Sitting of 21 April 1874

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Dean Forest, appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution [April 20] reported—GRANT TO SIR GARNET J. WOLSELEY, K.C.B. (£25,000).
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Municipal Privileges (Ireland) [33].
Committee—Report—Betting [78].

IRELAND—DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATION—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CALLAGHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward, this Session, any measure relating to denominational education in Ireland?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he understood the meaning of the Question to be this—whether it was intended to substitute any purely denominational system of education for the national system of education now existing in Ireland? It was not the
924
intention of the Government to bring forward any measure during the present Session upon the subject.

EXPLOSION AT ASTLEY DEEP PITS (DUKINFIELD).—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, considering the frequency of the disasters in the Astley Deep Coal Pits near Dukinfield, he will consider the expediency of instituting a special and searching investigation into the causes of the recent accident, and also into the general management of the mine or pits?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the various serious accidents that had occurred at the colliery in question, and he had entered into communication with the Inspector of Mines on the subject. He would see what the inquiry that was to take place on the subject was to be, and it should be of a full and searching nature; but he could not say at present what form it would take.

THE JUDICATURE ACT, 1873.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill to postpone the coming into operation of the Judicature Act beyond the time fixed, namely, November next; and, if not, whether he can state how soon the Code of Rules providing the new practice and machinery necessary for the working of the Act will be laid before the profession and the public?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Government have not at present any reason to anticipate that it will be necessary to postpone the coming into operation of the Judicature Act beyond the time fixed by the Act—namely, the 2nd of November in the present year. The first division of the Rules of Court directed by the Act to be prepared for the purposes mentioned in the Act is already printed and in the hands of a Committee of Judges for their consideration and advice. The second division of the Rules is in the press, and will shortly be in the hands of the Committee of Judges and of such other persons and bodies as it may be judged right to consult upon the subject, and there is

  925
  every reason to believe that the remaining Rules, with the exception possibly of a few of a more formal character, will be in print and in the hands of the parties referred to before the 1st day of June.

ARMY—STAFF APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the number of Staff appointments of which the vacancies can only be filled by Officers who have passed the final examination of the Staff College by Royal Engineers or by Officers distinguished for service in the field; and, what is the total number of Staff appointments (including both the general and personal Staffs) provided for in the Estimates?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would find the information he wanted in page 13 of the Army Estimates. There were 195 Staff appointments altogether which were provided for in the Estimates. There were 18 appointments of Deputy Assistant Adjutant-Generals and Deputy-Quartermasters. There were 22 Brigade Majors. Seven of these Deputy Assistant Adjutant Generals were Musketry Instructors and required special qualification.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNBARasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, following the precedent adopted in the constitution of the Labour Laws Commission, upon which two representatives of the working men have been placed, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place upon the proposed Commission on the Civil Service one or more members of that Service of the grade of Clerk, taken from some public office outside the Treasury; and, whether it is intended that the proposed Commission should inquire into the alleged grievances of the permanent Civil Service as regarded organisation, or only into those grievances under which the temporary Clerks and Writers are said to labour?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had considered whether it would not be expedient to place upon the Commission on the Civil Service a person occupied as senior clerk
  926
  in one of the offices, and he thought that in all probability a gentleman of that grade would be placed upon the Commission. He was in communication with the heads of several Departments upon the subject. It was intended that the Commission should inquire into the system of appointments and promotions and certain questions of organization in the Civil Service.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—THE LIGHT IN THE CLOCK TOWER.—QUESTION.
MR. JAMESasked the First Commissioner of Works, If the light in the Clock Tower of the Houses of Parliament is to be permanently retained; and, if so, whether its objects might not equally be secured without the projections by which the architectural outline of the building is at present disfigured?
LORD HENRY LENNOX: The Clock Tower was proposed to the House as an experiment by a right hon. Predecessor of mine at the Board of Works—Mr. Ayrton. So purely tentative was it that Mr. Ayrton declined, at the time, to insert any sum to meet the expenses connected with it in the Estimates of that year. The question whether the light is to be made permanent or not is one in which I shall be guided solely by the wishes of hon. Members. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that, under any circumstances, it was never contemplated to retain the present glass lantern, which disfigures the Victoria Tower; at the same time, it is my duty to state that the cost of establishing a permanent light would be considerable both in the process of fitting up and its maintenance.

ARMY—REMOVAL OF KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.—QUESTION.
MR. FORSYTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the importance of the neighbourhood and the strong feeling of the inhabitants against the continuance of the Knightsbridge Barracks, it is the intention of the Government to take down those barracks; and, if so, how soon?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, this subject was only brought under his notice last night, when he saw his hon. and learned Friend's Question for the first time. Therefore, he had

927
not been able personally to come to any decision on the subject. There had been various negotiations and discussions on the subject; but no decision had been arrived at either with regard to putting the barracks in repair or removing them to another site. He could assure his hon. and learned Friend that the matter should have his consideration.

ARMY—PRISON AT WORMWOOD SCRUBS.—QUESTION.
MR. FORSYTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the sum of £5,000 was not voted in the Estimates last year for the purpose of enabling a prison to be built at Wormwood Scrubs, with the view of removing there the prisoners now detained in Millbank Prison, and converting that prison into barracks for troops; and, whether any steps have been taken to give effect to such vote?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the two subjects mentioned in the Question had no reference to the War Office Estimates at all. With regard to the projected prison near Wormwood Scrubs, a Vote was taken last year in the Civil Service Estimates. The site, he might remark, was not on Wormwood Scrubs, but on some land adjacent, which had been purchased from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. No decision had been come to with regard to converting Millbank prison into cavalry barracks, and there were many objections to such a scheme.

ARMY—MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that on the recent occasion of the moving a battery of Horse Artillery from Ballincollig to Woolwich, and thence to Shorncliff, a medical officer was sent to march with them who was unable to ride, and that in order to accompany the battery one of the officers had to lend him a dog-cart?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, his hon. Friend must imagine that some one at the War Office possessed the power of flying, or of being, like the bird mentioned by Sir Boyle Roche, in two places at once. The Question was only put on the Paper last night, and it referred to an occurrence in Ireland. It
  928
  had, therefore, been impossible to obtain the particulars.

INDIA— TELEGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the collection of "Telegrams between the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council, from October 1873 to 31st March 1874;" and, if it be actually the case that from the 18th of December 1873 to the 11th of February 1874 no less than eighteen telegrams of the India and Bengal Governments failed to elicit a single telegram in reply from the Council of State for India?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, he had read the telegrams alluded to by the hon. Member, and they appeared to him to be of such a nature as not to require replies. No telegram had been received at the India Office from the Governments of India or Bengal which required a reply and which remained unanswered.

METROPOLIS—VICTORIA PARK ACT, 1872.—QUESTION.
MR. SAMUDAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that a notice has lately been put up in Victoria Park, near the Victoria Park Railway Station, offering to let ground in the Park on building leases direct from the Crown; and, if such appropriation of the ground to building purposes would not be in violation of "The Victoria Park Act, 1872," and the understanding come to between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Government to secure the Park unbuilt over for the public?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware that a notice has been put up offering to lot about half an acre of land in Victoria Park for building purposes. The proposed appropriation of the ground is not, however, in violation of the Victoria Park Act of 1872, or of the understanding come to between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Government. This particular piece of land was offered to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and expressly excluded by them from the arrangement as too small to be of any use. I have visited the

929
ground myself, and I am not without hopes that an arrangement may yet be made by which, without injury to the Crown Revenues, this half acre may be preserved to the Park; but there is no power under the Acts regulating the management of Crown Lands to make a free grant of it.

THE SLAVE TRADE PAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the Slave Trade Papers, classes A and B, presented in August last, have not yet been distributed; and, whether a despatch dated the 30th of June has been correctly printed?
  MR. BOURKE: The papers referred to were presented in a merely formal manner in August last. They were not at that time ready to be laid on the Table. I am not aware of the precise cause of the delay; but they are ready now, and will be distributed next week. I have compared the despatch of the 80th of June with the copy in the Foreign Office, and find that it is given verbatim in the Papers already printed. Some additional Papers connected with the slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa are in preparation, and will shortly be ready for presentation.

DEAN FOREST.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTE, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed—
  "To inquire into the Laws and rights affecting Dean Forest, and the condition thereof having especial regard to the social and sanitary wants of its increasing population; and further to inquire whether it is expedient that any, and if so what, legislation should take place with respect to such Forest, and the future disposition or management of the same,"
  said, the Forest of Dean, which consisted of about 21,000 acres, was one which was famous in former times, but it was now being cut up and encroached upon. In 1712, according to Sir Robert Atkyns there were only six cottages in the Forest, and these were occupied by the keepers; and in 1788 there were 589 cottages erected in it—all encroachments—with a population of nearly 3,000. Ten years later—in 1798—it was found that a number of pieces of land had
  930
  been enclosed also by squatters. In 1834, the cottages numbered 1,462, and the inhabitants 7,014, the total encroachments of land amounted to 2,108 acres. The total net revenue from the whole of these 21,000 acres was, according to a Return obtained in 1872, only £117,967 for 50 years, or £2,359 per annum, which was not more than 2s. an acre. But various deductions had to be made from this, which brought down the net income for the service of the State to £1,133 per annum, or about 1s. 7d. per acre. In 1831 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the conditions of the Forest, and in 1838 and in 1842 Acts of Parliament were passed in relation to it, but since then the work of improvement had not gone on as it ought to have done. There had been inquiries on the subject, but further inquiry was greatly needed. The policy of the past in regard to the Forest had been to treat it altogether as a nursery for the growth of timber for the Crown, and until lately attention had not been directed to its mining capabilities. While in 1712 there were only six cottages of workmen in the Forest, in 1871 there were 4,400 cottages, and a population of over 22,000. The net revenue to the Crown from coal, iron, and other minerals, was, in 1821, £73; in 1844 it was £2,858; in 1860. £6,635; in 1868, £13,983; and in 1871, £14,604. It was evident that the state of the Forest had completely altered during the last 50 years and more, and it was high time now to depart from the folly of continuing the costly system of growing timber, and leaving the waste lands uncultivated and unremunerative. The more prudent course would be to make a change to suit existing circumstances. The mineral riches of the Forest were still very great, the increase in the demand for coal and iron was still going on, and had led to the opening and diligent working of more mines, and consequently to a very great increase of the population. The sanitary condition of the Forest, however, was in a very bad, and even a deplorable state. There was no parochial system, no drainage, no surveyor of highways, and no constitutional authority whatever within its bounds. It had but one turnpike road, which was totally inadequate to its wants. Speaking from an experience

  931
  of 22 years, he could say that, as regarded capabilities of locomotion, the condition of the Forest was as bad now as when he first knew it. Being Government property it could not be rated, and although the Crown contributed about £315 to the poor rates, in other respects it was not rated at all. The houses were built without any regard to order, there was no water supply, and typhoid fever had prevailed. These facts were attested by gentlemen who were total strangers to the district, except so far as they had visited it, and they were given in evidence before the Committees that had already inquired into the subject. He wished Members could go down to the place and see the condition of things which was due to the absence of any sanitary highway or parochial authority. This inquiry would, no doubt, be of great advantage to the Crown, as well as to the inhabitants of the district, if it led to increased powers being given by the Legislature to the former to allow waste land to be sold for building, as well as in small plots for cultivation, and thereby enable the latter to obtain proper and sufficient habitations, with the means of raising the necessaries of life. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving for the Select Committee.
  MR. R. E. PLUNKETT, in seconding the Motion, said, this was not a case of the familiar claims of the conventional working man; he did not advance the dubious claim of disaffection; the case simply was that there was a population; of 23,000 in the Forest, without sanitary provision for 5,000, or proper house room for half their number. From one of those complications of Bights so often fertile in Wrongs, the evils were daily increasing without the fault of any one and unless the question was taken up by the Government the evil would go on increasing as it had done up to that time. For years after the Forest of Dean had become an extensive iron and coal field, it was administered simply as if it were a forest for supplying oak to the Navy; and an administration admirably adapted to watching the slow growth of oaks was not adapted to the growing wants of a mining population. The population had trebled itself in 38 years, and such a rate of increase could not be met by inelastic legislation. The account
  932
  given of the sanitary condition of the place by his hon. and gallant Colleague was in no sense exaggerated. There were no sanitary regulations—the people often had to go a mile for pure water, notwithstanding that miners often required a good deal, and the roads were very much neglected. During the last eight years only 13 acres 2 roods 17 poles of land had been sold, and, though it was called waste, it fetched £3,357 135. 6d., or about £246 8s. 6d. per acre. Much had been said about the extravagance of miners. Was not this making them extravagant? He did not ask that the miners should have free houses and free gardens; but, seeing that the mines were sometimes closed two and three days a-week, and the miners were driven to spend periods of compulsory idleness in the public-house, it would be in every way a great advantage if they could have gardens to cultivate when the pits were closed, and in which the women and children could work, instead of working, as they did now, on the pit bank. This of itself would be a great step towards sanitary reform, for the gardens would absorb those accumulations which were now insufferable nuisances around the homes of the people.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That a Select Committee he appointed, to inquire into the Laws and rights affecting Dean Forest, and the condition thereof, having especial regard to the social and sanitary wants of its increasing population: and further to inquire whether it is expedient that any, and if so what, legislation should take place with respect to such Forest, and the future disposition or management of the same.'"—(Colonel Kingscote.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should not detain the House at any length, as it was the intention of the Government to grant the Committee. In doing so they did not wish to commit themselves to any policy whatever, or to the acceptance of the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Kingscote); not that they questioned in the slightest degree the many facts he had communicated to the House. The question was one full of difficulties, which it was right a Committee should investigate. One of the main difficulties arose from the rights of squatters who had been allowed to occupy property belonging to the Crown, and had thereby acquired certain interests in it. Their rights could

  933
  not be lightly tampered with, but it was desirable that they should be defined more clearly than at present. Another difficulty consisted in the limited power which the Crown had of selling property ill the Forest. It was probable that much good might be done by legislation, but it was certainly not expedient that it should be rash or hasty legislation.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Laws and rights affecting Dean Forest, and the condition thereof, having especial regard to the social and sanitary wants of its increasing population; and further to inquire whether it is expedient that any, and if so what, legislation should take place with respect to such Forest, and the future disposition or management of the same."
  And, on April 28, Committee nominated as follows:—Colonel BARTTELOT. Mr. WILLIAM CARTWRIGHT, Sir FRANCIS GOLDSMID, Mr. HERMON, Sir GEORGE JENKINSON, Dr. LUSH, Mr. NEVILL, Mr. PEASE, Mr. R. PLUNKETT, Mr. WILLIAM PRICE, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. W. STANHOPE, and Colonel KINGSCOTE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records: Five to be the quorum.
  And, on May 4, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, and Mr. GOLDNEY added.

INDIA (DROUGHT IN BENGAL.)
  RESOLUTION.

    SELECTION OF DESPATCHES.
    MR. O'DONNELLrose to move—
    "That in the case of Abstracts and Summaries, such as the 'Abstract of Correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council relative to the drought in Bengal,' recently presented to Parliament without any guarantee as to the selection or editing of the contents, the name of the selector or editor shall he appended for the information of Parliament."
    The hon. Member said, he could not help thinking this would be one means of insuring the bona fides of such abstracts and summaries, which were often over-carefully trimmed and edited. The Abstract of Correspondence between the Home and Indian Government, it had been generally observed, bore all the marks of having been carefully selected and prepared for a purpose. The Pall Mall Gazette had a leading article on the subject, pointing out that the practice of official editing was increasing and becoming dangerous. The Spectator remarked that an Abstract worse, or more carefully edited, had not recently come under its notice. It was above all things most important, at such a crisis, when a great calamity was impending over our
    934
    fellow subjects in India, that public opinion should not be led in a wrong direction; but he was afraid it had been so led, and designedly. He did not wish to make more reference to debate-able matter in connection with the Indian Famine than was necessary; but it was known that two schemes of policy were under consideration and divided the supreme Government of India and the Bengal Government. There were two camps—one containing a large number of those old and experienced administrators in India who, being conversant with former famines and aware that the greatest efforts could alone deal successfully with the emergency, insisted that, if necessary, the entire force of the Imperial Government in India should be applied to stave off the famine; and in the other there were a number of gentlemen who—though no doubt equally willing to prevent disaster and equally sorry when that disaster turned out more serious than they had anticipated—did not rise to the height of the occasion, did not recognize the immensity of the disaster pending, and who, when the most vigorous measures were required, attempted to stop the famine by palliatives scarcely equal to alleviate the distress in a corner of the country. The despatches relating to this famine showed that Sir George Campbell, the; late Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, at the very first proposed that no more grain should be allowed to leave India. Lord North-brook trusted to private trade. A great many other propositions were made which were rejected by the Governor General, and though no doubt the Governor General had miscalculated the extent of the disaster, the Abstract presented to the House did not give them to understand that Sir George Campbell's policy was necessary for the occasion. Instead of being a fair and impartial summary of the state of affairs in India, the publication was what he might call in brief a Northbrook pamphlet, as it only showed one side of the ease, although the policy of the Viceroy had been entirely abandoned. On the 10th of November, 1873, a conference was hold at Calcutta House between the Governor General, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and a large number of Indian officials, when the question of the famine was fully gone into. During the whole of the discussion the Lieutenant

    935
    Governor was prominent in recommending the most vigorous measures, while the Governor General was still unable to perceive the necessity for such measures. On the same clay the Lieutenant Governor wrote a remarkable letter pressing on he Government the measures to which he had called their attention; but the editor of the summary, in referring to that letter, said "it was written, it may be presumed, before the actual discussion at the conference." He could only interpret the words "it is presumed," as meaning that if Sir George Campbell had heard the cogent reasons of the Governor General he would not have written the letter; but this insinuation of the editor was contradicted by the fact that immediately after those reasons became known the Lieutenant. Governor followed up the policy he had already advocated by asking for a large advance of money on account of relief works. To this demand the Governor General replied on November 13 by a refusal. There could be no doubt that Sir George Campbell had been thoroughly alive to the severity of the crisis, and had been opposed in his schemes to remedy the evil; yet, from the account in the Abstract of a conference held at Government House, Calcutta, on the 8th of January, it appeared as if the Viceroy had been the prime mover and originator of everything that could possibly be necessary for the relief of the famine-stricken. In fact, one would think that but for the Viceroy, Sir George Campbell would have neglected the preparations which the crisis demanded. When it was remembered that two months previously Sir George Campbell had urgently besought the Supreme Government to take adequate measures, it did seem hard that all credit should be denied to him in this manner. There was another point to which he would direct attention, and in making these remarks he begged it to be understood that he was not discussing the policy of the Government of India, but was simply contending that the relative positions of the two Governments had not been fairly shown. The speech delivered by the Viceroy in reply to an address presented by the Municipality of Agra was described in the Abstract as "in the main a clear and forcible statement of facts and opinions which have already been collected and summarized."
    936
    In point of fact, this speech of the Viceroy was of the most vague and generally optimist nature. "The Government had made every preparation"—"the Government had no apprehension"—"the Government were fully aware of the whole of the circumstances;"—such was the tenor of the observations; and by a sort of grim irony the official narrative of the dearth, drawn up at the time the speech was delivered, began with the remark that there was an "absence of any reliable information." On the one side it was stated that Government knew everything; on the other there was an admission that they were groping in the dark. He made no objection to the Viceroy's speech. Necessarily, being addressed to such an audience, it was of an optimist character, for it was important that no occasion should be given for a panic; but to bring it forward as a "clear and forcible statement of facts and opinions" was going a little too far. It was attaching importance to an utterly unimportant communication. There were distinct indications of an animus and bias in the publication to which he was drawing attention. Everyone who took an interest in Indian affairs and took a candid view of them, would have thought it only natural that in an Abstract of this nature some note should be taken and some specimens given of the highly important and weighty Minutes, anticipations, and estimates of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. Sir George Campbell's policy had been opposed by the Viceroy during the first two or three months of the Famine danger, and no doubt Lord Northbrook had thought that in taking this course he was working for the best; but, as a matter of fact, it was the policy of the Lieutenant Governor which was now followed, while that of the Viceroy, having presumably been found to be wrong, had been wholly abandoned. Although speaking from the Liberal benches, he had no hesitation in saying that nothing more fortunate had over happened to a population on the brink of a terrible distress than the appointment of the Marquess of Salisbury—a nobleman of high intelligence and masculine will—to be Secretary of State for India. With the accession of the Marquess of Salisbury a new era commenced in the treatment of the, Bengal Famine, and the

    937
    policy of the new Secretary of State Lad been, in fact, a thorough adoption of that of Sir George Campbell, the late Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. In every respect the former policy of Lord Northbrook had been ordered to be given up—often in telegrams and despatches of singular insistence—by the present Secretary of State for India. Well, in the official publication there was not a single despatch from Sir George Campbell given in extenso. There were two despatches from the Duke of Argyll, in very guarded anodyne terms, acknowledging that Lord Northbrook was doing his best, and giving him full permission to do his best. Another document given in full was a Minute of the Viceroy giving his reasons for disapproving a prohibition of the export of grain. Now considering the great importance of that subject, it would surely have been well, when one side was given, to have given also some of the powerful statements of the Lieutenant Governor, so that Members of the House might be enabled to form a judgment for themselves. Another point to which he wished to allude was this, that at page 21 the Viceroy was represented as having alluded to the fact that every requisition and suggestion of the Government of Bengal had been complied with, except the prohibition of export." Now, considering Sir George Campbell demanded in November a great advance of money with a view to the immediate commencement of relief works, the scattering of relief houses broadcast over the land, and the distribution of grain within an easy distance of every village, and that this demand was positively refused by the Governor General, it did seem strange to find the Viceroy represented on the 23rd of January as having complied with every requisition and suggestion of the Government of Bengal. In one sense the words might be true, for the Viceroy, having discovered the utter inadequacy of his own policy, had found it necessary to adopt the great measures of relief proposed by Sir George Campbell, but the language of the Abstract conveyed the impression that there had been all along a hearty co-operation with the Lieutenant Governor. There was a minor matter—namely, the extraordinary style in which the Abstract was couched—to which it might be well to call the attention of the House. As
    938
    much as possible, an Abstract ought to be a clear, dry, impartial summary, and any expression of opinion as to the importance of documents should be left entirely to the House. But the editor of this Abstract, trenching almost on the Privileges of the House, informed thou that such and such a document was "most important" and such another a "careful summary." Surely, it was not for an anonymous compiler or editor, or even any editor whatsoever, to suggest words of approval or reprehension for the adoption of Parliament. As a specimen of the style employed, the compiler stated that the Correspondence contained "a powerful letter from the Bengal Government." Who authorized him to say whether such a letter was powerful or not? It was little short of trenching upon the Privileges of that House to declare in what light they were to regard Papers which were to be subsequently submitted to their attention. In pages 10 and 17 similar expressions of opinion were to be found, and they were told that such a reply was "carefully prepared," and that such an address was "a clear and forcible statement." It would be some safe-guard against such a system if the House knew at least the name of the gentleman who had arrogated to himself such lofty functions, and it would be only due to his own sense of his importance that he should be required to put his name to his compilation. It was possible that if a man's name were brought forward he would be more cautious, both in the selection of the Papers and in the communication of his opinion of the importance of this or that document. He was perfectly willing to withdraw his Amendment if Members having greater experience could suggest some other means by which his object could be gained. Something, however, was necessary to re-assure the House and the country, and to restore a sense of confidence that Abstracts of this kind had not been tampered with. It was clear that departmental responsibility had not been sufficient to prevent excesses of this kind. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    CAPTAIN NOLANseconded the Resolution.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That in the case of Abstracts and Summaries, such as the Abstract of Correspondence

    939
    between the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council relative, to the Drought in Bengal,' recently presented to Parliament without any guarantee as to the selection or editing of the contents, the name of the selector or editor shall he appended for the information of Parliament."'—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not see much objection to the Motion, and if the hon. Member would consent to strike out the four words "such as the Abstract" he should offer no opposition to the Resolution. He had, however listened with astonishment to the speech of the hon. Gentleman he had stated in plain language that, in consequence of no signature being attached to this Abstract of Correspondence, the India Office had trimmed and selected it for the purpose of loading the public to a wrong conclusion, and that it was not an impartial statement, but showed an animus and bias. This was strong language for any Member of that House to use, and before bringing forward such a charge against a public department, he ought to have availed himself of all the information within his reach. It was clear, however, that the hon. Member had not read the despatches from which the Abstract was made, for they were only published that morning; yet, not having read the original despatches, he declared the Abstract compiled from them to be garbled. He doubted whether the hon. Member had even read the Abstract with any care. His whole objection to it was that it was not signed; but if the hon. Member would look to the close of the Abstract he would see that it was signed—to use his own classic phrase—by the distinguished appellation of Sir Henry Anderson, the chief of the India Revenue Department. The present Government had nothing to do with the policy of Lord Northbrook and Sir George Campbell as originally proposed. When the Marquess of Salisbury came into office there was but one scheme before the India Office, and he felt it to be his duty to support it, because he believed that it was capable of saving the lives of many thousands who were seeking relief. If that scheme succeeded, there would be ample time afterwards to decide to whom the merit of having originated the scheme was due. He would not detain the House by contradicting the statements of the hon. Gentleman; but they were founded upon
    940
    a complete misapprehension—namely, that no person had signed this Abstract, and that in consequence a licence had been taken which otherwise the head of the Department would not have allowed. Sir Henry Anderson, who had signed the Abstract, was a most distinguished public servant, and he was also an intimate friend of Sir George Campbell. He could, therefore, be implicitly trusted to make a fair and impartial Abstract of the despatches between the India Office and the Government of India. He could not conceive that a public Department would knowingly publish an unfair Abstract of Correspondence when they knew that the despatches themselves were to be laid upon the Table of the House a few days afterwards. The Marquess of Salisbury was most anxious to afford all information to the House of Commons and to the country at large upon the subject of the famine, and he directed Sir Henry Anderson to continue the Abstract, which had been commenced before he came into office, because it was impossible to publish within a few days so great a pile of despatches, and he wished the public to have the substance of the information without delay. The course taken by the Marquess of Salisbury would, he trusted, commend itself to the House. He did not think it necessary to enter into the merits of the measures adopted by the Indian Government. The hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of reply; and he (Lord George Hamilton) hoped he would take the opportunity of withdrawing the charges he had made, not only against the India Office, but also against a distinguished public servant like Sir Henry Anderson.
    Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "such as the 'Abstract.'"—(Lord George Hamilton.)
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURjoined in the hope that the unpleasant charge against Sir Henry Anderson would be withdrawn, and bore testimony to the honourable character and good service of that distinguished public servant as a thorough guarantee to the House for the fidelity and trustworthy nature of the summaries of the Correspondence relating to the Famine. A more difficult task could not be assigned to anyone than that of placing before the House an exact and unobjectionable

    941
    Abstract of the views about the Famine—so variously expressed by the many authorities who had recorded opinions—and tried to give facts which, though correct one day, were gain-said the next day by the ever-changing phases of the condition of the people. He deprecated any premature discussion on the Indian Famine, for the simple reason that if no greater evils than those at present known fell on the people, we had little to complain of; but he feared, from the alarming news recently received, that still greater calamities were to be apprehended next June, July, and August. This opinion was founded on the experience gained in the great famine of 100 years ago, when one-third of the population of Bengal were its victims. That famine was anticipated, owing to failure in the rains, as early as September, while this was not seen until November, whereby two months were lost in making more timely preparation to lay in stock's of grain. The population, which was then 10,000,000, had now increased to 60,000,000; and, judging from the information as to the extent of cultivation existing at the end of last century, the land set apart for raising rice was double the area of the land at present stated to be under this cultivation. But in respect to statistics, he was sorry to say that the Permanent Settlement had cut oft from the Government, or prevented the Government from collecting those useful statistics regarding the people and agriculture of Bengal, which could be obtained from all other parts of India.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in the course of his speech he did his utmost to avoid imputing anything improper to any person; but, at the same time, men of the most honourable private character would, under the influence of strong party feeling, put forth statements to which legitimate objection might be taken. Nevertheless, respect for private virtue ought not to blind Members to what caused inconvenience to the public. Of course, he did not challenge the statement that the signature of Sir Henry Anderson at a certain page of the Abstract carried with it editorial responsibility. For all that, there had really appeared to be no clue to the person who was responsible for the compilation of these Abstracts. Sir Henry Anderson's signature seemed
    942
    purely to refer to an isolated tabular Return of exports, and the presumption that this was the case was strengthened by the circumstance of the tabular Return in question emanating from the Revenue Department, of which Sir Henry Anderson was the Secretary. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India had not given a single reason against the Motion; but he had resorted to a line of argument which it was difficult to reply to by appealing to the private virtue of officials, which was tantamount to closing a Member's mouth. If he had stated anything incorrectly, the vast experience of the noble Lord, and his knowledge of the despatches themselves, would have enabled him to point out the inaccuracy; but the noble Lord had limited himself entirely to a personal matter—namely, the great respectability of Sir Henry Anderson, which was not a fair way of putting pressure on a Member, He attached comparatively slight importance to the technical success of his Motion, and believing that publicity was the best correction of the practices of which he had complained, he was prepared to accept the alteration proposed by the noble Lord in the terms of the Motion.
    SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, if the Motion were altered as proposed, there would be very little sense in it.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and negatived.

EXPLOSION AT ASTLEY DEEP PIT (DUKINFIELD)

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. MACDONALD MR. MACDONALD moved an Address for—
  "Return of all the lives lost in the Astley Deep Pit, Dukinfield, with cause of the loss of life and date of the same; and, Copy of the opinion of the Inspector of the district, Mr. Wynne, on the management and state of ventilation of the Mine at the time of explosion on the 8th day of March 1870."
  The hon. Member said, that in asking for this Return, he had no desire to appear to the House invidious by selecting this single colliery; but when such disasters as that which occurred last week were repeated again and again, he thought it was a fair subject for the fullest inquiry, in order to allay the

  943
  tremor in the public mind, and, if possible, to get at the true cause of the disaster. A short time ago that House, in conjunction with the other House, passed a Bill—the Mines (Coal). Regulation Bill—for the better inspection and regulation of mines, which gave to the mining population immense satisfaction and to the general community the impression that there would be perfect security to the men who worked underground in the pursuit of their occupation. But if there should be a repetition of such a disaster as that which occurred last week, by which 53 of our fellow men were almost in a moment flung into eternity, the public would lose confidence in a statute which he believed was well qualified, if fully carried out, to preserve the lives and the health of miners. He trusted that every facility would be afforded for obtaining full information as to the disasters in mines.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no one was more anxious than himself that there should be a full and impartial inquiry into the cause of the accident referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It was an accident of no ordinary severity. He believed that no fewer than 48 lives had been lost by it. The Return for which the hon. Gentleman moved would be laid on the Table of the House as soon as it could be prepared. With regard to the opinion of the District Inspector, Mr. Wynne, if the hon. Member would look in the volume of Reports on Mines for 1871, he would find that an accident occurred in this mine in 1870 by which nine persons lost their lives. The Inspector made a Report, in which he said that nine persons had been killed; that the accident had been caused by bad management, or, rather, by no management at all; that for two years he had been warning the proprietor that some accident of the kind was inevitable if a competent manager were not appointed to that mine. The Inspector went on to say that he thought the manager a very good underground man, but not a man having the amount of specific knowledge that was requisite for managing a mine of that character, or one fit to meet any emergency which might arise. That opinion, of the Inspector was endorsed, not only by the Coroner, but by the jury. There was nothing more important than that the mining population should be assured
  944
  that every possible precaution was taken to insure their safety, and that the Act passed some two years ago should be thoroughly carried out; while, on the other hand, he conceived there could be nothing more satisfactory to the proprietors of mines in general, or even of that particular mine, than that the case-should be thoroughly investigated, in order that, if it should be shown that there was no fault of their own part, their character might be cleared. In conclusion, he would take care that there should be a full, searching, and impartial inquiry made into the whole circumstances connected with this accident. The Returns for which the hon. Member had moved would be laid on the Table.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for—
  "Return of all the lives lost in the Astley Deep Pit, Dukinfield, with cause of the loss of life and date of the same; "
  "And, Copy of the opinion of the Inspector of the district, Mr. Wynne, on the management and state of ventilation of the Mine at the time of explosion on the 8th day of Maxell 1870."—(Mr. Macdonald.)

BETTING BILL- [BILL 4.]
(Mr. Anderson, Sir William Maxwell, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. M'Lagan.)
BETTING BILL- [BILL 4.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, it had been suggested to him that instead of moving the Amendments on Clause 4, of which he had given Notice, he should move certain alterations on Clause 3, and leave out Clause 4 altogether. He moved that the words "letters, circulars, and telegrams" be added to Clause 3.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdid not propose to offer any objection to this Bill, but it was an inconvenient mode of proceeding, to move Amendments of which Notice had not been given.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the proper and more convenient course would probably be for the Chairman to leave the Chair and report Progress.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that he had no objection to the hon. Member proceeding with the Bill if he consented to have it reprinted.
  MR. ANDERSONagreed to do so.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

MUNICIPAL PRIVILEGES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 33.]
(Mr. Butt, Sir John Gray, Mr. Bryan, Mr. P. J. Smyth.)
MUNICIPAL PRIVILEGES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 33.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second reading read.
  MR. BUTT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he thought a simple statement of its provisions the best argument he could use to induce the House to assent to its principle. The object of the measure was to give to corporations in counties, cities and towns in Ireland the same privileges as corporations in counties, cities, and towns in England enjoyed. In the shape in which he intended ultimately to present it to the House, the Bill dealt with only two offices, those of the High Sheriff and the Clerk of the Peace. There was in the Bill at present a clause restoring to the corporation of Dublin the right of electing their Recorder as the corporation of London now elected theirs; but he thought there was an answer to that analogy. In a Bill professing to claim equal privileges for the two countries, he could scarcely avoid making that claim for the corporation of Dublin. But the Corporation of London was not included in the English Municipal Reform Bill. All the corporations which were included in it lost the privilege of electing their Recorders.' Therefore, he could not rely on that accident as entitling him to claim that privilege for the City of Dublin, and if the House read the Bill the second time he intended in Committee to move the omission of that part of the measure. As to sheriffs and clerks of the peace, he had an unanswerable case. From ancient times wherever there was a corporation in a county or town, that corporation possessed the right of electing its own sheriffs. On the reform of municipal corporations, the right was retained in England, while in Ireland it was vested in the Crown. Whatever might have been urged for this on the principles of a policy which he hoped was bygone, the distinction could not be justified in the present state of political feeling. Exclusive of the City of London, which elected sheriffs not only for London but for Middlesex, there were 20 English corporations which enjoyed the right; while in Ireland not a single sheriff was nominated by popular election. Could English Gentlemen assign any reason
  946
  for this difference? The six or seven towns to which this Bill applied lost that privilege when the corporations were thrown open to public election, and the appointment was transferred to the Crown. He did not want to quarrel with the decision of the House on his proposal to allow Irish corporations to be elected by household suffrage; but that decision had made more odious the distinction between the two countries, for in England corporations elected by household suffrage enjoyed a right denied to Irish corporations elected on a very high franchise. In Kilkenny the corporation was elected by 272 burgesses; while in Lichfield, with a population about one-third that of Kilkenny, there were 1,000 burgesses, the sheriff being elected by an assembly chosen by household suffrage, while Kilkenny was denied that right. He asked, ought Irishmen to be satisfied with this? It might be called a light matter; but none of these things were light matters. It was a galling badge of inferiority to Irishmen to feel that a privilege conceded to an English was denied to an Irish city, and it could only be justified on the principle of treating Ireland as an inferior and conquered nation. In introducing the Irish Municipal Reform Bill in 1837, Lord Russell, a statesman still honoured in this House, said the question was whether the Irish people were fit to enjoy Constitutional rights, or whether they should be proscribed as unfit to enjoy the rights of Englishmen, and be proclaimed an inferior race of beings. The same issue was now raised, which no figures or ingenuity could evade, as was done the other night by urging a difference between the two countries as to the number of £4 or £5 occupiers—considerations by which the principles of the Constitution had been frittered away. Against Irish remonstrances, the class vested with the inheritance of the ancient charters had been fixed in Ireland on a narrow and exclusive franchise: but the persons so intrusted with corporate rights were plainly entitled to the same rights as English corporations. He thought that the decision come to by the House the other night with regard to the other Bill which he had proposed was an unanswerable argument in favour of the passing of the present Bill. For the sake of the peace of Ireland and of this country, for the sake of the union and

  947
  the affection which, ought to exist between two members of an Empire which he hoped might long remain united—if it did not it would be the fault of this unwise and invidious legislation—he asked English Gentlemen whether they were prepared to treat him because he was an Irishman as an inferior being, and to treat his countrymen as an inferior race. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwished, first of all, to say that the Bill rejected on Friday night was not rejected from a desire on the part of any Member to deprive Ireland of any privileges conceded to England, but because the circumstances of the two countries were so different on that point that a franchise in Ireland would swamp property by numbers which had not that effect in England. The Bill now before the House might be considered under three heads. With regard to the Recorder of Dublin, he did not wish to make any remarks upon that point, because he understood the hon. and learned Member to say that he would not press it in Committee. But he might remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in addition to the reasons which he had himself given against his own proposal, there was this difference between the Recorder ships in London and Dublin—that whilst the Corporation of London paid the salary of their Recorder, four-fifths of the salary of the Recorder of Dublin was paid by the Crown. It, therefore, seemed reasonable that the Crown should have the power of appointment. But with regard to the matters which the hon. and learned Member proposed to leave in his Bill—namely, the transfer of the power of appointment of sheriffs and clerks of the peace from the Lord Lieutenant to the municipal authorities, it was true that in England, in boroughs having their own courts of quarter sessions, the Town Councils had the right of appointing their cleric of the peace, while in Ireland the appointment was vested in the Lord Lieutenant. Looking at the second reading of the Bill as the admission of a primâ facie case, he had no reason to offer why the practice in Ire-land should not be assimilated to that in England. At any rate, the point might fairly beconsidered in Committee, though
  948
  technical questions might then arise as to the duties and position of clerks of the peace. With regard to the appointment of sheriffs, it occurred to him that some of the most important duties of the sheriff in Ireland had been taken away by the recent Jury Acts. But those Acts were at present merely temporary, and the whole question of juries in Ireland was under the consideration of a Committee which was only appointed last night; so that until the question had been settled it might be doubted how far it was advisable to deal with the mode of the appointment of sheriffs, who formerly selected jurors. This, however, was not a sufficient ground for his opposing the second reading of the Bill, as this point could be fully discussed in Committee, in the presence of the Attorney General for Ireland, who was now detained elsewhere by other duties. Subject to the understanding that both these questions could be discussed in Committee, he had no objection to offer on the part of the Government to the second reading. He hoped they would hear no more of a charge; which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was hardly justified in making—namely, that proposals made in respect of Ireland were dealt with on a different basis from that which was adopted in the case of England. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that neither the Government nor, so far as he knew, any Member of the House, had any wish to deal with Irish measures except upon a fair and reasonable footing, and with an anxious desire to arrive at that solution which was best for the interests of Ireland.
  COLONEL BRUENexpressed a hope that attention would be given to the details of the Bill in Committee, more especially to the proposal to vest in corporations the right of appointing clerks of the peace, because he was not at all certain that the duties of clerks of the peace in England and in Ireland were identical. With that observation, however, he was glad that the Government had assented to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONobserved that as to the appointment of clerks of the peace, he thoroughly concurred in the decision at which the Government had arrived—namely, that under certain conditions those appointments might he vested in corporations.

  949
  He trusted, however, that the decision would not be held to confer upon those elective bodies any vested right in the appointment of those officers; and for this reason—that the late Government, after carefully considering the subject, had arrived at the conclusion that the office of clerk of the peace in counties and counties of cities might very well be abolished altogether, and the duties combined with those of the clerk of the Crown. That conclusion was embodied last Session in the County Officers Bill, but time did not permit of its being proceeded with. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would take an opportunity of considering that question, and believed that if they did they would arrive at the same decision. If they should, the present concession to corporations ought not to be a barrier to giving effect to that view. With respect to the concession as to the appointment of sheriffs by the corporations, he could only say he was extremely glad that they had been able to come to that decision—if, indeed, they had done so—as the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that that part of the question might be open to further consideration, He could, however, hardly imagine that the Government, having assented to the second reading of the Bill, would in Committee oppose its most important clause. If the appointment of sheriffs was struck out, there would be nothing left but the power to appoint clerks of the peace, and to confer honorary freedoms he could hardly suppose, there tore, that the Government would refuse their assent to the principal provision of the measure. He must say, however, that had the Government arrived at a different conclusion, he should have felt considerable difficulty as to the way in which he should vote. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had said that all the powers in reference to the selection of jurors had been taken away from the sheriffs. That was so under the existing Act; but then it should be borne in mind that a Committee had been just appointed to review that Act, and there was no saying what alterations in the law might be made. The sheriffs, however, had the absolute selection and nomination of grand jurors, whose duties were intimately connected with the administration of justice, and he was glad that the Government thought that
  950
  the selection of so important a body could now be virtually intrusted to a popularly elected body. No more gratifying testimony to the state in which the present Government found Ireland could; be borne than was shown by the course which they had taken in regard to this Bill.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he could not help expressing the pleasure with which he had heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It seemed to him inconceivable that there was any truth in the rumour that the Government intended to pooh-pooh the Bill, for its principle was the principle of assimilation, which to his mind conveyed the principle of Union. The principle of action in that House was to determinedly oppose what was known here as Home Rule, and the more determined they were in that direction, the more resolved they should be to encourage and appreciate measures for Ireland of a remedial character promoted in the Imperial Parliament. The more strenuously they opposed separation, the more willing should they be to welcome overtures towards assimilation. The Bill went a small way; but it was impossible to overrate the importance of its acceptance, as an indication of the future policy of the Cabinet. Ireland had always been a difficulty to English Governments, and particularly to all Conservative Governments. Happily, that difficulty was now removed, because the present Government was in as smooth water as any former Government had been, and it was a matter of congratulation to all those who valued the peace and contentment of Ireland to see a course taken by the Government which not only met the approval of both sides of the House, but would be approved on both sides of the Channel.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the other night the Government thought fit to oppose the second reading of a Bill to assimilate the Irish municipal franchise to that of England. He was glad that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman did not think it desirable to pursue a similar policy. The Bill to which he referred—
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE: I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman, I submit, is not entitled to refer to a Bill not now under discussion.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I think I am entitled to refer to it for the purpose of showing the manner in which these questions have been dealt with in this House. On that occasion—["Order."]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in alluding to a former debate of the present Session.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should then confine himself to the Bill under discussion now; but seeing that the principle involved in both cases was the same, it was difficult to avoid illustrating the one by the other. The present was a particular Bill and a small Bill, but it had, no doubt, been carefully considered by the Government, and he hoped that the larger and more important Bills that would be brought before the House would be dealt with in a similar spirit. After all, there were only seven corporations in Ireland, and the Bill did little more than put into the hands of those corporations the power of selecting their own sheriffs, and give the appointment of an important paid officer, the clerk of the peace. He was glad that that patronage had been taken away from the Castle at Dublin; for it was mainly through those small offices that the whole country had been corrupted, and its Parliamentary representation demoralized. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh; but if they had read the history of the Union they would have seen that the policy which those appointments were to aid was deliberately intended for the corruption of Ireland, and had, unfortunately, only too well succeeded in its object. The Bill was to his mind inferior to others of its kind which would be brought forward, and unless the principle of assimilation could be conceded by both sides of the House, and they would lend their aid in extending to Ireland the privileges which larger measures would confer, there would be little advantage in passing this particular Bill.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that as a friend and well-wisher to Ireland, he desired to express the great satisfaction with which he had heard that it was not the intention of the Government to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He had not been aware that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) intended on Friday night to bring on the second reading of his Bill
  952
  for assimilating the municipal franchise to that of England, or he should have taken the opportunity of urging upon the Government the desirability of entering upon a course of conciliatory policy towards Ireland by consenting to the second reading of the Bill. He hoped that what had taken place that evening would prove to be the inauguration of a series of measures showing-high statesmanship, which he well knew no man in the House was better qualified to introduce than his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. He was not a friend of what was ordinarily called Home Rule; although, looking back on the past history of his country, he almost hesitated to think that the Union, established by Pitt in 1800, had been the means of conferring great benefits upon Ireland. He could not say that the prophetic words of that great statesman, Grattan, had not been realized to a wonderful extent. The noble words which Pitt, with the most disinterested motives, and a sincere desire for the welfare of Ireland, used when introducing the Bill for the Union on the 2nd of April, 1800, merited attention, He said that his object in laying it before Parliament was—
  "To calm the dissensions, allay the animosities, and dissipate the jealousies which have unfortunately existed: as a measure whose object is to communicate to the sister kingdom the skill, the capital, and the industry which have raised this country to such a pitch of opulence; to give to her a full participation of the commerce and of the constitution of England: to unite the affections and resources of two powerful nations; and to place under one public will the direction of the whole force of the Empire."—[Parl. History, vol. xxxv. p. 40.]
  He (Sir Eardley Wilmot), then, would go further, and say with reference to the sacred compact then made—and upon the foundation of which the Union was established—namely, the maintenance and preservation of the Established Church of Ireland—if Pitt, when he used those words, could have foreseen that a statesman equal to himself in power and ability would ever consent to the introduction of a measure by which that sacred compact would be broken asunder, he would rather have cut off his right hand than propose the Union to the House. Here they were, however, with the Union before them, and certainly, also, with many of the results which Grattan had anticipated. Now,

  953
  too they were confronted by the Home Rulers, of whom he wished to speak without the least disrespect, and, indeed, he was ready to give them credit for upright and honest intentions, fully believing that they had the interest of their country at heart. After this lapse of time, however, it was impossible that the Union, which had been brought about with so much care, could be dissolved. The Union was a final and inviolable settlement from which there was no return—"Vestigia nulla retrorsum"—Nor could Ireland ever have again her separate Legislature. But though it was now impossible to put an end to the Union, it was their bounden duty to introduce and carry to completion all measures that were calculated to promote the interests of Ireland, and develop more fully titan had hitherto been done the material and internal resources of the sister country. The prosperity of Ireland had been checked, her industry damped, and her wealth drained from her. All that had been foreseen, and therefore it was that he for one would support to the utmost, not only measures introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick, but every other measure which he conscientiously felt would bring the people of Ireland into an equal state of prosperity with ourselves. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that the system of administration which existed in Ireland was not the form and mode of government which ought to continue any longer in that country. The appointment of a Lord Lieutenant fostered and promoted party feelings, party jealousies, and party animosities to such a degree that he would appeal to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to say whether he would not sooner or later, introduce a measure by which that state of things should be put an end to. He should like to see a member of the Royal Family permanently installed there as Viceroy, but without any political character, like our own Sovereign in England; which would tend to the return of that resident wealth and influence and nobility to Ireland, which now found a permanent home in the attractions and luxuries and pleasures of this country. The present office of Lord Lieutenant was, as they might say, merely a sham. It was not the first time he had avowed
  954
  that opinion; and he did not hesitate to say it was from a strong feeling of attachment to Ireland—he having many friends and some relatives there, admiring the many noble qualities possessed by her people, and knowing their loyal and generous feelings—that he urged these views upon the House, assuring them that if we did not take an unfair advantage of Ireland. Ireland would give us in return the strongest feelings of love and affection. He cordially supported the second reading of the Bill. He was glad the Government meant to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and only hoped they would take the same course on a future day, when the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill to assimilate the franchise in the boroughs of Ireland to that in the English boroughs came on for discussion.
  MR. LESLIEwas happy to say that he entirely disagreed with the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat clown. He congratulated the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) on having achieved, with that brilliant strategy which he had already exhibited this Session, a third triumph of party feeling. He (Mr. Leslie) had a horror of Bills such as the one now before the House, which he believed were, in common with many others that were to come, both plausible and mischievous. The sister of this Bill, now happily entombed, had the same peculiarities, for while it pretended to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England, the hon. and learned Member took care not to make known how totally different were the circumstances between the two countries. He detested Bills of this kind—possibly from a superstitious veneration for the principles of the old Constitution, which could never be departed front without danger to public liberty. He would not detain the House, especially as he appeared to be arguing against the wisdom of the Government, which was far from his intention. But he must hazard one more observation. In a speech which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) delivered not long since, he complained of a grievance which now no longer existed—namely, that Irish questions were put off to the dead hours of the night, that it was frequently 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning before they came to be considered, and

  955
  he added "that there were then only the dregs and refuse of the House of Commons left to transact Irish business." These were the hon. and learned Member's words, and he could not deny them. [Mr. BUTT: Hear, hear.] He (Mr. Leslie) appealed to the "dregs and refuse" of the House to show real respect for, and fair appreciation of the true interests of Ireland by voting against the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. SULLIVANremarked that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Leslie) had informed them that he detested this Bill, but he did not give them any particular reason for doing so.
  "I do not like you, Dr. Fell;
  The reason why I cannot tell,
  But this I know; and feel full well,
  I do not like you, Dr. Fell."
  The hon. Member detested the Bill, and there his argument began and ended. The speech of the hon. Member was a perfect contrast to the genial, kindly, and generous remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) who had just spoken, and said that if he had been in the House the other night he would have voted for the second reading of the Municipal Franchise Bill. He congratulated the Chief Secretary for Ireland upon having had the courage to make the promise he had done in reference to this Bill. He would not refer to bygone debates; but the right hon. Gentleman must have gained great experience within the last few days, and he regarded in his altered conduct an honest desire to repair the mistake of a previous evening. He rejoiced at the support which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland gave to the second reading of the Bill, the frank manner in which he expressed himself in reference to Ireland, and in his declaration that he would in the present Session do all in his power to promote the interests of that country. Such a declaration deserved the acknowledgment and support of Irish Members. The secret of the difficulty which Conservative Governments had previously had in governing Ireland was that they were hampered by a section of their own followers from one corner of Ireland, who made up in the force of their acrimony for what they lacked in point of numbers. The right hon. Gentleman would find the history of the government of Ireland studded over with instances of a mistrust
  956
  of popular government. He would find the greatest possible errors on the part of the authorities at the Castle in performing duties which ought to be entrusted to local bodies. They had recently taken over the power of appointing prison warders, and in one of the Dublin prisons a schoolmaster was appointed who could neither read nor write, whilst a master weaver was sent down from the Castle who had never seen a loom. The whole system in Ireland was cursed with this marked distrust of popular government, and the people of Ireland viewed with the greatest jealousy this constant withholding from them of privileges and rights which they could obtain by transferring their domicile to the other side of the Channel. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would prefer having the support of such hon. Gentlemen as the hon. Member for South "Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), whose kindly feelings Irish Members were most happy to reciprocate, to relying upon the co-operation of that small contingent whose Representative had spoken that night.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he hoped that some facilities would now be given for proceeding with the Bill as the Government had given their sanction to it. He most cordially accepted the assistance which the Government had afforded him, and he hoped that he might look upon it as a kindly intimation of the friendly feeling of the Government towards Ireland.
  MR. HORSMANdesired to ask the Prime Minister, whether the Bill could not, after what had occurred, be dealt with as a Government measure?
  MR. DISRAELI: It appears to me that some business ought to be reserved for hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Mutiny *; Marine Mutiny *.
PATRONAGE IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH*: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the laws relating to patronage in the Church of England, I am well aware of the difficulty as well as of the importance of the subject which I have undertaken to bring under your Lordships' consideration. I know how many and how important are the interests, spiritual and temporal, involved in any system of Church patronage, and especially in a system so ancient, so extensive, and so complex as that of our Church. I know, too, what burning questions underlie this of Church patronage—questions of Church discipline, and Church polity which have, in our own memory, rent asunder one Church Establishment, and which it may seem dangerous and rash to raise, or even run the risk of raising, in our Established Church. My Lords, I am fully and even painfully conscious of the difficulties and dangers which beset the attempt to deal with this question; but I am even more fully convinced of the still greater danger that must result from neglecting to deal with it. For, my Lords, the evils resulting from the defects of our present system are so patent and so serious, and the demand

  901
  for then reform so strong and universal that if it be not met, and met speedily, by wise and temperate reform, it may end in changes that will be neither wise nor temperate. In short, this question seems, like some other Church questions, to have reached that critical point at which reform is possible and safe, but at which delay or denial of reform leads to revolution. My Lords, it is because I desire reform, and because I dread and deprecate revolution—it is because I have not the least sympathy with the crude doctrinaire schemes for re-constituting our entire system of Church patronage which one sees put forward on every side—it is because I believe that the evils which all admit to exist may at this moment be remedied by wise measures of reform, that I desire to see this question in the hands of a Committee of your Lordships' House. And, my Lords, whatever there may be of rashness in my mode of dealing with this subject, I am certainly not premature in bringing it under your notice. The reform of Church patronage is no new subject in the Church or in either House of Parliament. It has been fully and frequently discussed in our diocesan conferences and Church congresses, in which the mind of the Church is now so largely and freely expressing itself. It has also been considered and reported on by more than one Committee of both Houses of Convocation, who have produced most careful and valuable reports upon it. It has been incidentally dealt with by the Commission on Clerical Subscription, of which some of your Lordships were members, and whose report as to one part of this subject——the law of simony—is that it "stands in urgent need of revision." Bills dealing with another part of the subject—the sale of next presentations—have been introduced in both Houses of Parliament; in this House by the Duke of Marlborough, in the House of Commons, some years since, by the present Judge of the Court of Arches, and more lately by an hon. Member (Mr. A. Cross) who now holds high place in Her Majesty's Government. And at this moment I am authorized to state that in making this Motion—though, of course, my right rev. Brethren are not pledged by any word I may speak—yet that this Motion itself has their unanimous concurrence. I think, then, my Lords that
  902
  I may plead that the subject I bring before you is one that is ripe, and even pressing for consideration and for settlement.
  My Lords, in order to induce your Lordships to grant the Committee for which I am about to move, I have to show you, not merely that there are evils connected with our present system of Patronage—that is only too easily shown; but I am bound to show you that these evils are removable by legislation. Because it is not to be forgotten that there are evils in every system which are not curable by legislation—evils which are really the imperfections incident to all human institutions, and the attempt to remedy which might only bring in other and worse evils in their stead. I know, my Lords, that any system of patronage you can devise—place the patronage where you will—make it public, private, or popular, is subject to two disturbing influences, which you can never entirely get rid of. Two elements enter into it, which have, as it were, a chemical affinity for each other, and which you can never keep entirely apart by the merely mechanical process of legislation. One of these is money, and the other is human nature; and it is idle to hope that patronage will be so administered as to be free from the disturbance these two elements make in their meeting. And this, too, is to be remembered, that modes of patronage which work, or seem to work admirably, in other communions than our own, will not, therefore, necessarily suit ours. On the contrary, the very fact that they suit so admirably a different system makes it probable mat they will not suit with, but will rather act as foreign bodies in our system, producing feverish and even fatal disturbances. I admit, therefore, my Lords, that I have to show you that, while there are serious practical evils connected with our present system of patronage, it is possible, without any wild or revolutionary change—adhering, on the contrary, strictly to the genius and traditions of our own Church, and to the principles of our own system, to find for most of these safe and sufficient remedies. In the first place, then, I have to show your Lordships that there are evils to be remedied. And in speaking of these I do not mean to dwell at any length on what is generally regarded as the worst and

  903
  most scandalous of them—I mean the open and notorious, and, I regret to add, the increasing traffic in benefices. My Lords, it is a notorious and a most discreditable fact that there are offices in London where benefices are not publicly sold—I wish they were—but publicly advertised and privately sold, on a system that combines the worst scandals of publicity with the worst evils of privacy. And we are, of course, all of us familiar with the manner in which the clerical agents who sell these benefices puff their wares. "We know only too well the announcements of "eligible livings," with "charming neighbourhood," "good society and bracing air" to strengthen the purchaser' for the "light duty" attaching to the cure, with its "good trout stream" and "adjacent coverts," and the "incumbent in advanced years," and—worst of all—the ominous announcement of "immediate possession," which means in nine cases out of ten, immediate breach or evasion of the laws against simony. My Lords, I am not about to waste your time in expressing my indignation against this detestable benefice mongering, simply because I know of no one who attempts to defend it. I have never yet met the churchman who was not heartily ashamed of it, and did not long for its suppression. All that I have ever heard said for it is not in justification, but by way of excuse and palliation. The evil, we are sometimes told, is really not so great as it appears. The Church is not responsible, after all, for the vulgar greed and coarse puffery of these clerical agents. Many of the benefices thus offensively advertised are bought by clergymen who really and honestly desire to do their duty in the benefice they have bought, and who care for the souls of their parishioners and not for the trout-stream and the adjacent coverts; and that, in fact, these advertisements are rather a scandal than an evil. My Lords, I thankfully admit that there is some truth in this plea—I admit that good men do sometimes honestly buy, for a good motive, these advertised livings. If it were not so, the evil, bad as it is, would be simply intolerable. But granting that this plea were valid in a much larger degree than it really is, still those who urge it seem to me quite to forget that a great scandal is in itself a great evil. It is a weakness to the friends and a strength to the enemies of the
  904
  institution that suffers from it, for no institution can continue with safety to offend the moral sense of the community in which it exists. For this reason alone, then, even if there were no other, all true friends of the Church should desire the suppression of this traffic in benefices. But, my Lords, there is another reason why I do not dwell at any length on the evils of this traffic. It is because—bad as these are—I regard them only as symptoms of a deeper evil; for, if there be nothing objectionable in the fact of the sale of livings, why should we be so much shocked at these advertisements for the sale of them? If the thing that is done be lawful and expedient, why this squeamishness as to the persons who undertake to effect it for us? It seems to me that on this supposition these clerical agents should rather be regarded as useful members of society engaged in a very honourable calling, and should be respected accordingly. But if there be that in the selling and buying of livings which is in itself wrong and mischievous, then it is against this wrong thing, and not against the mere agents for the doing of it, that our indignation and our efforts for reform should be directed; otherwise we should be legislating only against the symptoms of the evil, not against the evil itself. My Lords, I believe that there is such an evil—a deep-seated one, which taints much of our patronage, public as well as private—and it is this—that patronage has come to be regarded too much as a property and too little as a trust. My Lords, we sometimes hear patronage spoken of as if it were a trust only. Too often we see it dealt with as if it were property only. Neither of these views is the true one. Patronage is really both a property and a trust. It may be defined as "the right to execute a trust." Primarily, therefore, and mainly, it is a trust, and the most solemn and responsible of all conceivable trusts—a trust to select the fittest person to be given the cure and government of the souls of men. But the right to exercise this trust is unquestionably property. It may not be always—I wish that it were never—marketable property; but it is at least enjoyable property. It is a right, a privilegium, which confers on its possessor powers and opportunities which he may abuse for his own ends. Or, in other

  905
  words, the interests, or if not the interests, the partialities and the prejudices even of the patron, may come into collision with the interests of the parishioners. And this, my Lords, is the real strain and difficulty in the whole question of patronage—it is the collision of interests between the trustee—that is, the patron—and those interested under the trust—the parishioners; and here, as it seems to me, lies the proper object of all legislation on this subject. It is not to attempt to destroy cither of these elements in patronage—they are really indestructible and inevitable—but to regulate them. It is to see that property keep its true place as subordinate to trust; that it be dealt with as what it really is in this case—not as property pure and simple, but as property submodo only, existing only under certain conditions, and charged with certain duties. In a word, the aim of legislation should be to give practical effect to the principle that, in the matter of patronage, property is the incident of a trust, and not trust the incident of a property. That this principle has always been asserted in the law of patronage in our Church a brief sketch of its origin and history will show. From the first, in our Church, cure of souls in the whole of each diocese resided, as it does now, in the Bishop; and in those earlier days, when Christianity was still a missionary religion in the country, the Bishop used to send out from the cathedral church of the yet unevangelized diocese missionary clergy chosen by himself, and partly sustained by the offerings of the faithful in the Mother Church of the diocese. As in process of time the remoter parts of the diocese were won to Christianity, the resident nobles or lords of manors, desirous of obtaining for themselves, or for their vassals or tenantry, the benefit of a resident ministry, would offer to build a church, or provide sustenance for a pastor, provided they might, in requital for this endowment, present to the Bishop a pastor for the parish thus endowed. They thus became the patrons of such parishes. They had not, however, then or since, the right to appoint a pastor; they had only the right of presenting one to the Bishop, who, on the other hand, was to judge of his fitness to be entrusted with cure of souls, and to grant or refuse him institution accordingly. Your Lordships will observe
  906
  here the essential principles of patronage distinctly appearing. The patron was really trustee for the parishioners, with the right of selection of a pastor for them, based on endowment and guarded from abuse by joining with the patron, as it were, as co-trustee, the Bishop of the diocese, who was special guardian of the spiritualities, as the patron was of the temporalities, of the benefice. But the principle of trust is still more clearly asserted in the law, which from the first expressly forbid the patron to present any one for money. This, my Lords, is that sin of simony which the Church has always strongly denounced and protested against as "detestable," and "execrable before God and man," and which is accordingly forbidden by the laws both of the Church and of the State. And still further to prevent such abuse of the patron's trust, an oath at first, and now a declaration against simony is imposed upon every clergyman presented by a patron to the Bishop for institution. Now, my Lords, assuming for the moment that selection of a pastor for the people is preferable to election of a pastor by the people, I maintain that no better system of selection—none more carefully guarded against abuse—could possibly have been desired than this which I have described. Under it the patron, resident in, or at least having the deepest material and moral interest in, the parish for which a pastor was to be chosen, had, by virtue of an endowment which secured to the parishioners a provision for their pastor, the right, not of appointing whom he pleased, but of selecting from a number of clergymen previously approved of and licensed by the Bishop, one to whom, provided he could conscientiously swear that he had offered no corrupt consideration for such selection, might, if again approved of by the Bishop, be given the cure of souls in that parish. My Lords, it seems to me impossible to devise a system of selection better calculated to secure the great object of all patronage, purity and fitness of choice, than this. Now, my Lords, between a presentation effected on such principles as these and a presentation effected through the medium of a broker in a back street in London selling benefices across the counter, as he might sell so many forfeited pledges, there seems a very wide distance indeed; and yet it has been

  907
  very rapidly travelled. The change, startling as it is, has been the, result mainly of one or two changes effected by common law. I am not about to say anything in disparagement of our English law, and, were I rash enough to do so in this Assembly, I would bring upon myself swift and condign punishment at the hands of the noble and learned Lords, the ornaments of their profession, who are Members of this House. But I trust I may be permitted to say that English law has ever been remarkable for its almost idolatrous veneration of property. Property of any kind, in the hands of law, is made the object of an affectionate and tender solicitude, which reminds me of nothing so much as of the manner in which we are told the Egyptian priests of old used to deal with their god Apis. They chose him by certain marks and tokens when he was a calf, and having nourished him on the most abundant and costly food until he arrived at the, goodliest taurine proportions, they fell down and worshipped him, and called on all the nation to do the same. Very much like this has certainly bean the dealing of law with patronage. The law having to deal with the patron's property-right in an advowson, began by allowing this advowson to be severed from the estate of the patron, and to be sold separately. Advowsons thus become distinguished into two classes, namely, advowsons appendant, that is, still attached to the manor, and passing with it; and advowsons in gross, that is, saleable to persons having no local interest whatever in the parish or parishioners. This in itself was a great weakening of the principle of trust as opposed to that of mere property. But the next change was a far worse one—it allowed of the sale, not of the entire trust, that is, the advowson, but of the power for one or more times of acting under the trust—that is to say, it allowed of the sale of next presentations. Now, it is clear that in the case of these the idea of selection has almost entirely vanished; the owner of an advowson has, or may be supposed to have, a permanent interest in a trust which is all his own, and he may be supposed at least to exercise his choice of a pastor from out of a number of eligible persons. But the purchaser of a next presentation has but a fleeting and momentary interest in the trust; his connection with it
  908
  ends the moment he has made his presentation, and in most cases he has purchased that presentation for one particular person previously chosen. In fact, he does not so much choose the man for the living, as the living for the man. Under this system it is clear that the idea of trust, if not actually destroyed, is reduced to the most attenuated and shadowy form, and the idea of property in its most gross and material form has taken its place.
  My Lords, I will not now stop to inquire how far this sale of advowsons in gross and of next presentations is right or wrong in principle—I shall speak of this presently. All I now contend for is this—that if these changes have, as they must have, weakened the local and personal interest of the patron in the due administration of his trust—in the same degree in which they may have done this, the law should have strengthened the safeguards originally devised to prevent abuse of trust. The law, however, has done exactly the opposite of this. Instead of strengthening these safeguards, it has very greatly weakened them. It has done so, in the first place, as regards the offence of simony. By a process of subtle evasions by interested persons on the one hand, and of subtle and nice distinctions such as English law delights in, on the other hand—the laws against simony have been brought into such a state that it is hard to know what is and what is not simony; and, when we do know this, harder still to say why one particular transaction should be legally simony, and another not so. It is simony, for instance, to buy an advowson or presentation when the benefice is vacant, but not when it is full; and yet it is not simony to buy either advowson or presentation when the incumbent is actually in articulo mortis. It is simony for a spiritual person to buy the next presentation to a living, and present himself; but it is not simony for him to buy the advowson, then present himself on vacancy, and then to sell the advowson. Nay, it is simony for a presentee to contract to marry a patron's daughter, but not simony for him to contract to marry a patron's sister or niece, or widowed mother-in-law. The force of legal absurdity could hardly, I imagine, go beyond this last distinction. But my Lords, the practical results of

  909
  these absurd distinctions are most seriously mischievous. In the first place they completely destroy all moral sanctions for the law of simony. The difference between what this law allows and what it forbids is, in most cases, so purely technical and conventional, that it touches no man's conscience; and consequently, evasions of a law so utterly unreasonable come to be but lightly regarded. In fact, simony as a legal offence has completely lost its original meaning—as that of the "execrable and detestable offence of buying or selling spiritual things"—and has come to mean simply the buying or selling of benefices under conditions forbidden by law. The law of simony has thus, as it were, slipped from off its moral basis, and been broken into shapeless fragments in its fall. But, in the next place, it is evident that all these nice distinctions afford abundant occasion, not only for honest ignorance, but for dishonest evasion of the law. Men are tempted to put their consciences in the hands of those clerical agents who pledge their honour—whatever that may be worth—that there is no simony in the transaction. I have known clergymen who, on such assurances, have been led into bargains which, when in the progress of the business they had discovered its real nature, they would gladly have shrunk from, because it appeared to them to be simoniacal; but under threats, they had weakly, though perhaps not unnaturally, carried out their contract. And this facility of evasion is still further enhanced by the present form of declaration required of the presentee. He is required to declare to the Bishop that he "has not made for himself," and "will not satisfy" if made for him by others, "any promise or contract" which, to the best of his knowledge and belief, "is simoniacal." My Lords, what is this but to hold out a premium to induce men to cultivate ignorance as to the law of simony? Such a declaration is a snare to weak consciences, and a mere cobweb to strong ones. Against simony, if a man wishes to commit it, it is absolutely no protection whatever. I venture to think then, my Lords, that you will agree with mo, that the laws respecting simony "are in urgent need of revision." But it may be said, although this law against simony be so weak and ineffectual, there is still the safeguard of the
  910
  Bishop. He may refuse institution to an unfit clerk, no matter how he may have obtained his presentation. And accordingly, it is to the Bishop that parishioners make their complaint when threatened with an unfit appointment to their parish. Unhappily, my Lords, the Bishop has little or no power to help them in such a case—I mean, of course, the Bishop of real life, not the Bishop of religious newspapers and much excited speakers, who, as we all know, is a being possessed of vast and indefinite powers, which, however, he is too cowardly or too selfish ever to use, except for his own aggrandizement. The Bishop of real life, is I hope, a passably honest man, really and sincerely desirous of governing his diocese fairly and impartially, and of enforcing the law and preserving the peace and purity of the Church; but possessed for this purpose of the most limited powers, and constantly doomed to find each weapon of law that he takes up break in his hand as he uses it. Such a Bishop must tell the complaining parishioners that there are, indeed, certain specified grounds on which he may refuse to institute a clerk—as, for instance, heresy, immorality, or ignorance; but that the proof even of these is extremely difficult, and that to attempt it he must begin by making himself a defendant in a costly law suit; and that when he has done this—when he has braved the terrors of Duplex Querela and Quare impedit—the most likely result will be that he will be saddled with heavy costs, and the parishioners with an obnoxious minister. In addition, however, to this difficulty in the way of the Bishop's discharge of duty, there is this further one, that physical incapacity forms no legal ground of objection. A patron may present a clerk of 80 or 00 years of age to the largest and most important parish in the diocese, and yet the Bishop cannot refuse, on that ground, to institute him. And here, my Lords, I touch on one of the most grievous evils and scandals connected with patronage—I mean the practice of putting into a vacant living the oldest man the patron can find, in order to sell the living over Iris head.
  My Lords, I wish to avoid strong-language in dealing with evils which are of long standing, and which from use and long habit seem to many less odious than they really are. But here is an

  911
  evil for which no such excuse can be I made. No patron who docs this can be ignorant of the cruel wrong that he is inflicting on the parish. My Lords, I solemnly denounce as nothing short of a most wicked breach of trust that a patron, bound before God and man to find the fittest pastor for the parish in his gift, should deliberately and for the lucre of gain choose a man, not for his fitness, but for his unfitness—not because he thinks him capable, but because he knows him to be utterly incapable of discharging the duties of the parish into which he thrusts him, in defiance alike of indignant parishioners and indignant and protesting Bishop. Imagine, my Lords, the smouldering indignation, the chronic discontent and alienation from the Church that must exist in the parish in which this thing has been done. My Lords, there is no sadder or bitterer moment in a Bishop's life than that in which he finds himself reluctantly compelled to give to such a clerk, presented by such a patron, the care and government of souls within his diocese. And yet, suck is the present state of our laws ecclesiastical, that the Bishop must do this. So much, my Lords, for the safeguard of Bishop's power of objecting to unfit presentations. But this is not all. The Bishop's power of preventing corrupt transactions is still further and most mischievously limited by the Statute Law as to the resignation of benefices. By law all resignations of benefices must be made to the Bishop, who has the absolute power of refusing to accept the resignation, except—strange to say—in the very case in which there is the greatest probability of its being corrupt—I mean in the case of what are called resignation bonds. These, as your Lordships are probably aware, were long regarded as illegal, and have only been made certainly legal under certain conditions by special statute within the last 100 years, in all such cases the Bishop is deprived of his absolute right to refuse to accept resignations. Now, my Lords, I do not stop to inquire whether these resignation bonds should over have been legalized—I entertain a very strong opinion that, they should not. All that I now contend for is, that there is nothing whatever in the nature of these that should exempt them, above all others, from the check of the Bishop's veto. I quite understand the proposal to take
  912
  this veto from the Bishop altogether; but I cannot understand why, if he is to have it in any case, he should be deprived of it precisely in that very case in which, à priori, one would expect that there would be most need for its exercise. There is, however, one further limitation of a Bishop's power in the matter of patronage, which seems to me the most unreasonable and the most mischievous of all—I refer to the peculiar privileges attached to donatives. A donative, my Lords, is a benefice to which the patron nominates directly, without presenting his clerk to the Bishop, and in which the clerk resigns, not to the Bishop, but direct to his patron. That is to say, a donative is a benefice, in respect to which there is no check or safeguard whatsoever against any form or kind of simony or corrupt resignation whatsoever. This seems bad enough; but still worse is the manner in which these donatives are made use of to help out corrupt exchanges. The acceptance of a donative voids, ipso facto, any benefice previously held by the presentee. The effect of this is, that an incumbent, whose resignation of his benefice the Bishop, for good and sufficient reason, may have refused to accept, has only to get appointed to a donative, which he need not hold for more than one day, vacating his benefice by so doing, and then go on to complete some simoniacal bargain, or exchange, in defiance of the Bishop. I have heard of a donative which, has been sold and re-sold in this way as many as five times in one year, and the selling price of which is said to be £20. When I add that some of these donatives are said to be in the possession of certain clerical agents, who advertise sales and exchanges, to be effected with "strict privacy," I think I have said enough to show your Lordships the evils that lurk under the existing anomalous privileges attaching to donatives. My Lords, I claim to have proved my first assertion—that there are serious evils connected with our present system of patronage, and that these have arisen from the undue preponderance given by law to property over trust.
  And now, my Lords, as to the remedies I would propose for these evils. Let me, in the first place, say what are the remedies I would not propose. I would not propose, as some do, to sweep away all patronage, and resort to the popular

  913
  election of ministers. Popular election is, in my opinion, the very worst of all possible modes of appointing ministers, In the first place, it fails utterly to secure the very advantages which are claimed for it; and, in the second place, it is fraught with special evils and dangers of its own. The advantages of popular election are supposed to be greater purity of choice and greater acceptability of the persons chosen. I maintain that it secures neither of those things. Not greater purity, for I fail to sec why popular elections must necessarily, or even probably be pure. This is the old democratic fallacy as to the virtue of numbers. A. B. abuses some trust or power with which he is entrusted, not because he is A. B. but simply because he is a human being, and subject to the infirmities of human nature. To cure this evil it is proposed to add to A. B. 500 or 5,000 other human beings, and it is assumed that, for some mysterious reason, their actions will be free from all human infirmities. I confess I cannot see this. Electors have sons and sons-in-law and friends, just as much as Patrons have; and bribery, intimidation, and jobbery, are things not altogether unknown at popular elections. And as to non-intrusion, which is supposed to be the special and peculiar advantage of the election of ministers by the people, this is another fallacy. Non-intrusion will follow from popular elections only in the very rare case where the electors are unanimous in their choice. When they are not, the majority selects a pastor for the minority quite as much as ever patron does for a parish; and with this addititional aggravation, that the minority have in all probability been strongly opposing the appointment of their now pastor, and busily engaged during the contested election that preceded his appointment in raking together everything that could be discovered or alleged to his disadvantage. But popular election, while thus failing to secure its alleged advantages, brings with it all the degrading incidents of public competition that necessarily belong to it,—the public addresses of rival candidates, the house to house canvassing of electors, the trial sermon and the competition prayer; the church left pastorless for months while the congregation are making up their minds as to which of the many probationers they will accept;
  914
  the party spirit that the contest generates, the rancour and bitterness that survive it. As to the extent of these evils, let me read to your Lordships the testimony of an eminent Dissenting minister, the Rev. John Angell James;—"Secret canvassing,"—"cabals, intrigues,"—"the most disgusting exercise of the most disgusting tyranny,"—"fires of contentious,"—"the greatest disorder and confusion,"—"peculiar and dishonourable fickleness of disposition on the part of churches who soon grow tired of the man they choose,"—"affairs of religious societies in chancery,"—"strife, ill-will, confusion, and every evil work,"—tyrannical deacons "who are patrons of the living, bibles of the minister, and wolves of the flock,"—"hasty choice of unsuitable ministers,"—"injudicious congregations inviting ignorant and incompetent pastors,"—"relaxation of discipline,"—"many churches exhibiting the sad spectacle of a house divided against itself,"—"schisms at the time of choosing a minister,"—"church meetings exhibiting scenes of confusion, little recommendatory of the democratic form of church government,"—"distraction and division;"—these are some of the results of popular election, enumerated by Mr. Angell James. My Lords, after such testimony from a witness so impartial and so capable, I may, I think, safely assume that popular election will not find favour with your Lordships as a substitute for private or public Patronage in our Church. Nor can I venture to recommend to your Lordships the device of a Board of Nomination in each diocese, in which all appointments are to vest, which just now finds much favour with many amateur reformers of Church Patronage. Such a Board of nomination would necessarily reflect the views of the predominant theological party in the diocese, and its necessarily one-sided appointments would destroy all that freedom and variety of thought in the ministry which it is the especial glory of our Church to cultivate and to protect. Such a mode of appointing ministers would, in short, destroy what is now the great merit of our present system of Church Patronage—its variety of sources and the consequent independence of the clergy, who do not owe, and who are not looking for their appointments to anyone single source of preferment, and who, therefore, represent the views and

  915
  the feeling of all those parties which find their legitimate place in our National Church. It would destroy, too, that relation between the owners of the soil and the clergy of the Church, at which it is just now so much the fashion to sneer as the alliance between "squire and parson," but which nevertheless I hold to be most beneficial, serving as it does in a thousand ways to make the clergy a bond of union between the rich and the poor; and constituting, as I believe, a far safer alliance than that which, if you destroy it, would in all probability replace it—the alliance between the fanatic and the demagogue. One other proposal I mention, only to dismiss as quire unnecessary to waste time in considering—and that is promotion by seniority. I can hardly suppose that anyone who considers the subject for a moment could seriously propose that the oldest clergyman in a diocese, simply because he is the oldest, should be appointed to what might happen to be the most important and populous parish in it. Seniority—other things being equal—may and ought to have its weight in the selection of a pastor. But the true and only ground for selection in the first instance, is not seniority nor even merit, but fitness. To claim promotion on any other ground is to set up a vested interest for the clergy, as a profession, against the only real and legitimate vested interest that can exist in the case—the vested interest, of the parishioners in having for their pastor the fittest man that can be found. And as to the analogy that is sometimes insisted on between promotion by seniority in the Army and in the Church, it will be time enough to discuss it when the Church possesses those other institutions which exist in the Army, and without which promotion by seniority would be intolerable there—compulsory retirement and half-pay. Dismissing, then, my Lords, these and all like merely visionary and impracticable schemes of reform, I would propose, instead of inventing new systems of patronage, to fall back upon the lines of the old. I would revert to the original idea of Church Patronage as I endeavoured to set it before your Lordships, as that of a trust involving certain rights of property. And I would endeavour to restore the balance between these two, which, as I have attempted to
  916
  show, has been so seriously disturbed. It is clear that you may do this in one of two ways. You may either attempt to restore the original close relations between the patron and the parish for which he is trustee; or you may increase and strengthen the safeguards originally designed to prevent his abusing that trust. In other words, you may diminish existing facilities for transferring patronage, or you may give greater power of objecting to the choice of the patron. The former of these two courses would lead to the prohibition of all sales of advowsons and of next presentations. My Lords, as regards the sale of advowsons, I cannot go the length which some do of saying that it is a wrong and sinful thing in itself, and should, therefore, be made absolutely illegal. If I desire the suppression ultimately of advowsons in gross, it is rather because of the evils that result from it in practice than because I regard it as in itself and on principle wrong. The sale of an advowson is the complete and absolute transfer of a trust from one person to another. To this I can see no objection in principle. I would only desire to see such safeguards, if possible, introduced in connection with such sales as should prevent those evasions of the law which now shelter themselves under them. And I should further be glad to see some facilities given for the purchasing by some Church body constituted for the purpose of advowsons in gross, and for transferring them either to public patronage, or to private patronage under such conditions as should make them once more advowsons appendant; that is to say, advowsons attached to property in the parish to which they belong. But as to sales of next presentations, I would abolish them utterly. I would do so, not merely because all the worst evils and scandals connected with the traffic in livings arise out of them, but because they seem to me essentially wrong in principle. They are malum in se, and not malum prohibitum. My Lords, I especially entreat your Lordships' attention to what appears to me the essential difference in principle between the sale of an advowson and the sale of a next presentation. The former is, as I have said, simply the transfer of a trust. The latter appears to me to be the breach, or at least the abuse of a trust. For in the latter case the trustee does not

  917
  divest himself once and for all of his trust; but still retaining it, with all its attendant advantages and privileges, he, in consideration of a sum of money paid to him by another, allows that other person to step in and to perform what is really his own most sacred duty under the trust, and which he should delegate to none. He makes himself, in short. pro hac vice, the mere dead hand of a stranger who has no real connection with and no interest in the trust. What would be thought, my Lords, of the trustee in some cestuique trust, who having the right under the terms of the trust to appoint some officer connected with it—say that of agent or solicitor to the trust—should deliberately advertise in the papers that he would give to anyone who would pay him a certain sum of money the right to appoint that agent or solicitor? My Lords, I am not sufficiently learned in the law to say whether this would or not be legally a breach of trust; but, morally, I am sure it would be, and that of the very gravest kind. And I must say that I am unable to see the slightest difference in principle between such a case as this and the case of a patron who sells to anyone who will buy it from him the right to the next presentation to a living of which he retains the advowson. I would, then absolutely forbid all sales of next presentations. But I confess that I place far more reliance upon those remedies which proceed in the second of those directions of which I have spoken—namely, in that of strengthening the safeguards against improper selections by patrons. For it is clear that if these could be sufficiently strengthened, the great practical wrong of the appointment of unfit pastors would be prevented, even if the scandals as to the manner of their appointment were left,—as I trust they may not be left,—untouched. Of these remedies I would venture to suggest the following;—1. I would enlarge the area of objection on the part of the Bishop. At present there are certain grounds on which a Bishop may refuse institution to the presentee of a patron,—such for instance as heresy, ignorance, and immorality. I would add to these one more—the most obvious, the most reasonable, and the most easily ascertainable of all—physical incapacity. I would give the Bishop the right to say, I refuse institution to this man, because he is physically
  918
  incapable of discharging the duties of the benefice. 2. I would free the Bishop from the present heavy and unjust costs attaching to any exercise of his right of objection. Why, my Lords, in the name of common justice and decency, should the Bishop, who has not the slightest personal interest in the matter,—who is acting solely as a public officer, in protection of public interest,—be mulcted in ruinous costs simply for attempting to discharge a solemn public duty? I ask that this gross injustice and serious hindrance to discipline be removed—simply by enacting that in all cases of suits respecting institutions between Bishop and patron, costs should follow, not as they do now the judgment, but the discretion of the Court. In that case, if the Bishop's objections were, in the opinion of the Court, frivolous and vexatious, he would most property bear the costs of the suit; on the other hand, if they proved reasonable and valid, the patron should bear, in the shape of costs, the penalty of this improper selection, while, in the event of there appearing fair and reasonable ground for doubt on both sides, then the costs should, as they do in like cases in temporal trusts, come out of the Trust Fund.—that is to say, in this case, should be a charge on the benefice. 3. I would give to parishioners, within carefuly guarded and clearly defined limits—for I am quite aware of the dangers in this direction—the power of stating their objections to the selection of the patron; such objections to be personal and not theological. Certainly, I would go at least this length in the direction of popular objections to presentees. I would give the parishioners the same right of objecting to the discretion of a patron in selecting a minister that they now have to objecting to the previous discretion of the Bishop in ordaining one. I would have a form of Si Quis, analogous to that now required before ordination, read in the parish church, both of the parish from which the new incumbent was leaving, and that to which he was coming; I would have objections made under this Si Quis regarded as privileged communications, and not leave the objecting parishioner, as he now is left, exposed to an action for libel if he ventures to inform the Bishop of any reason why he should not institute the presentee of the patron. I would go even further in this

  919
  direction, and I would allow of such, objections under such a Si Quis being transmitted to the Archbishop of the province in all cases where a Bishop is the patron. For I fully admit that, when this is the case, the safeguard of the double trusteeship of Bishop and patron is gone, and the guardian of the temporalities and of the spiritualities is one and the same person. For my own part—and I think I might say on the part of my right row Brethren—we should rejoice if that or any other opportunity could be given us of defending the exercise of our patronage from aspersions that are often as cruel as they are unreasonable and unjust. I would limit the area of selection by the patron. It is already so far limited that he may not present a clergyman not in priest's orders. I would further limit it by enacting that he should not present any clergyman who had not been at least three years in priest's orders. This would prevent the present scandal of some boy-rector, utterly inexperienced in the duties of his office, being placed in charge of, it may be, the largest and most important parish in a diocese. 5. I would reform the existing law against simony by legislating, not against the name of the tiling, but against the thing itself. I would distinctly specify what transactions, in the sale of advowsons, the law wolud forbid, and what, if any, it permitted; and I would have the declaration to be taken by the presentee to set forth distinctly that he had not done any one of the things forbidden, and also which of the things permitted he had done; and I would also require this declaration to be made by the patron as well as by the presentee. 6. I would increase the power of the Bishop to prevent corrupt exchanges, and at the same time I would allow of certain arrangements in effecting exchanges, which, though now technically simoniacal, have in them really nothing of the nature of simony. 7. Lastly, I would do away with the gross evils connected with donatives by making them all presentative benefices.
  Such, my Lords, are the remedies which I would venture to submit for the consideration of your Committee, should you sec fit to grant it. They are not exhaustive remedies, and, doubtless, other and possibly better may be devised by your Committee. But I trust
  920
  that I have at least succeeded in showing to your Lordships that the evils I have described are not irremediable, and may be safely dealt with by legislation; that, in short, they are of the accidents, and not of the essence, of our system of patronage. I trust, therefore, that I may with some confidence appeal to your Lordships to enter on the task of reforming these evils. I have, indeed, been assured of the difficulty of preferring such an appeal in a House so largely composed of patrons as this is. My Lords, I have felt no such difficulty. For even if I could suppose for a moment that your Lordships, in dealing with this great question, could be influenced by merely personal motives, it would be to those very motives I should most confidently appeal in favour of my Motion. For none have so deep an interest in the reform of abuses connected with patronage as patrons themselves. If we would preserve private patronage—and I, for one, most earnestly desire its preservation as an element of real value in our patronage system—we shall best preserve by purifying it of all abuses. But, my Lords, I am also aware that, in addressing your Lordships, I am addressing a body of patrons who, least of all patrons, are likely to be under the influences of such merely personal motives in considering the reform of patronage. I know that I am addressing patrons who, by their position and their circumstances, are removed from the two great temptations that specially beset the patron—need and obscurity—the need which tempts to mercenary dealing, the obscurity which conceals it. What your Lordships do, in this as in other matters, you do in that full blaze of public opinion and criticism which beats on all who hold high and prominent place in this country; and, as I gratefully acknowledge, under the influence of that maxim, noblesse oblige, which binds you to pure motives and high aims in the discharge of a great public trust like this of patronage. In no place, then, my Lords, do I believe that the reform of Church patronage could be more fitly initiated than in your Lordships' House; from none could proposals for its reform come more gracefully, or be more grateful to the country, than from your Lordships. Never, too, as I believe, had your Lordships so golden an opportunity

  921
  for Church Reform as the present moment—an opportunity precious, it may be, for its briefness as well as for its rarity. My Lords, our Church at this moment in her history seems, as regards her political assailants from without, to be passing through that kind of lull which, we are told, sometimes occurs in the centre of some great cyclone—the still spot in the heart of some furious storm. Let us beware of mistaking this for the entire cessation of the storm. The forces engaged for and against the Church of England are permanent forces in the life of the nation, and they will ere long be as furiously as ever at war. Meanwhile we have a brief breathing space. If the Church shall use wisely that passing interval of comparative calm in clearing the decks of the ship of their dangerous lumber, in strengthening the tackle, in repairing what is weak and decayed by time or damaged by the elements—she will yet safely bravo the redoubled fury of the tempest into which she is assuredly sailing. But if we spend this interval in a fool's paradise of mutual congratulations, drifting along with quiet and easy confidence, as men drift along on quiet summer seas, unconscious of the gathering storm, then so surely as the Church shall thus neglect and waste her opportunity, will the tempest smite her with a sudden and a deserved destruction. Happily, my Lords, there seems at present but little danger of such a calamity as this. Never was the Church more fully alive at once to her need of reform, and to the urgent necessity of attempting it, than she is at this moment. This reform, which I ask at your Lordships' hands, I ask in the name of the entire Church, which pleads for it earnestly and anxiously. I trust and believe that your Lordships will not only allow of this first stop towards this reform that I am asking for to-night, but that of it will come, as the result of the deliberation of your Committee and with the ultimate sanction of your Lordships, such a measure of reform at once wise, just, and efficient, as shall remedy these evils and scandals that are weakening the strength and hindering the efficiency of our Church for her great work in this land—a reform which will deepen her hold on the affections of her own children, and win to her in largo measure the respect and affections of alienated
  922
  multitudes—a reform by which your Lordships will have added one more to the many titles which this House has already won to the gratitude of the Church and of the nation.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the laws relating to patronage, simony, and exchange of Benefices in the Church of England.—(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had listened with admiration to the right rev. Prelate who had just addressed their Lordships, and who had given such a lucid explanation of the subject he had introduced to their Lordships' notice. It was not, on this occasion, necessary for him to follow the right rev. Prelate into the various branches of that subject, nor to answer certain statements, with reference to details of the law, which might be open to explanation. He might at once say that on the part of the Government there was no objection to the Committee asked for by the right rev. Prelate. He did not mean to enter into any discussion of some of the minor points mentioned in the speech of the right rev. Prelate; but their Lordships ought, he thought, at all events in their own minds, to endeavour, either now or at some future time, to arrive at a distinct understanding as to what were the sources to which the great and grievous scandals to which he had referred in the exercise of the patronage of the Church were to be attributed. "Without entering into a lengthened argument, he might express his own belief that those scandals arose out of and could be traced, not to the bonâ fide sale of advowsons, but to the sale of the next presentation of livings and those sales of advowsons which were really nothing more than the sales of next presentations. In saying that, however, he wished to express a strong opinion that the existence of patronage in lay hands in this country had been productive of great and extensive benefits to the Church—that the exercise of that patronage had yielded to the Church hundreds and thousands of the best appointments that were ever made, He should greatly regret if any proposition were made to their Lordships to diminish the existing bonâ fide exercise of lay patronage, which he considered had been productive of such advantages to the Church. He

  923
  would say nothing more on the present occasion, except to wish the right rev. Prelate every success in the efforts which he was making to remove scandals which they must all regret, and of which he felt assured every member of the Church must be ashamed. That, however, could, he believed, be done without interfering in any way with the faithful, right, and honest exercise of lay patronage.
  Motion agreed to; and Committee appointed accordingly.
  And on Friday, April 24, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Abp. York.

  Bp. Winchester.

  D. Marlborough.

  Bp. Peterborough.

  Ld. Steward.

  Bp. Carlisle.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  E. Brodrick.

  E. Chichester.

  B. Overstone.

  E. Nelson.

  L. Belper.

  E. Harrowby.

  B. Blachford.

  Bp. London.

  L. Selborne.

  And, on April 27, Marquess of Lansdowne added.
  And, on April 28, Earl Stanhope added.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, Half-past Ten o'clock.