Sitting of 25 February 1875

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For St. Ives, v. Charles Tyringham Praed, esquire, void Election; for Norwich, v. John Walter Huddleston, esquire, one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Police Magistrates [Salaries] * [75]; Explosive Substances* [76].
First Reading—East India Home Government (Pensions) * [74].
Second Reading—Friendly Societies [2]; Epping Forest * [52]; Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* [72].
Committee—Report—Registry of Deeds Office (Ireland) * [70].

TRANSLATION OF IRISH MANUSCRIPTS.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to include in the Estimates to be laid this year before Parliament an appropriation for continuing the translation of important Irish manuscripts commenced and partly carried out, in compliance with the Treasury Minute of 1857?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have been in communication during the Recess with several distinguished Irish scholars upon the subject of the hon. Member's Question, with the view
838
of arriving at a decision as to the best mode in which the work could be carried out. The result was that I addressed a communication to the Royal Irish Academy, informing them that the Irish Government were desirous of resuming the publication of these important manuscripts, commencing with the Annals of Ulster, and asking if they would consent to undertake this work. In reply, the Council of the Academy have expressed their readiness to do so, and have undertaken to furnish with all convenient despatch a detailed estimate of the expense which the publication will involve. That estimate will, of course, be laid before the Treasury.

IRELAND—ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.—QUESTIONS.
MR. O'REILLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What has caused the delay in granting the discharge or pension of certain men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who, having complied with the conditions of the Act 37 and 38 Vic. c. 80, have applied for their discharge?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the delay had been caused by some doubt as to the proper interpretation of the terms of the Pension Act of last Session. That doubt, he was happy to say, had been solved, and the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be very shortly dealt with.
Afterwards,
MR. STACPOOLE (for Mr. SHELL)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government will extend the advantages gained by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retire under the Act of last Session to those who had retired before its enactment?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, it was not possible to extend to retired members of the Irish Constabulary the provisions of an Act which was passed subsequently to their retirement.

INDIA—OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL JERVISasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the assurance given by the Secretary of State for War on the 20th

839
of July 1874, that Majors of the Royal Artillery serving in India should receive the pay of their substantive rank, has not been fulfilled; whether all officers of the British Army ordered to proceed to India, or who whilst in India, getting promoted, are retained in India on duty, are not entitled to the pay of their substantive rank whilst serving in that country; whether those Officers of the late Indian Artillery who volunteered for general service at the time of the amalgamation, and, in consequence, received Commissions in the Royal Artillery, were not assured by the General Order of the Viceroy and Governor General of India in Council, 10th April 1861, that on so doing they should "draw the pay and allowances fixed by Her Majesty's Regulations for that arm of the service, according to the situation and locality in which they were serving;" and, whether the payments made in India to Officers commanding Horse and Field Batteries under the contract system were so paid previous to the Warrant of 5th July 1872, irrespective of whatever may have been their substantive rank, for duties performed and expenditure incurred, which in the British Service have always been provided for otherwise by the State?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Majors of Artillery, while serving in India and in command of their batteries will, on and after the 1st of April, 1875, receive the Indian pay and allowances of their recently advanced rank. Officers of the British Army serving in India are entitled to receive the British pay of their substantive rank. Their claims to Indian allowances are determined by the rules of the Government of India in force in India at the time. Officers of Indian Artillery who volunteered to the Royal Artillery in 1861 were informed that "they should draw the pay and allowances fixed by Her Majesty's Regulations for that arm of the service according to the situation and locality in which they may be serving." The contract system alluded to was in force previous to the 5th of July, 1872. Under this system payments were made to the officers commanding field batteries, irrespective of their substantive rank, to meet certain expenditure incurred. These allowances are upon so liberal a scale that the officer receiving them derives considerable emolument
840
from them. This contract system is not in force in the British service.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1872—LOANS FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Vice President of the Council, If any estimate has yet been made of the money about to be borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the erection of Schools in Scotland, under the Education Act 1872; of the annual cost likely to be levied on districts in Scotland for the repayment of the loan and the interest upon it; and of the rate per £1 of taxation which will be rendered necessary for the maintenance of such schools in future?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: The Board of Education for Scotland have up to the 20th of February, 1875, sanctioned loans to 295 school boards, amounting to £883,197 19 s. Eighteen applications for loans to the amount of £95,552 are under consideration. It is estimated that in all about £2,000,000 will be required for the erection of public schools in Scotland under the Scotch Education Act of 1872. No information has yet been given to us as to the annual charge upon districts for repayment. The Return moved for by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) in 1874 will shortly be presented, and will show the rates already levied in Scotland; but no estimate has been or can be formed of future rates for maintenance of schools, which will mainly depend upon the expenditure incurred by the school boards.

ARMY—THE RESERVE AND THE MILITIA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the current report that men included in the First Class Army Reserve enlist also in the Militia, and are therefore returned twice over as part of the defence of the Country; and, whether there is any effective machinery in existence to prevent such fraudulent enlistment?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Very few cases have been brought to the notice of the War Department of members of the First Class Army Reserve enrolling for the Militia, and where convictions

841
have been obtained the men have been punished by imprisonment and struck off the strength of either Militia or Reserve. The machinery for preventing fraudulent desertion is not adequate, and is under consideration. Prosecutions result on detection of offenders.

ARMY—INFANTRY ACCOUTREMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it has recently been found necessary to supply sets of accoutrements for the Infantry of the Line of a size smaller than has previously been used, and at what period this alteration commenced?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The valise equipment was introduced into the Army in 1868. The braces for this equipment were issued in three sizes. In March, 1874, it was reported by the officer commanding the rifle depot that the smallest size was too large for men of 5 feet 5 inches. A fourth size was, therefore, added in October, 1874.

CHEAP EDITIONS OF THE STATUTES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWARD STANHOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the statement of the Controller of the Stationery Department that a popular edition of the Statutes might be produced annually and sold for about 7s., and to the Recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, &c.) 1874, he intends to take any steps towards making a cheap and compact edition of the Statutes accessible to the general public?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There are at present two editions of the statutes published by Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, the one at the price of a 1d. per sheet of four pages imperial octavo, the other at 2d. per sheet of 12 pages royal octavo. The average price of a volume of the latter bound is 12 s.; but the unbound sheets could be obtained for from 9s. to 9s. 6d. It is thought that without any editorial matter or references an edition might be published for about 7s. 6d., but it is not considered that such an edition would pay. It is, however, open to any publisher to bring out a cheap edition, as Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode have no
  842
  exclusive right of publication, but the Government is not disposed itself to undertake the task.

LAND REVENUE ACT—PURCHASE OF LAND.—QUESTION.
COLONEL GILPINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would inform the House by what authority Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests had purchased a portion of the Dynevor Estate in Bedfordshire, and from what fund the purchase money has been paid; and, whether Her Majesty's Commissioners are aware of, and have sanctioned, the proceedings of the land agent in treating with the old tenants?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The estate of Stagsden, in Bedfordshire, was purchased under the authority of the Act 10 Geo. IV. c. 50, s. 108, and of a Treasury Warrant, dated September 12, 1873, out of monies derived from the sale of parts of the possessions and land revenues of the Crown, according to the provisions of the Land Revenue Acts. All claims by the tenants in respect of permanent improvements were, by the terms of the contract, to be satisfied by the vendors, and it is believed that their claims have been satisfied. Before offering the estate for re-letting, the Commissioner of Woods in charge of the property had a valuation made by a competent surveyor, as required by the Land Revenue Acts, and he has no power to let any part of it for less than may appear to be a reasonable rent. Two of the tenants have died, and the farm of one of them has been added to another holding. All the farms upon the estate as so re-arranged, with the exception of two, have been re-let to former tenants upon the terms proposed to them, and negotiations are pending with the occupying tenants with regard to those two farms. The Commissioner of Woods in charge of the estate is aware of, and has sanctioned, the proceedings of his land agent, which have met with his entire approval.

NAVY—RETIREMENT IN THE MARINE CORPS.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he is aware that in the Marine Corps, under the retirement scheme of the late Government,

843
a practice exists of officers paying their seniors to retire, and that through this practice individual officers gain, but the officers in general are deprived of part of the promotion which that scheme was intended to secure to them; and, whether he has taken or will take steps to prevent this practice?
MR. HUNT: Since the hon. Member's Question has been put on the Paper I have made inquiries, and have been unable to learn of the existence of the practice he refers to.
MR. ANDERSON: I give Notice, Sir, that I shall repeat my Question on the subject in a more pointed form.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS AND TOLLS.—SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. JAMES BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to introduce this Session any measure dealing with turnpike trusts and the abolition of tolls in Scotland?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the subject had been for some time under the consideration of the Government, and that but for the temporary absence of the Lord Advocate from the House, in consequence of circumstances which they all deeply deplored, he (Mr. Assheton Cross) would probably have been in a position now to state the views of the Government on the question. He was happy to say he should have the assistance of his right hon. and learned Friend again very shortly, and then he would state what were the intentions of the Government in the matter.

ARMY—YEOMANRY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT NEWPORTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the recommendations of the Inspectors of Yeomanry respecting pay and allowances have been taken into consideration; and if so, whether they will be carried out?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Attention has been given to the recommendations of the Inspectors of Yeomanry; but, inasmuch as they would lead to a large excess upon the Vote, if generally applied, it is considered necessary to institute some preliminary inquiries with reference to the proposed standard of efficiency under which alone an increase could be justified.

POST OFFICE—STRANRAER AND LARNE MAIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Post master General, If he is in a position to inform the House that in establishing a new paid route for part of the Mails between the south of Scotland, the north of England and Ireland, via Stranraer and Larne, the payment will not exceed the rate of 2s. 6d. per 100 letters, and no letters will be sent to be subject to that payment except such as would be expedited by the change?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, the payment would not exceed the rate of 2s. 6d. per 100 letters, and that none would be sent to be subject to that payment except such as would be expedited by the change.

METROPOLIS VALUATION ACT, 1869.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is necessary that the householders of the Metropolis should be called upon to answer questions so likely to cause difficulty and embarrassment as those which under "The Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869," are now put to them? The hon. Member said, he might add that a number of householders had stated that it was absolutely impossible for them to answer the questions which had been put to them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the questions which had been sent round were the same as those which had been sent every five years under the provisions of the Metropolis Valuation Act of 1869; there was nothing in them he thought of an objectionable character, and they contained nothing but what was necessary for the purposes of the Act.

IRELAND—RELEASE OF RIBBONMEN.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can give the Return of Memorials, &c. relative to the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Acts and Protection of Life and Property Act (of which Notice has been given); whether any Memorial was presented for the release of certain alleged Ribbonmen; whether such Memorial or

  845
  Memorials were signed by any Justices of the Peace for the county; and whether those alleged Ribbonmen have been set at liberty, and are now at large in the county Westmeath; what wore the grounds upon which such release was sought; and, whether any Memorial was presented praying for the release of alleged Ribbonmen on the ground that, if kept in pay, they would give secret information, and also protect, in their evictions of tenantry, those landlords who paid them?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the noble Lord had asked for two Returns. One—a Return of the names of the persons arrested in the county of Westmeath under the powers of the Peace Preservation and Protection of Life and Property Acts, showing the time of detention of each prisoner and the names of those in custody—there was no objection to give, except that most of the information that would be comprised in it was already in the possession of the House; but the other for the copy of any memorials, with the signatures, which had been presented for the release of any of the prisoners, he could not consent to furnish, because communications relating to the Act in question had been always looked upon as confidential, and it would be unfair to the persons who made them that they should become public property. Nineteen persons had been arrested as Ribbonmen under the provisions of the Act referred to, but since July last none had been imprisoned. Some of the memorials that had been presented had been signed by Justices of the Peace, but for the reason he had already given he could not state the grounds on which the release of the men was sought. The last part of the noble Lord's Question was a serious imputation upon the landlords of the county which the noble Lord had the honour to represent (Westmeath), and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was convinced that the Question was only put with the object of obtaining a refutation of certain allegations which had been made. He could say that the report on which the noble Lord had based this portion of his Question was entirely without foundation.

IRELAND—DUBLIN MAIN DRAINAGE ACT, 1871.—QUESTIONS.
SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session to amend the Dublin Main Drainage Act of 1871, for the purpose set forth in Memorial of the Dublin Corporation to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, founded on their resolution of 22nd January, viz.:
"That application be made to the Government for a loan not exceeding £500,000, to carry out the main drainage works, upon the following terms and conditions as to interest and repayment, viz.:—The interest payable to he three per cent. per annum upon the net principal sum remaining due each year; the loan to he repaid (in seventy-three and a-half years) by the annual instalments of £6,000 referred to by His Grace the Lord Lieutenant, which shall be granted year by year to the Corporation by Her Majesty's Treasury, as well as by a proportion of the sum to be allocated by the Government in lieu of the municipal rates upon public buildings in the borough of Dublin, and estimated at £ 1,000 per annum; the Government accordingly to introduce and effect the necessary amendment of the Dublin Main Drainage Act by a Public Bill in the next Session of Parliament, without cost to the corporation?"
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the Dublin Corporation appeared to be labouring under a remarkable misapprehension of the intentions of the Government and of the reply given by the Lord Lieutenant to a deputation of the citizens of Dublin who waited on him in reference to the drain-ago scheme. The scheme suggested for the repayment of a Government loan of £500,000 was one which emanated entirely from the Dublin Corporation themselves. The Government had no intention of introducing a Bill to carry it into effect. They had still under consideration certain proposals of the Corporation on the general question; but the only definite undertaking which he had yet been authorized to give was that which he stated to the House last Session—namely, that the Government were prepared to extend the borrowing powers of the Corporation for main drainage purposes from the present limit of £350,000 to £500,000.
MR. HANKEYwished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Question of the hon. Baronet, Whether there is any practical difference between an advance of Public

847
Money, the capital and interest of which is to be repaid out of Imperial Revenue, and an absolute Grant of Money for like purposes?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can see none myself; but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is very ingenious, and if he proposes a measure on the subject I dare say he may be able to point out some such difference.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—CASUALTIES AT SEA—A ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the large number of coal-laden vessels which have recently been burnt at sea, and also if his attention has been called to the frequent cases of dismasting of large iron sailing ships; if so, if he will state to the House what course he intends to adopt for the purpose of ascertaining the cause, with the view of diminishing the frequency of such casualties?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The Government have lately resolved to advise the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes and remedies of the spontaneous combustion of coal ships, which has so much increased. There have been several cases of new large iron sailing ships being dismasted, and the subject is engaging the careful attention of shipowners, naval architects, and the register societies, the parties most interested and acquainted with the subject. I hope they will be able to devise some plan by which the evil may be remedied.

MERCHANT SHIPS (MEASUREMENT OF TONNAGE) BILL—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any legislation is proposed by Her Majesty's Government, this Session, with reference to the Bill on Merchant Ships (Measurement of Tonnage), in accordance with the Report from the Select Committee of last year?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, no measure of the kind mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member was at present contemplated by Her Majesty's Government.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKasked, What the Government were going to do with regard to the Merchant Shipping Bill which stood last on the Paper?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, he would on that day week ask the House to read the Bill the second time. If in the interim any further postponement was deemed necessary, he would give the House timely Notice.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL— [BILL 2.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL— [BILL 2.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  DR. CAMERON, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months, said: I rise to move the rejection of the Bill, because I believe that if passed it will but add another to that long list of ill-advised and fruitless enactments respecting Friendly Societies which have conspired to leave these societies in that very unsatisfactory condition in which the recent Royal Commission found them. I have carefully studied the voluminous Reports of that Commission, and come to the discussion of this question with the highest respect for the patience and industry displayed by its Members, and especially by those two of its Members who now sit on the Government bench. But I maintain, in the first place, that in the Bill now before the House the fundamental and primary recommendation of the Commissioners has been omitted, and I appeal in support of my position if not from Philip drunk to Philip sober, at least from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Friendly Societies Commission. If hon. Members will refer to the broad outline of the system recommended by the Commissioners, contained in Paragraph 880 and the succeeding paragraphs of their Report, they will find that the very first feature of their scheme is that—

  849
  "local registers should he established in which the names, places of business, and certain other particulars of societies carrying on their operations within the locality, shall be recorded in a form prescribed by the Government."
  If they turn to the unanimous recommendation of the Commissioners in Page 213 of their Report, they will find the first three paragraphs devoted to recommending that in order to provide for the enforcement of the requirements of the law in the case of registered societies—
  "a system of local registration under the control of a central office be adopted, the country being divided into a certain number of registration districts, with a deputy-registrar in each."
  This is, in fact, the foundation upon which the entire succeeding recommendations of the Commissioners are based. And why? I refer you to Paragraphs 871–2 of the Report for the answer. Because the present system of registration must be considered an utter failure so far as its efficient enforcement is concerned.
  "And who," the Commissioners ask, "that reflects for a moment on what is expected from the present central machinery could be surprised at such a failure? How is one man in London to keep nearly 22,000 bodies of men in all parts of England, in the most remote villages, in the most crowded cities, bodies composed to an enormous extent of the ignorant and prejudiced, to a large extent of the obstinate and self-willed, to some extent, it is to be feared, of the self-seeking and dishonest, up to any conceivable standard, however low it may be fixed? Surely," they exclaim, "in the presence of the enormous development of the Friendly Societies movement, a purely central machinery must break down."
  And yet, Sir, it is to this purely central machinery that the right hon. Gentleman has reverted. His original Bill was based upon this recommendation of the Commission, and being based upon it, machinery was provided which the Commissioners assumed as indispensable to carry out their recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill last Session himself told us it was "obvious" that they must abandon the system to which he now proposed to go back; and he twice placed the institution of a system of local registration foremost among the principles of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, to use his own words in Hansard—
  "The main principles of the Bill were to strengthen and improve the machinery of registration; to publish correct tables for the use of those societies; and to encourage and, as far as possible, enforce a system of periodical valuation."—[3 Hansard, ccxix. 1215.]
  850
  And here, Sir, I would ask the House to observe that of these three main principles of last year's Bill only one remains in this. And why is this fundamental recommendation of the Commission, this primary principle of last year's Bill, to be given up? Because it would involve some expense, and because it is alleged that it might load to a want of uniformity in registerial decisions. As to the expense, an official witness—Mr. Malcolm—tells us, in a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Commission, that the country at present loses some £47,000 a-year in the shape of loss of interest incurred in fostering Friendly Societies under the present system. Now, if 40 or 50 local Assistant Registrars were appointed, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman last year, and if each of them were paid as large a salary as that at present paid to the Assistant Registrars in Scotland and Ireland, the total cost to the country would not amount to more than a fraction of what is now spent uselessly, or worse than uselessly, in subsidizing these societies. As to the alleged want of uniformity of decisions under the present system, with the independent Registrars in Scotland and Ireland, we have experienced the evils of this want of uniformity, and we have examples of societies being registered in one part of the United Kingdom and refused registration in another. But how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get over this difficulty? Not by abolishing the Registrars' offices in Scotland and Ireland, but by making them subordinate to the office in London—by granting an appeal to the Chief Registrar against the decision of the Assistant Registrars in Edinburgh and Dublin. What was there to hinder the adoption of the same method of securing uniformity of decisions had the number of subordinate registration centres, instead of three, been 40 or 50, as the right hon. Gentleman recommended a year ago? In point of fact, in that Bill the local registrars and the clerks of the peace who were to discharge their duties were effectually controlled from the central office. Nay, the very object of the central control which the Commissioners insisted on was to ensure this uniformity of action. For as the Report points out (Par. 871), three systems of registration for Friendly Society purposes have been tried by this country; two have already

  851
  been discarded as failures, and they were about to discard the third as a failure also.
  "The only system," they toll us (Par. 872), "which the history of the movement shows us not to have been tried is precisely the one to which the facts of the present time point as a remedy—a local machinery under central control; and we take note of this circumstance," they add, "with a view to the recommendation which we are about to submit."
  Now, it is important that hon. Members should distinctly understand that the duties assigned to the Assistant Registrars and clerks of the peace under the Bill of last year were not merely to register documents, but to exercise such functions conferred by the measure upon the Chief Registrar as that official might choose to delegate, and generally, as the Bill expressed it—
  "to act and assist in carrying out this present Act, as by regulations to be made under the same shall be from time to time determined." "Surely," again, to quote the words of the Commission, "in the presence of the enormous development of the Friendly Society movement, a purely central machinery must break down."
  "Obviously," to use the expression of the right hon. Baronet himself, "we must abandon the old system of a central authority." And yet, in the face of such emphatic testimony as to the uselessness of this purely central organization, the right hon. Baronet now proposes to dispense with that machinery which was demanded as the first condition of successful legislation. Can it be that there is any chance that the present registration system could overtake any portion of the additional work which it is proposed to impose upon it? In the light of the Report of the Commissioners, in the light of last Session's explanation by the right hon. Baronet, I say, emphatically, no. Look at the extent to which it has failed in carrying out the objects for which it now exists, and which are very much less elaborate and extensive than those proposed to be committed to its care. Why, Sir, once more to quote the authority of the Commissioners, it has broken down to the extent of having failed to bring two-thirds of the existing Friendly Societies up to the point of affording to the public the two most elementary and indisputable data as to their condition. It has broken down even in its dealings with registered Friendly Societies to the extent of having failed to bring half of
  852
  these up to this simplest standard of legal requirement. I am aware that under the measure now before the House, the Registrar will be entrusted with a certain increase of power; but the Commissioners not only contemplated this, but they and the right hon. Gentleman contemplated also, as the basis of any satisfactory legislation on the subject, the establishment of a system of local registration under his control. For they knew that though they might confer upon him additional statutory powers, unless they could also confer upon him the eyes of Argus and the hands of Briareus, he would be unable, whatever his statutory powers, by himself to carry out the programme which they desired to enforce. As I have shown you, the Government have not only abandoned the first principle of their Bill of last Session, but they have, while retaining the intention to carry it out, eliminated from it the second principle—namely, the publication of correct tables. I shall now proceed to show the House to what extent the adoption of this measure will assist in carrying out the third principle laid down by the right hon. Baronet—namely, "the encouragement, and, as far as possible, enforcement, of a system of periodical valuation." So far as this enforcement applies to registered societies, I should not join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. But it must be remembered that a large number of Friendly Societies, stated by the Commission at a third of the whole, are not registered. These unregistered societies are at pre sent outside the pale of the law—they cannot sue or be sued. The English law affords them practically no protection against fraud and embezzlement on the part of their officials, and their members are powerless to enforce the performance of contracts of which they may have carried out their parts with a life-long pinching and scraping—contracts which it is assuredly not the interest of the State to discourage. Now, Sir, I maintain that the effect of this Bill, if it becomes law, will be to increase the number of unregistered societies at the expense of registered societies; that its effect, so far from raising the standard of Friendly Societies at large, will be to repress that tendency to improvement which is said to exist, and to drive out a number of institutions which

  853
  at present enjoy the advantages of protection against fraud into the ranks of those Pariah societies which the law only recognizes that it may declare them free to plunder and be plundered with impunity. This is a bold proposition, and before asking the House to hear my argument in support of it, I shall show you that it is not a conclusion peculiar to myself, but one which forced itself upon that half of the Royal Commission which signed the first supplemental Report, and which included the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for Ireland. If hon. Members will turn to P. 219 of the Report, they will find these Gentlemen speaking thus—
  "We fear that instead of increasing the number of societies simply obtaining by registration a legal status, the additional conditions which the Report recommends in respect of such societies, such, for instance, as compulsory periodical valuation, will rather deter them from registration than attract them to it. This would indeed be a most undesirable result."
  I think no one who knows anything of the subject will dispute the undesirability of this result, and I not only share the fear which this section, numbering exactly one half of the Commissioners, expressed; but I have no doubt in my own mind that if the present Bill becomes law, that fear will be realized. In order-that my argument may be understood, I would especially ask hon. Members to remark the expression of these Commissioners that "societies simply obtaining by the registration a legal status" will, by the enforcement of periodical valuation, be deterred from registering; and I do so, because the number of societies which register simply for the purpose of obtaining this legal status, constitutes the largest section of registered Friendly Societies. This assertion I make, not of course, on my own authority, but on the authority of one of the Assistant Commissioners, Sir George Young, the value and accuracy of whose Report I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the first to acknowledge. Well, on Page 31 of Sir George Young's Report, we find this statement—
  "Of the advantages possessed by a registered club over an unregistered, that most frequently referred to, and apparently most valued, is the security obtained for its funds. This security depends, first, upon the power of prosecuting, recovering from, and punishing a fraudulent
  854
  secretary or trustee (18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, s. 24); and, secondly, upon the means provided under the statute for the settlement of disputes arising between any of the members or officers of the society (18 & 19 Vict. ss. 40, 41, and 42). The testimony afforded me is overwhelming, that no societies of a purely popular and unpatronized character, would take the trouble of registering, or submitting their rules to the Registrar's revision, if they did not obtain this security by registration; and that hardly any one would care to register merely to obtain the minor advantages conferred by the Act upon registered societies, if they knew of a simple way to obtain this particular advantage without submitting to the Registrar's control."
  Here Sir George Young goes on to point out that another means does exist, but that it is very little known. I shall, before I sit down, allude to that means; but meanwhile I only ask you to remark that there is overwhelming evidence that the great majority of popular and unpatronized societies only register to obtain that legal status which shall give them security for their funds; and, secondly, that the proposal of compulsory periodical valuation will, in the apprehension of one-half of the Commissioners, deter societies which now register for that purpose from registering at all. Assuredly it will, and that in a large number of cases, and for the very simple reason, that while in the case of such societies the inducement to register remains the same as at present, the restrictions and interferences implied in registration will be very much greater. Take, for instance, compulsory valuations. Independently of the serious expense which this implies, and which can only be met by Government fixing a very low standard of fee for the services of the official actuaries, it must be remembered that what are called Friendly Societies are distinctly divisible into two classes—mutual benefit societies, which alone are really co-operative, and which generally provide for benefits in sickness as well as on death, and collecting burial societies, which are generally proprietary and trading companies. In many of the latter, the management of the society, as is clearly shown by the Commissioners, is really in the hands of one man or a sot of men, who look upon the society as they would on a business of their own, and who consider, to use the words of one witness, and that witness a solicitor, quoted in Paragraph 524 of the Commissioners' Report—

  855
  "That as long as they have funds in hand sufficient to meet the claims that may fall in on the death of the members, the rest of the funds of the society practically belongs to them, and whether they take it in the shape of salaries or in any other way, they consider practically, and I myself," he added, "consider, that they do their duty to the public."
  Now purely mutual societies, in the solvency of which all the members are alike interested, need fear no disclosure of the real condition of their society, except in so far as any disclosure of insolvency is calculated to increase their embarrassment by frightening young insurers from joining. But it is self-evident that the proprietors, so to speak, of proprietary societies will view with very different feelings any disclosures adversely affecting their credit and reacting on those profits which they regard as legitimately their own, and which are to be divided amongst them in the shape of salaries or otherwise. The societies, therefore, which most require looking after on the ground of doubtful solvency, will avoid unpleasant disclosures by the simple expedient of non-registration. Again, the Bill contains a provision that no policy issued by a collecting society, which is generally, as I have said, virtually a proprietary company, shall lapse through non-payment of contributions until after the defaulting member shall have been served with a written notice that if he does not pay he will forfeit his contingent benefit. This provision is aimed against the practising of fraudulent lapsing, or putting members out of benefit by intentionally neglecting to collect their contributions; and though, in consequence of the inadequate machinery adopted in this Bill, it will effect little good, it is probably one of the most valuable and legitimate provisions of the measure. But it will also largely diminish the number of legitimate lapses occurring in connection with burial societies—the number of persons who owe their lapse of benefit to their own carelessness and unpunctuality. Now lapses, legitimate or illegitimate, constitute the chief source of income of many burial societies. One witness quoted by the Commissioners estimated that seven in every eight insurers who joined his society allowed their policies to lapse without becoming entitled to benefit. Lapsing, he said, is a source of profit to collectors, and more so to the society. He considered that a burial society could
  856
  carry on for an indefinite term with three months' income, the business changing so rapidly—thanks to these lapses—that the amount in hand required to meet liabilities was very small. "A general burial society," add the Commission (Paragraph 505), "thus lives by its lapses; in other words, by confiscation of the premiums of its members." Now, the provision against lapsing will either kill the societies that live thus, or compel them to forego registration. I am aware that the provisions with regard to lapsing to which I refer are extended under this Bill to unregistered as well as registered collecting societies. But how are they to be enforced? Are we to expect that the machinery which has so utterly broken down when called on to supervise the actions of 22,000 bodies of men will be found capable of controlling those of a still larger number? Had the fundamental recommendation on which this Bill was originally based as its leading feature been maintained, had the right hon. Gentleman adhered to his original system of local registration, it might have been possible to enforce the provisions of the Bill with respect to unregistered as well as to registered societies. As it is, that portion of it which relates to unregistered societies will, like so many other well-meant provisions of the 19 Acts of Parliament which have up to this been passed on the subject, be simply a dead letter, and the sole effect of those provisions will be to drive a number of the very societies which most need supervision into the rogues' paradise of non-registration, where they will be able not only to "lapse," but to cheat and swindle their clients without legal let or hindrance. In this portion of my argument I have assumed that those societies which have registered under the present system shall, when the Bill comes before a Committee of the House, be allowed to choose whether they will continue to be registered or not. The correctness of this assumption does not affect the soundness of my argument. It merely lessens the extent of its immediate applicability. But if it does that, it does so at the expense of a very grave injustice; for if the Bill, as it now stands, becomes law, the effect will be that societies which have, for the purpose of obtaining legal protection against fraud, submitted themselves

  857
  to the easy and unenforced conditions which registration now implies, will find themselves obliged either to carry on their business under an entirely new set of conditions, or to escape from registration by dissolution. If they dissolve, they must do so at an imminent risk of finding it impossible to reconstruct their societies, while if they hesitate to have recourse to such an extreme step, what will be the result? They must submit to periodical valuations the minimum expense of which will depend entirely upon the fees which the Treasury may name for the services of the official auditors, a point concerning which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has as yet given us no information whatever. As in many societies collectors vote at meetings and take part in the management, it will be necessary to change the constitution of the society in this respect, and here also in the direction of increased expense. The diminution of legitimate lapses, from which, as I have already pointed out, a large number of societies derive a material portion of their income, will, in many cases, necessitate re-adjustment of contributions and benefits, and here again in the direction of increased payments for the same benefits. Having bargained only for a sot of nominal conditions, almost every one of which they knew could be disregarded with impunity, they will find themselves brought under the operation of an Act which, according to a statement made by its draftsman a few nights since at a meeting of the Social Science Association, lays down no fewer than 355 penal offences. Finally, they must be prepared to find themselves bound by a law in which, in no fewer than 12 places I believe, such phrases as the following occur:—" As the Chief Registrar shall from time to time see fit," "as he may direct," "as he may prescribe," and so forth. I am sure it was never intended by the Commissioners or by the right hon. Gentleman, that under guise of a system of voluntary registration, a section, and that a very large and respectable one, of Friendly Societies should be placed between the Scylla of submitting to a series of rules they never dreamt of, and which are in a number of instances left to the discretion of the Registrar, and the Charybdis of dissolution. But if it be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that such should
  858
  be the case, I think the fact would furnish another good reason for rejecting the Bill now under consideration. Arguing, as I do, that by casting aside the primary recommendation of the Commissioners, the idea on which the Bill of last Session was based, the chief provisions against fraud contained in this measure will prove as futile as the many which have turned out useless, or worse than useless in the previous 19 Friendly Society Acts. I need not detain the House by referring to various clamant evils to which the Commissioners direct attention, which the Bill—assuming it to be capable of being successfully worked—would fail to grapple with. I will, therefore, only allude to two points of detail which indicate the spirit of indifference to those of the recommendations of the Commission conceived in the interest of the public, which seems to me to characterize the present Bill. One of the most important of the recommendations of the Commissioners is the 43rd—
  "That the existing system of Government insurance through the Post Office for death and Deferred Annuities be extended, so as to cover the whole ground now occupied by what is termed industrial assurance."
  This recommendation is altogether ignored by the Government. Another of their most important recommendations is the 37th—
  "That, in addition to his power of dissolving the society, the Chief Registrar should have authority, on the application of a certain number or prescribed proportion of members, to make an award binding on a society for the adjustment of contributions and benefits."
  The Bill of last Session, both in its original and amended form, contained a provision for carrying out this recommendation. That provision has been struck out of the Bill now before the House. Thus, in the Bill we find two of the three main principles of the Government measure of last year struck out, and an important subsidiary one—conceived in the interests of the public—ignored. As I have shown, through the absence of the fundamental desideratum of a system of local Registrars, it becomes extremely doubtful whether the enforcement of the third principle of last year's Bill, that—namely, of compulsory valuation, will not do more harm than good. If, therefore, I were asked to define the principle of the present Bill, as compared with that of the

  859
  measure of last year, I should characterize it as the principle of emasculation, emasculation of every real safeguard introduced in the public interest. Compared with the Bill of last year, the present measure is but as shadow compared with substance. And now I come to a part of my argument against this Bill which carries great weight with myself, but which I approach with diffidence; because on this point I have not the authority of the Commissioners, or of half of their number, to support me as heretofore, but have to rely on the strength of my case, and the principle laid down by two of the eight Commissioners in an additional supplemental Report. That principle is, that means should be taken for extending the remedies now open to the members of unregistered societies in case of fraud and other malpractices, so that there should not be a temptation held out to fraudulent and designing managers to keep out of registration so as to escape any of the remedial provisions of the law. Sir, I conceive this principle, though endorsed but by two out of the eight Commissioners, to be one of vital importance, and I think very few Members would venture to controvert the forcible language in which one of these Gentlemen (Mr. Rounded) expressed his adhesion to it. He did so, he tells us—
  "on the ground that unregistered societies when not actually illegal, ought not to be regarded as outside the pale of the law, and that power for the punishment of fraud is not so much a privilege of a society as a chock to knaves."
  Well, as the law at present stands, the members of a society can say—"We know our own business, and don't care to be trammelled by red tape, but we desire that security against frauds, and the benefit of those provisions for the settlement of disputes, which Sir George Young tells on overwhelming testimony is the reason why the vast majority of popular and unpatronized societies submit to registration." They can say—" We desire security, but wish to conduct our own business according to our own fashion," and they can without further question than whether their society is established for a lawful purpose, by simply depositing their rules at once obtain that security for their funds and that legal assistance in the settlement of disputes which they desire, The law
  860
  on this point is by no means perfect—rules once deposited may be altered, and the object of the society thus changed to any extent, without the Registrar or the public knowing anything of the change; but this is a matter of detail and obviously the result of an oversight. What, therefore, I wish to point out is that in the Proviso regarding societies with deposited rules, the law at present recognizes this most important principle, that the members of every Friendly Society established for a legal purpose, whether its members choose to hold an annual feast, or to spend a certain portion of their money in drink or not, whether it chooses to restrict its investments according to Government ideas or not, whether it chooses to have collectors on its committee of management or not—that every such society is entitled to the benefit of these provisions against roguery and fraud which most people consider to be the right of every subject of a civilized country. Now, the present Bill proposes to put an end to this acknowledgment of a most salutary principle, a principle which, as Sir George Young points out in the Report to which I have before referred, has only failed to be largely taken avail of because the law on the subject was not generally known. It proposes, I say, to do away with this invaluable principle in the existing law, and to substitute for it another to this effect—that the members of every Friendly Society must either conduct their business according to the rules devised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), that they must invest its funds in the manner which has been laid down, that they must draw up its rules according to his Schedule, that they must submit its accounts to the Registrar, and that they must undergo a valuation of its assets and liabilities once every four years, or that the society shall be considered as outside the pale of the law—that they shall be outlawed as if they were persons of the vilest type, and exposed to have themselves cheated and their funds embezzled without legal remedy. Now, Sir, I look upon the negation of this great principle in the existing law as a drawback which more than counterbalances all the enforceable provisions of the present Bill. Had there been engrafted on the Bill of last Session a

  861
  provision for the compulsory deposit with the Registrar of such particulars as were necessary for the identification of a society and its objects—its rules, its office address, and the names of its office-bearers; had every society been compelled, as with the machinery of last year's Bill it easily might have been, to publicly record these particulars; and had the provision of the law protecting from fraud and facilitating settlement of disputes been extended to all societies, registered and unregistered, the Bill of last year would, in my opinion, have been a most satisfactory measure. To attempt to amend the present Bill in that direction would be futile. It lacks, as I have shown, the machinery which would be necessary to carry out the provisions which it contains. It is really, so far as the Bill of last Session is concerned, but the shadow of a name. Of the three main principles of that Bill, two—local registration and official tables—have been eliminated from this, and without the first of them, as I think I have shown, the third—that of periodical valuation—will do more harm than good. I have shown that the Bill before us has been curtailed of the most important provisions of that of last Session, and that, maimed and mutilated as it is, it must utterly fail to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. I have pointed out that, contrasted with the three main principles of the Bill of last year, the present Bill seems to have but one main principle, and that is emasculation. I have pointed out the all but certainty that under the new Bill a number of societies now registered, or with deposited rules, will be found to place themselves outside the pale of the law; and I have shown that in proposing to do away with the advantages at present obtainable by the deposit of rules, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do away with a most salutary feature of our law, and to substitute for it a retrograde and obnoxious one. Having done so, Sir, I think I am fully justified in moving, as I now do, as an Amendment to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Dr. Cameron,)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. H. BROWNremarked that it was necessary to deal gently with these societies, and while seeking to strengthen their good habits to endeavour to put down those abuses which some amongst them had unfortunately upheld. When he looked over the Bill it appeared to him quite plain that it was simply a direction to a central body to be located in London, and could only be regarded as a sort of sign-post to the road which Friendly Societies ought to go; and its success would entirely depend upon its constitution, power, and ability of that body. He deprecated any powers given to the central body which would have the effect of taking these societies off the register. On the whole, however, the Bill seemed to be carefully guarded in this respect, and in the case of the great affiliated Orders this power of the central body was subject to the consent of the central body of the Order. Further, it recognized the fact that there was nothing which the working classes so disliked as unnecessary interference. One provision in the Bill required further consideration, and that was the proportion of members at whose instigation the central body was to be put in motion. In this respect the Bill was hardly sufficiently elastic. Societies differed greatly in the number of their members; some were local, some general. While some numbered over 300,000, some were only 50 in number, and the same proportion of members at whose instigation the central body was to be put in motion did not suit all. While recognizing the right of minorities, it would not be well to encourage factious minorities; and he would suggest that, in the case of societies which were not local, one set of numbers should be prescribed, and another set in the case of societies which were local, to justify the interference of the central body. The Bill contained various improvements in the law. Among these was a provision limiting the amount of insurance upon the life of infants. It seemed to him that the amount mentioned in the Bill—£3—was a very fair one. It was said that £3 was not enough to pay the doctor and undertaker, but in these sad cases a doctor was not in attendance, and the funeral was of the cheapest

  863
  kind. He did not believe that any attack was thereby intended upon working men; the provision being directed against the serious evil known as baby farming. He also differed from his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) with regard to local registration, for he thought that the absence of the local register in the Bill was an improvement upon the measure of last year. His hon. Friend had objected to the Bill on the ground of the absence of actuarial tables; but the words of the 10th clause gave quite sufficient powers to the central body to make provision for that and other purposes. Reviewing the whole provisions of the Bill, he must say he saw nothing in it which could induce him not to give it his hearty support. He cordially supported the measure, because he believed it was an honest attempt on the part of the Government to do what they could to strengthen and improve good societies in the interest of the working classes, leaving them, as far as possible, to manage their affairs in their own way. He most strongly deprecated anything being done which would impede the passing of a Bill introduced with such an excellent object.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he hoped, as he took a deep interest in this subject, that he might be allowed to make a few observations on this occasion. He could not imagine for a moment that the House was prepared to reject the Bill, and unless some stronger reasons than those given by the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Cameron) were adduced against the principles of the Bill, he had every confidence that the House would support its second reading. He regarded the provision in the Bill requiring periodical valuation as absolutely indispensable to soundness. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill said that that provision would cause a great number of the present registered societies to become non-registered societies, over which there would be no control. Now, that argument proved too much, because if pressed to its legitimate conclusion, it would follow that any restriction imposed on the societies, or any provision that might be framed to secure for contributors that knowledge and publicity which were essential to the soundness of those institutions, would deter societies from registering or force them to become un-registered.
  864
  That argument applied against the whole Bill, and would apply to any Bill which might be framed, and he hoped the House would not be led away by any such false issue. The great object of this Bill, and of the complicated machinery which it provided, seemed to be to encourage the powerful institutions, and indirectly to discourage the less powerful. The experience they had had, as well as the evidence taken on the subject, all proved that the great bodies ought to be encouraged, and that the larger they were the greater was their power of doing good. But there was one defect in their rules which he wished to point out, and he was sure that any suggestion made in temperate language would receive from those societies a respectful consideration. The rates of contribution had not been so accommodated to agricultural wages as to induce the agricultural class to join the great bodies, and to derive the advantages which the economy of their management insured. He believed that in that great institution, the Manchester Unity, only 7 or 7½ per cent were agricultural members. It was a great misfortune that the proportion should be so small. It was the wealthier class of artizans which constituted the ranks of the great affiliated Orders to which he was referring, and the poorer labourers were kept out. But his chief object in rising was to express his strong objection to the limitation contained in the Bill as to the insurance of infant life. That would be looked upon as an insult by the working classes, and though he had looked carefully more than once into that part of the Commissioners' Report which attempted to justify the limitation, it appeared to him singularly inconclusive. In the first place, the evidence upon the subject was extremely limited, having been confined in the main to the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and the great town of Liverpool. Besides, more than half of those examined stated that the power of insuring infant life had no tendency whatever to produce a high rate of infant mortality. It should be remembered that the Commissioners based their conclusion upon the rate of mortality among infants up to four years of age in the manufacturing districts. To base any conclusion upon such facts was, he thought, a great mistake, Before he admitted

  865
  that this mortality was due to the power of insuring he would like to know what was the normal ratio of mortality at that age as compared with other ages. He thought the mortality in certain manufacturing districts was stated to be 30 per cent below two years of age and 50 per cent up to the age of four. He wanted to know whether there were not circumstances connected with the habits of the people in the manufacturing districts which would largely account for the mortality of infants at those ages? Might it not be that the temptations of the mill induced the mother to return to her work far too soon for her own health and for that of her infant, the latter being left to the care of a young sister or other unskilful nurse, and not receiving proper nourishment? In that way a considerable amount of infant mortality might arise. Those considerations induced him to form the opinion which he entertained against the limitation of insurance, in addition to which the sum allowed was insufficient for the purpose. He understood the hon. Gentleman opposite to prefer the Bill of last year to the present one; but the impression out-of-doors appeared to have been that the Bill of last year went too far, whereas the persons who were supposed to largely represent the working classes regarded the present Bill as a really good one, so far as its principle and its main provisions went, although they might take exception to some of its details. The Bill would materially tend to give publicity to the accounts and to the obligations of those great institutions, and that object would be attained by means of an efficient audit, periodical valuation, and quinquennial Returns, the want of which at this moment was one of their great defects. The measure, he hoped, would also have the effect of encouraging the amalgamation of the smaller with the larger societies, and of thereby strengthening those institutions. What they must try to do was to secure the maximum of publicity with the minimum of interference, with a view to the soundness and safety of those societies, which he looked upon as the great practical schools of the country for the adult population, inasmuch as they fostered that feeling of self-reliance and self-government which could not be sufficiently encouraged. He cordially
  866
  supported the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that considering the very long time that this matter had been under consideration, and the persons for whose information this Bill was intended, the House had every right to expect that the Bill would be a model, at any rate, for clearness and perspicuity, whether Members were able to agree with its provisions or not. On that point, however, he was extremely disappointed, and he would call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) to the Bill, which appeared to him (Mr. Lowe) to embody almost every vice in the drawing of Bills which it was possible to conceive. This was extremely to be regretted, because it was a measure intended for the poorer classes, who were very often ignorant people to whom it was desirable that the matter should be made as clear as possible. Instead of that the art of Parliamentary mystification had in this measure been carried as far, probably, as it was possible to go. He would give his reasons for thinking so. First, it was a Consolidating Bill. By that he understood a Bill which repealed former statutes, and bound them all together in a single Act, so that those who wished to know what was the state of the law on a particular subject might have that single Act to refer to. The present Bill proceeded partially in that course; it began with repealing the Act 18 & 19 Vict., a Consolidating Act for Friendly Societies; but having repealed that Act, as if for fear of making matters too simple, it reserved three sections which were still to remain in force, and to which we must go back in order to find out what was the state of the law as embodied in these three sections bearing on the important subject of interest to be given by certain large insurance offices. But that was not all. Of course, there was nothing more important in this Bill than the office of Registrar, and the state of the law as bearing on this point was to be fished out by referring to four different clauses. Then, when you had read these four clauses, you would not yet have read the most important of what applied to the Registrar, because after that you must go back to the very Act which was repealed, and which stated what the office of the Registrar was, as the Bill said you were to have the same powers now vested in the

  867
  Registrar of Friendly Societies as were given in the repealed Act. If you wanted to know what those powers were you must go back to the Act 18 & 19 Vict., already mentioned. Probably the most important provision of the Bill was to be found in the very Act which, with the exception of the three clauses that had just been alluded to, had by this measure been entirely repealed. But there was a further objection to the drawing of the Bill, because it only incorporated such powers as were given by the Act of 18 & 19 Vict., and as the present Bill dealt with a great many matters—rules and so forth—which were not in contemplation when the Act of 18 & 19 Vict, was passed, he did not believe, so far as he could judge, that it did give the Registrar the same power over the rules which this Bill laid down, as he had over the former rules. Thus, by the slovenly way in which the Bill was drawn, probably very serious legal difficulties would be created. Then there was another objection as to the manner in which the Bill had been prepared. Instead of its being divided into sections each of which should contain a fresh subject, it was divided into a few sections first, and then these were sub-divided into subordinate sections denoted by numbers, and these again were re-subdivided under letters. So that a reference on valuation would be, for instance, section 14, No. 1, letter F. And this was the way the Bill was drawn for the use of poor people who did not understand such technicalities very easily. A serious fault in the drawing of the Bill was that it contained very little of the real law on the subject. While consolidating, it left the door open for almost indefinite additions, because it enabled the Treasury to make rules for carrying the measure into effect. That was a most salutary arrangement in an Act in which you had established a principle, and had nothing to do but provide the means of giving effect to that principle; but a measure of this kind was more a matter of detail, and the effect in this case was equivalent to giving the Treasury power to adopt almost any provision on the subject, so long as it did not contradict anything in this Act. The consequence would be, if that power were exercised, that the working classes, whoso affairs were influenced
  868
  by this Bill, would have to refer in addition to Acts that were repealed, to a number of rules prepared by the Treasury that would have the force of an Act of Parliament. That would tend very much to confuse and perplex the subject. So much for the drawing of the Bill; and he must express his extreme regret that it had not received more attention, and especially that it seemed to be drawn rather for lawyers and Members of Parliament than for persons to whom information as to the state of the law on the subject ought to be made as easily accessible as possible. But there were other objections to the Bill. He had endeavoured to find out, from perusing the provisions of the measure, what was the real view of its framer with respect to the persons for whom the House was legislating, and whether he was legislating for men or for children. Having tried the best that he could, he had totally failed to satisfy his mind on that question. The arguments were exceedingly strong both ways. Nothing would be easier than to sustain the thesis that this Bill was intended to be a paternal Bill, treating the working classes as children who were not able to take care of themselves, or that it was founded in some degree on the principle of laissez faire. The most important thing was as to the Registrar; and in that respect the Bill presented a strange anomaly. Here was a person who was an administrative officer; he had duties to perform, for instance, in registering companies; but here he had other duties thrown upon him, which were of a judicial character, and was invested with great power of superintendence and interference. Now, if there was any principle firmly established, it was that if you made a man a judicial officer, you ought to keep him clear of administration. The same man might not be found to administer well and to judge well; and in that respect the Bill involved a violation of the recognized rules by which business was carried on. Then the Registrar had the power of summoning witnesses—all the powers, in fact, of a Justice. He was to decide a great number of questions, and an appeal lay from him to the Court of Queen's Bench. And yet, what was the tenure of his office? He was to be appointed by the Treasury, and to be removable by the Treasury,

  869
  He (Mr. Lowe) had always thought that when a great judicial officer was appointed, it was the Prerogative of the Queen to remove such a person. He had heard of Judges being removable at the pleasure of the Crown; but here was one who was to be removable by the Treasury, and from whom there was to be an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench—an anomaly he had never heard of before. There had, no doubt, been a considerable change in this Bill by the withdrawal of the local Registrars; but, on the other hand, that seemed to be compensated for by giving the central Registrar a number of powers such as neither he nor any other man ought to be entrusted with. He was to be the Registrar of these societies, and when he had registered them, if he had made a mistake, he could cancel that and undo it again. No man in the world ought to be allowed to do that. If he made a mistake, the mistake should stand. What a hardship for a society of this kind, suddenly to receive notice from the Registrar that it should cease to exist! That officer had likewise the power to suspend a society, thus paralyzing all its operations. All this was extremely serious, and went too far in the paternal direction; but when he came to look at the construction of the Bill he found, on the other hand, that its framers had shrunk from carrying out their principles. They were to take care to give these people security that their affairs should be well managed. In the Bill we had a requirement of this kind—that a certificate should be filed when the society was registered, to the effect that the benefits which were promised would be obtained when payment was required. Well, that was a very old provision; it was in the old Act. In the same way he found that an audit and valuation were required; that the accounts were to be kept in a distinct manner, and so forth. But all these things were required under the former Act. All these things had been tried and utterly failed, and now the House was asked to re-enact them. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] What he (Mr. Lowe) spoke of was the certificate, the audit, the valuation, and the method of keeping the accounts. With respect to these, the Bill gave us no better security than we had before. We had a perfect assurance
  870
  that those things would not work under the old plan, and therefore the only justification for re-enacting them would be something in the present Bill that would make them work. What was that? It was that not doing those things was made an offence against the Act, which would be punished if anybody thought it worth the while to try to enforce the penalty of from £1 to £5. That was the whole security, and such legislation he regarded as of a most objectionable nature, because the expectation was held out by it that things would be done for the performance of which no adequate security was given. Not only was the security not given, but people were induced to suppose they had got it when such was not in reality the case. In these circumstances he regretted very much that those provisions which had already failed should have been brought back again. Now, what was wanted was to prevent a small number of persons from getting those societies into their hands and misusing their powers. Certificates, audits, valuations, and the keeping of accounts were required; but the very persons against whom it was sought to guard the societies were left practically without cheek, because they had the power of choosing the very persons who were to check them. It was what was vulgarly called "giving the cat the cream to keep," and reminded him of the story of Dr. Bentley, who, as head of Trinity College, was accused of mal-administration of the funds under his control—an offence which rendered it desirable that he should be deposed from his office. There was, however, a clause in the College statutes which provided that the master per Vicem Magistrum ejiciatur, and as the vice-master, a certain Mr. Walker, was appointed by the Master, the latter continued to enjoy the emoluments of his office for a period of 40 years in defiance of the Fellows. In those circumstances, although admitting that the present Bill had met with a good deal of acceptance among the working classes, he felt bound to say, as having been mixed up in this matter from the beginning, that it appeared to him to be defective in its conception; that it was thoroughly ill-drawn; and that it would tend to establish principles of a most objectionable nature, particularly with regard to the Registrar and the absurdity of trying to

  871
  check people by leaving them to appoint officers to check themselves. Having said that much, he would venture to make an observation or two in the direction of what appeared to him would be a better frame for the Bill. It seemed to him that the way in which the Bill dealt with registration assumed that registration was to benefit only the societies, and that if the societies did not choose to enforce it themselves, there was no harm to any one else. But he maintained that registration was as much a benefit to the public as to the societies; because the use of registration was that the societies could sue and be sued through the trustees, and if a society was not registered, it became a legal monster which could not be sued, excepting by suing all its members. It was most necessary and desirable, therefore, that everything should be done to facilitate the obtaining of that power. But these societies were unwilling to come in and take that power; and he did not much wonder at it. It occurred to him, however, though he did not say that we should register societies against their will, to ask why a law should not be passed, saying that all such societies which were not illegal should be able to sue and be sued by their trustees. In the matter of registration, it would have been better to have followed the course laid down in the Public Companies Act; but to erect the Registrar into a high judicial personage, as was done under the Bill, was contrary to the spirit and genius of our Constitution. It seemed to him that the real question resolved itself into a very simple matter. It must be taken into consideration that there were two kinds of societies. There was one kind of societies which could not be too highly commended, and which we could not do too much to help—societies which existed for the purpose of giving assistance in cases of sickness and funerals; and, as for these, if Parliament gave the power of suing or being sued, with any enabling clause that might be necessary, it would do all that was required. Better leave them to work out their own rules in their own way, without encumbering them with all this legislation. The advantage would be that they would learn something. Experience forced on people was apt to slide off; what they worked out themselves stuck; and that would
  872
  be the gain in this case. There was another class of societies which really dealt with questions of insurance, and it appeared to him a great pity that they should be taken up by the working classes at all. They had not the leisure or the knowledge to work them effectively; the Government ought not to be in any hurry to encourage them, and would do more wisely to let these alone also, letting them manage themselves in their own way. One more suggestion. Government might effectually compete with these societies by means of the Post Office, and thus place perfect security within the reach of the working classes if they chose to have it. Why should we not follow, with regard to these societies, the plan that had been adopted and found to work perfectly well in the case of joint-stock companies? Instead of entering into all this quarrel about certifying their rules, which gave those rules an authority to which they were not entitled, why not prepare for them, as in the case of the joint-stock companies, a model form of regulations, which should be their rules, unless they chose to vary from them? He could not help thinking that by the provisions of this Bill, it would be impossible to work out the end in view. There ought no longer to be any hesitating between two opinions. He believed the working classes were able to manage their own affairs in the first class of societies to which he had alluded, and he thought it a pity that they were not loft alone to do so. At the same time, he admitted the Bill had gained a good deal of out-door popularity by giving up everything which should have been kept, and keeping everything which should have been given up.
  MR. W. H. SMITHobserved, that the House had at least the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) that the Bill was favourably looked upon by the working-classes. The right hon. Gentleman had urged the desirability of leaving the working-classes to manage their own affairs, and this was exactly what the Bill proposed to do. The main object and great principle of the Bill was to ensure publicity by the rendering of accounts and valuation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that these provisions were contained in former Acts of Parliament, and now existed. That was so, but they were practically inoperative,

  873
  not having been secured by adequate penalties; and one of the main objects of the Bill was to see that the law as it existed should be operative and successful. In styling the Registrar a high judicial personage, it seemed to him the right hon. Gentleman had considerably magnified that functionary's importance, seeing that his duty was simply to see that societies complied with the rules in force. There was a good reason in giving to the Treasury the power of his appointment and removal; and if his conduct were called into question there was a Department ready to inquire into the matter without the employment of cumbrous and special machinery. He confessed he could hardly reconcile that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech where he urged the adoption of means to prevent the management of societies from falling into the hands of a knot of dishonest persons with the desire he subsequently expressed that the working-classes should be loft to manage their affairs themselves. In point of fact, the Bill did contemplate the management of the societies by the people themselves, and provided a great check on improper proceedings by means of publicity and the influence of public opinion. Again, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there ought to be rules scheduled under the Act seemed to be directly opposed to the principle on which he desired to proceed. What the Government desired was that, subject to the cheek he had mentioned, the working-classes should have full liberty to found, control, and carry on such societies as they considered necessary or advantageous to themselves. It was not for the Government to say what the wants of the working-classes might be; but it was for Parliament to say that their own rules should be observed when laid down; that accounts in conformity with the Act should be rendered; and that quinquennial valuations based upon those accounts should be made in order that the ignorant and the simple might have within their reach information to guide them in the selection of a society. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), to judge from his speech, could hardly have been aware of the existing law with regard to Friendly and Insurance Societies. [Dr. CAMERON: There are 4,000 illegal Insurance Societies
  874
  in existence at present throughout the country.] At any rate, every such society of an illegal nature might in future be proceeded against under the provisions of the Life Insurance Acts, and this circumstance alone would, he believed, prove a great safe-guard to the public. He refused to believe, however, that the great majority of the Friendly Societies of this country were so dishonestly managed that they would be afraid of that periodical valuation which was one of the most important provisions of the Bill. If they continued to exist, they would be compelled to render their accounts either as Friendly Societies or as insurance companies. The Government were charged with reference to this Bill, on the one hand with doing too little, and on the other with doing too much. The Bill was an attempt to keep clear of the evil of paternal Government, and at the same time—and he believed it would prove to be successful—to take away from those who were breaking the law the immunity with which they now broke the law, and to compel them to make their actions clear before the world. It would be impossible by any mere legislation to provide absolute security either for the societies or their members; but it was very necessary that the public should not be loft without information when there was the power to compel the officers to make returns. At present, however, there was no penalty attaching to the rendering of a false return, and to show the value of obtaining returns he would only say that a short time since he received information of a society which had a reserve of only £45,000, but which had insurances of £6,200,000. That society had not made a return because it did not come within the law as it at present existed; but if this Bill passed it would be bound to make a return at the specified period. Another objection which had been raised against the Bill was that it was an enabling Bill, but practically he considered it was a compulsory measure; because societies must register themselves as Friendly Societies, or subject themselves to the penalties of Insurance Societies if they did not bring themselves within the scope of Mr. Cave's Act. He expressed an earnest desire that if the Bill was read a second time the House would do all in its power to perfect its machinery,

  875
  which was intended, as far as legislation could go, to give security to the saving, to encourage by all possible means that most valuable spirit of thrift and economy which existed in so large a measure among the working-classes, and which was too often discouraged and depressed by the fact that savings, going on for years and years, had turned out to be entirely lost from the fraud or mismanagement of those to whom they had been entrusted.
  MR. W. HOLMS: I concur to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) in his opinion that this Bill is not satisfactory, at the same time I think that there is in it so much that is good, so much that is sound, and so much that is in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Friendly Societies that I shall support the second reading with a view to going into Committee, and, if possible, remedying the objectionable clauses. My hon. Friend has told us that a vast number—probably not less than a third—of all Friendly Societies are unregistered, and has used this as an argument in favour of having a large number of local registrars. I wish to point out to the House that the fact of a large number of these societies being unregistered is not a question of the number of registrars; it is a question of whether certain classes of Friendly Societies can be admitted to registration. At present the law is, that no "yearly" or "dividing" society can be registered. On inquiry I find that a very large proportion of unregistered societies come under this class; for instance, as regards 12 districts in Scotland, the Assistant Commissioner has reported that wishing to ascertain the reason why so many societies were unregistered, he made an inquiry, and found that of 2,756 no fewer than 2,216 were "dividing" societies, and therefore could not be registered; of the remaining 540, some were unregistered for other reasons, such as not having power, if registered, to invest their funds in shares. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow that the Bill now before the House proposes to admit dividing societies, and to allow all Friendly Societies to hold shares. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London has described the Bill as a weak Bill;
  876
  but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it contains two admirable provisions, and if it contained nothing else, and thorough effect could be given to them, I venture to think that it would not be a bad Bill. The first of these provisions gives full power to a certain number of members of a society to demand an investigation into the state of its affairs, and the second provides against lapses; it has been the habit of some societies to neglect to call upon certain members for their periodical contributions, the consequence being that those members lapsed out of benefit, and in the Report of the Commissioners this is repeatedly referred to as a cause of fraud on poor and ignorant people. If the House accepts the Amendment of my hon. Friend, legislation will be delayed at all events for another year, it cannot be urged that we have not sufficient information on the subject, for in this respect the Report of the Royal Commissioners has been most complete and exhaustive. Nor can it be said that we have not had time to consider this measure. Last year the Bill was laid before the House, read a second time, and afterwards committed and reprinted. During the Recess, hon. Members and deputations from Friendly Societies have had opportunities of laying their suggestions before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am bound to confess that the right hon. Gentleman has always received such suggestions with the greatest courtesy and consideration. The result of all this is the Bill now in the hands of hon. Members. It may be asked, are the Friendly Societies themselves in favour of legislation? It has been my good fortune to have come much in contact with leading men connected with those societies, and I can assure the House that those men, representing upwards of 2,300,000 members, are desirous of such legislation as will clearly define their position; that will protect the ignorant and helpless, so far as they can be protected by Act of Parliament; and that will give the public confidence that their operations are conducted on sound principles. At the same time, they are most anxious that there shall be no undue Government interference, and that within certain well-defined limits they shall have full power to manage their own affairs in the manner they

  877
  think best; and it appears to me that they have good reason for taking up this position. If we look to the history of these societies, we must acknowledge that the working men of this country have in their management shown an amount of prudence, self-reliance, and practical sagacity which forms one of the most interesting features in the progress and civilization of the century in which we live, and which finds no parallel in any other country in Europe. Friendly Societies are of comparatively recent origin. The first Act for their regulation was passed in 1793. Such, however, at that time was the ignorance of vital statistics and of the principles on which such institutions should be conducted, that few or none of the societies founded during the last century are now in existence. During the last 30 years, and more particularly during the last 10 years, their progress has been remarkable. So quietly, however, have their operations been conducted, that until the Report of the Royal Commission was published, I believe that the public had scarcely any conception of their magnitude. I find that the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows had in 1873 470,000 members. During the preceding five years its in come was£2,800,000, or nearly £600,000 a-year. Of this £1,928,000 was distributed in sick allowances and grants made on the deaths of members. Another society—the Ancient Order of Foresters—which in 18–15 had only 66,000 members, had in 1873 increased to 420,000, with an annual income of £491,000, so that those two societies alone have between them nearly 900,000 members, with a revenue of more than £1,000,000, and, I believe, funds amounting to £4,920,000. It has been estimated that 3,000,000 of the very very flower of the working classes are directly or indirectly interested in these great affiliated orders or brotherhoods. There is another class of societies even more numerous in their membership. I refer to the Collecting or Burial Societies, one of them, the Royal Liver, having upwards of 600,000 members. Besides these great classes, there is an infinite variety of local and other societies, the whole forming an aggregate of 4,000,000 members, with funds in hand amounting to£11,000,000 or £12,000,000. It has been estimated that by their means £2,000,000 a-year is saved to the rates;
  878
  but, what is of greater importance, these societies, while thus tending to lessen the degrading influence of our Poor Law system, promote habits of thrift and forethought. They are the great life insurance companies of the working classes, who naturally look with jealousy upon any legislation of an arbitrary character, or which will favour one class of society at the expense of another. It is well that the healthy breeze of public opinion should be brought to bear on them, but we should carefully avoid interfering with what is sound, vigorous, and useful in the work now going on so successfully. I give the Chancellor of the Exchequer full credit for desiring to make this a good measure. At the same time, I am bound to say that I think it contains provisions which, if allowed to remain unaltered, will seriously affect the future success of Friendly Societies. To some of these I shall now, with the permission of the House, briefly refer. The first and most important requisite for these societies is sound tables. The Royal Commissioners report as follows:—
  "A main cause of the wide-spread insolvency of Friendly Societies is the inadequacy of the rates of premium for the benefits promised; "
  and they recommend that tables of premiums for sickness and death claims should be prepared by Government, the adoption of which should not be compulsory. I trust that a clause will be introduced into the Bill instructing the Chief Registrar to prepare such tables, as will constitute a standard by which the public may judge whether a society is being conducted on a sound basis or not. I venture also to suggest that a provision should be made that all monies for insurance purposes should be kept distinctly apart from the funds that are destined to be divided. I agree with the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) that the number of persons who can demand an investigation is too small; it is an anomaly to provide, as proposed in the Bill, that three-eighths of the members are necessary to an investigation, when the total number in a society is under 1,000, and that only 100 should be required to obtain an inquiry when the members are under 10,000. The most objectionable clause, in my opinion, is Clause 29, which enables societies carrying on their operations within one county to be free from nearly every restriction imposed in the Bill, and if

  879
  passed in its present form, the result will be that instead of encouraging those large societies to which reference has been made by the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington), an undue advantage will be given to small local societies, which under the shadow of the law will be enabled to continue unchecked those abuses so ably pointed out by the Royal Commissioners, I would strongly urge that local societies should be placed in the same position as other societies. There is in this clause a remarkable peculiarity, unregistered societies are required, under certain penalties, to give rules and policies to their members, to give notice to members before their benefits can lapse, to provide a balance sheet for the inspection of members; but, nevertheless, there is no machinery provided in the Bill to give the Registrar any hold over them: I would suggest that all unregistered societies, by sending a copy of their rules and the address of their chief office or place of business, should have the benefit of the clauses for the prevention of fraud and the settlement of disputes, and might be called "Enrolled Societies." I confess that I am at a loss to understand why societies should by this Bill be permitted to invest their funds in shares of any kind they like while they are limited to the purchase of one acre of land in each county in which they may have an office. Why, Sir, had their power in this respect been untrammelled in the past their property would have been greatly increased in value, for hon. Gentlemen are well aware that there is no class of property so safe, and none which has more increased in value than land. In conclusion, I wish to call attention to the almost unlimited powers given to the Chief Registrar under Clause 37. I am strongly of opinion that all rules, regulations, and forms of Returns, should, as far as practicable, be set forth in Schedules in the Bill itself, in the same manner as has been done in the Life Assurance Companies' Act. I have thus endeavoured to point out some of those features in the Bill which appear to me to be objectionable, and I trust that if read a second time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow such a time to elapse before going into Committee as will enable hon. Members fully to consider the various points to which their
  880
  attention may be called in this debate; and, I further trust that the right hon. Baronet will be prepared before going into Committee to make such alterations as may be necessary to render this Bill what I am sure ho, and this House desire it should be, a measure that will deal fairly with all Friendly Societies, and tend to promote their greater usefulness and further development.
  MR. HOLTwished to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kindness which he had shown to deputations who-had attended on him with reference to this matter. He thought that, if such a measure as the present was to be of practical value, there must be nothing like petty meddling, and broad principles must be laid down for the government of Friendly Societies. The constituency he represented (North East Lancashire) took a great interest in the question, and he had received a good deal of correspondence on the subject of the Bill. The whole of these communications, however, he might say, mainly referred to two matters—the first relating to infant assurances, and the second to restrictions placed on the investment of their funds by the societies. As regarded the former, they were in favour of having matters left as they were, so far as the insurance was concerned; and they thought that if the receipt of the insurance money were limited to parents or guardians, that would practically be a sufficient precaution against abuse. The Commissioners believed that it would be impossible to ascertain, without compulsory powers and without the right of indemnifying witnesses, whether or not the present system encouraged child murder; and he thought there should be full inquiry before such a stigma as that involved in the provisions of the Bill should be passed upon the working classes. With regard to the investment of the funds of these societies, objections were entertained to the limitations contained in Clause 16. The working classes looked at this question from a practical rather than a theoretical point of view. He had some figures affecting 55 societies in his district, containing 10,000 members, with an accumulated capital of £55,720, upwards of £33,000 of which was legally invested. It suited the purpose of many of these societies to run the risk of illegal investment rather

  881
  than submit to the restriction of the law, which hampered their action and damaged their property. If undue restrictions were imposed, the societies would refuse to register, and would keep outside the pale of the law; and he hoped, therefore, that some relaxation of the 16th clause would be made. He asked the Government, also, whether it might not be desirable to put a clause in the Bill which would make societies anxious to register? This Bill would certainly not have that effect; and ho, for one, was desirous that all societies should be registered. On the whole, he recognized great improvements in the Bill compared with that of last year, and trusted that in Committee it might be still further improved. It was impossible to meet the requirements of every particular case. Parliament must be content to lay down certain broad principles, and its object should be to strengthen rather than fetter the action of these societies in carrying out their very laudable purpose.
  MR. COWENsaid, that for over 20 years he had had considerable experience of these societies and was unable to concur with his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) in the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. On the contrary, he thought that the Bill fairly met the requirements of those societies. It might be amended in Committee; but, substantialy, he believed it would satisfy the managers, and be of service to a very important section of the community. One of the strongest passions of Englishmen was their desire to take part in matters of a public nature, and if a number of them were thrown upon a desert island, he believed the first thing they would do would be to call a meeting, appoint a Chairman, and nominate a Committee of Management. This desire was gratified in the case of working men by their becoming members of these societies. There they became acquainted with the restraints of public business, were enabled to meet their brother workmen, and to discuss matters affecting themselves and their fellows. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had evidently studied the whole subject very carefully; and of the three Bills which had been prepared, the second was better than the first, and the third was better than the second. Some persons were of opinion that the best thing the
  882
  Legislature could do for these societies was to leave them alone; while other persons held that such societies should be hedged round by legal restrictions. The Bill struck a very fair medium between these conflicting views, and, with the Amendments, which would no doubt be adopted in Committee, he should cordially support it. Friendly Societies wanted protection, not interference. By protection he meant protection from the improper proceedings of dishonest officials; but there should be no Government interference with the internal affairs of the societies. He believed that the educational influence of these societies was felt by the entire community. With respect to their stability, there existed a general impression that they were insolvent. Now, he admitted that some of them, if they were suddenly called upon without warning, would not be able to meet their engagements. For instance, when the cholera was very prevalent some of them were considerably paralyzed; and if a similar calamity should again occur in some parts of the country, other institutions, besides Benefit Societies, would be placed in great difficulty. Some 24 years ago he was a member of a society which many authorities pronounced to be insolvent, but that society was in a flourishing state to-day. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers was said by very competent persons to be insolvent; but it was more powerful to-day than ever. He had no faith in predictions. Prophecy was a very seductive but not a very profitable tiling. They had heard many predictions that this country was on the high road to ruin; but the gentlemen who made them would now be the first to admit that England to-day was more prosperous and the people more contented than ever. The predictions with regard to Benefit Societies and their insolvency were as little to be relied on as political prophecies. The last Bill which the House had before it proposed that tables of contributions should be published for the benefit of these societies. Such tables should be framed upon the very lowest scale of payment compatible with security, and for this reason; a working-man might have nominally £75 a-year; but owing to deductions on account of holidays, weather, and other causes, his real earnings might not average more than two-thirds

  883
  of that sum. A mason, for example, would be better able to pay 3s. or 4s. a-week in summer than a third or fourth of that amount all the year round. The Government, therefore, in preparing tables would do well to make the payments as small as possible. He agreed with the observations which had fallen from his noble Friend the Member for Northumberland (Lord Eslington) with regard to Burial Societies. He could say from his acquaintance with working-men that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the subject, and the clause in the Bill had been a source of serious pain and grievous annoyance to a largo class who viewed it as an insult to themselves. He was quite certain that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Royal Commissioners meant that any such interpretation should be put upon what they had clone, and that no man in the country seriously harboured the thought that working-men would allow their children to die of neglect or by some means still more culpable if they were enabled to insure their lives. It would be a libel on the working classes to say so. The best course to take would be to strike the clause out of the Bill. He had for years sympathized in their political opinions, and worked with them for their social improvement. He had watched them closely, and he knew that the statement that they were indifferent to their offspring was not founded on fact. No man felt more keenly for the poor man than his brother workman, and the parental feeling of the artizan was as strong for his children as that of other persons in higher classes. It was impossible to meet the views of all parties, or to please such a highly-critical Gentleman as the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe); but he had hopes that a Bill would be passed which substantially would meet with general approbation, and which would be satisfactory to the great mass of the "working people of this country.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was surprised, after the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowon), that he was not prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) instead of opposing him, for, if he understood him rightly on this subject, the working classes required protection—
  884
  but not interference—and that was the view which his right hon. Friend propounded. As to the manner in which the Bill had been drafted, that was a matter which might safely be left to the Committee. Undoubtedly, the quinquennial returns and valuations, however imperfect, would be of value, because, when published, they would have a beneficial effect upon the course of business of these societies. He noted, also, with considerable confidence, the clause in the Bill which referred to the inspection of the affairs of societies as one which would probably be very operative. The subject had been investigated by a Commission consisting of very earnest and able men, and the evidence taken by them showed its great complexity. Instead of entering into a critical discussion of the clauses of the Bill, he would state the general views which he was disposed to entertain, with regard to legislation on this complicated subject. There were two principles under the guidance of which it appeared to him they might safely legislate. The first was one which had been laid down by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, and no reply had been made in regard to it by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). It was that in the interests of the societies themselves and of the community at largo, it was right that the societies should have ordinary protection against fraud—that they should be brought within the law and enabled to sue and be sued on easy terms. The second principle was not so absolute, although it recommended itself to his mind. It was that if after adopting the former principle they wished to apply a more stringent law in order, step by step, to raise the character and status of these popular bodies of men it ought to be done by voluntary arrangement, and there ought to be nothing compulsory. If the Legislature was guided by these principles, they would be able to effect all that it was desirable to attempt. With respect to the application of these principles, different methods were possible. Four of the Commissioners who had considered the subject recommended in a separate Report a method of their own. It was that discriminating certificates should be given to the societies, those whose affairs were found by the

  885
  actuaries to be highly satisfactory receiving a first-class certificate. Having regard to the principles he had mentioned, this plan of requiring all societies to be registered, but granting discriminating certificates, did not recommend itself to him. He thought it too stringent, and that the line of demarcation between the two classes of societies would not be broad enough. Whilst granting protection to all societies, without registration and on deposit of rules, he should be prepared to go much further than this Bill proposed in the direction of making more stringent regulations for the government of registered societies, and so to secure their practical solvency. He should be willing to have registered societies a select class to be dealt with much more stringently than they were at present, but to which additional privileges should be given in return. He should also be prepared to render them greater assistance than it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give them by this Bill, and he should like to see the machinery of the Bill strengthened. He wished to know why the Bill did not include the provisions which were in the measure of last year for the appointment of an actuary and the framing of insurance tables. The Bill enacted that a society already registered would be a registered society, and that with respect to the societies not registered, they would have to be registered, or else comply with the regulations under which Insurance Companies were established; and the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury was that in this way all Friendly Societies would come within the purview of the Act. He doubted the efficiency of central management and control, and could not see how a Registrar in London could undertake to superintend all those throughout the country, and he therefore hoped the Government would take care to provide an adequate local machinery. On the whole, however, he should advise the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) not to press his Amendment that the Bill should be read a second time that clay six months, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give a careful consideration to the various suggestions that had been offered in the course of the debate.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDagreed with the right hon. Member for the University
  886
  of London that the Bill should be re-modelled, in order that it might be bettor understood, not only by lawyers, but by the officers and members of Benefit Societies. There were provisions in it which were contradictory, and others so obscure as to leave those who attempted to understand them in a perfect fog. It was, he understood, intended that the measure should be applicable not only to England, Scotland, and Ireland, but to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; but though the 1st clause provided that the Bill should extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands were not again mentioned from the beginning to the end of the Bill, except that in the Interpretation Clause it said that "England" should include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Hon. Members all knew that the Channel Islands were in some respects independent of that House—had Legislatures of their own, and had a system of law of their own, and methods of administering justice totally different to those in force in this country. There would, therefore, be the greatest difficulty in applying the provisions of the Bill to those Islands. With regard to the Isle of Man—indeed, the Bill contained some special provisions, but still its operation in that Island would probably be loft doubtful and uncertain. That consideration being borne in mind, it would have been a great deal better if the framers of the Bill had confined their attention in the first instance to England and Wales, and then have added substantive provisions by which to apply it to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. He regretted that it was not proposed to repeal the various Acts upon the subject, and to re-enact such portions of them as it might be thought desirable to retain. Upon the whole, however, he could not but express satisfaction that the Bill was a great improvement upon that of last Session, especially with respect to the very reasonable compromise which was now proposed with regard to insurances upon young children, and he would, therefore, support the measure.
  MR. MELDONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have altogether forgotten the interests of Ireland in framing the provisions of the Bill. There were two great objections to it as affecting Ireland. In the first place, the

  887
  poorer classes, who were the principal members of Friendly Societies, were not protected in the way in which any Bill of this nature ought to have protected them; every facility was offered by the Bill to societies holding property in England to extend their operations to Ireland, where they had no funds or any other property to meet their liabilities. The result would be that those dealing with such societies must have recourse to the property in England to enforce their claims. This system must work a great injustice to the poorer classes who principally dealt with Friendly Societies. Surely it was not fair to oblige a tradesman or humble man in a remote part of Ireland to enforce his claim in England. There should be a provision requiring every society having its principal place of business out of Ireland to have funds or property in Ireland to meet its liabilities. These societies ought to be made as local as possible, and every protection afforded to those who contributed to their funds. In the next place, the proposed system of having a central office in London to which all appeals from the Assistant Registrar in Ireland must be brought was essentially bad. The jurisdiction of the Irish Courts was ousted, and power was given in certain cases of suing debtors to the societies in England although resident in Ireland. This effort at centralization must be strenuously resisted, and the interests of the Irish people protected. Great injury had resulted from the poor of Ireland insuring themselves in English societies, which were not amenable to the Irish Courts. These societies ought to be made as local in their operation as it was possible to make them, and no society ought to be allowed to do business in Ireland unless it was registered in Dublin, was amenable in every respect to the Irish Courts, had its principal place of business in Ireland, or else hold funds or property in that country equal to its liabilities there, so that it might be sued in the Courts of Dublin, which were perfectly competent to deal with any question that could arise out of the working of such societies. The registration of joint-stock companies in Dublin had answered very well.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had often observed that, in discussing the second reading of a Bill,
  888
  they were a little apt to turn their attention too much to the clauses, and they occasionally ran into the danger of not being able to see the wood for the trees. In what he had to say he should endeavour to avoid that error as much as possible. With regard, however, to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), he would observe that so far from the Government having in any way omitted to consider the case of Ireland, so far from their having attempted to set Irish interests aside, they considered that it was one of the recommendations of their measure that it would meet many grievances which were brought under the notice of the Royal Commissioners, as existing in Ireland under the present law. What the societies found so very inconvenient was that there were three different Registrars for the different divisions of the United Kingdom, and that each of them proceeded upon principles which were not necessarily the same as those of the other Registrars. It not unfrequently happened that societies which were registered in one part of the United Kingdom failed to get registered in another part in consequence of the different mode of proceeding there, or of some difference in the construction put upon the law by one or the other Registrar. The consequence was that an Irishman who insured in a society registered in England, but not in Ireland, might find himself unable to obtain redress. He was willing to admit that there might be points in the Bill which might have failed to meet entirely the case of Ireland; but he could only say that if any amendments were required for that purpose they should be fairly considered, and he might say the same with respect to what the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) said about the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. He had received several communications on that subject, and there were Amendments which he was prepared to introduce, so as to put the Bill on a proper footing. But these were points which would be better discussed in Committee. This was a subject of great complexity, and he should be greatly delighted to find that there were no greater difficulties to deal with when they went into Committee than these details. He could hardly expect that this Bill would not be challenged on the second reading;

  889
  and he was quite prepared to see a Notice placed on the Paper by some hon. Member for reading the Bill a second time that day six months. But he owned he was rather surprised and very sorry to see that Notice in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), because there were very few Members in the House, as he knew, who had paid so much attention to this subject as that hon. Gentleman. He had heard of gentlemen who had worked for six months at the Report of the Royal Commission, but the hon. Member for Glasgow had been working at the question for years before the Royal Commission was appointed, and no one gave them better evidence when they were in Glasgow than the hon. Member. He was, therefore, sorry to find that the Bill had so far displeased the hon. Member that he found it necessary to put so strong a Motion upon the Paper. He hoped, after what had passed, and after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), the hon. Member would not find it necessary to press his Motion to a division; and that, after the general feeling expressed in all quarters that the measure was at least one deserving of examination and consideration in Committee, it would be allowed to pass the second reading without opposition. He admitted, however, that the hon. Gentleman had raised many points well worthy of attention, and his Motion had given occasion to a debate which could not fail to be instructive, and he hoped useful, in the further stages of the measure. He would endeavour, in the observations he had to make, as far as possible, to keep to the leading principles of the Bill; and he would say it rested upon three principles, of which one—he might call it the main and governing principle of the whole measure—was this, that they should endeavour to proceed by way of recognition and amendment of the present system rather than by endeavouring to sweep it away and establish a new one. If they had a tabula rasa before them; if they had a new work to undertake, he was not prepared to say that the system embodied in this Bill would be in all respects that which they should select. But that was not the state of the case. They were legislating for an existing state of things, A system, of
  890
  law and practice founded on that law had grown up for now quite a century, and they had a very large number indeed of the working class and the lower middle class of this country interested in the system that now existed. According to evidence given before the Commission, they had reason to believe that there were 4,000,000 persons directly, and probably another 4,000,000 indirectly, interested in these societies as they stood, and they must take very great care that any legislation they attempted considered properly the interests of these 8,000,000 persons. The House of Commons was always most tender with respect to vested interests; and were there any vested interests that could compare with those of this great body of people to whom he had referred, who had invested under the present system, he believed, not less than £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 sterling, and in the respect to which any step taken, though seemingly harmless, might produce disastrous consequences? Therefore, they could not deal with this matter in the smooth and easy way in which they might deal with it if they were about to set up a now system, and considering what that new system should be. He ventured to say, both on the ground of policy and justice, they must be very considerate of these people, and of the societies which had come into existence. What was the condition of those societies? There were at least 30,000 Friendly Societies, and of these 22,000 at least had obtained registration; 22,000 societies were now in possession of the field, and their rules bore the signature of Mr. Tidd Pratt or Mr. Stephenson. Were they going to ignore these societies? Were they going to sweep them away altogether? They could not strike out the names which had been signed; they could not—to coin an expression—un-Tidd Pratt these societies. What were they to do with them? Were they to leave them in possession of such a prestige as their present certificate denoted? Surely that would be simply to stereotype the Government approbation to which so much objection was raised. In any action they might take, they must consider the class of persons to whom their legislation applied, and the effect it would have upon them. What was the history of these societies? From what had they sprung? Not from,

  891
  the legislation of Parliament, but from the action of the people themselves. What was that action? It was the effort of the great mass of the people to free themselves from the demoralizing influence of the Poor Law; it was what he might call the heroic conduct of the great mass of the people to provide for themselves. It might, perhaps, be the case that in some of the steps taken they had not altogether kept themselves free from error, follies, or mistakes; but it would be as ungenerous and unworthy to allow the contemplation of these errors and mistakes to blind them to the real merits of that great system, as it would be to criticize the conduct of a patriotic band of Volunteers engaged in defending their native land from hostile invasion, because they did not keep step or march with all the exactness of the Regular Army. This system had grown up by the exertions of the people themselves, and they must take care that what they proposed commended itself to their favourable consideration, otherwise their laws would be waste paper, and things would be no better, perhaps worse, than before. Then, again, they had to consider that this system, though sprung from the people themselves, had been elaborated so far by the concurrence and assistance of the Legislature. They could not say they washed their hands and kept themselves clear of the system. They had made themselves responsible for a great deal that had occurred; and they could not say they would be responsible no longer. They must bear in mind that their laws had been of very great weight in determining the condition into which this question had now come. It was quite true that many of their regulations were not adopted with a view to the precise effect they had produced. The Registrar's certificate, for instance, was to the effect that the rules of such and such a society were in conformity with the law; but it was not originally the intention that the certificate should indicate a well-managed society. It was given on account of the jealousy with which Parliament regarded these secret societies, and was intended merely to imply that there was nothing in the objects of the society contrary to public policy. It was true it had grown into something different; because the Registrar now looked into the rules of the society to see whether they were in conformity with the objects Parliament
  892
  had in view, and whether they were or were not such as he thought would be calculated to accomplish the objects which the society professed. But, that being what the thing had grown to, they could not set all that aside, because they were already responsible for having brought those societies into the position in which they stood; and if they were now to abandon them and place them in the difficulty in which they would thereby put them, the societies would have a very just cause of complaint against them. Therefore, he said, their new Bill was one founded on the present system, while they also endeavoured to amend that system where it required it. For a main or, at all events, a primary justification of their course in so doing, he would appeal to the men who were connected with those societies and who managed them themselves; and even the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) was compelled to admit that the measure was one which had, on the whole, the approval of the working-classes of the country. And there was a great deal in that. It was everything, in fact, as regarded the principle of the measure; because they were now taking the opinion not of the worst of the working-classes, but by hypothesis that of the very best, the most prudent them—of the men who had done most of to advance the cause of providence and independence among the people. They were taking them into council, and it was in accordance with their views and wishes that they were proceeding in the matter. And having now spent several years in the investigation of that subject, and having had occasion to communicate with largo bodies of people, and with the representatives of most of the largest of those societies, he said with confidence that the best of those who represented that cause would tell them boldly and fairly that they looked on the system of registration as a great advantage, and that it had been by the influence of the Registrar and of the Registration system that they had been enabled to bring about many of the reforms they had accomplished. If they asked those who were responsible for the affairs of the Manchester Unity, the Foresters, or other great societies, they would all hold the same language. That did not arise from any desire to throw off the responsibility which belonged

  893
  to them, or from a wish, to lean on Government responsibility; but those persons found in that system, even with the defects pertaining to it, an assistance and support in working out the improvement of their societies, and therefore they desired to uphold it. What happened five years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) proposed to alter the system, and brought in a Bill to do away with the Registrar's office? Why, there was such a general movement among the different societies in opposition to that measure, that the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to suspend, if not to abandon, his proposal, and the result was the appointment of the Royal Commission which had led to the introduction of the present Bill. He had said the Bill proceeded on three principles, and that the governing principle was to proceed on the lines of the existing law. And they would do so within these two limits:—First, that they should endeavour, as far as possible, to give assistance and information to the promoters and the members of these societies; and, secondly, that they should require from the promoters and managers of these institutions information which would enable those belonging to them to form good opinions for themselves as to the character, solvency, and general management of the societies of which they were members. And he thought that, on the whole, they had succeeded tolerably well in framing their measure on those lines. He did not say it would not have to be considered and discussed in Committee. There were many amendments in it that would have to be made; but he should be much disappointed indeed if the principles they had sought to lay down were not accepted by the House. With regard to the general tenour of the observations of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), he would admit that the Bill differed materially in several important respects from the recommendations of the Commissioners. The Bill introduced last year was more nearly in accordance with those recommendations than the present Bill. He was not ashamed to say that if the matter were entirely free from difficulties he would prefer that the present Bill should have more closely followed the recommendations of the Commissioners; but the representations made from all parts of the
  894
  country in conferences which he had held with persons connected with those societies had convinced him and his Colleagues in the Government that it was necessary in some respects to modify those recommendations. He did not, however, think they had departed from them by any means to the extent the hon. Member supposed. They had given up one important provision—he meant the local registration—but in other respects the changes which had been made were more apparent than real. For instance, with regard to the question of Government insurance, that was a matter which lay outside the Bill, and which could not be dealt with in it, although nothing had been said on that subject and certainly nothing had been said to intimate that the Government would not at the proper time, or under the proper restrictions, take that proposal into consideration. He did not wish to express now, on the part of the Government, any opinion favourable or unfavourable upon it. Then with regard to the preparation of the tables and the actuarial staff, it was true that provisions on those points did not appear in the present Bill; but, as had been pointed out by his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, those provisions were not necessarily set aside because they did not appear in the Bill. As he had informed the House when introducing the measure, it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the preparation of tables; and the reason why they had not inserted the words in the Bill was that they found an impression prevailing on the part of many societies that the words in the Bill of last year implied that the tables to be put out by the Government were to be compulsory on the societies. That would have been entirely at variance with the principles on which they intended to proceed. Anything further from their intentions than putting out tables that were to be compulsory on those societies could not be conceived. They retained, however, the intention of promulgating such tables; and so with regard to the actuarial staff or whatever staff might be necessary to strengthen the central office; that would receive attentive consideration. Now that they had parted with local registration it followed that they should make the central office as strong as might be requisite for the

  895
  work it would have to do. With regard to the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) he confessed he had expected a very formidable onslaught on the measure from that right hon. Gentleman, and he was somewhat relieved when he found him first directing his attack against the draftsman. That gave him the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen good ground for assailing the principles of the Bill. Some of his strictures as to the drawing up of the Bill turned on points rather of taste and of fancy than of material importance. And when it was said that it was difficult to understand the Bill, he must observe that the great mass of persons connected with those societies with whom he had been in constant communication had found no difficulty in understanding it, whether they altogether approved its provisions or not. Then the right hon. Gentleman opposite said they professed to consolidate the law and repeal all the Acts on the subject with the intention of re-enacting them, but that they left many of them standing, and then they had clauses to invest the Registrar with powers which it was impossible to understand without reference to some Acts which they had repealed. But that was not quite the case. The clause to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded referred, indeed, to the powers possessed by the Registrar under other Acts; but those Acts did not relate to Friendly Societies, but to Savings Banks, Trades Unions, and other institutions which it was attempted last year to weld into one Bill, but which they were compelled to keep separate through the objections—mistaken objections, he thought them—of Trades Unions and other societies to be incorporated into one Bill with Friendly Societies. The right hon. Gentleman said—"You profess to lay down a certain code of law, but you really give the Treasury the power of making regulations which are to be law; therefore, after taking all this trouble to lay down a code of law, it is really the Treasury who are to make regulations for the Registrar, the procedure under this Act, and so forth." That was a very formidable objection at first sight, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) turned for a moment to the Bill to find out how they came to put such a clause in it, and then it occurred to him that it
  896
  was a clause which was not original. It was plagarised from a very high authority. In fact, it was taken word for word from a clause which was contained in a Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London himself in the year 1870, with two exceptions. One of those exceptions was that in that Bill the President of the Board of Trade was to make these regulations, whereas in this Bill it was to be the Treasury—he did not know whether that made any difference—and the other was that by this Bill the Government proposed that all these regulations should be laid before Parliament, whereas in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill there was no provision of that kind. Therefore, if they had erred, they had erred in very good company. There were other provisions which the right hon. Gentleman criticized; but, as he was not then present, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not detain the House by going minutely into them. But there was one observation he made which was a little amusing, because after he told them his objections to the Bill, and said it interfered too much, and hampered societies, he gave them a little cursory sketch, not very fully worked out, of what his own idea was; and his own idea was that they should make model rules for all these societies, and put them into Schedules to the Act. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must say that if they attempted to deal with these societies on the principle of making model rules for them, and put them into Schedules, they would be doing something much stronger than he had attempted to do by this Bill. He was quite satisfied that the Manchester Unity, the Foresters, and even the Ancient Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes, and other Friendly Societies should be allowed to make their own rules, subject to the condition that the Government should see there was nothing in those rules that was distinctly contrary to law, and provided also that they should see those rules contained matter which it was essential for them to contain in order to give proper information. And such rules as those actually were in the Schedule of this Bill—that was to say, the points which must be touched by those rules were all distinctly set forth in the Schedule, power being reserved to

  897
  the Treasury to lay before Parliament from time to time such regulations as they might think should be incorporated with those rules. If anybody could feel jealousy on that point, it would be the managers of societies, and he was bound to say that he had discussed with many managers of societies, and he thought, upon the whole, that they were convinced, when they talked the matter over, that it was better the House should not try to cast these rules into hard-and-fast provisions in the Schedules of an Act of Parliament, but should allow the greater elasticity which belonged to the action of the Treasury and the Registrar's Office. As to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not know that there was very much in it that it was necessary for him to remark upon. The right hon. Gentleman said that, in his opinion, they ought to bear in mind two principles—first of all, that they ought to afford ordinary protection to all societies against fraud; and, secondly, that if they wished to raise their status they should do that by 'voluntary arrangements.' He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) confessed he did not thoroughly understand the second of those principles. He did not quite understand the meaning of raising their status by voluntary arrangements. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman set aside—as he quite agreed with him in setting aside—the recommendations of half of the Commissioners who wished to make two grades of societies. As to the deposit of rules, it was one of the most inconvenient points in the present law. It was one of the ways by which a door was open to evade provisions of the law, and one of the greatest improvements they could make was to get rid of the system of the deposit of rides. But the right hon. Gentleman said they ought to afford ordinary protection to all societies against fraud. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant all Friendly Societies or all societies whatever. If he meant to say that the House ought, by provision of law, to protect all persons associating themselves for any object whatever from fraud, he was quite prepared to agree with him. To a certain extent that was already done by the Act of the Recorder for the improvement of the law of larceny;
  898
  but that Act did not protect all associations against fraud. He did not think protection ought to be limited to Friendly Societies. He thought they ought to extend whatever protection they wished to give to all associations of persons who were assembled for lawful and innocent purposes. But if he meant to give a privilegium of that kind—protection against fraud—to Friendly Societies, as such, he introduced a different principle, and one that the House would have very carefully to consider. That led him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to the consideration that the status of Friendly Societies was a privileged status. That must never be forgotten. They put these societies into a position which they could not occupy by the ordinary law. That was an answer to a great many complaints that were made by them or by writers who said Friendly Societies had this restriction and that restriction put upon them. Those restrictions were imposed upon them because a privilege had been given to them. They were exempt from the legal control to which life insurance companies were subjected, and from the operation of an Act of George III. which prevented the insurance of those in whom the would-be insurers had not an insurable interest. When it was said this legislation accomplished no good whatever—that societies would try to keep out of it, or would disestablish themselves in order to get away from it—he did not consider that was a correct description of the condition of things that would arise. There were ample means and ample inducements for those societies to bring themselves within registration. It was said the registration would be futile, as it had hitherto been. He did not think it would be, because by this Bill, for the first time, the obligations imposed on registered societies were to be enforced by penalties. It was also said—" What was the use of penalties when they had done away with all local registration? "He had confidence in the good sense and good feeling of the managers of the great mass of these societies, and he believed when their attention was really directed to the subject, and they were supported by more stringent and more convenient provisions, they would be quite ready to come forward to make returns in a way that would render it unnecessary to attempt

  899
  to enforce the making of them. Nothing had struck him with more admiration than the way in which they had for years made these returns, at great trouble to themselves, all the time knowing that no use was being made of them, that they were put on a shelf, and the Registrar's office encumbered with them; that they had received no acknowledgment of them, and that perhaps the only communication they had received was a notice that they ought to send in a return, which they had sent in two or three months before. Looking at the way in which the societies had worked under the present law with all its inconveniences, he confidently expected that the Bill, affording them as it did increased facilities for the conduct of business, would meet with their cordial co-operation. He believed that although the Government had not been able to devise local machinery which could be put into an Act of Parliament they would have the assistance of the local machinery which already existed in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, and that the spirit of independence which was spreading throughout the country, and which the discussions of the Manchester Unity, the Foresters, and other societies did so much to promote would raise them up a host of friends and assistants. This feature of local co-operation was, indeed, one of the great recommendations of the course which the Government were pursuing. The Bill itself, he was convinced, would materially aid in the establishment of county societies, and stimulate the efforts that were being made in every quarter of the land to improve such societies as already existed.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid: The chief objection that has always been made to the existing relations between the Friendly Societies and the Government is, that the system is "neither the one thing nor the other." That there is a plan of Government registration, which by many persons is very naturally taken to imply solvency; while those who really understand the position of affairs well know that registration does not imply solvency at all. So unsatisfactory from this point of view is the existing state of things, that the right hon. Member for the London University (Mr. Lowe) proposed on behalf of the late Government to abolish registration.
  900
  The chief complaint against the present measure is, that it retains, if it does not intensify, this hesitation in the attitude of Government towards the societies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to abolish registration altogether; but he still proposes that registration should not be compulsory; and under his Bill, while he will worry the great and solvent societies, he will obtain no additional control over the insolvent societies against which he complains. Personally, I see no objection to a small annual outlay by the State for the maintenance of an officer charged with the duty of collecting and diffusing statistical and actuarial information among the societies; but while the great object that should be sought is to get bodies partly of uneducated and partly of poor men, although in part composed of the best of the working classes and small tradesmen, to avail themselves of actuarial science—to force this upon them by Government interference is to make them at once dislike it, and in reality to defeat your own ends. They will make a perfunctory use of the regulations which you obtrude upon them, and when difficulties arise, they will shift the responsibility from off their own shoulders, and cast the entire blame upon the Government and its officials. If you leave them to find out—as the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows and the Ancient Order of Foresters already have done—the value of actuarial skill for themselves, they will value it in a higher degree, and be less likely to resign the advantages which once they will have conquered. By what means have caution and prudence in the investment of savings been, so far as they have been, instilled into the minds of the richer classes? By experience, taught and brought home to them through the losses of the less intelligent. I do not believe that you will make men more prudent by a system designed to do that which cannot be done—namely, guarantee them against all possible loss. In throwing doubt upon the value of this Bill, I do not wish to attack either the policy of the appointment of the Commission, or the Report, as a whole, which that Commission made. The evidence collected was of enormous value, and the Reports of the Assistant-Commissioners form a text-book of all the learning upon the subject, But a great

  901
  many of the remarks in the Report of the Commissioners themselves—while they are of value as suggestions to the societies for their self-improvement, are not of use to us for legislative purposes; because they refer to subjects with which the State cannot hope to deal successfully. I venture to believe that the true policy which should guide us is to aid in the diffusion of sound knowledge and information; but to leave the business of seeing that the law is not infringed to the action of the individuals who may be aggrieved in the ordinary Courts of the country. If you wish to go further—if you think that you can point out evils to justify a departure from the ordinary practice of the State—then, I venture to suggest that your action should take the form of a prevention of the creation of new societies with bad rules. This would have the effect of giving a virtual monopoly to the older and more powerful orders. New societies, at the present time, start in country districts by offering to the young an inducement of lower contributions than those of the older societies; and if you can prove that this evil is on the increase, the prevention of the creation of new societies with false rules is the proper way to meet it, and not interference with the old societies that already exist; because you dare not propose as regards the old societies an interference such as would really form a safeguard. You are not prepared to insist on registration; you are not pre-pared to suppress by force the whole of the unsound societies. You did not propose it even in your first Bill of last year; your second Bill was still further from it; and the third Bill which we have before us now, is still further off from it again. You wish to induce societies to register; but the more restrictions you put upon their financial transactions, the more you force the weak and bad societies—which are the very ones you want to register—away from, and out of, registration; and that is the great blot upon the Commissioners' Report and upon the three Bills. But it is questionable whether the worst of the existing societies cannot be dealt with directly by the existing law. The Commissioners say, page ccii., section 867, that the country swarms with illegal companies, and that of the 10,000 unregistered Friendly Societies, probably 4,000 are setting at defiance
  902
  the Life Assurance Companies' Acts. I think it would be found that the majority of the worst societies have incurred heavy penalties under the Act of 1870; but, if not, they would fall under the old Assurance Act, 14 Geo. III., c. 48, and their insurances probably are void at law at the present moment, and might be repudiated. Others—the worst of the dividing societies—are illegal companies, under the 4th section of the Companies' Act of 1862. It is therefore absurd to agitate the country in favour of a stringent friendly societies' law on the ground that in the rural districts, and in parts of the North of England, the poor are swindled by bad societies; when, on the one hand, the Bill which you introduce would not touch the evil in the least, but, on the contrary, by frightening them out of registration, would intensify it; while, on the other hand, it can be contended with at least some show of argument, that the worst of the bad societies have already made themselves obnoxious even to the present law. Mr. Bircham, in his most valuable additional and separate Report—page ccxxi.—points out that societies which persist in not registering—which will increase in number as the law is made more vexatious, will not be touched by any of the registration proposed. Fraudulent and designing managers will purposely keep those bad and feeble societies out of legislation, so as to escape the perils which you put in their way by your new laws. Yet it is the ignorant members of these bad and feeble societies, who are just the people that you want to help, because the strong can take care of themselves. Mr. Bircham having seemingly a prophetic knowledge of what your Bill would be, pointed out that such a measure would mean less power of controlling the societies, which would hold themselves outside the law, and less power to interfere with, or even to inquire into, the affairs of the worst organizations than of the best. That the fears of the harm that you may do by increasing your interference are not mere idle bug-bears, is clear, from the harm which, in similar cases, you have already done. At page xliii, sections 155 and 156, it is shown that the virtual independence which the former Friendly Societies Acts have conferred on branches has very seriously interfered with the solvency of the great

  903
  orders. In the case of the Fireman's Society, one of the branches altered its rates and scale in a wrong direction, and the controlling body, which would otherwise have prevented the change, has, under your legislation, lost its power to do so—the Registrar being legally bound to accept alterations by the branches which he knew to be, and which the society knew to be, financially unsound; and the Registrar now, contrary to his former practice, refuses even to certify a branch rule providing that the rules of the branches shall not be altered without the assent of the general body. You may meet one such case of hardship by this Bill; but where you meet one you create a dozen, which is a fate that always attends Government interference with the affairs of the people. If you must needs interfere, strengthen the old orders, strengthen' the head quarters, strengthen the control of the governing bodies over the branches. But, at the present moment, your interference goes in the opposite direction, although the Commissioners can find no words too strong to express their delight at the progress which is being made by the central bodies of the affiliated orders. The Commissioners state—
  "That they are increasing not only in magnitude, but also in stability; "that the smaller clubs "are rapidly diminishing under the stress of the competition of the affiliated orders;" "that it is impossible to deny that they may succeed in rectifying their remaining faults, after they have already succeeded in rectifying so many;"—
  and in answer to Question 59, the gentleman who has been for 37 years examiner of the rules of Friendly Societies in the Registrar's office, says—
  "As regards the Manchester Unity and the Foresters, persons deputed by those orders have drawn up a model set of rules, which guide all their branches, and meet all their requirements. They were submitted to our office some years ago, were examined, and were settled with the secretary of each order. All difficulties are smoothed over, and their rules are now certified almost without alteration,"
  and that is without your present Bill. Now, I am aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the great societies are friendly to his Bill. The fact is, that while there is a powerful and active minority among the governing bodies of the great orders, who are opposed to this Bill root and branch, there is a majority favourable to accepting
  904
  it provided that changes are made in it to which he has said there is no chance that he will agree. To show that I am correctly stating their view, I must quote their words. These are from the speech of the spokesman of the deputation who waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  "As they had grown to their present proportions without help from any Government, it was not unnatural that members should be jealous of any action or over interference on the part of the Government, knowing as they did, that the success as yet attained, has rested with themselves, who for the most part are really working men earning weekly wage … they regretted to find in the amended Bill several matters which, if passed into law in their present shape, would inflict upon their societies very serious injury."
  It then named a series of points of which only one is touched by the changes that have been since made in the Bill. In the official document which they put out as to the second Bill of last Session, they said—
  "The great professed aim of the Bill is to bring all friendly societies within the limits of registracy. This is most desirable, but we submit that the Bill defeats its own aim by imposing such regulations and restrictions as must tend to prevent registration on the one hand, and to drive societies already registered to form themselves under the Companies Acts on the other. While the Bill assumes to propound a remedy for certain real or alleged evils, it is marked throughout with the utmost indefinite-ness of provisions in detail, leaving its issues to the caprice or experimental regulations of sundry officials specified therein—a course which could not fail to lead to litigation and increased expenditure without efficient result. While the Bill is professedly incompetent as to detail of suitable provisions, it has deputed extreme and almost unlimited powers to the central office, giving in effect the force of an Act of Parliament to any regulations that may be drawn up by such office."
  They then go on to speak of the provisions of the Bill as—
  "Extreme and impracticable—totally inadequate and unsatisfactory to the societies and to the country at large, and tending to diminish the self-reliance so important to working-men in their own affairs."
  Now, that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls the societies supporting his Bill! The Scotch societies, in their Report on this very amended Bill now before us—that is—on the third edition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme, use language of a similar kind. Yet no one knows better than he does how great are the interests at stake. The measure seriously affects societies

  905
  possessing 4,000,000 of members and £12,000,000 of funds, and that is a measure, which we are not in the House of Commons bound to accept upon the ipse dixit of a Minister, even though he does tell us that the societies themselves do not oppose it. Some of the societies believe that if they do not pass this Bill they will be worried more and more, year by year, without end. They think that while it will not do any good, it will not do very much harm—a reason which I think is hardly sufficient for our passing a most complicated measure, and one upon which we possess singularly little knowledge. Bills are often passed with hardly any opposition, which afterwards we regret; and we often in the House of Commons vote for measures—which subsequently we wish we had opposed;—as, for instance, the Licensing Act of the late Government, which we passed without opposition through the House except upon points of detail, although it was a measure at least of doubtful expediency. The famous proviso to which I called attention last year, that registration—
  "shall not be taken to imply that the rules of the society, in respect to which the same may he given, are legal, or that the society, is established on a sound basis,"
  has been omitted in the now Bill; but, until corrected, I venture to think that the words have been omitted by the draftsman, upon receiving a hint from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they revealed too nakedly the impolicy of the Bill, and I would ask whether the omission of the words taken by itself has any significance whatever. I think that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once put those words in his Bill, and had so shown his hand, and revealed the weakness of the measure, he might just as well have left them as before this year, and that their omission has no force, and that they were equally understood whether they were there or not. I have also another great ground of objection to this Bill, and it is that it lumps together the great orders, the small friendly societies, the burial clubs, the benevolent societies, workmen's clubs, cattle insurance societies, fishermen's societies for the insurance of boats and nets; whereas the great friendly societies ought, if dealt with by Parliament at all, to be dealt with by a Bill which would apply only to themselves.
  906
  I have but one thing to add to my criticism of the Bill, and that is, that those things in it which appear to be good, are, without exception, contained in the existing law—namely, the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, being an Act to consolidate the law relating to Friendly Societies, as amended by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 101, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 58. Those three Acts the Bill repeals and re-enacts, nobody knows why. Probably, for the reason for which most new Acts of Parliament are passed—namely, that a Commission has sat upon the subject, and has made a Report; that a clause has been put into the Queen's Speech promising legislation. We should remember that there is no country in the world which can show anything like our great orders. I, for one, should greatly regret to see Government attempt to undertake that which we already find the people are doing for themselves. We cannot be too careful when we are dealing with great associations affecting the interests of enormous numbers of people, and organizing the greater portion of the tendencies towards providence, and towards brotherly help, which exist among the people of this country. I dare say there are many who will have to deal with this subject who are hardly aware of the numbers and wealth of the great orders—indeed, I may observe that Parliament is, perhaps, loss competent to deal with the subject of Friendly Societies than with any that could be brought to its notice. Sir George Young, one of the Assistant-Commissioners, has said—
  "Everywhere that I have been I have heard the same story from members of the older or local clubs. We cannot stand against the great orders; wherever they penetrate, the existing clubs at once cease to enter young members, and within half a generation they die out or break up.… Of the various orders which have come under my notice, there is none that can be said to occupy a third place with the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows, and the (London) Ancient Order of Foresters. I have visited no town, and but few large villages, in which a 'lodge' or 'court' of these orders was not to be found. …. The constitution and character of these societies is well known to the Commissioners. They aim at combining the advantages of local and non-local clubs, their branches being financially independent, as far as the sick pay is concerned, but interdependent within limits of a district, so far as the liability for burial money is concerned; while the districts, again, are independent of each other in all pecuniary relations, but co-operate in sending delegates to a general assembly for legislative purposes, and the whole is kept together by a central executive,

  907
  responsible only to the general meeting, and elected by the delegates. This form of benefit club appears to have been first worked out by the Odd Fellows (Manchester Unity), and since it is the undisputed invention of men be-longing to the class for whom benefit societies are intended, it is important to point how admirably it is adapted to meet the primary requisitions of a good system of thrift, as thrift is understood by the members of that class in England. I find it to be universal that the first benefit desired by the working man from his club is the weekly provision in case of sickness; the second is with equal unanimity declared to be the sum at death, to clear off standing scores, pay funeral expenses, and assist a widow or children through the first days of bereavement. There is not an equal concurrence of opinion as to the third, but a very considerable number are in practice found to prefer an increase upon the usual burial benefit, to any other. Taking these two to be the primary objects of a benefit club, the chief difficulties encountered in securing them are, in the first case, imposition; in the second, insufficient numbers to form a basis of insurance. The mischief which may be done by imposition and by lax administration, which accompanies it, is best guarded against by confining the sick club to a small area within which the members know each other, and each can watch his neighbour, while the intenser personal interest which they naturally take in a fund locally subscribed, ensures that the supervision, shall he stricter. A small area may be sufficient to afford a basis for sick pay, while insufficient to ensure burial money, because the payments are smaller in the proportion of shillings to pounds, and are distributed among a larger number of the members. In the case of burial benefits, the risk requires a large area, which is found in the district of the affiliated orders. The sagacity necessary for the guidance of such great societies, as these have become, is sought out by the delegate system and utilized in the central executive, and the general meeting so organized is both an excellent medium for disseminating just ideas throughout the order, upon the questions brought to issue, and also a fair representation of the best opinion current among the members. I purposely abstain from entering into a more particular examination of the system pursued in these societies. But I desire to express a conviction, formed by intercourse with their members in every place I have visited, that their claim to speak in the name of the present generation of working men, so far as concerns the largest section of the most intelligent among them, is well founded; and that their existence and prosperity, founded as it is upon the spontaneous energies and mutual help of individuals, without external initiative, and with but a minimum of Government aid, is in itself a valuable national possession. "Ce qui a fait jusqu' ici le succés de ces sociétés,—succés lent a la vérité comme tout ce qui concerne les masses, c'est la liberté, et cela s'cxplique."—Bastiat Harmonics Economiques.
  The Registrars of Friendly Societies have also stated (Question 14,976) that the Foresters and Odd Fellows Societies have a far better system than the
  908
  smaller societies; and, if so, that is surely a ground for not dealing with them in the same Bill with burial societies and societies of an inferior type. I want to know what is the result you can hope to obtain by this Bill, in regard to those societies, other than that which you have already obtained without it? But my real objection to the Bill is, that which I have already pointed out, namely—that while it contains stringent and objectionable provisions pressing upon registered societies, it furnishes no particular reasons to induce societies to register; and that in consequence it would be the solvent societies that alone would come under the operation of an Act which is intended to protect persons against the insolvent societies.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYwished to say, in reply to the challenge of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that the Executive Committee of the Ancient Order of Foresters, who had asked him to represent their interests in the House, viewed that Bill with great satisfaction. They considered that it dealt with them most tenderly as one of those great solvent societies which were doing so much good; and that if they were not cumbered and fettered by any further restrictions in Committee, they were perfectly prepared to accept the Bill.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was disposed to approve of the plan that the Government should prepare and publish tables of mortality, rates of contributions, and other model forms; and he would suggest that there would be an advantage in providing, by a clause in the Bill, that it should be the duty of the Government to prepare such tables, but that the use of them by societies was to be optional. After the very general consensus of opinion on the part of the House that the Bill should go forward, he trusted that hon. Members would not be put to the trouble of going to a division.
  MR. SALTagreed that, in the main, these great societies were in favour of this Bill; but, at the same time, he had received from a most important body of Friendly Societies an expression in strong terms of their doubts as to the working of several parts of the measure. He would urge that the objections to the Bill should be most carefully considered before going into Committee. The position,

  909
  functions, duties, and powers of the Registrar, and the definition of what Friendly Societies really were, were points requiring special consideration. But the real point was, whether the Bill really covered one half of the question. It was distinctly shown before the Royal Commission that more than half of the societies were unregistered, and the House ought to know distinctly before it parted with the Bill whether these societies were to be brought under the Companies, Life Insurance, and other existing Acts, or whether they would be dealt with by the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONconfirmed the statement of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. E. Ashley) with regard to the feeling of the Order of Foresters. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not hurry on the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that after the general expression of opinion which had been given by the House, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, 'withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 11th March.

BUILDING SOCIETIES ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 72.]
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
BUILDING SOCIETIES ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 72.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained the reasons which had induced the Government to bring in an Amendment Bill to an Act which had been passed last Session. It was found that an error had inadvertently occurred in the passing of that Act in "another place." There had been an understanding between the different building societies and the Government that the Bill should be of a permissive character; but by the inadvertent placing of a sentence, a compulsory nature was given to it, thus entirely altering the terms on which the Building Societies had accepted the measure. The matter had been brought under the notice of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the Bill which he placed on the Table was entirely limited to the correction of the error.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

POLICE MAGISTRATES [SALARIES].
Resolution [February 23] reported;
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of increased Salaries to the Magistrates of the Police Courts in the Metropolis."
Resolution agreed to.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved for leave to introduce a Bill, to make further provision with respect to 'the salaries of the magistrates of the police Courts in the Metropolitan Police District, founded on the Resolution of the House. As far back as 1838 a Select Committee reported in favour of increasing the salaries of the police magistrates, and in the following year the Act of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 17 fixed those salaries at £1,200. In 1855, the salary of the chief magistrate was increased to £1,500. As, however, the magistrates were inadequately paid as compared with the County Court Judges and some of the Registrars, and as their duties had been multiplied by numerous statutes passed since the latter date, the Government were of opinion that the time had now arrived when their salaries should be further increased.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered to he brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. Secretary CROSS, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 75.]

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL.

  RESOLUTION. FIRST READING.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in rising to move, that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to manufacturing, keeping, selling, carrying, and importing Gunpowder, Nitro-Glycerine, and other Explosive Substances, said, the subject was brought before the late Government before the great explosion of last year, and

  911
  one of the first acts of the present Government was to appoint a Committee to consider the whole of the circumstances relating to Explosive Substances, and they eventually produced a Report which he believed to be a most satisfactory one, and on that Report the present Bill was for the most part based. It was a Consolidating Bill, and it proposed to repeal all other public Acts relating to explosive substances, so that all the law on the subject might be contained within the four corners of the Bill. It would consist of four parts. The first would deal with the manufacture, storage, and carriage of gunpowder, and would contain all the main provisions and safeguards hitherto contained in regulations only. Part 2 would deal with nitroglycerine and other explosive substances of an equally dangerous character, the regulations respecting which, instead of being contained in the Bill, would be left to a great extent to the Secretary of State. Part 3 related to administration and the power of inspection, and Part 4 to the legal proceedings incident to the carrying out of the Act. In legislating with regard to gunpowder, they had to deal with the manufacturer and the man who kept a large store magazine; next, with persons, like mine-owners, who used large quantities of powder for the purpose of their business, and kept what might be called consumers' stores. Then came the retail dealer, who was at present almost without legislation. As to the place of manufacture and the large store magazine, the licensing would be left as at present with the Petty Sessions in counties and the local authorities in other cases, subject, in case of refusal, to an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. One change was made in the law. At present it was found that local authorities were sometimes either too lenient or too strict in granting licences. They were generally country gentlemen. They did their duty to the best of their ability, but had no real knowledge of the dangers to be apprehended, and the best way of preventing them. Following, therefore, the recommendations of the Committee, the Bill provided that before a man applied for a licence he should submit his plans to the inspection of the Secretary of State, who would pronounce whether, in his opinion, considering the nature of the site
  912
  and other circumstances, the plan proposed was a safe one. Even if his Report was favourable, the local authority would still be able to refuse the licence, having regard to present or future buildings around the proposed site. Such a decision, however, would, as at present, be subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. General rules were provided in part 1 for the safety of the public in the manufacture and storage of gunpowder, and persons carrying on this business would be required to make special rules for the regulation of their workmen. In the case of existing factories, application must be made to the Secretary of State for continuing licences, in order that he might know whore the factory was; but there would be no alteration in the terms of the licence, and the proprietors would, so far, be in exactly the same position as at present. Then, with regard to consumers' stores, regulations would be laid down by means of which upon licence from the local authorities, consumers would be able to keep from 2 cwt. up to two tons. The Bill dealt with retailers on still easier terms. The Government had no wish to put them under any unnecessary restrictions, but it was right that persons who dealt with these dangerous substances should be known, and therefore they would be called upon to get themselves registered by the local authorities. That could be done on payment of nominal fees, sufficient to keep the machinery of registration going. By this means it would always be known where powder was. This dealt with, dealers who were allowed to have up to 200 lb. of powder on their premises at one time, the amount being regulated according to the conditions of storage. Those who kept powder only for their own use, provided it did not amount to over 30 lbs, need not register themselves. Gunmakers would be allowed to have a larger stock of powder in cartridges than was permitted at present. Certain provisions had been inserted in order that gunpowder might be safely carried. It would be absolutely impossible to lay down in a Bill positive rules and regulations for the carriage of gunpowder under every possible circumstance. It was, therefore, thought better to enact that bye-laws should be made for the purpose; but, then, those bye-laws would

  913
  not be left totally "at large," but what their scope should be would he indicated in the Bill. The second part of the Bill related entirely to all other explosives. It adopted to a great extent the machinery for licences in the first part of the Bill; but, instead of laying down specific rules, it left to the Secretary of State a wide discretion in the matter. There were a great many explosives which did not require to be so stringently dealt with as nitro-glycerine, and suitable regulations and relaxations with regard to them would be found in this part of the measure. The third part of the Bill dealt simply with the administration of the law, or, in other words, with the power of inspection. There would be Government Inspectors who would have certain powers of entry, and there were clauses in the Bill as to their making reports and inquiries in cases of accident. It was made incumbent on the local authorities to see that the provisions of the Act were enforced within their jurisdiction, but they would not have power to enter the large factories. The fourth part related simply to legal procedure for the purpose of putting the Act into force, and gave larger powers to owners of factories and great magazines to eject, if necessary by force, anyone doing anything likely to cause danger of fire or explosion. Those were the main features of the Bill. It was now in print, and in a few days would be in the hands of Members. What he would propose was to take the second reading some time before Easter than to allow the Bill to rest until after the holidays, in order that persons interested in the trade might have a full opportunity of becoming acquainted with its clauses and of making their views on the subject known to the Government.
  MR. WHITWELLapproved of the mode in which the Bill was drafted. He hoped, however, that, should the Government Inspector refuse to licence any works, his decision should not be considered final, as such a provision might be made a hindrance of trade. He hoped, too, that the rules relating to the transport of gunpowder would not be made too restrictive.
  In reply to Mr. GRIEVE,
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSstated that the Bill would apply to Scotland.
  MR. M'LAGANinquired whether the Bill dealt with petroleum?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it did not, but that he intended to propose the continuance, for perhaps two years, of an expiring Act relating to petroleum.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Chairman he directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to manufacturing, keeping, selling, carrying, and importing Gunpowder, Nitro-Glycerine, and other Explosive Substances.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 76.]

MOUNTJOY FEMALE PRISON.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. SULLIVANmoved for—
  "Copies of any Charge or Complaint, if any, preferred against Mrs. Ellen Richardson, Deputy Matron of Mountjoy Female Prison, in reference to the circumstances stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to have been the reasons for removing her from the public service; of any Evidence taken at any investigation, if any was held, into the justice of any such charge or complaint against her; and, of any Correspondence on the subject between Mrs. Richardson and the Chief Secretary or Captain Barlow, or between the Chief Secretary and Captain Barlow."
  The hon. Member said, he had reason to believe that Mrs. Richardson had been dismissed without fault or investigation, and he contended that the circumstances had a public as well as a personal interest, inasmuch as they afforded an illustration of the evil of leaving these persons under a despotic authority which acted without the check of public criticism.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there he laid before this House, Copies of any Charge or Complaint, if any, preferred against Mrs. Ellen Richardson, Deputy Matron of Mountjoy Female Prison, in reference to the circumstances stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to have been the reasons for removing her from the public service:
  "Of any Evidence taken at any investigation, if any was held, into the justice of any such charge or complaint against her:
  "And, of any Correspondence on the subject between Mrs. Richardson and the Chief Secretary or Captain Barlow, or between the Chief Secretary and Captain Barlow."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought it could be shown that

  915
  it was necessary to have the convict prisons of Ireland under a central authority, and that that authority had been exercised with good judgment and discretion. He could not agree to the Return for which the hon. Member moved, because it was unusual to print Minutes passing between two officials in the public service which were more or less of a confidential character, and as to the remainder of the correspondence, it consisted of little more than Mrs. Richardson's own letters. In September last an outbreak occurred in the prison of such a character as to show that the discipline had been lax, and for the circumstances that had led to this state of things Mrs. Richardson had been held to be in great measure blameable. Her duty was mainly to superintend the conduct of other prison officers; yet for the last 10 years only in one single instance had she reported any neglect of duty, though the state of the prison in September showed how much cause there must have been for such reports to be made. The Report from Captain Barlow was to the effect that the prison could not be properly worked while she held her office. It was true there was a medical inquiry into her health, not to call upon her to resign on account of ill health, but to ascertain whether her failure to perform her duty was, in any degree, due to this cause; and in consequence of her long services and personal character, he intended to recommend her for a moderate pension.
  MR. MELDONrecommended that the Motion should be withdrawn and the matter left in the hands of the Chief Secretary.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Church Patronage (12),
CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 12.)
(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 12.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, the Bill to which I am about to ask your Lordships to grant a second reading to-night is an attempt to give legal effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee which your Lordships were pleased to appoint on my Motion last year to inquire into the subject of Church Patronage; and I may state at the outset that the Bill neither goes beyond, nor falls short of the recommendations of that Committee. It simply embodies the recommendations of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on this subject. And, my Lords, if you have looked at the Report and the recommendations of that Committee, you will have observed that, while the Committee has been a large, and, I may venture to say, a remarkably representative Committee, its recommendations are, almost without exception, unanimous. There were only four divisions in the Committee, and two of these only were what might be called very close or narrow divisions. I may say, therefore, that the Bill comes before your Lordships with the almost unanimous recommendation of the Committee. It also comes before you with the almost unanimous consensus of the very competent and able witnesses examined before the Committee. It has, further, the advantage of representing the views of two Committees of the Upper and the Lower Houses of Convocation; and I think I may venture to say also that it represents, in the main, the wishes and opinions of nearly all my right rev. Brethren of the Episcopacy. Therefore, my Lords, I believe I may say that I come before you not only with my own opinion, but having that accompanied by very important and intelligent opinion on the subject. My Lords, in the first place, I think I may claim that the evidence taken by the Committee, and the Report drawn up by the Committee, do affirm the necessity for some legislation on this subject; for your Lordships' Committee distinctly states that there are serious and practical evils connected with the present system of Church Patronage,

  809
  and that the existing provisions of the law on this subject are very insufficient and demand a remedy. So far, therefore, the necessity for legislation in this matter is made out.
  Before, however, I proceed to explain the details of the Bill, which is mainly one of details, I have to say a few words as to the principle of the measure; and I do not think I can state what that principle is better than it is thus stated in the first paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee, which is in these terms—
  "As regards the first of these questions, the Committee are of opinion that all legislation affecting Church Patronage should proceed upon the principle that such patronage partakes of the nature of a trust to he exercised for the spiritual benefit of the parishioners, and that whatever rights of property originally attached, or in process of time have attached, to patronage, must always he regarded with reference to the application of this principle. All exercise of the rights of patronage without due regard to the interests of the parishioners, should, so far as possible, be restrained by law; and the law should also aim at imposing such checks on the exercise of his choice by the patron as should prevent, as far as possible, the appointment of unfit persons to the cure of souls."
  My Lords, this is the principle of this Bill—that patronage is not merely and not mainly property—that it is a trust; and that if it be property, so far as it is property, "it has its duties as well as its rights," and that every patron is to be regarded as exercising a most solemn and important trust in behalf of the parishioners. In one word, the object of all legislation in respect of patronage is to secure that we shall have—not, perhaps, the best possible man, but, at all events, a good and fitting man—as the minister to whom is given the government and cure of souls. It is quite clear that if you recognize that patronage is a trust, this trust may be violated in one of two ways. It may be violated, in the first place, by an unfit appointment on the part of a corrupt patron; or, in the second place, it may be violated by an unfit appointment on the part of a careless patron. The object of legislation on this subject, therefore, is to prevent a corrupt exercise of patronage, and also to prevent a careless exercise of patronage. The law of the land has always set itself against corrupt practices—that is, against the passing of money between the patron and the presentee—against the purchase of a high
  810
  and sacred office for money or money's worth. The law, however, goes further, and has attempted to prevent abuse not merely in the exercise of patronage, but in the transfer of the right of patronage—that is, in the sale of advowsons or of next presentations. So that the policy of the law is not to favour corrupt patrons. Admitting for a moment, what I am not prepared to concede absolutely, that the sale of the right to exercise patronage is ever advisable, the Legislature interferes with the exercise of this right, and says that it shall not be exercised under circumstances that give undue facilities for corruption. In the next place, the law of patronage requires that there shall be fitness on the part of the presentee—that there shall be some guarantee of the fit exercise of the patronage. In order to secure this, the patron himself does not appoint, but presents his nominee to the Bishop, who is the judge of his fitness. The law on this subject, therefore, resolves itself into this—a recognition of the patron's right, but provision on the one hand against a corrupt exercise or a corrupt transfer of that right; and in the next place, provision for the appointment of good and fit men under the system of patronage; and, in the third place—and to this I ask the especial attention of your Lordships—recognition by the law of the Church and the law of the land that the Bishop is the proper person to see that the patronage is duly exercised. This latter recognition makes the Bishop the guardian of the trust as regards the parishioners; what the Bishop has to regard, before God, being the fitness of the presentee and the right of the parishioners to have a good pastor. But, my Lords, I submit this Bill to your consideration, because, in respect of each of these three things, the present state of law is defective, and needs amendment.
  My Lords, I may say before I go into the details of this measure, that the object of it is not merely and not mainly to prevent the improper exercise of patronage by private patrons—your Lordships will see that its details deal very largely with public patrons. Its object is not to single out private patrons as if they were especially corrupt and especially unwise, but to require a proper exercise of patronage, whether by private or by public patrons.

  811
  Omitting the first three sections of the Bill, let me now point out to your Lordships, its main provisions. The 4th section provides that—
  "From and after the commencement of this Act all do native benefices shall become presentative benefices, and shall he subject in all respects to the laws which may be in force in relation to presentative benefices and to the patrons and incumbents thereof."
  I had occasion last year to point out what a do native benefice is. It is a benefice to which the patron presents directly, as he might appoint his chaplain or his butler, without presenting him to the Bishop. In the next place, the person appointed to a do native does not resign to the Bishop, but to the patron. Such an arrangement affords facility for simony, while it cannot be defended by any valid argument. If it be right that the Bishop should ascertain the fitness of the presentee of an ordinary patron before he is instituted to a cure of souls, on what principle of reason or common sense is it that about 100 patrons—for there are not more than about 100 donatives—have the anomalous and dangerous privilege of putting their nominees in a cure of souls without their fitness having been tested? Either all clergymen who can acquire benefices should go into them without any testing of fitness, or there should be such a testing for all. Why 100 men should have the peculiar and extraordinary privilege of exempting their nominees from the test required of all other nominees is what I cannot see. Again, I would ask your Lordships to look at the mischievous effects of allowing the holder of a do native to resign without the leave of the Bishop—a thing which no other holder of a benefice is permitted to do. The consequence of it is this—a man engaged in the most nefarious transaction—in the most simoniacal transfer—may come to his Bishop, and say, "I want to resign my benefice." The Bishop may reply, "I shall not allow you;" but this clergyman goes off, and buys a do native for, perhaps, £20 or £30, which releases him from his benefice. In possession of the donative, he completes his nefarious transaction, and then re-sells at, perhaps, a profit, the do native to the patron from whom he purchased it, and defies the Bishop. To remedy such abuses, it is proposed by Section 4 to put donatives on the
  812
  footing of presentative benefices;—and this is only in accordance with a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts in 1832. The Commissioners said—
  "We are clearly of opinion that all distinctions whatever should be wholly abolished, and that donatives should be placed under the same jurisdiction, law, and authority as all other benefices. From the adoption of such a measure uniformity will be preserved in the government of the Church; and we do not anticipate any injury to the just rights of patrons or incumbents."
  Assuming, for the moment, that under this Bill all patrons and all benefices would be placed under one rule, the next question is, what means shall be given to the Bishop for performing the paramount duty of testing the fitness of the nominee. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House recommend—
  "That some mode of testing the validity of the Bishop's objections to a presentee should be devised which shall be less expensive and tedious than the present processes of duplex querela and quare impedit, and which shall be equally open to the clerk and to the patron."
  My Lords, the Select Committe might have alluded to the jus patronatus, for there are three actions in which the Bishop may enter, or into which he may be dragged. The jus patronatus is one; but, as it is a useless process, inasmuch as it determines nothing, it is completely obsolete. It is simply a Commission by the Bishop which finally decides nothing; and therefore this opportunity may as well be taken for its removal from an obscure corner of the Statute Book. Accordingly, Clause 5 provides for its abolition, and also that no proceedings in the nature of a duplex querela shall be instituted in any Ecclesiastical Court. The duplex querela, the second process, is one by which the clerk can proceed against the Bishop; and the quare impedit, the third, is one by which the patron may proceed. Now, I do not see why the unhappy Bishop should be harassed by two different suits in two different Courts—why he should be prosecuted by the clerk in the one Court, and by the patron in another. I cannot see why the clerk and the patron, having the same interest, should not prosecute their suit in the same Court. I may mention that until the Gorham case, there was no example for 140 years of the duplex querela. By Clause 6, it is provided that—

  813
  "From and after the commencement of the Act no action of quare impedit shall he brought for the purpose of determining any question which may be the subject of proceedings under this Act."
  The effect of this will be only to remove from the process of quare impedit all questions relating to the fitness of the presentee. Questions as to patronage—where the right of the patron is in doubt or is questioned—will remain to be dealt with by that process. At present refusal for heresy or ignorance is tried by an Ecclesiastical Judge, as it is laid down that in such cases the Court shall write to the Metropolitan to certify thereof. It appears to me that questions as to the fitness of the nominee to institution for the cure of souls, and questions as to acts of simony may with advantage be withdrawn from the Common Law Courts. It appears to me that such questions are hardly fit questions to be tried by a Judge and jury. I am aware that this proposal meets with some disfavour on the part of some noble and learned Members of your Lordships' House; but in speaking of them I am reminded of the observation of Lord Ellenborough, that he would never think of submitting to a jury of butchers and graziers the issue whether a man could construe the Greek Testament. If you do submit these questions to a Court of Common Law, they must, as the law now stands, be taken out of its cognizance in some stage of the proceedings. So, at pre sent, there is a stage in proceedings in which, after vast expense and great delay, questions of the kind have to be submitted to a Judge in the position of the Judge to whom I propose to submit questions under this Bill. I propose that they should be submitted, in the first instance, to the Judge appointed under the Public Worship Regulation Act of last Session. The object of this provision is that we should make litigation in respect of such questions as I have indicated much less costly and cumbrous than it is at present. Let me give your Lordships an idea of what the present process is:—First, there is a trial in the Court of Commons Pleas on matters of law; secondly, there is a trial before a Judge and jury on matters of fact; thirdly, there is a reference to the Metropolitan on spiritual matters; then there is the appeal to the Exchequer Chamber; and lastly, there is the
  814
  appeal to the House of Lords. The process would be the same if the Judicature Act was in operation—there would be the first trial in the High Court on a matter of law; next a trial before a Judge and jury on matters of fact; then the reference to the Metropolitan on spiritual matters; next appeal to the lower Division of the Supreme Court of Appeal; and, lastly, a hearing by the first Division of the same Court. Let me state one simple and astounding effect of all this. The Bishop of Exeter resisted the appointment of an unfit clergyman—a man so unfit that he was subsequently suspended for three years,—and it took a no shorter period than nine years and a-quarter to decide that suit, which was ultimately decided in this House. My Lords, what can you expect a Bishop to do under such circumstances? Is it commonly reasonable or commonly decent that an unhappy Bishop should be exposed to this protracted agony of litigation and to terrific costs, for objecting to the institution of a man who afterwards was suspended for three years? I have now to call your Lordships' attention to the 7th clause, which is in these terms—
  "From and after the commencement of this Act the Bishop may, if he think tit, refuse, without assigning further reasons, to institute a presentee on the ground that, having been ordained deacon after the passing of this Act, he has been so ordained within three years next before the date of such presentation, or on the ground that he is at the date of such presentation more than seventy years of age."
  This is not without precedent. At present a man must wait for admission to a benefice till he is 24—I propose that he should wait till he is 26—that is, till he has had some experience in the government and cure of souls. For offices in the legal profession it is required that barristers should have a certain standing—seven years in some cases and ten in others, and a clergyman cannot be made a Bishop till he is over 30 years of age. The strongest objection I have heard to the course I propose is that it will seriously interfere with the matrimonial views of young clergymen. I sympathize with the feeling in favour of early marriages on the part of the clergy; but a marriage present of a parish with 20,000 souls to a young lady on her wedding-day even in these days of profuse and expensive wedding presents is rather an

  815
  extravagant gift. I think it right to say that on this first provision in the clause I did not carry a very large majority of the Committee with me; but on the latter provision—that referring to clergymen over 70—the case was different. It is a provision aimed against those persons who, knowing well what they are doing, deliberately choose the very oldest or most decrepit man they can find for an incumbency in order that they may be able to sell the living over his head. I hope that when addressing your Lordships on the subject last year I did not use very strong language, and I have avoided doing so on this occasion also; but I cannot refrain from branding this putting in of an unfit man—this knowingly appointing an unfit man to a cure of souls—as a deliberate iniquity. I say there are men now serving their term of penal servitude for fraud and conspiracy who are guilty of less deliberate fraud and less odious conspiracy than the fraud and conspiracy of those patrons who thus make a corrupt merchandise of the cure of souls—of the clergyman who makes a merchandise of his known infirmities and feebleness, and the avaricious and conscienceless patron who thrusts him upon parishioners who hate and detest him, knowing that they have been sold for so many pieces of silver. This, I say, is a practice which makes the Church stink in the nostrils of many who might otherwise come within her fold. An incumbent, aged 75 years, came to myself within six weeks after his appointment, and asked me for perpetual leave of absence on the ground of ago. The only consolation I had in connection with a transaction of the kind was that I refused the application. I ask in the 9th clause of the Bill that the Bishop may have power to refuse to institute a presentee on the ground that—
  "he is, in the opinion of the Bishop, unable from bodily infirmity to perform adequately the duties of the benefice to which he has been presented."
  I think there is necessity for such a clause, because I am advised that at present a Bishop would actually have no power to refuse to institute a man on the ground of the candidate being paralyzed. But I ask your Lordships to observe that in this, as in every other case of refusal to institute by the Bishop, this Bill gives him no veto—it only gives
  816
  him power to object, subject to the decision of a Court of Law.
  My Lords, I now come to a very important clause in the Bill which introduces a principle to some extent new. It is Clause 11, which provides that any three or more parishioners may, within a period limited in the clause, enter a caveat to the institution of the presentee. I do not see why what would be an impediment to a man's ordination should not be an impediment to his institution to a cure of souls; and neither can I see why objections to a man's institution should not be made in an open manner and duly investigated in the presence of the parties. At present a Bishop sometimes receives a private letter, in which it is stated—" We know So-and-so to be unfitted, but we trust you will not mention our names in the matter." The Bishop knows that there is no use in objecting, because the writers will not come forward, and reluctantly, institutes the clergyman. Then a letter appears in the newspapers, asking "What is the use of a Bishop?" I ask in fairness to the Bishop—I ask in fairness to the incumbent—that scandal should not be spread about in this way; but that there may be a mode by which persons who have anything to allege against the clergyman may bring it forward and have an investigation. I ask this also on the ground that it will be held in terrorem over the heads of those who would attempt the appointment of unfit persons. I ask it, further, in order that parishioners may feel that they are not sold—that we may not hear of parishioners saying—" Who bought us? We hope he is a good man, but we have no power to object." By Clause 19 of the Bill I propose that every patron on presenting a nominee shall make a declaration similar to that which is to be made by the presentee against simoniacal transactions. Why should it be regarded as an indignity to the patron if it is not so regarded in respect of the clergy? And I do not think anyone concerned in the appointment of a clergyman to the cure of souls should object to give every reasonable guarantee for a proper discharge of his share in the matter. In these days, when appointments made by the Episcopacy are so much scrutinized, I should be only too happy of an opportunity of vindicating before the parishioners any appointment I might make.

  817
  In Clause 20, your Lordships will observe a very important alteration is proposed in the existing law. The declaration against simony is to be abolished. That declaration is simply preposterous. It asks a man to declare that he has not committed simony, and it punishes him if he does commit it; but it does not toll him what it is—the declaration leaves him to find that out by the light of his own conscience or by the assistance of his lawyer. I ask that you shall forbid, not the name of the thing, but the thing itself. I ask that the patron and the clergyman shall declare—not that they have not committed simony, but that they have not done so and so which is forbidden by law. In the 22nd section provision is made for the punishment of those who aid and abet in a simoniacal transaction. The object of this is that the heavy hand of the law may be laid on those men who make money by a corrupt trafficking in Church patronage. To my certain know lodge honest and conscientious clergymen have been inveigled into simoniacal transactions by these men, and have not discovered the nature of the negotiations until they were already drawn on too far to retreat. By the 24th section I ask that all deeds or agreements relating to the advowson of a benefice shall be duly registered. If your Lordships were only aware of the number of "confidential" circulars sent to clergymen by these benefice-mongers you would at once see the necessity for this clause. These traffickers in Church livings state that their communications are "strictly confidential;" that "every reliance may be placed on the secrecy" of the negotiations, &c. I can compare their circulars with none others but those sent to young officers by money lenders. If livings are to be sold like horses, let the sale of them be as public as that of horses, and I only wish there could be a warranty for the honesty of the vendors. If your Lordships look to the 25th and 26th clauses, you will find provisions for preventing evasions of the Statute of Queen Anne. By these clauses payment of interest on the purchase-money of an advowson will be illegal. In the Select Committee cases were mentioned of incumbents who are also patrons of their own livings, and who sell their advowsons with an understanding or a contract that they will pay interest for the money
  818
  to the purchasers until they are void with a view to their own resignation as soon as they think convenient. I object to that. It is as wrong to buy a pastorate as it is to buy a judgeship. A man ought not to be allowed to buy a high and solemn office. It may be said that he does not buy the office, but only the right of presentation to it. I do not wish to introduce the ludicrous into a discussion of this matter; but the case seems to me like that of a man who buys a house with a solemn promise that he will not allow any one into a certain room in that house. He keeps that promise, but he lets to any one who will pay for it the key which gives admission to the room. But I have heard it said—" Why should not a man buy a living as a doctor buys a country practice." There is this difference—that you need not employ the doctor who buys the practice if you do not like; but you must employ the clergyman. You do not allow a medical man to purchase the post of surgeon to a regiment or to a ship. To prevent such abuses, Clause 26 of this Bill provides that the clerk purchasing an advowson shall not have the next presentation. I believe that is the only way of preventing these abuses under the present system; but I must say that my own conviction is that the axe never will be laid to the root of the evil till you entirely prohibit the sale of next presentations. There is, as I have before alleged, an essential difference between the sales of advowsons and that of next presentations. The patron who sells the advowson parts with the trust; but the patron who sells only the next presentation retains the trust with all its advantages and responsibilities, but sells to another the right of coming in and exercising that trust which he is bound to exercise himself. It may be asked, then, why I do not propose in this Bill to entirely prohibit the sale of the next presentation. My simple reason is that I was not so fortunate as to obtain the assent of your Lordships' Select Committee to that proposition. On a division on this point there was a majority of one against me. I have no wish to conceal my disappointment; but I may mention that the division to which I allude was not taken in presence of the whole Committee. Members were absent who would have voted with me; but having moved for the Committee myself and having acted as its Chairman,

  819
  I felt loyally bound not to propose anything in this Bill which the Committee did not recommend. Your Lordships can of course introduce this provision if you wish; and I may add that your Lordships will find from passages in the Report that the Committee was of opinion that certain recommendations introduced in this Bill were equivalents for such a prohibition, and that in the opinion of the Committee if those recommendations should fail, then the way would be open to further legislation in the way of preventing the sale of next presentations.
  I trust your Lordships will be of opinion that I have brought forward no vague or crude or revolutionary measure. Certainly it has not been my wish to do so. I have studied this question as a painful study for more than two years, and in consideration of it I have been assisted by amateur legislators with some claim to a knowledge of the irregular and confused lines of our legislation on Church patronage. I believe it will be found that in this Bill the question is treated on a true and sound principle. I am afraid there will always be abuses in every system of patronage; because so long as you have men to give and men to receive you will always have to make a large allowance for the infirmities of human nature. Those who are dissatisfied with our Church patronage system are too apt to forget in the heat of their denunciation and vituperation what abuses might be likely to arise in any other system which might be substituted for it. I have no wish to substitute for the large and varied system that now exists any system of popular election. I am quite certain of this—that the Church of England, taken altogether, presents in her clergy a body of men who for integrity, piety, and a self-sacrificing discharge of the duties of their office may bear comparison with any clergy in the world. I cannot believe, therefore, that our system of patronage, however defective it may be in some respects, can be so thoroughly wrong, so thoroughly corrupt, as those who, viewing it from the outside, are pleased to say it is. I do not believe that the patrons in the Church of England and the clergy of the Church of England are that seething mass of corruption which some great persons describe them to be. I do not believe that, as a body,
  820
  the patrons of livings are unscrupulous men. On the contrary, I believe that, as a rule, the Church patronage of this kingdom is exercised with a conscientious sense of the duties of their trust both by public and by private patrons, and that among the latter are many men who are not only conscientious, but generous and munificent patrons who have established a right to their patronage by large gifts to the Church. I say, therefore, my Lords, that I have no wish to abolish private patronage. Because I believe that private patronage is of immense value to the Church, and because I desire to preserve it from angry, revolutionary, and unjust assaults, I wish it to be fortified by reform in order that it may have a lasting lease of life. Therefore, in the interest not merely of the private patrons, but in the interest of the Church and of the nation, which I believe are in God's providence indissolubly bound up now as they have been in the past history of the country, I earnestly desire a wholesome, wise, moderate, and yet efficient reform of our system of Church patronage. It is for this reason that I ask your Lordships to give a second reading to the present Bill, which seems to me to be a step—and I trust that your Lordships will, at all events, regard it as an anxious and honest step—in the direction I have indicated.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I think it right to intimate at once the course which Her Majesty's Government deem it proper to pursue in reference to this Bill. It would be doing an injustice to the right rev. Prelate and to my own feelings towards him if I did not take the earliest opportunity of saying that this House and the country are greatly indebted to him for taking up this subject as he has done, for the manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the Committee of last year, and for the great service which he has done to the Church by bringing the matter under the consideration of your Lordships. No one can be blind to the fact that occurrences connected with the exercise of Church patronage have for some years caused considerable scandal, and it is only right and prudent that an attempt should be made to grapple with

  821
  the evil. I will not now follow the right rev. Prelate into all the details which he has brought under the notice of your Lordships; but while agreeing with him in many of the points to which he has referred, and believing that it would be right and proper to accord a second reading to the Bill, I would venture to suggest to him, having read the clauses with great attention, that if the measure receives the sanction of your Lordships to-night by passing the second reading, it should then be referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships. I say this because I think that every one upon reading the Bill must admit that it is drawn in a manner which will render considerable correction necessary. The right rev. Prelate himself says that it is essentially a Bill of details—that it is a mass of details put together; and I venture to think these details would be better discussed and more easily set right by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the Whole House. There are parts of the Bill to which I will venture to call the attention of the right rev. Prelate, which I think will require very considerable discussion, and for the retention of which it will be necessary to give more reasons than at present appear. In the first place, I do not quite follow the right rev. Prelate in the reasons he gave for abolishing the present mode of dealing with the matter under consideration—namely, by Courts of Law. With regard to the Judge to whom the right rev. Prelate would transfer the jurisdiction, I can only speak, like him, in terms of the highest respect; but at the same time I do not think he has adduced sufficient arguments for altering the present mode of proceeding. Then, the clauses of the Bill are drawn at such length that when one has got to the end of a clause one has almost forgotten what was at the commencement of it; and for this reason also it is necessary that the Bill should be discussed in Committee. As to the 8th clause, it may be a question whether, at all events, a part of it should not be omitted. It requires that a presentee should send to the Bishop a testimonial, in a prescribed form, signed by three beneficed clergymen, and it gives the Bishop power to refuse to accept the testimonial if he thinks that any of the subscribers to it are not worthy of credit. Now, it does seem hard that a presentee
  822
  who may be himself in every respect worthy should lose the living because one of the subscribers to his testimonial is in the opinion of the Bishop unworthy of credit. And how would the Bishop prove, if the matter came before a Judge, that the person was really unworthy of credit? It would be very hard both to the patron and the presentee if this power were given. Moreover, it is proposed that the Bishop should have power to refuse to institute a presentee if he thinks he is suffering from such bodily infirmity as would render him unable to discharge his duties. I do not mean to say that it might not be possible to indicate in a clause or Schedule what is to constitute bodily infirmity; but it seems to me that the patron and presentee would be put in a very false position if the provision remained as it stands. There is another clause—also one of considerable length—which appears to me to be of a very extraordinary character. There has been a good deal said, and more remains to be said, about "Exchanges" in the Army, but I think that Clause 23 of this Bill recognizes payments for exchange to a very much greater degree than can ever have been contemplated in connection with any service under Her Majesty. It provides that—
  "From and after the commencement of this Act all exchanges of benefices between the incumbents thereof shall be made by the execution by such incumbents of a deed of exchange in the form prescribed in the rules and orders, and such deed may contain a covenant for the payment of a sum of money by either incumbent to the other, subject to such conditions as may be agreed on."
  So that a man who has a small living and a great deal of money, may get another man who has a large living and little money to exchange benefices with him in consideration of a payment of £5,000 or other large sum. Some proviso is necessary with the view of preventing abuses of the system of exchange. I repeat that, while agreeing to the second reading of the Bill we think it ought to be referred to a Select Committee, whore the details to which I have alluded could be discussed more satisfactorily than in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that no one could regret more than he did to find himself, even in appearance, the opponent of any proposal made by the right rev. Prelate for the

  823
  objects which he had described so eloquently. That the subject was one well worthy their Lordships' consideration every one would admit. The Select Committee who considered this subject were at one as regarded the existence of the evils which had to be dealt with—evils which had been described by the right rev. Prelate in language no way exaggerated. But the Committee differed as to the means which ought to be adopted to mitigate those evils. There were two distinct lines on which they approached the subject. It was open to them to consider, first, whether any safe-guards might be devised against the abuses of the rights of patrons; and, secondly, whether those rights were not in themselves mischievous or excessive. Now, with regard to the former, it was unnecessary for him to recapitulate the different steps which under this Bill could be taken in order to prevent the corrupt or injurious exercise of the right of presentation. Their Lordships would see that the Bill tended to strengthen the hands of the Bishop by enabling him to resist an improper appointment; that it gave an important liberty to the parishioners to object to the person nominated; and that in various other ways it provided checks on the exercise of the right of patronage. All these were steps the importance of which could not be over-rated; and in addition to the good effects which might be anticipated from these provisions, the Bill would have a very beneficial operation in the attention it would attract to the abuses which had been referred to with such just indignation by the right rev. Prelate. The question which the Committee had had to decide was, whether, admitting that the steps proposed by the Bill ought to be taken, further steps ought to be taken also; whether, in addition to setting up safe-guards against the abusive exercise of the patron's rights, it was necessary to curtail those rights themselves. In considering this question, a distinction must be kept in view between the right of the sale of the next presentations and the right of the sale of advowsons. There was a remarkable unanimity of opinion among the witnesses before the Committee as to the imprudence of making any change with regard to the sale of advowsons. The result of the inquiry had, he believed, been to leave the system of private
  824
  patronage, in so far as advowsons were concerned, more firmly established than ever. With regard, however, to the sale of next presentations, the case was not so clear. The right rev. Prelate, as their Lordships were aware, held a very decided view upon this subject; but the Committee had not adopted that view, and the right rev. Prelate had in consequence, when giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, found himself precluded from embodying in the Bill the provision to which he himself attached most importance. His own feeling was opposed to the view of the right rev. Prelate, for he believed that if the law with regard to advowsons were to remain unchanged, it would be impolitic, at all events, for the present, to alter the law affecting next presentations. Was it true, as represented by the right rev. Prelate, that there was a distinction in principle between the rights of the patron in the two cases? It was contended, on one hand, that the right to sell the advowson necessarily included the right to sell the next presentation, on the ground that the whole must necessarily include the less—the right to sell the advowson being no more than the right to make several presentations in succession. It was said, on the other hand, that the advowson being in the nature of a trust, it was competent for a man to divest himself of the whole trust, but not of a part of it. Those arguments he would leave to be discussed by noble and learned Lords. His own view of the question was that, even supposing any difference in point of principle existed between the two rights, it was perfectly competent to the Legislature to deal with the sale of next presentations in a different manner from that in which they dealt with the sale of advowsons, if the one were found to give rise to evils which the other did not. There were, however, present to his mind three practical objections to the proposal of the right rev. Prelate. His first objection was on the ground of the expense which would be incurred in carrying it into effect. His second objection was that the proposal would not prove an effectual remedy for the abuses sought to be put an end to; and his third objection was that the remedy was, or, probably, might be, a needless one. With regard to the question of expense; it was not for him to say to what extent

  825
  the patrons would be entitled to compensation, should their rights be thus curtailed; but he hoped that if it were necessary to compensate them the sum necessary, whether provided by the nation or out of the funds of the Church, would be liberally and cheerfully paid, in order to get rid of these scandalous practices. But his main objection to the proposal was that the remedy it offered would be ineffectual. Suppose that the sale of next presentations only were forbidden, the effect would be that the traffic in the sale of advowsons would be enormously stimulated;—and this view had been fully supported by the evidence which Mr. Dunn and Mr. Leigh had given before the Committee. Now, as the scandal attached to the idea of traffic, and not only to the idea of traffic of that particular kind with which the right rev. Prelate was anxious to deal, it would obviously not be suppressed, but only partially, if at all, mitigated by a limitation of the traffic in presentations if the traffic in advowsons were allowed to survive. The objection that the restriction proposed by the Bill was or might be needless was grounded on the fact that the other parts of the measure would enormously strengthen the power of the Bishop, and would give additional publicity to these objectionable transactions, which were now conducted under the shelter of secrecy and obscurity. It would, at all events, be prudent to try for a time the effect of the Bill as it stood, and not at once to pledge the country to a very cumbrous and possibly expensive mode of checking the evils complained of. He should be glad to see a fair trial given to the provisions of the Bill, and should they fail he should then gladly support a Bill as stringent and vigorous as this one was lenient in its operation.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he thought it was the duty of those right rev. Prelates who had looked carefully into this subject to lay before their Lordships the various aspects of the question, as they were necessarily more acquainted with the facts than any other Members of this House. There were two distinct classes of lay patronage in the Church which were sufficiently distinct in their character and in their incidents. There was, in the first place, the class of private patronage, which was exercised personally by the patron,
  826
  He was convinced of the great advantage of private patronage so exercised, having witnessed the extreme care and conscientiousness with which lay patrons investigated the fitness of the clergymen whom they selected to fill the benefices at their disposal. Judging from what he had seen in his own benefice, he could say that nothing could be more advantageous than the relations which subsisted between the lay patrons and the clergymen so appointed, as it afforded a guarantee that all the parties would work together heartily for the good of all. If this were the only class of private patronage exercised in this country, it would do no great harm, and such evils as did exist under it would be almost lost sight of in the great advantages it conferred. But, unfortunately, there was another class of lay patronage which it was necessary to speak of very differently indeed—that of livings which were continually in the market and which were perpetually being bought and sold over and over again. It was this class of private patronage which gave rise to all the evils that had been indicated, and which they were now trying to get rid of. In his opinion, no Bill that merely dealt with the symptoms and not with the true cause of the evils would be efficacious in removing those evils from which the Church now suffered. As long as the system of selling livings in the market existed, so long would there be not only a great scandal attending the Church and the work of the Church, but there would of necessity be a perpetual recurrence of all those mischiefs to which reference had been made; and he did not think that any legislation would be sufficient effectually and finally to do away with them. Such a Bill as the present would do real good—more good at first than perhaps afterwards. It would do good until the lawyers succeeded in finding out how to evade its provisions and the process would forthwith commence, and in no very long space of time they would find that their legislation must be renewed with precisely the same evils to deal with, although, perhaps, in a somewhat different form. Meanwhile there was going on this great scandal of the public sale of those trusts belonging to the Church. Their Lordships generally could hardly understand how great was the mischief done by the mere

  827
  scandal, without reference to the actual wrong done. He and his right rev. Brethren, who were constantly meeting with persons in the lower classes and hearing what they felt on such a matter as this, knew how great was the evil. It was constant matter of conversation among such people. They felt it to be a kind of personal degradation that the interests of the parishioners should be made the subject of bargain and sale, and they were taunted with it by those who did not belong to their own communion. The Nonconformist shopman taunted the Churchman in the market with the fact that the parish to which he belonged had been sold over his head, and that he had to accept the parson who had bought the place with his money. Not long since an eminent Member of the late Government brought a heavy indictment against the Established Church in a speech addressed to his constituents, and one prominent feature of that indictment was the scandalous traffic in livings—not the abuses arising from it, but the scandalous traffic itself. So long as that traffic existed, so long would it be a source of weakness and a blot and disgrace to the Church. It should not be forgotten that grave imputations might be more or less mischievous according to the nature of the institutions against which they were cast. In every institution there were particular points, an imputation upon which would touch the very life. If, for instance, it was said of the whole Army that the great body of them were immoral, although it would be a very grave and serious thing to say, yet it would not of necessity affect the efficiency of the Army. It would still for the purpose of defending the country be an efficient instrument. But what Army could stand if there were an imputation against its courage, and that imputation was not resented? What Army could bear to have it said of them that they were an army of cowards? The imputation would demand the most complete refutation. The same thing was true of a Church charged with trafficking in men's souls. It interfered with the strength and efficiency of the Church. It made many feel that they ought not to belong to such an institution. It put a stumbling block in the way of tender consciences. And surely when such an imputation was cast against the Church,
  828
  there ought to be some overwhelming reason for persisting in upholding such a system. It ought not merely to be said that certain advantages came out of it—that here and there good men were put into livings. That would happen in any system. So it was possible in former days to defend the sale of indulgences and masses—he did not doubt that they would be defended on the ground that if they did real good—that masses encouraged the kindness of one man to another, of relative to relative, of the rich for the poor. But now that the system was gone, could it be for a moment tolerated on any such ground? He entirely admitted that good men were brought into the Church here and there; but the gross evil and scandal of the sale would be seen when it was considered what a man sold who sold a living. He sold one of the most important trusts which it was possible for a man to hold. Upon him depended whether there should be in the parish a good man, a judicious man, a devoted man, a really religious man; or, on the other hand, an idle man, a careless man, an irreverent man, a man with a bad temper, a man with no heart in his work. What a difference that would make with the young, with the aged, with the sick. How many were there who had reason to thank God for a conscientious and careful patron, who had brought to the parish a really right-minded clergyman! Well, this trust was to be sold—the patron was no longer willing to continue in the discharge of it. And was there care taken that the person to whom it was to be handed over was a fit person to exercise it? No. That was entirely left to the solicitor, whoso duty it was to make the best bargain he could. In fact, as soon as the trustee had determined to treat his trust as a merchantable commodity, all his conscientiousness departed, and his one consideration was the amount of money he was to get for it. But that was not all—for livings were sometimes sold by public auction, and everyone knew the effect such a thing had upon the people of the parish that was sold; and yet the sale by public auction was simply the open exercise of a right which was more often exercised less openly. A public sale was the naked assertion of a principle. Sometimes the Law itself was party to such

  829
  a sale. If, in a marriage settlement, it was provided that in certain contingencies the trustees should sell—or the executors named in a will—the trustees or executors would have no choice but to sell by public auction. He knew it would take a long time to persuade the country and the Legislature to deal effectually with such an evil as this; but it was the duty of all those who looked closely into the matter to press the necessity of sweeping away so great a scandal upon those who had any voice whatever in dealing with it. As long as it existed, not only would it be impossible to get rid of the evils which they all deplored, but it would be a perpetual source of mischief to the whole Church. It was only in proportion as these sales could be checked, that the object they all had in view could be attained. The difficulty was that property of this kind should have been created, because when people had purchased such property it was impossible not to allow them to sell it; and if they were not allowed to sell, compensation must be given to them. A certain portion of every living really belonged to the patron; and if he wished to part with the trust he might take away the part of the living that belonged to him, and leave the rest to provide for the spiritual wants of the parishioners; and this was the only mode of reconciling the rights of the patron with what was due to the Church. He only rose to protest against the idea that any mere palliatives should have the effect of preventing the great and serious evils which had been brought under their notice. No one who had carefully studied the working of the Church could come to any other conclusion than this—that as long as the sale of advowsons and next presentations went on, the Church of England would be unable to present to the people at large the aspect which she ought to wear.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he was glad it had been admitted by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) that there was no real difference between the sale of advowsons and next presentations, and that if their Lordships wished to meet public feeling in this matter they must go further and abolish the sale of advowsons. But what did that come to but the abolition of the right of private patronage? Parliament could not say to a patron—"This living
  830
  is your property, but it must never be sold, and must always be retained in your own hands." Would they tell a landowner that his patronage might be divided and sub-divided among his heirs, male or female, but must never be sold by himself or any one of them? The consequences would be absurd and disastrous. It would only be another way of destroying its value as property. It would be better to abolish private patronage altogether. Then, suppose that private patronage were accordingly abolished; what would be put in its place? Public patronage. But whose? Was it to be placed in the hands of the Crown, or in the hands of the Bishops, or left to the election of congregations? In the latter case it would be fraught with evils far more intolerable than those now complained of. Private patronage was now mainly connected with the landed estate of the country; but was it fit to tie it up to that one class, and not admit the moneyed and commercial interests of the country to participate in it? What avenue to the Church, except by purchase, was offered to the sons of wealthy men not connected with land? A leading merchant or banker might have among his sons one who was studious and pious, and who wished to go into orders to do good to his fellow-creatures—what chance would he have of obtaining a Church living if the sale of advowsons were prohibited? It must be remembered that the merits and qualifications which make up a good clergyman were not to be ascertained in the market-place, or made public, as in the law and other professions. What was now done? The merchant said to his son—" If you wish to go into the Church I will buy you a living;" and there could not be a better subject for a clergyman than the pious son of a man belonging to the mercantile and trading classes;—and yet, if the sale of livings were prohibited, that class would be shut out, and Church patronage would be confined to the landed gentry. Their Lordships must look at this question on all sides, and not be led away by a cry against the sale of spiritual functions. These were conferred by the Bishop at his ordinations without pecuniary considerations, and patronage gave merely the power of exercising these functions in one place rather than another. He was also of

  831
  opinion that greater facilities ought to be given for exchanges in the Church. They were often very desirable on many accounts, but they were now exceedingly difficult; and he could not see why, under proper regulations, exchanges of livings should not be more easily made. Concurring in the desirability of sending the Bill to a Committee upstairs, where the details could receive closer and more exact attention, he wished to pay his tribute of respect to the manner in which the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) had brought the matter before the House, and also before the Committee of last year over which the right rev. Prelate presided. His temper, his patience, his consideration for others, and his known ability enabled the right rev. Prelate to discharge the duties of Chairman, in a very difficult matter, with an efficiency that had not often been exceeded in that House.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he entirely concurred in the principle and general scope of the Bill, but thought there were very great objections to the proposal contained in the 10th and 11th clauses. Even by those who approved its purpose it might be objected to on the ground of its futility; for what was the use of making inquiries as to the character of a clergyman in a place probably a long way off from his previous abode, and where he would probably never have been heard of before? Neither did there appear to be any use or necessity for the third hearing by the Privy Council, which the clause proposed to give, as to the facts of immorality. But he objected altogether to the clause, because it proposed to have that done by three parishioners which it was the duty of the Bishop to do; for it was the duty of a Bishop to be acquainted with the characters of his clergy, and to be able to give an answer as to their character when inquiry was made. There could be few patrons who, however well acquainted with a clergyman, would not, out of courtesy, write to his Bishop before proposing to present him to another Bishop. He also thought the proposed mode of announcing a clergyman from the pulpit and of placarding him on his church doors to his future parishioners as a possible criminous clerk was very objectionable and unnecessary. Criminous clerks were not of such frequent occurrence as to justify
  832
  such a step; and where they existed they were too well known to make the proposed precaution necessary. This appeal for denunciation, however, might very possibly open the door to and encourage calumny, and that sort of calumny which it would be difficult to refute or punish; for the right rev. Prelate who introduced the Bill was probably aware that traps might be set for young curates by persons sending doubtful characters to them in the guise of penitents. Another objection to the clause was that it was not based on any existing legal foundation, and that it would have a tendency to introduce a desire for that use of election in the Church which the right rev. Prelate was so rightly opposed to; for their Lordships would remember the emphasis with which last Session he had spoken of trial sermons and competitive prayers.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that an important distinction may be drawn between the sale of next presentations and the sale of advowsons. I also desire to call attention to another matter which seems to have escaped observation—the bonds of resignation. Perhaps your Lordships are not aware of the state of the law with respect to these bonds. The whole argument of to-night has rested on the theory that the rights of patronage are a sacred trust. It appears to me that the Act as to bonds of resignation which was passed some time ago tends very greatly to encourage the idea of property rather than of trust in matters of patronage, in as far as these bonds of resignation seem to recognize property alone and not trust. In the event of a patron desiring to take a bond of resignation from a person appointed to a living, he may do so either in favour of one person, who may be any individual whatsoever, or of two persons—in which latter case his right of patronage is limited, in what appears to be an extraordinary way, either to his son, or grandson, or nephew, or uncle; as if it were impossible that any other person fit to hold the living could be found except one within those degrees of consanguinity. Had it not been "except" son, grandson, nephew, or uncle, there might have been something to be said for it; but it seems an extraordinary arrangement to be made that, in the event of a person desiring

  833
  to influence the patronage after his death, or at some distant period, he is to select a nominee who probably is in his cradle, and whose character must be, therefore, totally unknown; and he is to designate him as rector or incumbent of a parish, the circumstances of which during the 23 years that have to pass before this person comes of age to be ordained may have entirely changed—say from the development of mineral wealth—which may render the position of a clergyman there very difficult. It is rather surprising to me that this matter has not been more carefully considered by the Committee. It is obvious that the whole proposed legislation in this matter is based rather upon the idea of trust than upon that of property. I do not, indeed, expect that we shall be able to obtain a perfect system of patronage as long as human nature remains imperfect; but I do think it is our duty to remove from the Statute Book everything which encourages an imperfect view of the duties which devolve upon patrons in the exercise of their rights. Your Lordships must have been gratified, as I was, by the testimony which has been borne to the mode in which private patronage is generally administered in this country. I should be the last person in any way whatever to desire to diminish the influence of private patrons in the distribution of livings in the Church of England; but I think we are bound to impress by our legislation upon the patrons that it is a sacred trust which they exercise, and that we should throw the idea of property in the living as much as possible into the shade. No doubt, there may be difficulties in overcoming evils which have grown up in consequence of the sale of next presentations, and to a certain extent the same evils may prevail in the matter of the sale of advowsons; but, at all events, if I can persuade your Lordships to stop the sale of next presentations the evils will be greatly diminished. Notwithstanding the speech of my noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby), I do consider these sales an evil. If I had entered the House a few minutes ago, when my noble Friend was speaking, I might have supposed he was speaking of purchase in the Army, and was advocating that which by universal consent had
  834
  been decided against. If the practice has been proved by legislation to have been a bad one for the Army, it does not appear to me it can be a good one for the Church. I cannot help thinking there is a great deal of force in the argument which has been used by my right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter), as to the mere fact of the sale of these next presentations producing much scandal. I do not believe that, except for the purpose of maintaining an hypothesis, it would be possible to defend, these sales of next presentations. No doubt good arises out of many most questionable practices; but what we have to consider is what on the whole will be likely to be most beneficial to the Church. I confess when I road such speeches as that which has, I believe, been alluded to this evening as having recently greatly influenced the country, and which was a brief against the Church of England—I think the strongest part of the brief is the attack on this system of the sale of next presentations—I feel great difficulty in knowing how I can defend the Church of which I am a member against accusations which appear to me to be well-grounded. So far as I can gather, all the witnesses before the Select Committee and the Committee itself are in favour of the abolition of the sale of next presentations. I cannot believe that many of those who are most opposed to the Church of England will object to our ridding ourselves of this blot on our Church system. I have every reason to believe that the most worthy members of other denominations would repudiate altogether the policy which is attributed to those who dissent from the Church of England, of desiring to retain as many of our corruptions as possible in order that the institution they disapprove may fall to pieces from the existence of those faults. I believe that high-minded members of other denominations will agree with ourselves that, while the Church of England retains the great post of instructor to so large a portion of the nation as at present, it is the duty of all, whether they approve of the Church or not, to give their assistance to remove evils which are patent to all. I cannot help thinking that even that eloquent voice which has been raised in denunciation of the Church on account of this evil will not be silent,

  835
  should this Bill reach "another place," in helping us to rid ourselves of so very great a scandal. I take it for granted that if the Bill is referred to a Select Committee the understanding is that, after bestowing on it the most careful consideration, the Committee will send the Bill back in time for legislation this Session.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHacknowledged the degree of favour and acceptance with which the Bill had been received both by the noble Duke, who represented Her Majesty's Government in that House, and by other noble Lords. The recommendations and suggestions that had been made by so many of their Lordships should receive the consideration to which they were justly entitled. On the other hand, none of the objections went to the principle of the measure. He need not dwell upon all the criticisms that had been offered. He would, however, observe that the counter signature of a foreign Bishop to the testimonials of a presentee was not required as an additional testimony to his character and fitness, but merely as an assurance of the credibility and respectability of the witnesses; it would affirm, not the truth of their statements, but their credibility. A case had occurred in which a Bishop wrote—
  "I cannot refuse to countersign the credibility of the witnesses, although I think it right to state that during two of the three years referred to the presentee was in gaol."
  The question of the necessity of the counter signature of a Bishop was the question raised in the well-known case of "Exeter v. Marshall," and the objection to it was that it would give the Bishop an absolute veto. He met that point by allowing the Bishop to object to the credibility of the witnesses, and by making provision for that and all other objections by the Bishop, to be brought before a Judge. The requirement proceeded on the maxim—Quis custodiet custodes. In assenting to the proposal of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he would venture earnestly to express a hope that the Select Committee would be held at such a time, and would conduct its deliberations with such speed as would secure that the Bill should be again brought before their Lordships, and be sent "elsewhere," so as to afford a fair
  836
  chance of becoming law, if it should seem fit to the Legislature, this Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORbegged to say, with reference to the appointment of the Committee, that he had had a communication from Lord Coleridge, expressing his great anxiety, whatever form the Committee might assume—whether it was a Select Committee or a Committee of the Whole House—it should not sit during his absence on circuit till after Easter. Being at the head of the Court where proceedings by Quare impedit would take place, he was naturally anxious that he should have the opportunity of carefully looking into the frame of the Bill before it passed through Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

TURKEY—COMMERCIAL TREATIES WITH SERVIA AND ROUMANIA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STRATHEDENinquired of Her Majesty's Government, Whether the statements of the public press to the effect that commercial treaties with Servia and Roumania are about to be formed without any reference to the negotiations alleged by Her Majesty's Government to be in progress are well founded? He should consider such a state of things a departure from the Treaty of 1856; and he reserved to himself the right of considering with those Members of the House who turned their minds to foreign policy, what steps should be taken, either with or without Papers, to retard or prevent results which it would be a guarded phrase to characterize as useless and irreparable.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: When my noble Friend put a Question to me a few days ago upon this subject, I told him that three great Powers—Austria, Russia, and Germany—had asserted their right to enter into commercial engagements with the Governments of the Principalities irrespective of the sanction of the Porte, and I added that in doing so they had protested strongly against the idea of any intention being imputed to them of violating the treaties into which they had entered. Maintaining, as they do, that the right they so claimed is a right

  837
  conferred on them by those treaties, I think it quite possible, and under the circumstances probable, that these Governments, or some of them, may proceed to act upon the principle which they have laid down. It is clear that they could only have laid it down with the intention of acting upon it sooner or later; but they have not done so as yet, so far as I am aware. I have every reason to believe that communications have taken place between these Governments and the Government of the Principalities upon the subject; but I have not before me at the present time any information to justify me in saying that commercial treaties will be concluded.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.