fully discussed. Its object and its provisions were very simple. Its object was to pro-

1379
vide facilities for the performance of Public Worship, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. To its first provision that upon the application or with the consent in writing of the incumbent of any parish, the Bishop of the diocese might licence a clergyman of the Church of England to officiate in a schoolroom or other suitable building within the parish, he anticipated no objection. The second provision empowered a Bishop, in a parish containing not less than 1,000 inhabitants, on the application of 25 resident inhabitants, setting forth the existing facilities for public worship in the parish, and the additional facilities which they desire to have provided, and after hearing any objections, to licence a clergyman for the performance of Divine worship in any specified schoolroom or other suitable building; and the third provision empowered the Bishop to licence a clergyman to officiate in chapels attached to private residences, on the application of the owner, subject to the conditions that such chapel should be for the sole use of the owner or occupier and of the persons residing in the premises or precincts, or that the residence was situated in a parish containing more than 1,000 inhabitants, or was distant at least one mile from any parish church. These clauses were carefully guarded by provisions against abuse—such as for the revocation of the licence, that the licence should not include the solemnization of marriage, and for the registration of baptisms, and in Committee the securities might, if necessary—he should himself wish to alter one or two points—be strengthened without impairing the principle of the Bill. He was quite at a loss to know what was the precise objection to the Bill entertained by his noble Friend who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the second reading. The only reasonable objections which he could foresee were that the measure might involve a certain invasion of the parochial system; that it might excite division and strife, and that it vested too large a power in Bishops. Now, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) yielded to no man in his admiration and love for the parochial system—it had, as he believed, been the means of affording the greatest spiritual advantages and blessings throughout the
1380
country; but at the same time that he admired the system he thought it would be absurd to raise it into a sort of fetish, and to say that under no circumstances should it be touched. That would be to sacrifice the spirit and to preserve the dry bones. Moreover, already from the mere force of circumstances the principle had been infringed in the cases of the Army, the hospitals, and workhouses, and the case of large towns, for it was admittedly impossible to enforce it strictly in the case of parishes with overgrown populations. As to country districts, he at first entertained some doubts, but the magnitude of the evil and the insufficiency of the existing machinery had convinced him that the Bill was necessary. Without quoting the numerous letters he had received, he would appeal to the Episcopal Bench whether in every diocese there were not parishes with large populations, anxious to subscribe the means for extending and improving their religious organization, and to provide everything requisite for their spiritual wants, but where all religious action was practically stopped by the age, indolence, or wilful negligence of the incumbents, to whom the law gave a veto on any kind of reform, however earnestly desired by the parishioners and the Bishop. A right rev. Prelate not present had in his recent charge described such parishes as the disgrace of the diocese and the despair of the Bishop, the clergymen neither doing their duty nor allowing others to do it, and straining to the uttermost the rights given them by the parochial system to protect them in, not from, their work. But a parish was not made for the incumbent, and though he had a freehold in the estate of his parish, he had no freehold in the souls of his parishioners. Only a measure like this would touch the evil. It had been said that this measure would produce strife and division in parishes. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) doubted whether it was likely to be put in force in any parish in circumstances which might lead to strife and discord; but if it should be so, he should prefer some measure of these to the stagnation now prevailing in such parishes. It might be thought too, that the Bill gave too arbitrary a power to the Bishops. But if we had Bishops invested with large spiritual and secular powers, it must be

1381
assumed that they would not abuse their trust. They acted, moreover, in the full light of public opinion, with a degree of responsibility scarcely resting on any layman, and it was a chimera to suppose that they would gratuitously promote parochial strife, the results of which would inevitably re-act on themselves. Their decision would have to be given in writing, the incumbent would have every facility of objecting, and the whole transaction would be as public as possible; while, should an unworthy person be unfortunately licensed, the licence was revocable by the Bishop. He would have nothing to do with the Bill were it likely to tell for one party in the Church and against another; but its effect, if any, must be equal on both parties, who would be equally able to take advantage of it; and it was more fit to meet the difficulties he had described than difficulties arising from differences of opinion. At present, as long as an incumbent complied with the bare requirements of the law, no action could be taken, though the Church might find dissent grow and infidelity increase—every other sect being free to open places of worship, and the Church alone being chained up and barred, however much the parishioners and the Bishop desired to remedy the evil. No measure of this kind could be free from objections, but they were far outweighed by its advantages; and in nine cases out of ten the freedom and power given by the Bill to the laity and diocesan would operate as a sufficient stimulus to induce a negligent or obstinate clergyman to meet the requirements of the parish. No one was more familiar with the evil than the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and he would entreat him to propose a remedy, if he had one, but not to adopt towards the Bill a non possumus policy. The noble Earl, who had lightened many burdens, should not take the responsibility of stopping a measure which could produce only an infinitesimal degree of mischief, and of thereby leaving parishes in a state of paralysis and bondage, with the life-giving influences of religion checked.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Carnarvon).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that the Bill be read a
1382
second time that day three months—said, that the magnitude of the subject did not seem to be altogether appreciated by the noble Earl who had taken charge of the Bill. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had been appealed to not to impede the progress of true religion and shut out the light from the dark recesses of large populations. Now, so far from doing that, he would open the doors much wider than the noble Earl was prepared to do; he was prepared for a large and extensive scheme for letting in the light as far as possible on the whole mass of the population. The public hitherto had been silent on the Bill, but the clergy, in private communications, had not been entirely indifferent to it. One of the first men in the Church, Mr. Miller, of Greenwich, had described it as a revolutionary measure; and a letter he had just received from another incumbent denounced it as the culminating point of Episcopal aggression. The Bill was vicious in principle; and while he admitted that something ought to be done, it would be a remedy far worse than the disease, impairing, without any compensating advantage, the integrity and independence of the parochial system, and bringing great discredit on the Establishment itself. It was quietly introduced into the House of Commons, and passed through Committee in the small hours with one or two Amendments, but without a single speech throwing any light on its object and purpose. No public man besides the noble Earl had come forward as an advocate of it, and only two other authorities had been found in its favour — one, a pamphlet endorsed by Mr. Salt, the introducer of the Bill, but written, he believed, by a friend of his; the other, in a letter by an admirable and excellent man, Mr. Ryle, rector of Stradbroke. All those authorities urged the necessity of affording the people the largest means of enjoying the religious worship of the Established Church, and, the removal of many obstacles thereto, especially an abatement of the power of incumbents in obstructing all improvement by a rigid enforcement of the parochial system. Now, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) concurred in the whole of that, and was prepared to go much further than the noble Earl in supporting a wide and deep reform, bringing the Church more into

1383
harmony with the existing wants and feelings of the people, and even bringing its government under better supervision and control. Mr. Ryle, originally a stanch supporter of the Bill, writing last April to The Record, admitted that it was not faultless, and was open to serious objections, even going so far as to say—
"It interferes rudely with the parochial system of the Church of England. It affects the position of incumbents. It risks the introduction of divisions, strife, and party spirit into parishes. It places a dangerous amount of arbitrary power in the hands of Bishops. All these are undeniable evils."
Deeming the evil so great that he was prepared nevertheless to support the Bill, how would Mr. Ryle remedy that evil? These were his words, and they were well worthy of the attention of those who supported the Bill—
"We must break the bonds which black tape has too long placed on us, and cast them aside. We must take the bull by the horns, and supplement the ministry of inefficient incumbents by an organized system of Evangelical aggression, and that without waiting for any man's leave. Parishes must no longer be regarded as ecclesiastical preserves, within which no Churchman can fire a spiritual shot or do anything without the licence of the incumbent. This wretched notion must go down before a new order of things."
Now, if that system of aggression were good for the Evangelical party, as it was called, it was equally good for the Ritualist and the Broad Churchman; all must be allowed to make their several attacks and form their several congregations as the Bishops, with their several tastes, might give them leave. That that—which he could not contemplate without dismay—was no mere theory, was shown by a letter written by a clergyman of considerable note, Mr. Portal, of Beauclere, Newbury, a neighbour of the noble Earl, in which he advocated a wider latitude and provision for at least three distinct schools of teaching within the Establishment. After arguing the question at some length, he said—
"We have now our three recognized parties; and I believe it will be infinitely conducive to peace and to religious liberty when each of these parties is allowed to have its own preachers and its own worship."
Could their Lordships think that desirable? Even Mr. Ryle, whose first letter was written before fully ascertaining the contents of the Bill, had written another, in which he said—
1384
"One crying want of this day is liberty for Churchmen to provide additional places for worship, without being obliged to wait for the sanction either of the incumbent or the Bishop. This ought to be the main principle of Mr. Salt's Bill. If the present Bill, now before the House of Lords, cannot be amended so as to provide this liberty, by all means let it be thrown out. It would not be worth having, and might do more harm than good."
The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had spoken of the freedom enjoyed by other bodies as compared with the Church of England. Now, if he became a Unitarian or a Jew, he might have all the liberty he desired; but while a member of the Church of England he must surrender some portion of his liberty in return for the great privileges attached to an Established Church. As to proprietary chapels, they were by no means a parallel case, for the proprietor usually appointed the clergyman, while the incumbent's consent was necessary; whereas the Bill empowered the Bishop to nominate a clergyman in spite of the incumbent's objection. Now, in his Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had guarded against proceedings being improperly instituted against a clergyman by restricting the power of instituting a suit to three members of the Church, and by rendering them liable to costs as between attorney and client; but this Bill allowed 25 parishioners to set the Bishop in motion, without requiring them to be members of the Church, ratepayers, males, or even adults. In some parishes there were men whose object was to vex and worry the incumbent, and they would be able to take action under the Bill with that motive. As to the power to be conferred on Bishops—he wished to say, directly or indirectly, nothing which could be offensive to the Episcopal Bench, but Bishops were men of like passions and infirmities with laymen, and however satisfied one might be with the present occupants of the Bench, he could not be sure who would come after them. The operation of the Bill would resemble a system of terrorism, and many incumbents would never feel safe against being cited by 25 parishioners to give an account of their actions. Its operation was limited, indeed, to parishes with not less than 1,000 inhabitants; but the greatest amount of necessity, neglect, and ignorance existed in smaller parishes, and he could see no reason for a restric-

1385
tion which greatly weakened the case in favour of the Bill. As to the commission of inquiry which the Bishop, at his own option, or at the request of the incumbent or 10 parishioners, might appoint three out of its five members would be actually in the nomination of the Bishop, and experienced persons had told him that such a commission could not be discharged for less than £100. Even if the cost was only £50, it would be a serious matter for incumbents with small incomes. If the majority of the commissioners reported favourably, the Bishop might nominate a clergyman without the slightest regard for the feelings of the great bulk of the parishioners. He could conceive nothing more likely to drive people into Dissent. People had taken the parochial system with all its defects as inherited from their forefathers; but if, in addition to having an incumbent put upon them, another man could be put in by 25 parishioners, he believed many would declare the Established Church a nuisance, and would prefer other denominations. Then, again, the Bill required copies of the notice to be given by the Bishop to the incumbent, to be posted in all Church of England places of worship in the parish—thus making the whole proceeding public. That notice, moreover, was to specify the name and residence of the clergyman whom it was proposed to licence—clearly implying that the parishioners were to express their opinion of his doctrine, and whether he was Ritualistic, or Neological, or Evangelical. The question would be talked of in the workshops and gin-palaces, and much of the spirit and feeling attending the election of clergymen in certain parishes by popular election would be excited. The man appointed would be shut out from any parochial duties, subject to the revocation of his licence by the Bishop in a more summary way than any curate was liable to, and while the Bill did not touch the incumbent's endowment and disallowed pew-rents, it made no mention of Easter offerings, free gifts, and collections, all of which might be had recourse to; so that if the licence were planted, as would often be the case, in the richest part of the parish, they would gradually be absorbed, leaving the incumbent to his endowment only. Moreover, the last Proviso afforded a means
1386
whereby the Bishop might assign the new clergyman a source of income. It provided also—
"That the money given at the offertory and the alms collected at any public service held under this Act shall be disposed of as the incumbent and churchwardens may determine, unless the Ordinary shall otherwise direct."
Now, that was a Proviso which absolutely gave the Bishop the power to override the rubric, which said that—
"After Divine service is ended the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of for such pious and charitable uses as the ministers and the churchwardens shall think fit, wherein if they disagree it shall be disposed of as the Ordinary shall appoint."
Under the existing rubric, therefore, the Ordinary could not dispose of the money, unless the incumbent and the churchwardens disagreed; but under the Bill there would be no question of disagreements, and the Bishop might step in and direct the money to be disposed of entirely as he pleased, and the whole of it would, of course, go to maintain the new clergyman. In that way—and he was sorry to make the remark—a very large portion of patronage would in a short time pass into the hands of the Bishop. A clergyman, indeed, had written to him, entering into details as to an appointment which had been already made in the richest part of his parish, which was a very small one; and if the present Bill were to pass, a very large portion of his receipts would fall to nothing, and he would have to live on his own miserable endowment. He would pass over those objections to the measure, and would be prepared to give up all patronage, if necessary, if it stood in the way of the spiritual welfare of the people. He would, however, give it up only on the condition that it should not pass from lay into ecclesiastical hands. It was evident, he might add, that under the operation of the Bill the incumbent of a parish and the other clergyman who might be appointed would be likely to engage in a most strenuous rivalry. The one would be desirous of keeping his church full, while the other would have the same object in view with regard to his own place of worship; the one would strive to get the offerings, the other to keep them from him. That was a state of things which their Lordships could not, he thought, contemplate without regret. He recollected

1387
well the energy with which a noble Marquess declaimed as to the supposed consequences in that respect of a Bill which he had introduced, enabling three men in a parish to "promote the Judge's office;" but the results in the present instance had been ten times worse, because instead of a single movement, there would be one which might be constantly renewed. Sunday after Sunday there would be such scenes as a Ritualistic clergyman and an Evangelical incumbent denouncing one another and hurling against one another the thunderbolts of theology. There would, in fact, be perpetual disputes, and perpetual rivalry. That being so, if Mr. Mackonochie—whose name he mentioned merely as a representative of extreme opinions as a High Churchman—had the care of souls in a certain parish, and that he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who was supposed to be an extravagantly Low Churchman had the power of appointing Dr. M`Neil to act with him—he should do no such thing, because he should think it horrible to give occasion for disputes, and the exchange of hard words from Sunday to Sunday. He objected to anything of the kind on principle, and because such proceedings were calculated to drive many people into infidelity, and to induce them to ask whether there was any such thing as truth at all. He now came to that part of the Bill which gave the incumbent the right of appeal to the Archbishop of the Province; and that led him to the subject of the expense connected with proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Knowing them to be enormous he had written to Archdeacon Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton, to ask him what was the cost of an appeal to the Archbishop—as he himself had made an appeal, and had been awfully punished in consequence. The reply of the Archdeacon was as follows:—
"East Brent, High-bridge, Jan. 11, 1873. "Dear Lord Shaftesbury,—The first step in the matter of expense was the requirement of £100 guarantee on account of each of my two curates. This guarantee I gave. When the judgment of the Appeal Court was given in our favour, we were made to pay our own costs. My bill of costs was £509 11 s. 5d. Other necessary expenses connected with the appeal brought up the amount to nearly £600. Besides this, a demand was made upon me for costs in my priest curate's case up to the time of withdrawal of his appeal."
[His appeal was withdrawn upon the ground of a technical difficulty created
1388
by the Bishop having allowed his licence to lapse].
"I refused to pay the amount so demanded and have heard no more about it. I was also asked to pay £46 to the Archbishop's secretary for his attendance upon the Archbishop in Appeal Court. This I also refused to pay, and it was allowed that there was no legal claim for it. Upon the whole I have paid some £600, and, if I had paid all I was asked to pay, it would have been some £800. Upon the above statement, which I place unreservedly in your hands, it does certainly appear that to give curates such power of appeal as this is a simple mockery."
He was sure their Lordships would concur in that view. No doubt, the whole system of Ecclesiastical fees demanded revision; they were oppressive in the extreme—and here was a pretty hope of redress, to be held out to a clergyman seeking justice. Such were the contents and purport of the Bill to which their Lordships were invited to give a second reading. They would admit, he was sure, that they were worthy of grave consideration. The integrity and independence of the parochial system were threatened, and without any adequate compensation; and yet the parochial system was in the present day the only practical argument for the maintenance of our Established Church. That something should be done to limit the obstructive power of incumbents he did not deny. But they must resist an effort to place it exclusively in the hands of the Bishops, to the vast extension of their Episcopal power, and to the increase of their ecclesiastical patronage. To accomplish its end, that Bill would put one or more preaching-houses in every district approved by the Bishop. Each clergyman so named, as well as the invaded incumbent, must be in perpetual rivalry with each other to win or to retain the greatest number of attendants at their respective places of worship, the greatest amount of Easter offerings, free gifts, and the like; and, in their zeal, to canvass for the rich, not unfrequently forgetting the poor. And yet how would that satisfy the people? Assume for the sake of argument, that it would give them more places of worship. Would it give them such a minister as they desired? Because, if it did not, the multiplication of places of worship would be of no avail. It was not so much the want of room as want of inclination that kept many away from our churches. They might see, at that moment, in London, churches in the

1389
midst of a dense population, not filled to the extent of one-third, because the minister and his services were altogether unattractive to them. Moreover, no sufficient reason had been assigned for the omission of the smaller population in the rural districts—generally the most necessitous, the most ignorant, and the most neglected. The minister oftentimes reigned paramount among them, with no resident country gentleman, away from public opinion, and not pressed by any of the sense of danger which arose from the presence of large masses. There were greater mischiefs to be apprehended from our rural districts than many people were aware of. It had been said that anyone who opposed this Bill must be prepared to propose a better. Was the assertion just? Was anyone bound to find a substitute for the proposition he rejected? Was it the dictate of common sense or the rule of ordinary life? But, so far as he was concerned, though there were none that he would offer as alternatives, there were some that he would rather accept than that Bill—all bad, but each preferable to the measure before them. He would like a Bill for a larger extension of district churches; he would even accept one for an increase of proprietary chapels; nor would he resist a Bill to restrain the rights of incumbents, and give to any ordained minister of the Church power to obey the call of a majority of dissatisfied parishioners, who, regardless of Bishop, rector, and patron, might form a congregation of their own choice—bad enough, he admitted—as approaching to the Congregational system, but yet better than ecclesiastical disorder under the sanction of authority. But the present Bill he must unhesitatingly oppose, for, in addition to its other evils, it was, as Mr. Miall said in The Nonconformist paper, the first step towards the disestablishment of the Church of England.
An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Shaftesbury) appeared to think that the Bill originated with the Bishops, and that they looked upon it with great favour because it so largely increased their power. Now, the Bill
1390
did not originate from the Episcopal Bench. Two years ago a similar Bill was proposed in the other House of Parliament, he believed, by the same hon. Gentleman who proposed this measure, which now came up to their Lordships; and as the Bishops supposed that the clergy had not had then sufficient time to consider the whole subject, and as the Bill appeared somewhat rudely to interfere with the parochial system, most of his right rev. Brethren opposed it, and it was rejected. In the two years that had since elapsed, the Mover of the Bill in the other House had taken counsel in all directions respecting his measure. It had been before the clergy and the laity now for nearly two years; and he was bound to say, so far as his information went, that no strong feeling of opposition had been manifested against it in the ordinary way of petitioning either branch of the Legislature. Therefore his right rev. Brethren and he felt themselves in a somewhat different position from that which they occupied two years ago. They were led to suppose that those evils which the noble Earl contemplated as likely to arise from that measure, could not have presented themselves to the great body of the members of the Church of England, otherwise they would have heard of their alarm. The Episcopal Bench therefore had to consider whether, a measure being proposed by a layman and supported principally by lay authority, and having passed the other House, and being introduced by a layman into their Lordships' House, ought by them to be opposed or supported. He confessed that, regarding the measure as a very difficult one, believing that it was capable of a great deal of amendment, and that much might be said against it—as the noble Earl had abundantly proved—he still thought that its defects were greatly surpassed -by its merits, and that more was to be said in its favour; and therefore he was prepared to vote for its second reaching. But neither he, nor any of his right rev. Brethren separately, nor the whole Bench collectively, desired to be held responsible for the introduction of the measure; consequently, when the Bill was called a measure of Episcopal aggression, it must be understood that it was not an aggression which the Bishops on their own motion had made on the rights of the laity or clergy. It was

1391
quite possible that the measure might be of such a nature as greatly to increase their power, and he was glad if there was such confidence felt in the Bishops that lay members of the Church desired —if they did. desire—to place so much power in their hands; and he did not believe it would be possible to construct any measure for the improvement of the Church in which Members of the Episcopal Bench could be omitted from consideration, and not allowed that due degree of influence which their very office implied. The noble Earl appeared to think the Bill gave the Bishops the power of nominating clergymen in a parish; but, as he read it, it gave no such power. The persons who were to nominate the clergymen were the laity of the parish. A certain number of laymen, perhaps too few—though that could be set right in Committee—requested that a certain clergyman should be licensed, and the Bishop had nothing to do with the matter, except either to licence or not to licence him. The power of the Bishops, therfore, would not be so largely increased as the noble Earl had imagined. He gathered from the noble Earl's speech that this was in no way a party question—in the sense of theological party. The noble Earl quoted a venerable Archdeacon, with whom he appeared to be in correspondence, and also the authority of Mr. Ryle; so that there seemed really to be a division of opinion on that matter, altogether irrespective of party; and he inferred from this that the measure, be it good or bad, was perfectly impartial, offering no more power to one party than to another. Before he proceeded to consider the objections of the noble Earl, he desired to call attention to one or two ways in which, according to the ancient constitution of the Church of England, the parochial system had in past times been somewhat interfered with. It was a common mistake to suppose that a parish could not be subdivided without the consent of the incumbent. Acts which bore the name of a noble Duke opposite and of Sir Robert Peel, gave power for the sub-division of parishes, and therefore interfered with the rights of those who were at the head of the old parishes. In his administration of the diocese of London, he too often found that when it was proposed to sub-divide a parish the incumbent was dead against
1392
it. Then the power of the Ecclesiastical Commission and the Bishop of the diocese were put in force, and the parish was sub-divided, and the clergyman who before had been endeavouring to force his way into the parish himself became an incumbent. But in London the population increased very rapidly, and the clergyman who had forced. his way into the parish of the original incumbent soon found some other clergyman equally anxious to force his way into his parish; and however eager he had been to obtain access to the parish of the old incumbent, he was almost certain to resist strenuously the attempt of the new-comer. They might, therefore, go too far in preserving the rights of incumbents. No doubt, they had rights, and these rights ought to be respected; but he considered their right as of no importance at all, if they in any way interfered with the spiritual benefit of the people placed under their charge. Moreover, from the days of the Commonwealth, if not before, there had been lecturers in most of the large parishes; and though the incumbent might have power to protest against the appointment of the lecturer, in point of law, he was quite certain that some pressure, gentle or otherwise, would be brought to bear to secure the appointment; and. the lecturer, once appointed, he was not aware that a new incumbent coming into office could remove the lecturer otherwise than by undertaking all the duties himself, and even then there would be great difficulty in preventing the lecturer from performing the duties for which he was appointed. Then there were proprietary chapels, with many of which they were familiar, in London. In London, indeed, in the days of his predecessor, Bishop Porteus, he believed the only real extension of the Church of England to the wants of the congregation came from the introduction of these proprietary chapels, which were not very easily distinguishable from the sort of chapel proposed to be erected by this Bill. It was true that the consent of the incumbent, willing or unwilling, given freely or under pressure, was required before a clergyman could obtain possession of one of these proprietary chapels; but, once there, it was impossible for the incumbent to remove him, and he remained irremoveable in

1393
spite of the incumbent, exercising his office according to a system which, whether it belonged to the original Constitution of the Church or not, was at least a hundred years old. Therefore, there was not so much novelty as at first appeared in the proposal of the noble Earl who had introduced this Bill. Moreover, in the overgrown parishes of London, it was considered most desirable to introduce missionary clergymen to exercise their office among the poor. Those persons were selected for the express purpose of ministering to the poor, and they were persons, generally, who had a certain capacity for addressing the labouring classes. It was very true that the incumbent might at any time refuse permission to any of these persons to officiate in his parish; but, as a matter of fact, incumbents were in one way or another induced to allow these somewhat irregular agencies, and the missionary clergy were reckoned, as he heard that day at a meeting of the Bishop of London's Fund, one of the most valuable agencies at present in existence for the evangelization of a large class of our fellow-countrymen. Therefore, though this measure might go a little further, it was still travelling in the course in which legislation and custom had been travelling of late years—relaxing the parochial system in order to meet the exigences which arose by an increasing population, or by an increased sense of responsibility to that population.. He should be quite ready to agree that the measure should go to a Select Committee, or that it should be examined in detail in a Committee of the Whole House and every provision dealt with upon its merits; but he must allude to a few more of the points raised by the noble Earl. Seeing the need for an extension of the evangelizing agency of the Church, he was not prepared to reject the measure. He was surprised that the noble Earl should be so afraid of the name of the clergyman being submitted to the parishioners. The noble Earl seemed to think that nothing but evil could possibly arise from such a system, but, with some little inconsistency, he suggested at the end of his speech, that the laity should be the persons to pronounce judgment upon the qualifications of their minister. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) saw no objection to the laity having a voice
1394
in the appointment of the clergyman, or to the names being placed on the church door, in order to give them publicity; and he could imagine an incumbent who had not done a great deal in past times, being stirred to a sense of duty by the knowledge, that there was a chance of his parishioners nominating some person whom the Bishop would licence to perform certain functions which he had failed to perform. He should certainly object to the Bishop appointing three members of the Commission, and he saw nothing in the Bill to throw the expenses on the clergyman of the parish; but if any, those expenses would be very small indeed. His belief was with regard to fees, that the fees complained of by the noble Earl were not ecclesiastical, but were those payable to certain members of the legal profession who were called upon to address the Archbishops and Bishops on these occasions. He knew that in the case of Appeal to which the noble Earl alluded, two gentlemen of the long robe addressed him (the Archbishop of Canterbury) in a long oration, and a very considerable portion of the sum of £600, of which mention had been made, went no doubt into the pockets of those gentlemen. In conclusion, he must say that he had found this a matter somewhat difficult to decide, but upon the whole, he thought that the Bill ought to be carried. He had no fear that its effect would be to abate the zeal of Churchmen for the erection of new churches, for in the diocese of London it was found that the construction of these temporary chapels almost always led to the erection of a permanent church afterwards. The noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill feared that the destruction of the Church would follow, because the Bill adapted itself to the wants of the times in the manner proposed. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) did not share in that fear, and the noble Earl's remarks, in which he quoted Mr. Miall, reminded him of a recent discussion in that House, and which had been echoed back from Scotland, in which it appeared that the seceding bodies in Scotland expressed an apprehension that any extension of the Established Church in Scotland would lead to its destruction. He thought that, on the contrary, its extension would strengthen it, and do some damage to those who had suddenly

1395
awakened to a sense of its value. The clergyman of a parish claimed a monopoly, but it must be admitted that this was sometimes a monopoly of eccentricity or of neglect upon which it was desirable some check should be placed, and because the Bill imposed such a check, he had determined, after very considerable hesitation, to support the second reading.
THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, that there was no difficulty in getting good congregations in Wales when the Church of England had an opportunity of putting itself before the people; and from a long practical experience, he could testify as to the necessity that existed for giving such facilities as were requisite for the purpose. Notwithstanding all the exertions of both Protestants and Dissenters, there was still a great amount of practical irreligion and ungodliness which required all the earnestness and zeal of Christians to contend against; more especially, when it was considered that under the existing system, it was impossible for members of the Church to do all they might do. The present jealousy of Episcopal power, of archidiaconal influence, and of the clergy generally, was utterly unworthy of many of those who entertained it, and he trusted that their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill, in order that greater facilities of religious worship might be provided for the Church in Wales.
LORD DYNEVORspoke from experience as a minister of the Church of 45 years' standing, and declared his conviction that the Bill would do more harm than good. He thought that in very large parishes the incumbent ought not to have a veto; but he believed that the effect of passing such a measure as that proposed by this Bill would be to create strife in every parish, and that it would prove an impediment to religion more than anything else. It would create a Cave of Adullam in every parish, and have effects similar to those which occurred in Ireland on the appointment of coadjutor priests by the Roman Catholic Bishops.
On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 52; Not Contents, 68; majority, 16. Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, Archp.

Carlisle, Bp.

York, Archp.

Chichester, Bp.

Ely, Bp.

Cleveland, D.

Gloucester and Bristol,

Northumberland, D.

Bp.

Saint Albans, D.

Hereford, Bp.

Llandaff, Bp.

Bath, M. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Exeter, M.

Oxford, Bp.

Ripon, M.

Rochester, Bp.

Winchester, Bp.

Amherst, E.

Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

Blachford, L.

Granville, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and

Grey, E.

Orrery.)

Kimberley, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

Nelson, E.

Foley, L.

Powis, E.

Gwydir, L.

Spencer, E.

Hanmer, L.

Stanhope, E.

Hylton, L.

Strathmore and King-

Lawrence, L.

horn, E.

Lisgar, L.

Lovel and Holland, L.

De Vesci, V.

(E. Egmont.)

Halifax, V.

Lyttelton, L.

Hardinge, V.

Mostyn, L.

Lifford, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-

Sidmouth, V.

borough.)

Strathallan, V.

Ravensworth, L.

Sydney, V.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Buckingham and Chan-

Hereford, V.

dos, D.

Portman, V.

Marlborough, D.

Richmond, D.

Bagot, L.

Bateman, L.

Blayney, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Aber-

Brodrick, L. (V. Midle-

corn.)

ton.)

Bute, M.

Buckhurst, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Cairns, L.

Winchester, M.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carys-

fort.)

Bantry, E.

Congleton, L.

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

Crofton, L.

Belmore, E.

De Mauley, L.

Chichester, E.

Denman, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Dinevor, L.

Derby, E.

Dunsany, L.

Devon, E.

Ettrick, L. (L. Napier)

Fortescue, E.

Gifford, L.

Harrowby, E.

Hatherley, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Hawke, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Malmersbury, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Head-

Morton, E.

fort.)

Shaftesbury, E [Teller.]

Kesteven, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Meredyth, L. (L. Ath-

Wicklow, E.

lumney.)

Monson, L.

Oranmore and Browne,

Canterbury, V.

L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clan-

Onnonde, L. (M. Or-

carty.)

monde.)

Doneraile, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Eversley, V.

Plunket, L.

Hawarden, V.

Poltimore, L.

1397

Raglan, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Sheffield, L. (E. Shef-

Templemore, L.

field.)

Tredegar, L.

Sherborne, L.

Vernon, L.

Sondes, L.

Vivian, L.

REGISTER FOR PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTORS BILL.
(The Lord. Privy Seal).

(NO. 133.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he had supposed that, considering that the Bill related solely to the constitution of the other House, and that it had been introduced and fully discussed there, it would not have been necessary for him to say more than a few words in asking their Lordships to give it the second reading. But the Notice which had been placed upon the Paper by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) made it necessary to go into the details of the measure at greater length than he had proposed. As to the principle of the Bill, no opposition whatever had been raised in the other House. So far both sides were in accord. Why, therefore, the noble and learned Lord should now move its rejection was more than he could understand. If indeed, the noble and learned Lord objected to certain of the clauses, and had given Notice that they should be omitted in Committee, or if he thought that some of the details could be advantageously altered, or that some new propositions could be advantageously added, that could have been easily understood; the noble and learned Lord's objections and wishes could have been considered and, where needful, concessions might have been made; but the noble and learned Lord's proposition to reject the Bill altogether was not, under the circumstances, easily intelligible. The primary object of the Bill was to provide for a single register of Parliamentary and municipal votes; and a second object was the prevention of frivolous objections, and for providing a simpler form of appeal against the decisions of the Revising Barrister that at present existed. For the first of these purposes the Bill provided that where a municipal borough is wholly or partly coincident with a Parliamentary borough, the electors of such Parliamentary borough and the
1398
burgesses of such municipal borough shall be comprised in one register of electors. For this purpose the registration of burgesses was assimilated to the registration of Parliamentary electors, and all the provisions of the Parliamentary Electors Registration Acts were, so far as circumstances would admit, made applicable to the former. As the dates fixed by the present law for qualifications, claims, revision, and so on, in respect of the municipal and Parliamentary franchises were generally dissimilar, it was provided by the 3rd clause that all dates now provided by the Acts relating either to Parliamentary or municipal elections should be altered, and that the dates applicable to the several subjects should be the same for both. The first Schedule appended to the Act set forth in a tabular form the present and the substituted dates. The 5th clause contained a complete scheme for the registration of lodgers. The second section of the Bill was directed to the prevention of frivolous objections. It was enacted that every notice of objection, to be valid, must state specifically the ground or grounds of objection. Each ground of objection was to be treated by the Revising Barrister as a separate objection, and he was directed to award costs to the amount of at least 2s. 6d. on each several objection that might fail, notwithstanding that the claim might be struck out upon some other ground. Where a person who is actually on the list of voters is objected to, and the voter is retained on the list, the Revising Barrister is to order costs to be paid to the person objected to. He thought these penalties would be sufficient to protect persons from the annoyance of frivolous objections. They would probably prevent unscrupulous agents from giving notices of objection on the calculation that the persons objected to might not think it worth while to attend to maintain their claims. The length to which this vexatious practice was sometimes carried might be shown from the fact that in the last registration for Oldham 11,000 objections were made when the total number of electors was about 14,000. The Bill also contained a variety of provisions relating to the Revising Barristers' Courts and the procedure by and before that officer. The only clauses with which he should trouble their Lordships were those

1399
which provided an appeal from the decision of the Revising Barrister, and directed that there should be an evening sitting for the purpose of revising. In the first case it was provided that the Revising Barrister might be compelled by the person aggrieved to state a case for the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, and in the latter it was provided that every barrister appointed to revise the list for any Parliamentary or Municipal borough containing a population exceeding 10,000 shall hold at least one evening sitting of his Court in such borough, for the convenience of those persons who by reason of the nature of their employment, or otherwise, are unable to attend the Court during the day. He thought this provision would confer a great boon upon the poorer classes of voters. These were the principal provisions of this important measure as it was sent up to their Lordships from the other House, after having undergone careful consideration and much alteration in Committee. The Bill could not, he thought, be looked upon with any considerations of party whatever. It had been introduced simply to facilitate the exercise of the franchise by those upon whom it had been recently conferred by the Legislature, and, so far as he could see, must be beneficial to both parties alike. The Act of 1867 had made the Parliamentary and Municipal franchise in boroughs identical, and it was a pure waste of time and expense to have two registrations of the same qualification of the same person. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would not withhold their assent to the Bill which had been sent up to them by the other House of Parliament. He might add that the Bill was not to extend to Scotland and Ireland.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal).
LORD CAIRNSsaid, the noble Viscount (the Lord Privy Seal) was unable to see on what grounds any opposition would be offered to the second reading of the Bill; and, having heard the objections which had occurred to the noble Viscount as being the only objections that could be raised to it, he (Lord Cairns) perhaps must not be surprised at his surprise. He knew so well the candour of the noble Viscount that, when he ventured to state some of the
1400
objections which had not yet occurred to his noble Friend's mind, he did not altogether despair that he would be disposed to agree that under the guise of a very simple character the Bill, when it came to be understood, embraced changes of very great gravity and very great danger. Before dealing with the objects of the Bill as stated by the noble Viscount, he solicited particular attention to the manner in which as a piece of legislation it proposed to deal with the registration law of the country. There were at present some 10 or 12 statutes — doubtless of a complicated character—provided for the borough and county registration of England; but those statutes had by degrees come to be so well understood that during last year there were scarcely any appeals, and perhaps he might say no appeal involving any question of importance. They abounded in minute details of dates, times, and periods at which and during which certain steps must be taken in boroughs and counties, and with those dates all the official bodies and individuals in the boroughs and counties were now perfectly well acquainted. He did not know whether their Lordships were disposed to attend to what might be termed "a Chinese puzzle;" but he could direct attention to a number of Chinese puzzles of a most intricate kind which might rise out of the Bill. The first Schedule gave about 20 or 30 dates in one column, and about 20 or 30 other dates in another column; the dates in the later column being the dates to be substituted for the dates in the earlier column. He demurred to the idea that it was the business, the duty, or the privilege of Parliament to set Chinese puzzles for the people of this country, and for the Judges who had to decide what the law of the country was. Their Lordships were supposed to have a little more leisure than the other House of Parliament, And that they could therefore supervise the legislation of the other House, and see that it was expressed in a proper manner; and that that was necessary in this case he could show, for of all the Bills brought up from the other House, or, indeed, presented to Parliament for consideration within his experience, that was the worst. In fact, he never before saw anything like the way in which the Bill proposed to deal with the whole series of Acts of Parliament, sprinkling

1401
new dates over old ones, and introducing new names to be substituted for others. The 5th section provided that every person claiming to be a Parliamentary elector for any borough in respect of the occupation of lodgings shall send his claim to the overseers "after the day substituted by this Act for the last day of July, and on or before the day substituted by this Act for the twenty-fifth day of August;" so that the intended claimant must study his almanac carefully to see to what the dates referred. Part of the Bill was to come into operation immediately after it passed, and the residue was not to take effect till January 1874. Would their Lordships desire to have a metaphysical puzzle? If they did, they had only to look at the 44th section, which specified certain clauses that were to come into operation on the passing of the Act, and the remainder of the Bill, which included that very section, was not to come into operation till the 2nd of January, 1874. The section, which was to make the other sections come into operation immediately, was not itself to come into operation till January, 1874. The repealing clause, too, which was to repeal existing provisions as to registration, was not to take effect till next year, and therefore, if they passed the Bill, there would be two sets of provisions as to registration in force at the same time. The Bill was positively disgraceful in point of drawing; and it was useless to go into Committee upon it; for it could not be amended so as to provide a Code of Municipal and Parliamentary Registration Law. The Select Committee of the House of Commons, though they differed on ninny points, united in the recommendation that a Consolidation Bill should be introduced without delay, dealing with the borough registration. This Bill, however, was not to affect the list of voters for this year, either Parliamentary or municipal. It could not affect any municipal list except that which came into operation in November, 1874; and it could not affect any list of Parliamentary voters, which would come into operation till after, in all probability, there had been a new Election. The objects of the Bill as described by the noble Viscount were to have one list of voters both for Parliamentary boroughs and municipal boroughs; to provide a practical appeal, which there had not been hitherto, against improper
1402
rejection of claims; to make provision with regard to frivolous objections against the claims of voters. That was what the Bill aimed at, and what it failed to secure. The noble Viscount said it was desirable there should be only one register and one revision of Parliamentary and municipal voters, and all that he stated about the saving of expense was connected with that revision. What the Bill aimed at in regard to the saving of expense it signally failed in effecting, and he hoped to convince the noble Viscount himself that it was impossible to have one list for Parliamentary and municipal electors. The Bill, in fact, admitted upon the face of it, that there could not be one list. Iii sub-section 4 of Clause 4 it was provided that—
"Where a Parliamentary borough is wholly or partly coincident with a municipal borough, the list, for the purpose of claims and objections, and (if and so far as the revising barrister so directs) for the purpose of the revision thereof, shall he deemed to be composed of two separate lists, of which one (omitting part B. of the first column and everything exclusively relating thereto) relates only to Parliamentary electors, and the other (omitting part A. of the first column and everything exclusively relating thereto) relates only to burgesses."
Thus having gone through the operation of printing upon one and the same paper a list of the burgesses and the Parliamentary electors, it was necessary to declare that this was to be read not as one, but as two lists. If their Lordships would look at this list in the Schedule, they would find that any man in the country might be misled, and that there would be people coming forward to vote at Parliamentary elections because their names were in this list, whereas they were only entitled to vote at municipal elections. And the saving of expense would be effected by burdening these districts with the expense of preparing and printing this double list when they only wanted one list. he now came to the question of revision. The obscurity with which this Bill was drawn was so great that it had almost passed the House of Commons before its effect upon the counties of England came to be known, and the counties were now only awaking to that knowledge. He could state from communications addressed to Himself—and other noble Lords had received similar representations — that the effect of the Bill was regarded in the counties with positive alarm.

1403
Their Lordships would remember that the measure was not brought forward for the purpose of giving to the counties any advantage whatever, or of saving the counties a single shilling; yet it overthrew the whole system of county registration in England for the purpose of conferring some supposed advantage upon the boroughs. The present Parliamentary revision in counties was fixed at the most convenient period—namely, between the 20th of September and the last day of October. The harvest was then over, the agricultural classes had a little leisure, and when the revision was concluded, there was a period of two months between the 31st of October and the 1st of January, when the county list came into operation. In 1867, it was found that one month was insufficient, and arrangements were made to give two months for this purpose. But in order to get the Revising Barristers to work earlier and to have the list out in time for the municipal elections in November, this Bill proposed that the dates should be altered. The county revision was now to be carried on between the 9th of August and the 20th of September. In the northern counties this was the period of the harvest; many of the circuits were settled for this period, and the Revising Barristers were engaged; so that for no purpose or advantage connected with counties, and for the mere object of getting out certain burgess lists with which the counties had nothing to do, the Bill proposed to subvert and overturn all the county arrangements, and to throw the county revision to a period when the claimants could not attend, when the legal profession could not attend, and when it was doubtful whether the Revising Barristers could be present. The Bill also shortened the period during which the clerks of the peace were to deliver the register. At present, the register was to be delivered between the 30th of November and the 31st of December. Under the Bill the 21st of October was to be the date of delivery of the register. He had received a communication from the clerk of the peace of a county in which there were 17,000 voters who assured him that it would be utterly impossible for him to see to the printing and revision of the lists for which he was responsible, and to have the register in operation by the 22nd October. That,
1404
however, was the whole principle of the Bill. He believed that that had only been known lately in the counties, where it was expected that the Bill would be withdrawn when these defects were pointed out, and that a Consolidation Bill would be brought in. It was now found that the authors of the measure refused to make these alterations, and it was felt that the rejection of the Bill was absolutely necessary. The next object was to improve the right of appeal; but the appeal provided under the Bill was the purest mockery. The appeals from the revision under this Bill were to the Court of Common Pleas. The revision was to be carried out between the 9th of August and the 20th of September. The Court of Common Pleas sat on the 2nd of November; but the municipal elections were held on the 1st of November, so that all the voters who ought not to have been on the list would have voted, and all those who ought to have been on the register would lose their votes before the Court of Common Pleas could be appealed to, and next year another list would be made out. And that was the appeal provided by the present Bill. The next object of the Bill was to do away with frivolous objections. Well, they were bad things, but frivolous claims were just as bad, and he should say that that was really a Bill to turn frivolous claims into votes, and its machinery might be worked with unerring precision to accomplish this object. The effect of the Bill was, in the first place, to make the overseers of the poor the absolute masters of the registration of voters; secondly, to throw every possible obstacle in the way of making objections to bad claims; and, thirdly, to give every possible facility to the making of bad claims. Now, when an objection was made to a claim, the objector could be examined as to the validity of it, and if it turned out that the objection was frivolous, the Revising Barrister had full power to mulct the objector in costs. It did not, in the long run, suit the purpose of a political agent to make what were called frivolous objections, which were very irritating to the men objected to; and, besides being an impolitic course, it was a costly one. And on that point he should like to quote a Report of a Committee of the other House. They said that, as the Revising Barrister could not refuse to place on the

1405
register a claimant to whom there was no objection, and as unqualified persons came on with undue facility—an evil which would prevail more largely but for the existence of party registration societies, by whom the register was purified and a check placed upon unqualified claims—they deprecated the very change proposed by this Bill—the throwing of the onus probandi on the objector; the Committee, therefore, were unwilling to cast unnecessary obstacles in the way of objectors, or to make the law more stringent and severe than it was in the matter of costs. Their Lordships, therefore, would not be led away by the term "frivolous objections." It was essential to the purification of the register that there should be proper facilities for the making of objections. It was proposed by the Bill that an objector, even if the claimant did not appear, should give primaâ facie evidence of the validity of the objection—that was, evidence which would be conclusive if it were not met on the other side. Why, in many cases such evidence could be obtained only from the mouth of the claimant himself, and the objector could not state what he had simply heard or had reason to believe. Under such a requirement many would remain on the register who had no right to be there. It seemed as if the object of that part of the Bill was really to facilitate improper claims. Previously it was required that the successive occupations in one borough which constituted the qualification should be stated, but now only the last was to be named, and therefore it would be impossible for objectors to make the necessary investigations beforehand. Under the Bill objections might be made without primaâ facie evidence, without cost, without risk or liability, by the overseers, who, where politics ran high, were chosen as party men, and even if not now, certainly would be under the operation of this Bill, because the overseer would be master of the situation and proprietor of the register. But where objections were made by persons "other than the overseer," primaâ facie proof was to be required. He was told that in some cases now party objections were made through overseers; but, at present, the other side had equal liberty of objection. This Bill would alter the footing of one party in each place, and so make at
1406
each place the appointment of the overseer a party question. The Select Committee of the other House refused to entrust overseers with this duty and recommended the creation of a new officer for the purpose. An expiring Parliament ought not to make a fundamental change of the kind proposed by this Bill—a change, too, which could not come into operation before, to a moral certainty, we should have a new Parliament. An expiring Parliament would have been more usefully occupied in consolidating the law rather than in making fundamental changes in it, and discounting the proposals which must come before the new Parliament. He was anxious to facilitate tilt registration of lodgers as enfranchised by the Bill of 1867, but a clause of this Bill subverted the conditions on which the lodger franchise was granted. By the Bill of 1867 this franchise was carefully guarded by different considerations connected with the character of the house, of the tenure of the lodger, and the relations which existed between landlord and tenant, and it was further insisted that the claim of the lodger should be renewed every year. Those were the conditions on which it was deemed wise and safe to establish the lodger franchise. Curiously enough, this subverting clause was not in the Bill as originally introduced by the Government, and it had nothing whatever to do with the main object of the measure, which was to assimilate Parliamentary and Municipal elections. A very respectable Gentleman—Mr. Rathbone, the hon. Member for Liverpool — brought in a Bill containing this clause about lodgers, and the Government accepted it and introduced it into their own Bill. He had heard it said—he knew not with how much truth—that a great political effect would be produced in the borough of Liverpool by any measure which would place 2,000 more lodgers on the list, without a narrow scrutiny as to their right to be there. In regard to lodgers, objectors were required by the present Bill to give primaâ facie evidence of the ground of their objections, but that it would be almost always impossible to do in the case of lodgers. Again, the 5th clause of the Bill provided that the overseers should—
"Enter the particulars of each lodger claim in a separate list, with the claimants in alpha-

1407
betical order, and should add objected to 'against any claimant whom they might have reasonable cause to believe to be not entitled to be registered."
Now it was clear that an overseer, with a strong political bias, might object to a great many claimants, and if they did not appeal against the overseer's objection they would, as a matter of course, be struck off the list. In that way, the overseers might weed the lodger-roll from one end to the other; and it would be comparatively easy to succeed in doing this, because many of the lodgers were persons whom it was difficult to get to appear in Court. Besides, he would remark that these provisions as to the lodger franchise could not take effect except in reference to the list, which was not to come into force until the end of the year 1874; and he maintained that a change of such vast importance ought to be made in a new, and not in a moribund Parliament. He would suggest that the measure should be withdrawn, and that the Government should introduce a Consolidation Bill. As it now stood, he must repeat that it seemed to him to have three objects:—First, to make the overseers of the poor absolute masters of the registration of the country; second, to place every possible obstacle in the way of making objections to bad claims; and thirdly, to give every possible facility for turning bad claims into votes. For those reasons he should ask their Lordships to reject it.
An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months").—(The Lord Cairns.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX,who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the House might strike out in Committee the clause relating to lodgers, so that could by no means be such a valid objection to the progress of the Bill as the speech of the noble and learned Lord implied. As to the objection against the alterations proposed in dates, the Schedules provided generally that the dates for the various proceedings in reference to registration and other things should be two months earlier than at present, and there was no "Chinese puzzle" in such a process of substitution. As to the objection on the score that only one part of the Bill would come into operation this year and the other part not till next
1408
year, it was impossible to carry out a Bill of this description otherwise.
On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided: — Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 62: Majority, 36.
Resolved, in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

CONTENTS.

Selborne, L. (L. Chan-

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and

cellor.)

Orrery.) [Teller.]

York, Archp.

Calthorpe, L.

Camoys, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Foley, L.

Gwydir, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hanmer, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hatherley, L.

Ripon, M.

Kenmare, L. (E. Ken-

mare.)

Camperdown, E.

Methuen, L.

Chichester, E.

Monson, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Kimberley, E.

Poltimore, L. [Teller.]

Sundridge, L. (D. Ar-

Canterbury, V.

gyll.)

Halifax, V.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Buckingham and Chan

Brodrick, L. (V. Midle-

dos, D.

ton.)

Leeds, D.

Bateman, L.

Northumberland, D.

Blayney, L.

Richmond, D.

Cairns, L.

Colonsay, L.

Bath, M.

Colville of Culross, L.

Bute, M.

Conyers, L.

Exeter, M.

Crofton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Denman, L.

Winchester, M.

De Saumarez, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Abergavenny, E.

Gifford, L.

Amherst, E.

Hartismere, L.(L. Hen-

Bantry, E.

niker.)

Beauchamp, E.

Hawke, L.

Belmore, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Hylton, L.

Derby, E.

Kesteven, L.

Feversham, E.

Ormonde, L. (M. Or-

Lanesborough, E.

monde.)

Lauderdale, E.

Plunket, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Raglan, L.

Powis, E.

Ravensworth, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Redesdale, L.

Strabroke, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

[Teller.]

De Vesci, V.

Sondes, L.

Doneraile, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hardinge, V.

Templemore, L.

Hawarden, V.[Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Hereford, V.

Tredegar, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Ventry, L.

Strathallan, V.

Vivian, L.

Templetown, V.

Wigan, L.(E. Crawford

and Balcarres.)

ADMISSION TO BENEFICES AND CHURCHWARDENSHIPS, &c., BILL.
>(The Lord Archbishop of York.)

(NO. 153). COMMITTEE.
House in Committee according to Order.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to with Amendments,
Clause 3 (Salaries of Archdeaconries may be raised to £200 per annum.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK,in moving that the clause be agreed to, said, it was not intended to create any new charge on the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in moving to strike out the clause, said, he objected to these salaries being taken from that common fund which was intended solely to meet the spiritual necessities of the people. What was the sum already raised in various ways for the purposes of the archdeacons? According to a Return which he had, the archdeaconries received £11,800 a-year, of which about 13, 800 was for themselves, about £5,000 was for registries, £800 for officials, and £1,600 for apparitors. If that large sum of £11,800 per annum were better distributed, it would be sufficient for the archdeacons and for other purposes. The £5,000 a-year for registers was nearly all taken in fees from the parochial clergy. The clergy complained of the pressure of those fees, and that clause in the Bill took from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to that extent the power of reducing them.
Moved, to leave out Clause 3,—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the Bill had now arrived at a satisfactory point, and he trusted the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that he would not carry his Amendment to a division against the feeling of the House; but he begged solemnly to protest against the clause, and the payment from such a source. He was afraid it might be drawn into a precedent for the payment of additional bishoprics from the same fund.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Report of the said Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 176.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 174.)

CROWN PRIVATE ESTATES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to explain and amend the Crown Private Estates Act, 1862—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read la. (No. 175.)
House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.