Sitting of 9 August 1878

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —Resolutions [August 6, August 7, August 8 ] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— Resolution [August 8] reported—Consolidated Fund (£21,556,807 7s. 5d.).
NAVY AND ASHY EXPENDITURE, 1876–7—Resolutions [August 8] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading— Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*.
First Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance* [296].
Second Reading — Telegraphs [257]; Training Schools and Ships [48], postponed.
Committee—Inclosure Provisional Orders [192], debate adjourned; Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) (re-comm.) [130], postponed; Election of Aldermen (Cumulative Vote) [71], postponed; Consecration of Churchyards Act (1867) Amendment [176], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Bishoprics [197]; Exchequer Bills and Bonds (No. 2) * [295].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Education (Scotland) [292]; Petty Sessions Clerks and Fines (Ireland)* [253]; Metropolitan Commons* [287], and passed.
Third Reading—Statute Law Revision * [263], and passed.
Withdrawn—Habitual Drunkards (re-comm.)* [250].

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—OUTBREAK OF THE NATIVE TRIBES—THE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the additional Estimate for the expense of the Kaffir War will be submitted to the House, and a Vote taken; also, from where the money which was spent last year and has not been voted this year has been obtained, and how it will be accounted for?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he could not undertake to lay the Estimate upon the Table until the Government had the information, which would not be in the course of the present Session. Certain drafts had been made upon the military chest which had been to a certain extent repaid. He did not know until the account should have been made up how much had actually been repaid, and how much it would be necessary to make provision for, in order to keep the military chest at a proper level. They would find that out when the account was completed. The Estimate of £400,000 in this year's Supplementary Estimates was, he believed, the outside Estimate.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—BANKRUPTCY ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether (seeing that the Order for going into Committee on the ''Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill" has been discharged), he sees any objection to the further progress, this Session, of the "Bankruptcy Act (1869) Amendment Bill;" and, if he sees such objection, whether he will be good enough to inform the House what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take next Session in reference to the amendment of the Law respecting bankruptcy?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, I think it would be objectionable to sanction the proceeding with the Bankruptcy Act (1869) Amendment Bill. This Bill contains, no doubt, many desirable alterations in the law; but it does not propose to deal with the
  1636
  subject of bankruptcy in the complete manner in which it is dealt with by the Bill introduced by the Government, which, though abandoned for the present, will be brought forward next Session. The Government Bill contains nearly all the amendments of the law proposed by the Bill of my hon. Friend, and also several others of great importance. It would seem to be a pity to resort to partial legislation this Session, which would necessarily have to be supplemented next. It is proposed to introduce the Government measure very early next Session. If many important alterations are suggested by ton. Members in the discussion upon the second reading, the best course will be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It will not be difficult in such Committee to decide upon the Amendments which ought to be adopted, and get the Report upon the Bill in ample time to pass it through Parliament during the Session.

INDIA—MAHARAJAH HOLKAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LEITHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the fact, as reported, that the Government of India have transferred or agreed to transfer, by way of gift or otherwise, to the Maharajah Holkar, of Indore, territory to the extent of upwards of three hundred square miles; whether a Commission of Inquiry, composed of Captain Wise, acting on behalf of the Bombay Government, and Major Cadell, acting on behalf of the Maharajah Holkar, had not previously decided that the latter had no title to the territory in question; whether such decision was not declared final by the Government of India; and, if such transfer has been made, or agreed to be made, whether the Government can state the reasons for making such transfer, and will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence or Despatches relating thereto?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; the Government of India has ceded to the Maharajah Holkar about 350 square miles of territory. A boundary line between the territories of the Maharajah and Khandeish was traced in 1864, and his special appeal against the decision was rejected by the Secretary of State. Since that time the frontier has been in dispute, and has

  1637
  become a perpetual source of grievance. It is a tract of rough, unproductive, and unhealthy country, to which, however, the Maharajah attaches the greatest possible value. As an act of grace, therefore, the Indian Government has recommended, and the Secretary of State has sanctioned, this re-adjustment of the boundary line. This concession has been a source of peculiar gratification to the Maharajah. As these Papers contain references to personal feelings and circumstances, my noble Friend thinks it very undesirable that they should be published.

LAW AND JUSTICE—HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—TAXING MASTERS' OFFICES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY JAMESasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the many great inconveniences arising from the entire closing of the offices of the Taxing Masters of the High Court of Justice during the Long Vacation; and, whether the Government contemplate taking any steps to prevent the continuance of such in-conveniences?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER),in reply, said, it was incorrect to say that the Taxing Masters' Offices were entirely closed during the Vacation, because one Taxing Master was always in attendance throughout the holidays, in order to take all business of a pressing character referred to him by the Courts. Whether, however, sufficient facilities were or were not afforded he had not been informed. Neither did he know whether there was any difference between the Chancery Division and the other Divisions; but he would make inquiries into the subject, and would give the matter his best consideration during the Recess.

  POST OFFICE—THE WEST INDIA MAIL CONTRACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Postmaster General, If, seeing the West India Mail Contract does not come into operation till 1880 and it cannot now lie upon the Table for the stipulated period in this Session, he will postpone moving its ratification till the beginning
  1638
  of next Session, so as to give the House a sufficient opportunity of considering it?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, the Question was based upon a misapprehension. Under the Regulations of the House, it was required that every contract extending over a period of years for the conveyance of mails by steamers should be submitted to the House and be approved by Resolution of the House, and it was the intention of the Secretary to the Treasury to move early next week that the contract for the West India Mails should be sanctioned by the House.

LAW AND JUSTICE — REPORTS OF DIVORCE AND CRIMINAL CASES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. HUBBARDasked Mr. Attorney General, If he would take into his consideration the best means of restraining the publication of all evidence in divorce and criminal trials beyond the simple facts necessary to prove that justice is done?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, it is very difficult to suggest any means of accomplishing the object of my hon. Friend without unduly interfering with the freedom of the Press and the liberty of the subject. Moreover, it is obvious that, in many instances, it will be impossible to enable the public to form a judgment whether a right conclusion has been arrived at without publishing full details of the evidence; and it seems to me that you will purify newspaper reports of trials at too great an expense if you deprive the public of the means of forming a conclusion as to whether justice is properly administered or not. The subject, however, is one of considerable importance, and I will give it careful consideration in the Recess.

METROPOLIS—THE THAMES EMBANKMENT—THE NEW OPERA HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the hoarding connected with the apparently discontinued New Opera House on the Embankment will soon be removed, as it has for a long

  1639
  time been an obstruction to the footpath?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL HOGG: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to inform him that the time fixed for the final completion of the New Opera House is the 29th September next. Of course, it is hopeless to expect that it will be finished by then; but until that date it does not seem expedient to the Metropolitan Board to take any steps with regard to it. I will take care that the attention of the Board is directed to the matter, and I have already had notice given to Mr. Mapleson of the hon. Member's Question.

MERCANTILE MARINE—THE STEAMSHIP "AUSTIN FRIARS."

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has as yet received any information of the steamship "Austin Friars" of London; and, whether it be correct that the crew were placed on short allowance of food seven days after leaving the port of Carwan?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: On receiving a letter from the hon. Member conveying a complaint respecting the food supplied to the crew of the Austin Friars, I directed the Registrar General of Seamen to report the arrival of the ship, in order that an inquiry might be made into the circumstances complained of. The vessel has not yet arrived, so that I am not yet in a position to give any information on the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—QUESTIONS.
  MR. ONSLOW: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a point of Order. It will be in the recollection of the House that this morning the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill was, during the progress of a discussion on the question of fixing a day for taking the third reading, counted out. I wish to know in what position the Bill now stands—whether it is a dropped Order, and how it is to be placed at the Sitting to-morrow, should one be held? I also desire to know what precedent, if any, there is for the Government naming Saturday for private Members' Business, when no Go-
  1640
  vernment Business is to be taken on that day, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer so stated; and, further, if there be a Sitting on Saturday, whether Members in charge of private Bills can place those Bills in the order of precedence in which they appear in to-day's Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House was counted out last night on a Motion for fixing the day when the third reading of the Bill referred to by the hon. Gentleman was to be taken, and therefore that Bill became a dropped Order. That Order, however, can be revived if the House pleases. If, at the invitation of a Minister of the Crown, the House should think proper that there should be a Sitting to-morrow, it will be open to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill— or, indeed, to any hon. Member—to move to fix that Bill for to-morrow. The order in which such Bills would be taken would depend, according to the practice of the House, upon the pleasure of the Minister of the Crown, who moves that the House do sit to-morrow.
  MR. ONSLOWasked, whether there was any precedent for the Government naming Saturday for a private Member's Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared, off-hand, to say whether there is any precedent for holding a Sitting on Saturday solely for the consideration of a Bill other than a Government Bill; but I can state that it is a very unusual course to have a Morning Sitting on Saturday, except for a Bill of urgent importance. The House, however, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, having appointed a Bill for consideration to-morrow, it will be open, as I have already said, to hon. Members to move to fix the third reading of the Bill in question for tomorrow.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: AS the House is to meet to-morrow, I wish to know if it will be considered a Government Order day? If so, hon. Members should understand that Government Orders will have precedence.
  MR. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly so. If a Bill is appointed on the Motion of the Government for to-morrow, it will be open to any hon. Member having charge of a Bill to fix it for that day, and the order in which it is to be taken will be at the pleasure of the Minister of the Crown.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked, when the second reading of the Appropriation Bill would take place?
  THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that no Government measure had as yet been put down for Saturday. With respect to the measures still to be considered, allowance must he made for the very great difficulties the Government had to contend with, especially when the Session began to draw to a close, and particularly when promises had been made at the early part of the Session to take certain measures as first Orders of the Day. The time had come when the Government were compelled to make appeals to those to whom the promises had been made to release them from those promises. The Inclosure Bill had been postponed, as it had been found impossible to appoint a day on which it could be taken as first Order. The Government were not able to say when the Appropriation Bill would be read a second time. He believed it would be read a second time on Monday. At all events, it would be brought in to-day. It would not be taken to-morrow. He proposed to put the Exchequer Bonds Bill down for the Saturday Sitting; but whether any other Bill would be put down for that day by the Government he could not at present say.

TELEGRAPHS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWENwished to ask the Postmaster General a Question with respect to the Telegraphs Bill. That Bill contained a clause which proposed to monopolize for the Post Office all the telegraphic inventions now existing or in prospect. He understood that an arrangement had been made with the Telephone Company at a private meeting. He wished to know, Whether the clause to which he referred would be persisted in, or whether the privilege given to the Telephone Company would be extended to other telegraphic inventions?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, he had already given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the 3rd clause, which was the one referred to, if the second reading of the Bill was agreed to.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  BISHOPRICS BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 197.]
  (Mt. Assheton Cross.)
  BISHOPRICS BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 197.]

    COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [31st July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable, so long as the Episcopal Church continues to be established by law, to increase the number of Bishops,"—(Mr. Joseph Cowen,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. HUTCHINSONsaid, he should most decidedly oppose the Bill. In the part of the country which he represented —Halifax—there was no demand for a new Bishop, and he believed it was much the same in other parts of the country. Indeed, by many persons a Bishop was regarded as a useless functionary. By one-half of the religious Press, to which clergymen principally contributed, the Bishops were regarded in that light, while by the other half they were considered to be positively mischievous. In Yorkshire the Dissenting Bodies had made provision for the spiritual wants of those whom the Church had neglected, and in some instances had assisted in the repairs of the fabrics; but their efforts in that respect received but scant recognition, and were sometimes even ignored by the clergy and dignitaries of the Established Church. At the fag-end of the Session, when there was little time to spare for important Business, the Government were pushing forward with unnecessary and almost unbecoming vehemence that measure, which hardly anybody wanted. There were many Churchmen who did not think that an increase of the Episcopate would be useful; and if any special legislation was required for the Church they should rather begin at the other end of the scale, and redress the gross

    1643
    injustice which was done to a section of the clergy, who were very much harder worked and very much underpaid than the Bishops. He asked whether the four dioceses which it was sought to divide by that Bill, were the only dioceses the Bishops of which were hard-worked, or whether that Bill was to be the beginning of the creation of Bishops Session after Session, which would open up by no means a cheerful prospect. The Bill was not needed for purely spiritual purposes, and still less for the sake of political influence of the Bishops. That legislation appeared to be part of the policy of making things pleasant to every interest which had been adopted by the Government ever since they had been in Office. The Established Church was to have its turn, and that Bill was presented as a kind of compensation or antidote for the Public Worship Regulation Act, which a few years ago gave considerable umbrage to certain sections of the clergy. That was a reactionary measure, because it was a piece of legislation contrary to the general drift of public opinion, which was moving in another direction than that of the connection between the Church and the State'; and with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite he ventured to think that it would not be one of those measures which the country at large would approve.
    MR. SANDEESONsaid, that the remark of the hon. Member that Dissenters had subscribed towards the restoration of parish churches was quite correct, and this showed that there was no antagonism to the Church on the part of Dissenters. Especially was this the case in Yorkshire, where none had been shown to the Bishopric of "Wakefield, and very little to that of Halifax. The Bishop of Ripon was known to be a hard-working Prelate, and one who had given no offence to the Dissenting Bodies, and he desired simply to be relieved of a portion of his work. It was to effect that desired end that a sum of £20,000 had already been raised in the district for the formation of a fresh diocese. The money had been obtained by voluntary means, and the position of Church and State not being altered by the Bill, he should vote for going into Committee. He trusted hon. Members would not further oppose the Bill.
    MR. DILLWYNdenied that there was any desire either on the part of the public generally, or Churchmen in particular, for that Bill. He himself, as a member of the Church of England, would oppose the creation of more Bishops. Of course, in all parts there were people who wanted a new Bishop, but the feeling was by no means general. There was a Low Church Party and a High Church. Party, who did not love each other much, and who had each their feelings in respect of the selection of Bishops. The public prints professing to represent the different sections of the Church gave utterance to diverse views. The Record, representing the Low Church, said Bishops were by no means popular, and that the present Bill would introduce a sacerdotal and Romanizing element into the Church. This showed that that Party were not very anxious for more Bishops. The Church Times, which represented the High Church, said the Bishops were not loved in the Church, nor respected by one party in the Church. In our day, they said, the Bishops had never laboured for the good of the Church, either in or out of Parliament. On these grounds he trusted the Government would not press the Bill at this late period of the Session. He deemed it a great mistake to suppose that the desire for more Bishops was by any means general. In the present state of dissension in the Church it surely was not wise to increase the number of the higher officers of that Establishment. It was fraught with danger to the public at large, and would not be conducive to the interests of the Church itself. He trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would not pursue the Bishopric question to the bitter end, and so prolong the Session, as it would undoubtedly do.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was surprised at the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who considered himself a Churchman, doing everything in his power to injure the Church to which he professed to belong.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had never desired to injure the Church; but the Church itself, and the connection between Church and State, were two very different things.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was not quite sure that a man who proceeded on the lines which the hon.

    1645
    Gentleman followed was not doing what in him lay to injure the Church in the great work which it was doing in this country. As for himself, he had opposed the Bill of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), because he thought that so long as there was a connection between Church and State, which he hoped would long continue, any Bill affecting the Church should be brought in by a Minister of the Crown. He was not himself in favour of a great increase of Bishops; but as to the Bill before the House, it would only carry into effect that which his right hon. Friend said he would do. It should be borne in mind that Bishops were the heads of the Church, and that, originally, only a certain number were appointed; but since then the population had increased so enormously that their work had become more than double that which it was in former days. Nobody, he might add, could fairly say that the Bishops of the present day did not to the best of their ability perform the work which they were appointed to discharge. He regretted, however, that the Bill could not have been brought forward at an earlier period, of the Session. If these four additional Bishops were made, he believed no more would be required for many years to come. It was very natural that the large towns should require to have more Bishops. It had been said that throughout the country there was indifference on this subject He was bound to admit that there was apathy and indifference; and he was exceedingly sorry to say that that apathy and indifference had been largely occasioned by practices within the Church which he, for one, could not too emphatically condemn, although they were, he rejoiced to think, diminishing. He had also read with the deepest pain and regret a judgment which was given on Thursday in a Court of Law; but he had also read —and with great satisfaction—the lucid, clear, and common-sense judgment of Mr. Justice Lush on the same occasion. In conclusion, he would express his hope that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, while bringing in a Bill to increase the number of Bishops, would take care to introduce any Amendments which experience might show to be required for the amendment of the Public Worship Re-
    1646
    gulation Act, which had been passed a year or two ago; because everything should, he thought, be done to put a stop to practices which were undermining a Church to which we owed so many blessings in the past. If it was necessary, amendments should be made, in order that there might be no doubt that the offenders against the law would be brought to justice.
    MR. HOPWOODtrusted the Opposition would be as determined as were the supporters of the Bill. Why was this unhappy Church bound to come to such a sectarian Assembly as the House of Commons, in order to appoint its officers? If he did not protest on every opportunity against a State Church, he should not be doing his duty. If it was severed from the State he believed it would receive more popular support, and would be stronger than at present. If, instead of bringing in this Bill, those who supported it had proceeded to remedy glaring defects, they would have been much more usefully employed. The Public Worship Regulation Act, for example, required much re-consideration, as was shown by the upsetting of the dictum of the Ecclesiastical Courts by the Courts of Common Law. He suggested that the best way of proceeding in favour of the Church would have been to amend the Public Worship Regulation Act and the ceremony of congé d'élire. He could not but contrast the zeal of the Government in passing this Bill, about which nobody cared, and their neglect in not passing the Magistrates (Summary Jurisdiction) Bill. Had the latter Bill passed—and it would not have taken a third of the time to pass it that this Bill would have taken—30,000 persons last year, and 30,000 persons this, would not have been sent to gaol, and an amount of misery and corruption would have been prevented which it was shocking to contemplate. He was very sorry to see the Bill being pressed forward as it was.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORthought the general opinion among Churchmen and Dissenters alike was that the Bill was not wanted. With regard to what his constituents would say, he knew that if the matter were discussed in the workshops of Leicester, and it was asked— "What have our Representatives been doing on that Friday afternoon, the 9th. August?" and the answer was, ''Making more Bishops"—the statement would be

    1647
    received with a roar of inextinguishable laughter. He should vote against the Bill.
    MR. COURTNEY,in opposing the Bill, said, his experience led him to believe that the proposal to create new Bishoprics did not meet with anything like unanimous approval among the lay members of the Church of England themselves. It certainly did not at Cambridge, and he felt sure that any proposal to make it the See of a Bishop would meet with universal dissatisfaction. The new Bishopric of Truro had created in that neighbourhood anything but a feeling of enthusiasm; and a Cornish clergyman had informed him that they looked with regret upon the severance of the diocese from Exeter. He could not help thinking that a morbid activity among the Bishops had created a degeneracy among the parsons, who were continually running to their Bishops, like a child ran to its nurse, and their spiritual fathers, instead of teaching them to look after their own business, encouraged them in it. He felt sure that if the Bishops would stick to their business as in former days, there would be no necessity for increasing their number. It was true that the population in the dioceses had increased; but so had the means of communication between the cathedral cities and the most remote parts of the dioceses, so that a Bishop could now place himself in communication with any of his clergy in a much more rapid manner than he could when his diocese was less populous. Bishops were now making themselves as common in England as they were in the Colonies, till by-and-bye we should have no respect for them whatever. He objected to the creation of more Bishops for precisely the same reason as operated with him in disliking the disestablishment of the Church. The more Bishops they created, the more would the influence of the Bishops be increased, and it was an influence which he could not look upon with any favour. He also objected to the Bill on the ground that it would give the Ecclesiastical element too great a preponderance in the Church in the event of its being disestablished.
    SIR JAMES M'GAEEL-HOGGsaid, that if he had been of opinion that this Bill was not a wise one, his view with regard to it would have been altogether changed by what he had seen of the
    1648
    earnestness and the zeal of the Bishop of Truro, which had had the effect of improving the whole spiritual life of his district. The new cathedral would be a credit to the city of Truro and to the country. He protested against those who were members of the Church raising their voices against people putting their hands in their pockets to support the Church. £50,000 had already been subscribed towards the expense of building it, but £20,000 more was required; and he should be glad if the hon. Member for Liskeard would put his hand in his pocket and give a handsome sum towards the fund. He thought the Cornish clergyman alluded to by the hon. Member as objecting to the establishment of the diocese must indeed be a unique specimen of the order.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 38: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 255.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed, to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title); and Clause 2 (Public contribution to endowment fund), agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Contribution to endowment fund from existing Bishopric).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in moving the omission of the clause, said, that his Amendment was one of a series placed upon the Paper with a view to a compromise. He had not the slightest objection to the principle of the Bill, and was willing that the Church itself should have as many new Bishops as it was willing to pay for. The Government had not shown any inclination to accept his Amendment, and he had therefore voted against the Bill. He strongly objected to the application of public funds to the creation of new Bishoprics, and the money would be wanted for other purposes by the Church, whether disestablished or not. He especially objected to one argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who defended the Bill on the principle of "pity the poor Bishops," saying that they were overworked, and that, in mercy and fairness, they ought to pass the Bill. He (Sir George Campbell) was affected by hear-

    1649
    ing of the amount of work which, they had to get through; but he was also much struck by the fact that while it was proposed to relieve them of a large proportion of their work, they were to continue to receive the whole of their pay, with the exception of the small amount to be contributed towards the endowment of the new Bishoprics. This seemed to him an absolutely monstrous position to assume with regard to the Bishops. He was not aware that there had been any popular excitement, or wish expressed, in favour of the Bill; and, therefore, for the reasons he had given, he begged leave to move the omission of the clause. He trusted the Government would accept that Amendment, in order to prevent, at that period of the Session, the opposition which was threatened to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted from the Bill."—(Sir George Campbell)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, with respect to a remark that had been made, to the effect that the Bishops were not only to lose a part of their duties, but to keep the whole of their salaries, he must remind the Committee that, although it was not thought proper formally to take away by the Act, from the Bishops concerned, a portion of their income for the support of the new Sees, they had always shown themselves ready to contribute considerable sums annually for that purpose. In one case the Bishop of St. Albans gave up £500 a-year, and the Bishop of Exeter gave up £800 a-year; while the Bishop of Winchester gave up £500 a-year, besides his house in London. These facts, at all events, showed that the Bishops recently appointed had not followed the course pointed out by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. In the present instance, the Bishop of Durham had offered to give up £1,500 a-year, but that was not accepted, and he was to give up £1,000 annually. The monies derived from the various sources were all to be invested upon trust for the particular benefit of the respective dioceses.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, the objection taken to the clause by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was a most substantial one, and had not been met by any sufficient explanation on the part of the Home Secretary. He (Mr. J. Cowen) repeated the argument,
    1650
    that the clause was a proposal to deal with public money to a considerable amount, and as such a proper subject for discussion.
    MR. CHILDERSconfessed that he should have preferred to see Church reform commenced at the opposite end— that was to say, not by the creation of fresh Bishops, much as they were wanted, but by getting rid of the anomalies existing in the Church with regard to livings and the stipends of the poorer clergy. But he thought the clause was valuable, for the very reason that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had objected to it— namely, that it embodied the principle of allowing the stipends of the clergy to be increased or diminished at its will by Parliament, which might hereafter be usefully applied on a larger scale in matters of Church reform. He was, therefore, in favour of the clause, and trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. E. JENKINSthought the objection to the clause which had been raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was one that could not be met; and if hon. Members on the other side felt annoyed that objection should be taken to the disposal of national funds in the manner proposed by the Bill, hon. Members who opposed it could, of course, reply that they were simply exercising a right inherent in them, and one which was admitted by the Bill itself. They had no objection whatever that the laity of the Church of England, in conjunction with the Ecclesiastical authorities and clergy, should agree to the creation of new Bishops, provided that there was no attempt in doing so to deal with the existing funds of the Church, and provided that the funds required were obtained simply and solely by voluntary contribution. He ventured to suggest, with reference to the clause, a great improvement, and one which he thought the Home Secretary would be willing to accept. The wording of the clause was—
    "There shall be transferred to the endowment of any new bishopric mentioned in the schedule to this Act such portion of the endowment or income of the existing bishopric mentioned in the schedule to this Act in connection with that new bishopric, (which existing bishopric is in this Act referred to as a contributory bishopric,) as is in the said schedule in that behalf mentioned."

    1651
    He would suggest that, instead of saying that the sum mentioned " shall be transferred to the endowment of any new Bishopric," they should take the latter words of the previous clause, and say—
    "There shall be transferred to the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the benefit of the poorer clergy, such portion of the endowment or income of the existing Bishopric mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, &c."
    He judged from the smile of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton Cross) that the proposal was one with which he cordially agreed, and one upon which hon. Members opposite, who entertained strong views, would be willing to forego their objections for the benefit of the poorer clergy. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his suggestion would not be better than the proposal to deal with the funds of the Bishoprics for the purpose of creating new Bishops? He ventured to move, after line 25, page 1, to insert a new clause, worded in accordance with his suggestion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in proposing to amend the clause after the clause has been put to the Committee.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwould be extremely happy to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) if the Government were willing to accept the latter Amendment. He had no doubt that the proposal would meet both his wish and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who was desirous to make provision for the poor clergy. He could not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman, however, because his proposal was to do evil in order that good might come; for, in effect, he said —"Let us submit to an iniquity, because the clause establishes the principle of dealing with public funds, which may be usefully applied hereafter." He (Sir George Campbell) held that beyond all doubt Parliament could deal with the Ecclesiastical funds. Far be it from him to suggest that the Bishops were not extremely respectable men; but unless the Government were willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, he should be compelled to persevere in his opposition to the clause.
    MR. HOPWOODwas pleased to hear from so high an authority as the right
    1652
    hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract that the clause went in a direction in which many hon. Members might like to go at a future period. Prom the instances of distinguished men who had already shown their willingness to give up a portion of their incomes for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Bill, he had no doubt that those who had not yet done so would be ready to testify their assent by giving up the amount required by this clause. But that was not the point of the opposition which had been raised. The clause would always remain as evidence, to be referred to in case of need, that a Conservative Government had brought in this principle of dealing with the national funds. He considered that the income might be applied very properly to the removal of scandals existing within the Church fabric; and, surely, some of the funds could be devoted to these purposes, while the new Bishoprics might be allowed to depend on what, after all, was their great strength—the affections of those who desired to contribute towards them? He could not support the clause, which, in his opinion, would have the mischievous effect of considerably increasing the number of the Bishops, who, when disestablishment arrived, would make that appeal on behalf of vested interests which had been so powerful in the case of another Church.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the principle of dealing with Ecclesiastical funds had long since been sanctioned, and that the whole organization of the Ecclesiastical Commission depended upon it, the Commissioners having to take in hand the endowments of Bishoprics and distribute the funds, after paying certain stipends to the Bishops, among the inferior clergy. He would rather have to deal with six Bishops having £5,000 a year each, than with 10 Bishops having £3,000 a-year. He did not want an increased number of Bishops, but a better article; or, in other words, better work in exchange for better pay. He objected to the principle of applying a portion of the endowments of the present Bishoprics to the multiplication of Bishops, and should support the Amendment.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, as he could not at the present moment move his Amendment, he should do so on Report.

    1653
    He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to strike out the clause. If all was true that they had heard from hon. Members opposite, there was in the Church of England sufficient wealth, vitality, and vigour to induce it to provide whatever money might be necessary for the endowment of the new Bishoprics. On the other hand, if the Bishops had any money to spare, if they could part with a considerable portion of their incomes without being seriously affected by so doing, one could not help feeling that the money could be applied to much more useful purposes than the creation of more Ecclesiastics. There existed in the Church a very strong feeling with regard to the manner in which the present Ecclesiastics did their duty. It had been shown, by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that there was not a shadow of doubt that the way in which the existing Bishops discharged their duties did not meet with general approval. The truth of the matter was, that the only opportunity possessed by the laity of taking a proper part in Church matters was in such discussion as they could have through their Representatives on the floor of the House. It was in that House only that the layman could have any influence upon the affairs of the Church; and he exhorted all present to exert their influence on that part of the Bill which dealt with the Ecclesiastical funds. The opportunity of doing so was a rare one. There was in the Church of England no such thing to be met with as what was often found in other Church organizations—namely, the proper representation of the laity in Church affairs. And the truth was, that doctrines were laid down, and were being supported by laymen—who ought to have been willing to stand by the old principles for which their fathers fought —that no one should attempt to interfere with Church concerns; that the Church consisted of Bishops and clergy only; and that laymen were simply to receive from them sermons, and to become the servants of the great sacerdotal class. While such doctrines were held in the Church the Committee, he thought, ought to hesitate before creating new Bishops, who might be instrumental in promulgating them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the omission of the clause, and
    1654
    throw the whole scheme back upon the offerings of the laity of the proposed dioceses. That would be the best proof of the desire of the laity for new Bishoprics. If it was true that they were so anxious to have additional Bishoprics, he would say let them ask for them and pay for them. The evidence upon all hands, however, was that the laity looked upon this Bill with suspicion. That was also the feelings of some hon. Members opposite, who had spoken to him about the Bill, and who, if he mistook not, absented themselves from the divisions upon it because they could not support it. Once more he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to this clause being struck out, and so allow the Bill to pass. If the clause was retained, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill by every means in his power.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not wish to continue the discussion on the point whether this was on all fours with the original substitution of fixed stipends for uncertain emoluments in the case of the Bishops. His reason for rising again was to point out to his hon. Friends that if the clause was left out simpliciter, the only effect would be to leave the Bishops of Chester, Lincoln, Lichfield, and Ripon in possession of their present salaries with much less work to do, which he did not suppose was the object in view. He would suggest, therefore, that the clause should not be struck out.
    MR. HOPWOODobserved, that the difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman was not insuperable, as the money might be dealt with by subsequent Amendments, and be applied to the increase of stipends, the reward of meritorious services, and so forth.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 80; Noes 28: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 256.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Establishment of Bishopric on provision of sufficient endowment).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "three," and insert "one." The proposal of the Bill, he observed, was to fix the salary of a Bishop at a

    1655
    minimum—£3,500 a-year. The Government, in other words, seemed to consider a Bishop an institution of so dignified a character that he could not exist on less than £3,500 a-year. Now, that was not his (Sir George Campbell's) view at all. He thought that if they wanted to get a certain amount of Episcopal work done they ought to go into the Bishop market, and ascertain at what price they could get a man to do it efficiently and trustworthily. Why should Bishops necessarily be few and. dignified? He, for his part, was in favour of having many Bishops and of getting them as cheap as possible. As a Presbyterian, he was not prepared to admit that the Apostles were Bishops at all; but admitting that they were, he was quite sure they did not receive anything like £3,500 a-year. There was no country in the world where Bishops were so highly paid as in England; yet the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church abroad were not usually supposed to be wanting in dignity. Instead of £3,500, it seemed to him that a minimum salary of £1,500 would be ample under the Bill. There were many excellent and well-qualified clergymen who would be very glad indeed to become Bishops on those terms. He begged, accordingly, to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that was to say, to reduce the minimum salary of the Bishops to be appointed under the Bill from £3,500 to £1,500 a-year.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, to leave out the word "three," in order to insert the word "one."— (Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HOPWOODquite agreed with his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) that the virtue of a Bishop did not consist in his salary being £3,500 a-year. He believed there were many excellent Suffragan Bishops who did their work admirably for much less—perhaps only one-third of that sum. In a letter to The Times, many years ago, a member of the Church of England pointed out how much religion suffered from the fine linen and purple of the Prelates of the day, and suggested that Parliament should create a certain number of what he called "gig Bishops"—that
    1656
    was to say, Bishops who, instead of keeping carriages, would drive about in gigs like travellers on business. The proposal of the writer had this bearing on the question now under discussion— that it seemed to point to the possibility of obtaining men of capacity, of goodness, and of true religious feeling, to do the work of Bishops at a less figure than £3,500 a-year. For that reason, he felt inclined to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSreminded the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that they were living in the England of the present day, and that a great deal had to come out of the pockets of the Bishops, besides what was necessary for their own maintenance. They entertained the clergy, and contributed largely to good works in their dioceses, and had to attend in their places in the other House of Parliament. Having regard to all these circumstances, he did not think it practical to give them less than was proposed in the Bill.
    MR. E. JENKINS,having an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the minimum salary of the Bishops to £2,500 a-year, which he would probably move, in the event of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) being defeated, explained that it would be proposed later on to relieve the new Bishops from the duty of sitting in the House of Lords—a duty which not a few very sincere members of the Church of England thought they ought not to have. There might be no objection raised to existing Bishops retaining in the House of Lords the seats which they had inherited from ancient times—at all events, no objection until the revolutionary feeling had taken greater hold of the country; but it was a very wrong thing, indeed, to invite new Bishops to leave their dioceses, where it was said there was so much work for them, and come up to spend the season in London, wasting their hours in the Athenæum Club, and worrying his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). But, said the right hon. Gentleman opposite, Bishops had to spend a great deal of money in entertaining their clergy. Well, he would ask the Committee whether they remembered a certain Bishop who, in an epistle to some people amongst whom he had been working with great success,

    1657
    remarked that amongst them he had received nothing, and that he had been obliged to work with his own hands to maintain himself in his diocese? He was not aware whether certain hon. Members opposite were prepared to disapprove the manner in which that great Bishop, the Apostle Paul, carried out his work; but he thought it right to point out, in passing, that the Bishops of the present day had not succeeded to the spirit, if they had succeeded to the position, of the ancient Apostles. As for the entertainment which the Bishops offered to their clergy, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to a pamphlet, written, he believed, by a clergyman, complaining that in a particular parish, not in remote parts of Cornwall or Cumberland, but between two market towns and railway stations, no Bishop or Archdeacon had been known to set his foot since the consecration of the church, sometime in the reign of William the Conqueror. From this it would appear that there were Bishops who, at all events, did not travel over the whole of their dioceses. The writer also referred to the fact that Bishops wasted their time in London. He said they ought to live amongst the clergy; and that if they did so they would discover many a gem which now sparkled unseen, while men who had no other qualification than that of going gadding about the country, speaking here and there, were promoted by their Bishop, always supposing the latter had no relative, or son, more worthy. These sentiments might offend hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he begged them to observe that they were not his, but those of earnest reformers within the Church itself, anxious to see the Church made a really spiritual institution. A Bishop ought not to be able to absent himself from work, on the plea that he had to attend Parliament. When required to take part in any particular debate, said the writer already quoted, he could easily attend in these railway days. London, it was added, was not the place for an idle man, whether priest or layman. Well, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) ventured to point out that a Bishop had no right whatever to be an idle man, and that they should not give him a salary which would tempt him to be so. He, himself, would have the greatest difficulty in spending £3,500 a-year, except
    1658
    by indulging in an amount of state which certainly ought not to be expected of a Bishop. Why the right hon. Gentleman should imagine it necessary for Bishops—especially when he knew that temperance was spreading in their ranks —to give luxurious entertainment to the clergy, he confessed he could not conceive. Nothing could more seriously tend to diminish the respect due to a Bishop for his spiritual functions than the idea that he was a Lord of Parliament with a large salary, driving his carriage, and living like a well-to-do Peer rather than a simple servant of Christ. £600, £800, or £1,000 a-year, was quite enough to maintain a Bishop who simply wished to do his duty, and not to make a show and take his part in the legislation of the State. He hoped the Bishops of this Bill would be model Bishops, who would help to save the Church from destruction, and with that view he trusted the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be adopted.
    MR. J. COWEN,in support of the Amendment, said, that in Roman Catholic countries the Roman Catholic Church was respected and trusted by the people, although its Bishops were not paid in anything like the same proportion as those of the Church of England. Indeed, he believed that one reason why the Church of England had so small a hold on the people was, that between its high functionaries and the people there existed so great a gulf. No Church in modern times had received stronger popular support than the Free Church of Scotland, yet the ministers of that Church had only an average income of £300 a-year and their manses. With the examples of the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Church of Scotland before his eyes, he could not help thinking that the excessive payment proposed to be given to these new Bishops would tend to diminish rather than increase their influence.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 22: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 257.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid., that his remaining Amendments upon this clause were consequential upon that which had just been negatived, and

    1659
    therefore he did not intend to press them upon the Committee.
    MR. E. JENKINSmoved, in page 2, line 18, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the following words:—
    "When it shall have been certified to Her Majesty's Secretary of State by the archbishop of the province in which the intended bishopric is situated, that a majority of the clergy and parishioners, within the area comprised in either of the proposed dioceses in the Schedules of this Act respectively, have applied for separation from their existing dioceses, and are desirous of the founding of a new bishopric within and over such area."
    This Amendment contained a very important principle, and he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, after what he had said with reference to the desirability of consulting the views of the members of the Church of England upon this subject, should object to accept it. It would be seen, on looking at the terms of the Amendment, that its object was to ascertain, first of all, from, those people who would be most interested in these proposed changes, whether or not they really desired them to be made. As he could not see any reason for objecting to the Amendment, he should not advance all the arguments he might use in its support, because perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary intended to adopt it. At all events, he should leave the matter where it stood for the present; and he would be content to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to insert in the Bill some words which would make it sure that those people who did not wish to be Bishoped upon might have an opportunity of expressing their dissent from the proposed change before it was carried into effect? He should, therefore, now merely move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that in seconding the Amendment, he wished to say a few words in favour of the view of the hon. Member who had moved it. In Clause 3, which had just been agreed to, Her Majesty's Government had shown an anxiety to protect the rights of the property which was to be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill, and the clause was drawn so as to protect the rights of all persons interested. That was just what the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) proposed
    1660
    by his Amendment to do with regard to the feelings, in place of the purses, of those interested in these changes—persons having spiritual souls—which were to be dealt with under the terms of this Bill. In dealing with livings, souls were bought at so much per head. He would refer those hon. Members, who differed from him upon this point, to a series of letters touching upon this subject which had recently been published; and he had the authority of their author for saying that there was a good deal in the connection between Church and State which treated souls as a commodity which could be bought and sold. This Amendment was proposed in order to prevent souls being disposed of under the provisions of this Bill, without the individuals being consulted on the matter, and its language was intended to form some guarantee that those who, by affection and love for their diocese, and for its historical antecedents, were not desirous of being spiritually separated from it, should be enabled to express their view on the subject, and their desire to remain under the spiritual guidance and the fostering care of the Bishop who had hitherto watched over them. That such a desire on the part of those who resided in a diocese was not a mere visionary one, had been shown by what had occurred when the Bishopric of Winchester was divided. A considerable amount of feeling had been evoked on that occasion on the part of those who were transferred to the new diocese without their having been consulted on the matter. The people living on the other side of the water felt that a very heavy grievance had been inflicted upon them by the Act of Parliament. If he might judge by what had passed at public meetings about the time, and what had appeared in the public prints, a very large number of the persons so dealt with had remonstrated strongly against what had been done. He must enter his protest against this arbitrary mode of dealing with the religious attachments of people to any particular See, or to a cathedral, and he should support the Amendment with his vote if necessary.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the words—
    "When it shall have been certified to Her Majesty's Secretary of State by the archbishop

    1661
    of the province in which the intended bishopric is situated, that a majority of the clergy and parishioners, within the area comprised in either of the proposed dioceses in the Schedules of this Act respectively, have applied for separation from their existing dioceses, and are desirous of the founding of a new bishopric within and over such area."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not assent to the proposed Amendment, which, in his opinion, would be unworkable, there being no machinery in existence by which it could be carried into practical effect. There was no more reason for consulting parishioners on this subject than for consulting them in reference to the formation of a new parish or district. The parishioners had no vested right in their Bishop, who might be removed by the Queen without their assent. What happened at the division of the See of Winchester was that the people of Surrey manifested great anxiety to secure a Bishop for that county; but there were reasons which made it absolutely impossible to gratify the wish. He sincerely hoped the Committee would not adopt the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had answered his remarks showed how great was the necessity for adopting his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, and indeed had founded his main argument upon, the fact that Her Majesty had the power to appoint and to remove Bishops without the assent of the people of the diocese.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that what he did say was that the Queen had power to remove a Bishop from a particular diocese without consulting the parishioners.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that was precisely the same thing that he had asserted—namely, that the people of a diocese had, under the existing law, no power to enforce their objection to the removal of their Bishop. In the original constitution of the Christian Church Kings and Queens had no power to remove any of the Ecclesiastical officers, and it was an extraordinary thing that the Committee should be asked to give its assent at the present day to principles so Erastian as those contained in this
    1662
    Bill, and which were opposed to common sense. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that parishes were constantly being divided without the consent of the parishioners being obtained; but that was exactly what he complained of. Were the higher clergy and the State so intimately connected that the rights of the lower clergy and the laity were to be wholly ignored? They had been told that this Bill was to be passed for the benefit of the laity; but he had yet to learn that any man had a right to force a benefit down his throat. If he were content with things as they were, why should some new Bishop be forced into the diocese in which he lived whether he liked it or not. The more hon. Members opposite explained what was the exact nature of their views in forcing this Bill through the House the more would the country see what it was intended to effect, and what were the consequences that flowed from this connection between Church and State. Hon. Members opposite had indulged in a very cheap sneer at those who opposed that Bill, and he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex should have resorted to it. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to hint that the hon. Member below him (Mr. Dillwyn) was not a very trustworthy member of the Church of England. The hon. Member held very Liberal opinions, and his Christianity was far purer than that which rested upon Episcopacy and Erastianism. The Church of the hon. Member was not composed of the Bishops and clergy merely, but of the laity, the Bishops and clergy being merely the ministers to the laity of God's truth. It was this distinction between the principles of the two Churches that was raised by this Amendment. The Committee were asked to consider whether they were prepared to force down the spiritual throats of the people the spiritual superintendence of an exclusively Episcopalian character. He did not think that Parliament ought to sanction such a course as that being taken. Some hon. Members knew well enough what were the spiritual aspects of this question. He did not think that this was a question which could well be discussed in that House with anything like decency or propriety; because in countenancing that discussion the Committee would be exercising a sort of spiritual jurisdiction

    1663
    over the affairs of the Church. It was said that the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons were going to create new dioceses; but could anything be more monstrous than that in a State like this Parliament should be asked to create new Bishoprics in the Church of Christ? Was this what hon. Members opposite, who professed to be sincere Churchmen, and upheld the strictest doctrines of the Church, and supported the authority of a sacerdotal class, and believed in the efficacy of Apostolic succession, ought to approve? Ought they to admit the right of the Queen, of a number of Lords, and of the House containing, as it did, Members of the High and of the Low Church, and Jews, Turks, and Infidels, to interfere in purely Ecclesiastical matters? ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members did not appear to assent to his view—that the House contained Jews, Turks, and Infidels; but a large number of hon. Members might well be called Turks, because they had been very anxious to carry out a Turkish policy in this country. He intended to press this Amendment to a division, because he believed that it involved a great principle. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that it would be difficult to devise adequate machinery for ascertaining the views of the parishioners on the question of the proposed sub-division of their diocese; but he did not think that that difficulty was by any means insuperable. He presumed that the first difficulty would be to ascertain who were and who were not the laity of the Church of England. That was a very important matter; because Mr. Matthew Arnold, who was a very sincere Churchman, had declared that every single citizen of this country was a member of the Church of England. If that were so, there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the feeling of the laity of any particular parish on the question whether or not another Bishop was required. On the other hand, however, it might be contended that the general body of the laity were spiritually disabled from taking part in the question, and that only those who were communicants of the Church of England were entitled to have a voice in the matter. That, no doubt, was a difficulty; but it was one that ought to be faced, because it showed the anomalous character of this Bill. But supposing even that it was ad-
    1664
    mitted that only communicants of the Church of England were to be allowed to determine the question, there could be no difficulty in finding out who they were, and the clergy of each parish might hold a poll in the parish church, and make a return to the Archbishop, setting forth what the opinion of their parishioners on the subject was. No inconvenience would result from postponing this Bill until next year, to enable the right hon. Gentleman to draw up some scheme of the kind. There was no hurry in the matter, because these counties appeared to have got on very well under the existing state of things, and their spiritual condition did not seem to have deteriorated in consequence of the want of this additional Bishop. He felt that there was something almost like indecent haste in the way in which the Government were endeavouring to force forward this Bill, at the fag-end of a weary Session, and that there was something behind all this which had not come to light. In these circumstances, therefore, he should certainly press his Amendment to a division.
    MR. J. COWENsupported the Amendment, because he thought that it would simply give the laity an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to which King they should wish to reign over them. That was a principle which had been generally accepted, not only in this country, but throughout Europe. They were going to allow Bulgaria to elect her own Prince, and when a Province had been annexed to Prance some years ago the same principle was allowed to prevail, and the consent of the people was obtained before the annexation was assented to. The House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government had also acted upon that principle, in the Session of 1875, in passing the Bill which gave to the Scotch people the power of appointing their own ministers. It would be a most wise and judicious course to pursue to give the lay members of the Church of England a voice in this matter of the division of their dioceses, and thus to apply to the Church of England the same principle which had been applied to that of Scotland. Under the Bill the spiritual connection between Northumberland and Durham would be severed, without the people of either county being asked to give their consent

    1665
    to that step being taken, and thus a connection would be dissolved which they had every desire to perpetuate. He submitted that the principle of the Amendment was one that had been recognized by Europe in modern politics, and by the House of Commons and the Government in the Bill about the Scotch Church, and that, therefore, it should be acted upon in the present measure.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 71: Majority 52. — (Div. List, No. 258.)
    MR. HOPWOODmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to leave out from "If," in line 33, to "And," in line 36, remarking that the Bishop's house was very often called a palace, and therefore the idea got abroad that it was necessary to have a larger establishment and a grander house than he thought should be tolerated, if Parliament was to retain any control over a State Church. He observed that the clause, as it stood, made mention of a "fitting Episcopal residence;" but no mention was made of stables. When the See of Ripon was erected, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners sanctioned an expenditure of as much as £10,000 on stables for the use of the Bishop. Without intending any disrespect to the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he ventured to say that that was a most extravagant expenditure. In the clause now before the Committee, those who desired the erection of the new dioceses were called upon to provide a "fitting Episcopal residence" to the satisfaction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and a large scope was thus left to the Commissioners, who might think nothing was fitting unless it was a really grand place. The sum put down as the required value of the residence was £500 a-year, and it seemed to him that that was an enormous sum for a house in the country. As he understood it, a residence was to be provided the value of which was to be reckoned at £500 a-year. This operated in a vicious way for the Church, giving people the idea that nobody could preside over the administration of its doctrines and work without he lived in a very grand place, and was supported in very grand style.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Stockport
    1666
    (Mr. Hopwood) had put a wrong construction on the words. Their object was to diminish the amount of contribution which might be necessary on the formation of the new see. A fitting house was to be provided, and the object of these words was that if it was so provided, its value should be taken at £500 a-year, even though it might not be worth so much. There was not the slightest intention of providing "palaces" or anything of the kind; and he was quite sure that, in the present mind of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the hon. and learned Member need not disturb himself on that point. It was felt that there would be some difficulty in assessing the value of the house which was provided, and therefore it had been thought best to take its value at the fixed sum of £500 a-year. As to the necessity of providing a "fitting Episcopal residence," it was thought that it was best to require that before the erection of the see, as otherwise a Bishop might find it very inconvenient to find such a house as he might require.
    MR. J. COWENthought this was hardly a straightforward way of doing business. If the value of the house was taken at £500 a-year, the Bishop's salary would only be £3,000, and yet the house might not be worth more than £100 a-year.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was quite willing to trust the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the point.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it struck him that if a house could be found for £300 a-year, the Bishop would be discontented to have his salary "docked" to the extent of £500.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (The number of bishops sitting in Parliament not to be increased).
    MR. J. COWEN (for Mr. RYLANDS)moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, after "Act," to leave out to end of clause. The object of this Amendment, he said, was to prevent the Bishops created by the Bill from having seats in the House of Lords. He did not hope that any number of new arguments or facts adduced on his own side of the House would have the effect of converting the Government or hon. Mem-

    1667
    bers opposite. It was quite clear that the Government had bound themselves to pass the Bill, and that being the case at that period of the Session, there was no likelihood of its being altered, because any Amendment that might be made would go up to the House of Lords too late to admit of their re-consideration by the House of Commons. He did not hope, therefore, to induce the House to accept the Amendment; but he desired that those who agreed with him should have the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the principle involved. After the Reformed Parliament met in 1833, a Bill was introduced year after year by the late Mr. Rippon, then Member for Gates-head, with whom it was his (Mr. Cowen's) pleasure to be acquainted, having for its object the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords. Mr. Rippon got very little countenance from the Whigs of that day; but he (Mr. Cowen) observed that it elicited very little explanation of the reasons why they should continue to sit there, and the only justification which Lord Allthorpe could offer was that they were there for the purpose of defending and upholding the interests of the Church. He believed that was the case now, because the Bishops only attended the House of Lords when some attack was to be made on the Church; they took no special interest in the general legislation of the country, and if they did, their vote was always given for re-action, or in opposition to political, social, and commercial progress. He was not saying this in a Party sense; for he was well aware that some measures proposed by Conservatives were liberal, and others proposed by Liberals wore in their effect illiberal —he spoke in the broad sense applicable to Liberal principles — and in regard to these, the Representatives of the Church of England in the upper branch of the Legislature had invariably been the defenders of taxing the bread of the people, and of refusing to grant the liberties to the people which this House had agreed should be given. They voted against Free Trade, in favour of Slavery, and against a Reformed Parliament. That had been the universal policy of their votes. They were, however, very active when the interests of the Church of England were concerned; but when the disestablish-
    1668
    ment of the Church of Ireland came under consideration, anything more cowardly than the conduct of the Archbishops of England could not well be conceived. He did not imagine that anything he could say would convince the Home Secretary, and he simply moved the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley for the purpose of recording the opinion on his side of the House against the continuance of this clerical legislation.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Act," in page 3, line 15, to the end of the Clause. — (Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CHARLEYsaid, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), was generally so fair that he felt sorry to find that whenever the Bishops were mentioned he always flew into a passion. The hon. Member had made the extraordinary statement that the Bishops were always opposed to legislation which favoured the freedom of the people; he had said they voted in favour of Slavery; but he (Mr. Charley) would remind the Committee that they had voted against White Slavery — the slavery of women and children in mines—at a time when the Radical Party were upholding that system. This was an historical fact, which could be proved by reference to Hansard. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the conduct of the two English Archbishops in walking out of the House when a division was called in the House of Lords on the Irish Church Bill; but it ought to be remembered that those two Archbishops were Whigs; if they had been Conservatives, he was quite certain they would not have done so. There were reasons why the Bishops should sit in the House of Lords. It was of enormous advantage both to the clergy and laity, because it made the Bishops amenable to public opinion. The Bishops exercised extensive authority. In their seats in the House of Lords they could be questioned in the same way as a Secretary of State; it was of the greatest importance that they should not be allowed to hide themselves away in their dioceses, but be made amenable to public opinion. There was strong ground for

    1669
    retaining the Bishops in the House of Lords, and he thought it was unfortunate that the Bill made no provision for an increase in their number. It was undesirable that the stereotyped number of 26 should be retained for all time. Before the Reformation, the number of Lords Spiritual greatly exceeded the number of Lay Peers, and he could see no reason why the number of Bishops sitting in the Upper House should not be raised to the number at which it stood before the passing of the Irish Church Act. Why should not the four seats then lost to the Church be now restored? He objected to the adoption of the principle that the number of the Bishops should not be increased. The effect of the clause as it stood was that the junior Bishops who were in the prime of life could not sit in the House of Lords; while the older members of the Episcopate, who might from age and infirmity be not so well able to perform their legislative functions, retained their places.
    MR. E. JENKINSthought the argument advanced by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Charley) was a convincing proof that there were political dissensions among Bishops. He desired to call attention to the fact, as demonstrated by his hon. and learned Friend, that Bishops could possibly have their views operated upon by political considerations. There could be no doubt whatever that those Ecclesiastics who sat in the House of Lords guided their conduct-just as they had been appointed by this or that Minister of the day. He could conceive nothing more disgraceful, or nothing more dishonouring to the Church of Christ, than such a state of things; and he protested against the House, by this Act, once more registering the degradation of the Christian Bishopric. Questions of money they might get over; questions whether these Bishops were to ride in carriages and to live in handsome palaces might be looked upon as trifling by the side of the consideration, whether or not the Church of England was entitled to stand up as a Spiritual Church, with a Head which was the Head of the State, and governed by Bishops who were appointed as the political representatives of those who happened to sit on the front Benches of that House, or of the House of Lords? This led to an organized system of Eras-
    1670
    tianism. He would ask the House whether it was any longer possible to maintain such an absolute anomaly, which was un-Christian in its conception, and which, in its working, tended to degrade the Christian Church in the eyes of the people? It was not any Party feeling or jealousy of the Church which had prompted these observations; but a conviction, on his part, that a Church which was governed by political functionaries thus appointed could not do its spiritual duty either to the State or the people. These observations had been called forth by the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, that the Archbishops walked out of the House of Lords when a division was called on the Irish Church Bill because they were Whigs. Then his hon. and learned Friend had said that one reason why the Bishops should remain in the House of Lords was in order that they might be amenable to public opinion. But hon. Members on the other side of the House objected to the introduction into this discussion of the views of men who were not members of the Church; therefore, what became of his argument? What formed public opinion? No one would admit sooner than his hon. and learned Friend that public opinion was only half formed by the Churchmen of this country; to an enormous extent it was influenced by those who were Dissenters and protesters against the Church in its political aspect. Did his hon. and learned Friend mean that the Bishops of the Church of England, who put forward large claims of sanctity and of Apostolical succession, should be made amenable to the opinions of all the Atheists and Nonconformists of the country? The position of a Bishop, then, had come to this—that he was asked to sit in the House of Lords in order that he might be made amenable to public opinion. But he wished further to point out that attendance of the Bishops in the House of Lords absolutely precluded them from doing their duty. If there was any good reason why a Bishop should sit in the House of Lords, he ought to exercise his judgment on every question which came before the House, in the same way as other Peers did, and be prepared, at the same time, to bring his influence to bear upon the legislation of the country. But he was saying that they did not do their

    1671
    duty, and he could show the Committee that Bishop after Bishop had failed to put in force those powers which had been placed in his hands by the Public Worship Regulation Bill. They found that in all legislation that would really go to the root of the reformation of the Church, the Bishops were afraid to touch it, because they feared they would have the Church about their ears. He could understand a Bishop saying— "Let right be done, though the Church come about our ears; " or, in the words of the Latin proverb—"Fiat justitia; ruat cœlum." But it was the reverse. If one Bishop tried to lay his hands on that monstrosity, the sale of livings, none of the others were willing to help him; and with regard to those Acts which it was necessary to pass in order to stop the illegalities and want of discipline in the Church among the clergy, he was bound to say that they would have the greatest difficulty in inducing anything like a proper number of Bishops to unite in introducing and carrying that healthy legislation, and they knew that the reason of that was that they were tainted with the very principles that they were asked to excise and exclude from the Church. There wore other arguments which could be used; but he preferred letting people see that they on his side of the House were simply weighed down by a mechanical majority. He preferred that the country should mark the method in which that legislation had been brought in. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to read that article in the leading journal of that morning, if he wanted to get a significant idea of what the opinion of the country was. They, taking their stand upon principles which they believed to be true and right, must leave it to posterity to judge of their actions.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not question the right of any hon. Member to interfere in the debates in that House in every possible way. He had not the slightest objection to it. But he did not think that, at the present moment he ought to follow the Mover of the Amendment into the question of whether the Bishops ought to have seats in the House of Lords or not. That was not the question before the House; but he promised that he would be prepared to meet the hon. Member
    1672
    upon the point whenever the proper opportunity should arise. The simple question now was, what was to become of these four Bishops? Were they to be admitted to the House of Lords, in addition to the number already there? To that he must confess that he did not think they should. He thought that the number of Bishops in the House of Lords ought not to be increased for some time at least. They had settled that practically in the Manchester see, and that precedent had been followed in the case of St. Alban's and Truro. They were only following the same precedent now. Well, that disposed of that part of the question. Then, on the other hand, were they to be shut out of Parliament altogether? Were they never to have seats in the House of Lords? He thought that would be a state of things that would neither be wise nor proper; for there would, undoubtedly, be a feeling raised in the country that there were two classes of Bishops, and one class might be looked upon as being in a different position from the other. Under those circumstances, why should they not follow the precedents they had established in the cases of Manchester, St. Alban's, and Truro? They were not then discussing the question of whether Bishops should have seats in the House of Lords or not. That was a question which he hoped the Committee would not be led into. He was not at all certain that it was not a good thing that the younger Bishops should not be in the House of Lords for the first year or so of their office, because they would be able to gain a most intimate knowledge of their dioceses before they went there. As to what had been said about the House of Lords taking the Bishops away from their dioceses, he did not think that was the case by any means. He hoped the Committee would not wander into the wider question; but simply consider the mode in which these four Bishops were to be dealt with.
    MR. HUTCHINSONsaid, he should be very much astonished if he heard any hon. Gentleman rising to charge a Dissenter with impropriety in opposing that Bill. The very name of the Church implied that every citizen born within the State was a member of it. The clergy had been called the ecclesiastical side of the Civil Service,

    1673
    and it was because that definition had a certain degree of propriety in it, that they had a right to discuss the question as if it affected them all, individually and separately. Now, hon. Gentlemen opposite had complained a short time ago that some personal feeling had been shown in the debate. It was impossible that a Bill of that kind should be introduced, running counter to the views and feelings of so many persons, without some acrimony being introduced into the discussion. He considered that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had shown great fairness and moderation in the observations he had made, and he thought they ought rather to be approved than blamed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, there was a very easy way out of the difficulty with regard to the Bishops. If they were too hard worked to attend to their dioceses, and to their Parliamentary duties, surely their obvious course would be to relieve them of a portion of their duty. Let them be relieved of their political functions, and devote themselves to high ecclesiastical matters. They would have plenty to do to conduct affairs in their own dioceses, and they might leave Parliament to manage political matters which were infinitely beneath their notice. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the difficulty which would arise if there should be two sets of Bishops. But that difficulty was in existence at that moment. There were Prelates outside the House of Lords at that moment engaged in the not very dignified office of waiting for dead men's shoes. The Bill proposed to increase the number of those Bishops who were in that position. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charley), had been a very good comment upon the observations he (Mr. Hutchinson) had made some time ago—namely, that this Bill might be the prelude to an annual batch of Bishops. They had heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that all Bishops ought to have seats in the House of Lords, and in proportion as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary increased the number of Bishops, he made the comparison of those outside the House with those in much greater and more offensive.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the Government seemed determined to pass the Bill. He thought that they who opposed
    1674
    the Bill were not doing bad service to the Government and to those hon. Gentlemen who stayed to hear the debate out, in the sense of educating them. Some home truths had been pronounced that evening, and he dared say they would not all be received with disbelief, but would sink deep into their hearer's minds. The reason he objected to the clause before them was that it formed a process of argument in a circle. A while ago, when they were discussing another clause, it was said—"You will have these Bishops in the House of Lords, and you must support them by much larger incomes." It had occurred to him that it might be well to wait till they reached the present clause, and see whether the good sense of Parliament would not determine to take away the incentive to luxurious livings and large incomes. But when the Home Secretary said that they should not wander at large into the whole question, he would ask, how could they help going into the question of the Bishops in the House of Lords? They had had an account given of them by one hon. Member, and he was sure that history would bear him out in saying that in past generations the Bishops had not been very particular as to the principle on which they gave their votes, and even some of the present generation were determined to vote according to Party instincts. He belonged to a body of men who might be demoralized in the same way. If they were to put all the Judges into the House of Lords, simply by virtue of their appointment as Judges, they would have the scandal of political connections influencing their votes. But how much greater was the scandal when it was applied to those who, by the very office they filled, were supposed to be superior to all such inferior considerations. He felt bound, on these grounds, to support his hon. Friend in his Amendment, and he did so in the fear that if the clause were carried there would be two sorts or kinds of Bishops, besides those who, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, were already waiting outside the House of Lords for admission within its doors. There were the Suffragan Bishops, and so far as their ordination was concerned, and the sanctity of their office, he supposed they stood on a footing of equality with those to whom were assigned the Par-

    1675
    liamentary distinction. Well, if they found that such men could perform their high office to the satisfaction of those over whom they were placed, why should they fear if those Bishops were kept out of the House of Lords? They would never feel the want, which it was supposed they might feel, if the prospect were once held out to them and then taken away. He could only suppose that if a fresh batch of Bishops was to be created from time to time, they would be forced to resort to some such imitation of the congé d 'élire as the election among the Bishops of a man to represent them in the House of Lords. That was the tendency the Bill would create.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 22: Majority 40. — (Div. List, No. 259.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Supplemental Provisions.
    Clause 6 (Appointment of bishop of new bishopric).
    MR. MONK,regretting the absence of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton), moved the Amendment which stood in his name, which was in page 3, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words—
    "So long as there is not a dean and chapter of any new bishopric founded in pursuance of this Act."
    The clause involved the re-enactment of the congé d'élire. In the case of the Bishops of St. Albans and Truro, who were appointed by Letters Patent from the Crown, the Government and Parliament had entirely given up the principle of the congé d'élire in this country in the same way that it had been given up in Ireland ever since the second year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and as the Government had acknowledged that there was no principle involved in the congé d'élire, he could not see why they should place in the Bill any machinery for re-enacting it. When the first of these Bills—that for creating the Bishopric of St. Albans—was before the House, he had raised this very question, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had said that this was a very proper subject to bring before the House; but he thought it would be done much better in the shape of a Bill, instead of an Amendment to a clause. Well, he per-
    1676
    fectly agreed with his right hon. Friend, and he had on three separate occasions brought in a Bill for abolishing the congé d'élire; but he had met with such persistent opposition from his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), that he had not been able to make way with it. He believed that if it had not been for his hon. Friend, his Bill would have become law. He should now, at all events, give the Committee the opportunity of showing their opinion of this obsolete custom called the congé d'élire. But what he wanted seriously to ask the Home Secretary was this — Was it worth while, when they had practically abolished a sham election—for congé d'élire was a sham election—to put into that Bill machinery for re-enacting that custom? What he objected to was that the Dean and Chapter should be compelled to take part in the election of a person who had been selected and appointed by the Crown. The Crown alone had the power of appointing the Bishops. The Crown appointed them by the advice of the responsible Ministers of State, and the Chapter might just as well object to the appointment of their Dean as the Dean and Chapter object to the appointment of the Bishop. In point of fact, they could not object to it. By law they were obliged to elect the person named in the letters missive; and whether they objected or not, the election was subsequently confirmed in spite of all opposition in Bow Church. If the law gave the laity the power of rejecting a Bishop, there might be something to be said in favour of such a course; but the law did not even give the laity any voice in regard to the appointment of the clergy who were placed over them. He thought it unfortunate that the hon. Member for Cambridge University had not allowed the sense of the House to be taken on the Bill which went to the extent of abolishing the congé d'élire in the case of the older bishoprics. He felt it his duty, however, to press this Amendment to a division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, to leave out from the word "so," to the word "Act," inline 30, inclusive. —(Mr. Monk.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It was easy to argue in favour of it, for a great deal was certainly to be said in support of it. But a great deal was also to be said on the other side, and a great deal as to whether some middle term could not be found that would meet all the requirements of the case. He should, therefore, be sorry to see such a principle affirmed in such a discussion as it could receive then on a mere Amendment, seeing that it would affect every existing bishopric in England and Wales. He could only give his opinion on the subject, which would not, of course, bind the Committee; but thought it would be better to await the Bill to be brought in next Session by the hon. Member. And when the hon. Member did bring in his Bill, which he promised he would do very early in the ensuing Session, he promised to give the subject every consideration, and he should be prepared to argue it fully with him.
    MR. HOPWOODwas sure no one supposed the right hon. Gentleman would shirk this question when submitted fairly to the House. What he would argue upon it he was not going now to anticipate; but he did argue now that the Government position was given up. His hon. Friend was so much better informed on the point than he was that he would only now say that, as he understood it, that position was given up. It was possible, certainly, that it had only been given up, provisionally, in the same way as this point was; but if it was given up in that way, his hon. Friend argued that it should be given up until a state of things arose that should require it. The Bishopric of Truro was not yet gifted with a Dean and Chapter, and Chapters were not so plentiful as to spring up at the nod of a Minister. He thought his hon. Friend had made out a strong case for saying that this was the time for coming to a decision. The question had been very fully debated—it lay in a nutshell, and that which they were now considering was not a mere ceremony. He warned the Committee that they were dealing with something sacred; but if anyone inquired into the previous proceedings on the subject, bearing in mind that the Church was subject to a Civil Head, he could not be satisfied with its present
    1678
    state, and should not be content to submit to a caricature of what should be a holy and venerable right. He felt that, in this argument, his hon. Friend had right on his side. What he urged had long been needed to do away with a terrible scandal, and he should, therefore, support him.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that they had followed the same precedent in this Bill as in the case of St. Albans.
    MR. MONKsaid, he meant that the Bishop of St. Albans and the Bishop of Truro had been appointed and consecrated Bishops without the intervention of any Dean and Chapter, and without the issuing writs of congé d'élire, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University was so fond.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 26: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 260.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Scheme of Ecclesiastical Commissioners approved by Order in Council as to courts, offices of archdeaconries, and other incidental arrangements for constituting new bishopric).
    MR. E. JENKINSmoved to strike out Sub-section 3. The effect of his Amendment, if agreed to, he said, was to raise the question whether, since the creation of the new bishoprics, it was advisable to transfer to them the patronage of any livings within their dioceses, or, in fact, of any livings at all. He ventured to submit to the Committee that it was a most unhealthy thing that the Bishops should be allowed to exercise this patronage in the Church. Of course, it was not a pleasant thing to be obliged to give reasons for taking exception to the transfer of patronage to the Bishops of the Church, and the increase of that which they already exercised. He would point out that there might be, after all, some propriety in it, and some justification for it, if it were spiritual dignities only that were concerned, and the persons interested in having over them a suitable incumbent, those to whom he should be the spiritual guide might have something to say to it. But it was not only to the spiritual dignity, but to the beneficial interest in a certain part of the property of the State, that the

    1679
    appointment was made; and he was sorry to say that, looking at the manner in which the Bishops had exercised their patronage in times past, there could be nothing more dangerous than to place a temptation of this kind in their way by giving them an opportunity of appointing persons who might not be the most fitted for the duties to be performed. He held in his hand a Statement by Members of the Church of England who had looked into its clauses, and published them to the world, in order that they might be remedied. There were people who liked taxes, and did their best to maintain them, and it was in that way that the congé d'élire— which his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Monk) had done so much to get rid of— had been supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope). He had found him, also, going into the Lobby against the healthy proposal now before the Committee. Looking at the Statement to which he referred, what did he find? He found a painful statement to the effect that the Archbishop of Canterbury had, in the course of seven years, distributed among his relatives a number of livings ranging in value from £320 to £1,348 per annum, and averaging £660, with house and glebe. Yet the Archbishop, in 1866, declared in the House of Lords that he regarded all patronage as a public trust. The Times, in a leading article on this subject some years ago, dwelt on these and other similar facts as significant, and contended that it would be pernicious to leave appointments in the hands of the Bishops. One could not but feel that it was a most terrible thing that the temptation to exercise so much patronage should be vested in one who ought to have nothing further to do with the Church than to exercise a spiritual supervision in and over the diocese to which he was appointed. He therefore asked the Committee to act upon what he thought was a very sound principle—namely, that they should take away from, or, speaking more correctly, not grant to, these new Bishops the right of exercising patronage, but that it should be vested in the Crown. The Crown appointed the Bishops, why should it not also appoint the incumbents, and, indeed, the whole of the clergy and officials? He saw no reason why the
    1680
    whole machinery should not be worked as a sort of branch of the Civil Service of the country—which, in fact, it really was—instead of the patronage being delegated to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church, the patronage having originated in the somewhat remote past in the exercise of Royal right and favour. He found that the Archbishops and Bishops had the patronage of about 2,100 offices of sub-deans and other officials connected with the cathedrals of the State Church; and they, therefore, stood in a somewhat anomalous position in relation to a somewhat anomalous institution. The State Church was made up of all sorts of religions; and its Archbishops and Bishops bore the hybrid character of being, on the one hand, spiritual dignitaries and ministers of Christ; and, on the other, servants of the State, appointees of the Crown, and the political Representatives in the Church of the Government of the day under whose régime they were elected. ["Oh, oh!"] One of his hon. Friends opposite seemed shocked at this way of putting the case; but why should he be? There was nothing like bringing a man face to face with the naked facts of any question which he had to decide for himself. He saw no reason why they should, like ostriches, bury their heads in the sand and refuse to see the real circumstances of any case that might be laid before them. He therefore moved that certain words of the clause be struck out, in order that, at a later stage, provision might be made for vesting all Church patronage in the Crown, which alone ought to have the power, as the Head of the Church and the Defender of the Faith. His Amendment was, in page 4, line 1, to leave out all the words down to the word "situate," in line 27, inclusive.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 20, to leave out from the word "and," to the word " and," in line 33, inclusive. —(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DILLWYNappealed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to assent to this Amendment. He was sure his right hon. Friend wished the new Bishops whom it was proposed

    1681
    to appoint should command the respect of the public, and should be as little liable to scandal as possible; but could he be unaware of the facts which had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), as to the grave scandals which had been occasioned in times past by the nepotism and favouritism shown by the Bishops in the appointments of the clergy within their dioceses? It was perfectly well-known that if a clergyman wanted to get on in the Church he must marry the daughter of a Bishop, or take some step to curry favour with his Suffragan. This was perfectly well known, and it could not fail to act prejudicially as far as the influence for good which a Bishop should possess was concerned. The Bishops were continually urging that patronage ought to be regarded as a public trust, and they were just as continually using it themselves for the advantage of their own relatives and friends.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not assent to the proposition. He thought it much better that the patronage should, as at present, be in the hands of a variety of persons and agencies, than that it should be concentrated in the Crown. These varying systems of patronage gave a life and a variety to the work of the Church which it would not otherwise possess. He was not going to say that in some cases Bishops had not made appointments of relatives which had better not have been made; but he felt sure that the general feeling of the Bishops in the present day—and he had conversed with many of them on this very point—was in favour of the appointment of the very best men to the livings in their various dioceses. There were many cases in which he could conceive no greater good than that the Bishop should have the right of conferring preferment. Suppose the case of a clergyman who, in a poor parish, had shown extraordinary zeal and fitness for the work to which he had devoted himself. Was it not desirable, in such a case, that the Bishop should have the power of retaining the services and the influence of such a man within his diocese by giving him a suitable preferment rather than letting him be induced to remove to another and more remunerative field of labour in another and, perhaps, a distant diocese? Again, it
    1682
    must surely be to the advantage of the Church that Bishops should be able to introduce to their dioceses men previously unknown to them but distinguished for piety or learning, or both in combination, and able to exercise a wise and beneficial influence over the minds of the clergymen with whom they were brought in contract.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, although he admitted that many advantages, some of which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would arise from the Bishops exercising patronage, if they would only regard such power as a public trust, he could not hide from himself the fact that, owing to some psychological grounds which he could not understand, ecclesiastical people did not seem to find themselves bound by the same moral restraint as other people. The appointment of County Court Judges rested with the Lord Chancellor; but if he were to appoint a number of his sons and nephews, there would be an enormous outcry in the country, and the appointments would probably have to be revoked. Ecclesiastical personages, on the other hand, seemed to think the patronage was not a trust, but a property which they might bestow on whomsoever they pleased. There was one objection to the various forms of patronage which were suggested—namely, that, as had been said by a wise man, the possessor of a large amount of patronage was like the owner of a large lake, which must be filled for his own purposes before its overflow could benefit the outside community. At the same time, he felt that the question of patronage was one with regard to which there were enormous difficulties. In Scotland they had a system of popular election, in which all the communicants, including women, voted; but considerable difficulties had arisen in connection with the elections, and he was far from thinking this the most perfect system that could be adopted. On the other hand, the accumulation of a large amount of patronage in political hands was an element of danger; but, on the whole, the question was one of so great difficulty that he thought, as far as this Bill was concerned, it would be better left alone.
    MR. E. JENKINSdenied that there was any inconsistency in the course he

    1683
    had taken, and added that he should feel compelled to take a division on the Amendment he had proposed, as it involved a question of principle.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had no doubt as to the desire of the Bishops to appoint as clergymen the best men they could find; but, as they all knew, the very best intentions were not always fulfilled. Human nature was weak, and when the temptation came, in the case of Bishops and patronage, it was often found impossible to resist it, owing to domestic and social influences which were brought to bear. It was said that under this Bill—and said as an excuse for it—the number of pieces of patronage in the hands of the Bishops would be small. This fact struck him as being a strong argument against this giving of patronage to the Bishops, because the temptation to nepotism would be the stronger in cases whore the number of livings in the patronage of the Bishops was few. He honestly believed that the Bill would be far more satisfactory to the general body of the community if this Amendment was adopted.
    MR. J. COWENadmitted that the principle of giving a large amount of patronage to Bishops was liable to objection; but, at the same time, it must not be forgotten that in some cases—as, for instance, in that of the new Bishop of Northumberland—the preferments at the disposal of the Bishops would be few in number and small in value. It was thought by many hon. Gentlemen that he had on many occasions spoken with considerable asperity in reference to Bishops, and he therefore wished to make a brief statement as the result of personal knowledge of one of the order. The late Bishop of Durham— Dr. Villiers—appointed the Rev. Mr. Cheese, his son-in-law, to a valuable living in the diocese. The appointment happened to be a very good one, and one which had since given universal satisfaction; but an outcry was raised at the time, and one of the comic journals, embodying the popular feeling, published a cartoon, in which was depicted a Bishop pouring port wine into a cheese. The Bishop of Durham received by post in one day no less than 250 copies of the offensive cartoon, and he (Mr. Cowen) had been told that the Bishop, who was an extremely sensitive man, owed his death to the attacks which were thus made
    1684
    upon him. He only mentioned this circumstance, as showing that a Bishop might give preferment to his own son-in-law, and still make the best appointment that was possible. He had said so much against Bishops that he felt bound, in justice to them, to mention this fact, which was within his own knowledge. Still, although exceptional cases of this kind might occur, he thought it would be better to remove temptation out of the way of the Bishops; and he should, therefore, support the proposal of his hon. Friend.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 18: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 261.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Trusts of bishopric endowment fund).
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the Committee had, at an earlier stage of the Bill, discussed and decided the question of what should be the minimum salary to be paid to the newly-created Bishops. He now wished to raise the question of the maximum salary to be paid. While a great many of the arguments adduced in the discussion of the minimum salary would apply in the present instance, he did not think the Home Secretary would be inclined to insist that the whole question was settled by the former division; while the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon a large minimum, he would not, perhaps, be disposed to defend with equal fervour a large maximum. The maximum proposed by the Bill was £4,200 a-year of salary, and a residence equal to another £500 a-year, or £4,700 in all. This involved a question of whether it was intended to encourage the Bishops to live in luxury; whether, in short, these ecclesiastical officers were to be raised to the position and income of territorial magnates? He could not conceive this to be necessary; and therefore suggested that the maximum amount of salary to be paid should be fixed at £3,200 per annum, with a residence valued at £500 a-year more, or a gross income of close on £4,000 annually. He could not but think that it would be an advantage if the salaries of all the Bishops could be cut down. If the Committee once more sanctioned such high salaries, it would be doing that which

    1685
    would tend to injure itself. That evening, hardly a single Member of the Church, on the other side of the House, had risen to speak on this subject, although he knew to a certainty that some of them were discontented. It was very remarkable, and ought to be noticed outside, that the efforts to improve the Bill, and to give it a proper spiritual and political shape, had come from the Opposition side of the House, the Members belonging to the Church of England being afraid that if they expressed any opinion, they would raise questions injurious to their Church.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to move an Amendment?
    MR. E. JENKINS: Yes; to leave out "four," and insert "three."
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this would not be fixing the maximum salary, as was necessary, at a figure somewhat above the minimum.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the residence would bring up the value of the salary to £3,700, whereas the minimum was £3,200. Those who took the view he did with regard to Establishments were endeavouring to mould the Bill into something like a shape consistent with the relations between Church and State.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that £4,300 was thought the lowest sum that it was wise to give to any see. He hoped the Committee would allow the clause to pass. It proposed merely to bring the new bishoprics up to the level of the existing ones, and he did not see that this could reasonably be objected to.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    On Question, "That the Schedules be agreed to?"
    MR. J. COWENsaid, that the name, Bishop of Newcastle, might lead to some confusion, there being already a Bishopric of Newcastle in Australia. It would be better to give this Bishopric some other name—say, Northumberland or Lindisfarne. The strength of the Bishopric would not be very great if it had only 12 livings. He would not repeat his assurance that the people of the North of England did not want a bishopric; but he would urge the change of name.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not think it desirable at that stage of the Bill to alter the name of the bishopric, and he did not think there would be any practical inconvenience if the name were left unchanged.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    On Question, "That the Bill be reported without Amendment to the House?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he might now state that it had been amply shown, by the contributions offered towards the new bishoprics, whether the Bill was wanted. A considerable sum had been bequeathed for the see of Newcastle, besides what the Bishop of Durham had intended to give. £20,000 had been raised for the see of Wake-field, in addition to sums raised by the Bishop of Lincoln and the late Bishop of Lichfield, which were likely to be increased by a Memorial to the late Bishop, in the See of Southwell. As to the see for the county he represented —Lancashire—he was told by one of the hon. Members for Liverpool the other day that he would place £50,000 in his hands to-morrow if he wished, as an earnest that that sum would be collected.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, he knew the circumstances under which the money referred to by the Home Secretary was left in Newcastle. He thought the Home Secretary should not calculate upon it with too much certainty. It was likely he would get it, but not certain; for it was given under conditions which might not be found desirable.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

    INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 192.]
    (Sir Matthew Ridley.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Government had publicly promised that the

    1687
    Bill would only be taken as a First Order, and several hon. Gentlemen who were interested in it had left. Under these circumstances, he personally objected to proceeding with the Bill on the present occasion, and would, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that a promise publicly given ought to be publicly redeemed; and as an objection had been made to proceeding with the Bill at present, he would assent to the adjournment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

    SUPPLY.—REPORT.
    SUPPLY [6th August],—Postponed Resolution [reported. 7th August], considered.
    Resolution again read, as followeth:—
    "That a sum, not exceeding £88,245, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved to reduce the sum by £500, being the cost of the proposed new storehouses in Hyde Park. Last year an amount was taken for the erection of a new superintendent's lodge in that part of Hyde Park; but it was paid back by Baron Grant. However, a very ugly building was erected, a portion of the Park taken off, and a hedge planted, by which the public were still further excluded. The present proposal would add to the "built-over" character of that part of the Park; they were making a small town of it, and entirely destroying its suburban beauty.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURseconded the Amendment, because he deemed that the course pursued tended to deprive the people of their rights by gradually filching from the people's recreation grounds portions of these parks so much needed in the neighbourhood of London. He regretted that the Government were pursuing that course
    1688
    which must excite passionate feelings in the minds of the people that might prove troublesome.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£88,245," in order to insert "£87,745," —(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '£88,245' stand part of the Resolution."
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that the new brick storehouse stood in exactly the same place as the old one, which, having been built of wood, was tumbling to pieces. It was therefore necessary to build a new one of stone. The only difference was that it would be somewhat higher. With regard to the superintendent's lodge, Mr. Grant undertook to build a new one, provided the old lodge, which stood in front of his house, was removed, and for that purpose he paid £1,500 into the Exchequer. Of that sum, £1,300 was spent on the new lodge, and £200 was paid for lodgings for the superintendent while the new lodge was building. When he (Mr. Noel) entered on his present Office, he looked around the Park to find a suitable place for the lodge, and many sites were pointed out to him; but he could not approve of any of them, as they would disfigure the Park, and he selected the present site as it was in proximity to the police lodge, the Guards' lodge, and other buildings. Though a slight encroachment had been made on the Park, yet half as much had not been taken away from the public as had been given to them in Kensington Gardens when the old lodge was taken down. If the new lodge had been built on the edge of the Park, it must have stood in front of some house, and no doubt the owner would have objected.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory as regarded the lodge, but not as regarded the stores.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that the lodge ought to have been left in front of a house, whether the owner objected or not, unless on public grounds some other site was desirable.
    Question put.
    The House divided:— Ayes 82; Noes 29: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 262.)
    MR. DILLWYNcomplained of the charge for the preservation of game in Richmond Part, which, he submitted, interfered with the right of the public to the use of the Park. When the public paid for the maintenance of the Park, the public rights ought not to be interfered with on account of the preservation of game. He must express his regret that, a division having already been taken, he could not move an Amendment to reduce the amount by the salaries of the gatekeepers. The Park was maintained by the public, and the public ought to benefit by it.
    MR. GERARD NOEL, in reply, said, that no one was more anxious than himself not to interfere with the enjoyment of persons frequenting the Park; but he could not think that the preservation of the game there was in any way hurtful to the public. The game was, for the most part, given to the London hospitals or the poor of Richmond. Not only that, but hundreds and thousands of people who visited the Park derived the greatest pleasure and amusement from seeing the game running about. It was all very well for the hon. Member, who could shoot game every day in the year, to object to this; but to the poor people who went there from the East-end of London it was a very different thing. As for the plantations, they were not intended for preserving game; but were necessary in order to beautify the Park and to replace the trees, which, in the course of time, withered and decayed, and out of the total acreage of the Park only 240 acres were planted. Besides, during the last five years, more land had been thrown into the Park than had been planted; and the public could not complain if, while five acres were planted in one part, 14 were thrown in in another.
    Resolution agreed to.
    SUPPLY [7th August],—Postponed Resolution [reported 8th August], considered.
    Resolution again read, as followeth:—
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,520, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcomplained of the actual destruction that
    1690
    took place in consequence of the so-called restoration of St. George's Chapel, Windsor, which, in his opinion, was mere Vandalism. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £500.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£5,520," in order to insert "£5,020," —(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '£5,520' stand part of the Resolution."
    MR. GERARD NOELexplained that the Dean and Chapter had already spent £23,000 on the work of restoration all the funds at their disposal, and Her Majesty's Government had, in response to an application made to them, agreed to provide £5,000 of the £9,000 odd which were still necessary to complete the work. St. George's Chapel was attached to the Royal Palace, and, therefore, it was only right that Parliament should contribute to the expenses of its restoration.
    MR. COURTNEYprotested against the transformation of ancient buildings of this kind. He was favourable to restoration, but not to ruin. They might as well try to make an old lady young, by dressing her eyebrows, putting salve on her lips, and painting her cheeks, as to restore an ancient building by the method adopted in this case.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 31: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 263.)
    Resolution agreed to.
    SUPPLY [8th August.]—Resolutions reported.
    First Four Resolutions agreed to.
    Fifth Resolution read a second time.
    MR. J. COWENcalled attention to the hours of labour of the men working in the Dockyards at Malta. He said, their work had recently greatly increased, consequently they stood in a difficult and worse position than that of the workmen in the Dockyards of this country. What these men at Malta wished to be done was to be placed in the same position as other of Her Majesty's servants. He did not desire to trouble the House at any length; but wished to state it had been promised that something should be done in the matter. No change, however, had taken place; but he hoped during the

    1691
    coming year that something would be done to place the men at Malta upon an equal footing with the workmen of other naval yards.
    MR. W. H. SMITHundertook to look into the matter, which had not before been brought under his attention.
    MR. D. JENKINSdrew attention to the high rates which had been agreed to be paid for ships chartered at Bombay for the conveyance to Malta of the Indian contingent. The price paid— £130,000—was, in his opinion, excessive; and, as he thought that the Indian officials had acted recklessly in the matter, in order to mark his sense of the disregard of the interests of the taxpayers, he would move to reduce the Vote by £20,000. He grounded his proposal on the fact that the freight market at Bombay was at the time so low, that vessels might have been chartered at a rate per ton so much cheaper as to have saved the amount which he wished to strike off the Vote.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£678,000," in order to insert " £658,000,"—(Mr. David Jenkins,)— instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '£678,000' stand part of the Resolution."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,while not agreeing in the sweeping condemnation of the Indian officials, admitted that, in the present instance, undue liberality had been displayed. He should like to understand whether the item of £130,000 was for taking back the troops to India? He was under the impression that the original Estimate of £750,000 was to cover the whole expense of the troops. If it was not, the whole cost would be brought up to something like £1,000,000. The question, however, was—were these freights extravagant or not? In his opinion, the tonnage rate was not by any means excessive, considering the Government wished to carry out the coup like a flash of lightning. He did not think the Indian officials had much regard for the British taxpayer; and Sir Richard Temple was willing to pay these high freights at Bombay rather than send round to Calcutta, where there was abundance of shipping waiting for employment.
    MR. ONSLOWalso opposed the Amendment, which would be a reflec-
    1692
    tion upon Sir Richard Temple and the other officials at Bombay. If there was one man who knew how to save a sixpence, it was Sir Richard Temple, who was responsible for this matter. He appealed to hon. Members not to pass what would be tantamount to a vote of censure on that most worthy public servant.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcontended that there must be some misapprehension on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins), as to the costly rate at which the sailing vessels had been engaged as transports; for, although Sir Richard Temple was not the most economical man in India, the freight of the ships in question had been managed at a far more economical rate than they would have been had they been sent out from this country. In fact, the freights, which averaged about £1 per ton, were exceedingly reasonable; indeed, most of these sailing vessels were, according to the abstract laid before the House, engaged at less than 10 rupees a-ton. As regard the steamers, the hon. Gentleman might be correct, because he (General Sir George Balfour) was quite unable to speak thereon.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should have been sorry to have joined in any sweeping condemnation of our Indian officials, like that of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins), because they had chartered vessels at Bombay instead of at Calcutta. He would admit that if Sir Richard Temple had sent round to Calcutta he would have found there plenty of vessels; but he would have had to pay additional rates, on account of the nearness of the monsoon, and it was doubtful if they could have been got round Cape Comorin and have arrived in Bombay in sufficient time for the urgent service which they were required to perform. The emergency was so pressing as to allow of no delay. The charge before the House included the return of the troops, so that no additional demand in respect of this particular would come before them.
    MR. D. JENKINSsaid, that after that explanation, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1876–77.—REPORT.
    Resolutions [August 8th] reported.
    MR. MONKcomplained that so large a sum as £600,000 had been diverted from the purposes for which it had been voted, and expended on the Army and Navy in a manner not only unsanctioned by, but without the knowledge of, Parliament, under the cover and licence of the Appropriation Act. The House knew nothing of what had been done till last night, or rather early that morning. The Appropriation Act provided that no transfers of Votes should take place, except in cases of exigency; and it could not be contended that the appropriation of £500,000 or £600,000 for purposes other than those sanctioned last year by Parliament was a case of that sort. There was nothing to show that so large a sum ought to have been diverted from the Exchequer, to which it would in the ordinary course have been surrendered. He had called attention to this matter on former occasions, and had moved Amendments to the effect that the decision of the Treasury in all cases of the transfer of Army and Navy Votes should be laid upon the Table of this House within a certain time; but he had refrained from pressing them on the distinct promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that something should be done; but nothing had been done. The system was one which had been condemned by the Committee on Public Accounts. Parliament ought to know earlier what was proposed to be done with respect to unexpended balances. He would suggest that the Committee on Public Accounts should be increased by four Members—two to be selected from each side of the House—and that greater attention should be paid by the Committee to this most important subject.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would acknowledge that he had promised that that matter should be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts, and that it had never been taken up by that Committee. He could only urge, in excuse for that oversight, that when one had many things to carry in his memory, he found it difficult to retain everything, and through some accident that subject had not been
    1694
    brought before the Committee on Public Accounts. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would put a Notice down in his own name next Session, that he would move that the matter be referred to the Committee, there would then be no risk of its being forgotten. At the same time, after what had been said on the subject, he thought the Committee might properly have taken up the subject themselves. He admitted the obligation they were under to refer to the Public Accounts Committee the question, whether that practice ought to be amended, and, if so, in what respect? What was now done, however, was the same thing as had been done for the last 13 years. Under the Appropriation Act, applications were made to the Treasury for their authority to defray temporarily, out of any surplus which might be effected by savings on the Votes for a particular Department, any expenditure found to be necessary for that same Department, but which had not been provided for. He admitted that was a practice which, although convenient, was, to a certain extent, liable to abuse; because it would be possible for a Government, if it wished to do so, to take a large amount on a popular Vote and a small amount on an unpopular Vote, and then to apply the excess taken on the one to the deficiency on the other. The question was one worthy of the attention of the Public Accounts Committee.
    MR. MONKasked, whether the Government would not undertake to lay Papers, explanatory of the diversion of any sums voted for those Services, on the Table of the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it would be better to have that subject considered by the Committee.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought there were more of these diversions of public monies from the purposes for which they were voted than the Chancellor of the Exchequer supposed. The promise given by that right hon. Gentleman was given in two different years. He had promised that if the propositions made by himself (General Sir George Balfour) were formulated, the subject would be taken up and thoroughly investigated. But though this condition was complied with, and the heads of the inquiry duly put down on the last day's Notices of

    1695
    the Session, yet no notice had been taken thereof. But he would give the right hon. Gentleman a reminder of the formulated propositions during the Recess, in the hope that the inquiry might be instituted by an independent Committee, and not by the Select Committee on Public Accounts.
    Resolutions agreed to.

    TELEGRAPHS BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 257.]
    (Lord John Manners.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved— "That the Second Reading be fixed for Twelve of the clock on Saturday."
    LORD JOHN MANNERShoped that his right hon. Friend would not press the Motion, and that the House would now consent to give the Bill a second reading. The opposition was mainly directed to the 3rd clause, and referred to the definition of the term "telegraphs" contained in it; but, as he had given Notice of his intention to move its omission, he hoped that the second reading would now be passed. The Bill would then be nearly exclusively a measure in which were collected together the protective clauses formerly inserted in Private Bills on behalf of the Postal Telegraph Department; but which it was thought ought to be consolidated in a general measure. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord John Manners.)
    THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, there seemed to exist some confusion on the Treasury Bench which he should like to see cleared up, if it were possible to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the second reading of the Telegraphs Bill be fixed for to-morrow at 12. No sooner had he done so, than the noble Lord the Postmaster General proceeded to ask the House to read it a second time. Now, he (the O'Donoghue) desired to know which course the House should adopt.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcomplained that a Bill of so much import-
    1696
    ance, affecting all the corporations in the country, should be brought forward at a time when the Session had virtually terminated. He objected to stipendiary magistrates being the persons to arbitrate between public Bodies and the Post Office; because, in some instances, these stipendiaries were the servants of the corporations, who were their paymasters; and in others they were under the direct influence of the Crown. The Bill, by its 9th and 10th clauses, gave enormous powers to the Postmaster General against every corporation in the country, enabling him to fine them heavily for anything that might be called obstruction or interference with respect to telegraphic communication, and he believed that the attention of those Bodies throughout the country had not been sufficiently directed to the provisions of the Bill, as otherwise there would be great opposition to the passing of the Bill at that period of the Session.
    THE O'CONOR DONthought it was time the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) was answered. It would be in the recollection of the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Exchequer Bonds Bill would be taken to-morrow. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, the second reading of the Telegraphs Bill, and the observations the hon. Member is now making do not seem to be relevant to that Question.
    THE O'CONOR DON: I beg to move that this House do now adjourn, in order to put myself in Order. [Cries of "Oh!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not put himself in Order by taking that course.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Sullivan.)
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, that the debate be now adjourned.
    THE O'CONOR DON: I think, at all events, I will be in Order in asking for an explanation of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little while ago, that the second reading of this Bill was to be taken to-morrow—
    MR. SPEAKER: Any observations that the hon. Member may think proper to make relative to the subject-matter of the Telegraphs Bill will be in Order.
    THE O'CONOR DON: The observations I was about making were with regard to the Telegraphs Bill. We were told that the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill was to be taken to-morrow, and immediately after the noble Lord the Postmaster General gets up and proposes to take it now. My hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) very naturally asks for an explanation of these extraordinary discrepancies in the statements from the Government Bench; and I certainly think, considering the circumstances of the other Bill to which I will not further refer, that we are entitled to know what is the meaning of this extraordinary difference of opinion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The explanation is very simple. It is intended to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and it was proposed to take the Telegraphs Bill; but as the Bill has been reached, my noble Friend the Postmaster General thought it would save time if we took the second reading now. We propose to fix the next stage for to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
    THE O'DONOGHUEcomplained that there had been contradictory statements as to the Morning Sitting on Saturday. He intended to oppose the putting down of the Bill for that day.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: So you can.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HOPWOODentirely concurred in what had been said by his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He opposed the Bill, as placing in the hands of the Telegraph Department an arbitrary control of public Bodies.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the whole of the questions in connection with this Bill had been considered before a Select Committee in "another place." The matters at issue were so thoroughly thrashed out that it was hardly likely the corporations had not been made thoroughly acquainted with the way in which the Bill affected them. At the same time, he would admit that the point as to
    1698
    stipendiaries was a proper one for consideration in Committee. He hoped the House would allow the second reading to be taken now.
    MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he entirely objected to the reference to the railway companies provided for in the Bill, and also to the very vague language used in, and the stringent character of, the 10th clause.
    MR. BIRLEYwas in favour of giving that power to the Post Office, and thought the public would have confidence in that body.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, this was a Bill to increase the central power, under pains and penalties, and although he had great confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office, he strongly objected to the multiplication of penalties which the Bill enacted, and which were so many traps and gins for the unwary. They were most objectionable.
    THE O'DONOGHUEwanted to know whether the Motion of the noble Lord the Postmaster General was an Amendment on that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was entitled, he thought, to ask that question.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that as the 3rd clause was to be withdrawn, he had no objection to the rest of the Bill.
    MR. J. COWENalso explained that the 3rd clause of the Bill having been withdrawn by the noble Lord the Postmaster General, he should offer no further opposition to the measure.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSproposed that the House should go into Committee on the Bill to-morrow (Saturday).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill."—(Lord John Manners.)
    MR. ONSLOW: Sir, I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask, Whether, if this should be agreed to, and the Committee on the Bill be fixed for to-morrow, that would be tantamount to saying that the House agrees to a Morning Sitting to-morrow without a definite Motion

    1699
    being put that the House at its rising do meet to-morrow?
    MR. SPEAKER: If the House decides to take the Committee to-morrow, the House will sit to-morrow.
    MR. ONSLOW: Then, Sir, I have an Amendment to the Motion. I move that the Bill be considered on Tuesday. I hope I shall not be out of Order in the remarks I am about to make. Now, in the first place, what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is a most unusual course, as I believe you, Sir, said to-night. The House is asked to meet to-morrow, when the palpable reason for it is that a private Member's Bill should be considered—the Sunday Closing Bill. I shall not be saying anything wrong when I tell the House that the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has moved that this Committee be taken to-morrow is in order to bring in a Bill which is not even on the Paper to-day. There is no doubt that many of us have had a long and arduous Session, and especially during the last few weeks, many of us have been working day and night. I would really appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is quite fair upon us to ask us to come down here on Saturday, which is almost the only holiday we have had for many a week past, to consider a Bill which will not be so violently opposed as that will be to which I refer. But we should not only consider ourselves. We should also have some consideration for you, Sir, who have had to remain in the Chair for many nights past and far into the morning. To ask us to sit to-morrow, under such circumstances, is, in my judgment, not fair when the only Business to be taken is that of a private Member. I would ask the House to consider whether there is really that urgency; whether the Bill is of such vital importance as to necessitate the creation of such a precedent?
    MR. SULLIVANrose to Order. An hon. Member had already been called to Order on precisely the same point as the House was now invited to discuss.
    MR. ONSLOWconsidered that he was alluding to matters material to the Question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the consideration of the Exchequer Bills and Bonds Bill would be taken to-morrow (Saturday). Then,
    1700
    when the Telegraphs Bill was called on, the right hon. Gentleman said it was to be taken to-morrow. He hoped he was saying nothing improper when he added that, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman hardly knew his own mind about the Sunday Closing Bill. As regarded facilities for the passage of this Bill during the present Session, he thought no one who had watched its course would hesitate to admit that no private Member had ever before received such facilities for the passing of any measure. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that so long as the hon. Member was referring to the Business before the House at that time he was in Order; but he was now referring to a Bill not before the House. It was the Telegraphs Bill that was really before the House.
    MR. E. JENKINSremarked that the Question before the House was that the Telegraphs Bill be considered tomorrow; but they had reached tomorrow. The hon. Member had talked the Motion out.
    MR. ONSLOWbowed to the ruling of the Speaker, and begged to move as an Amendment, that the Committee upon the Telegraphs Bill be fixed for Tuesday.
    MR. STACPOOLEseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "this day," in order to insert the words "upon Tuesday next,"—(Mr. Onslow,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'this day' stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEhad no objection to a Morning Sitting; but he would vote with the hon. Member (Mr. Onslow), because there would not be time for hon. Members to put down Amendments on the Bill, if it were taken to-morrow.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 30: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 264.)
    Main Question put.
    Resolved, That this House will, this day, resolve itself into the said Committee.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [Lords.]
    (The Lord Advocate.)
    [BILL 292.] CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. M'LARENcomplained that Scotch Members had not had an opportunity of discussing the Bill. It had been read a second time without discussion, on the understanding that there would be ample opportunity given on going into Committee. But the Committee was taken a few minutes before 3 o'clock on Saturday morning, after the division on the Eastern Question, when many hon. Members, of whom he was one, had left the House, not knowing the Bill was to come on. He did not think it signified much whether the Bill was lost or carried, for many points which had been put forward by school boards as requiring amendment had been ignored; while matters which were not questions of education at all, but questions of police, had been included. Such as the Bill was, however, he was willing to accept of it with a single Amendment. When the Bill was sent down from the Lords, there was in it a clause providing that the expenses of repairing higher-class school buildings might be paid out of the rates. But in Committee in this House the clause was altered to include every kind of school expenses which the school boards might think fit, provided they were sanctioned by the Scotch Education Department. There were only about 16 higher schools in Scotland which would be affected by this clause. He thought it a preposterous thing that the expenses of such schools should be placed on the rates. In the City he represented there was one of these high schools. It had an income exceeding £4,000 a-year. He never heard that any of the citizens demanded that this school should be aided from the rates in the manner here proposed. He was not aware that the townspeople of any other town had made such a demand for their school. He was told that the schoolmasters wanted it; but this was not a consideration that could weigh with the public, or with Parlia-
    1702
    ment. Why should a great school, with an income like that he had mentioned, and charging fees of about £13 or £14 a-year from each of its pupils—and thus entirely excluding the poor—be placed as a burden on the rates? Why should they give support for the teaching of the higher branches in these 16 higher class schools, when they did not give it for the teaching of the same branches in the 2,900 Board and other elementary schools receiving Privy Council grants? The Board schools were said to be under a disadvantage now as compared with the old parish schools. In the old parish schools, it was said, a boy could be prepared for the University. On the other hand, it was contended that more was now done for higher education in the Board schools than was ever done in the old parish schools; but, be that as it might, it was through the Board schools, and not through these 16 secondary schools that they could hope to do anything effectual in the way of promoting higher education amongst the poorer classes of Scotland. This must have been the opinion of Her Majesty's Government last week, when, in connection with the Endowed Hospitals and Schools Bill, they appointed a Commission to inquire, amongst other things, into the instruction in the higher branches given in the State - aided schools, and in what way the Privy Council grants could be so arranged as to contribute to that end. He believed his hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy and Glasgow had supported the clause, to which he (Mr. M'Laren) objected, in the belief that it would enable Board schools to acquire those benefits, and not that it was intended for the purpose of benefiting higher schools. Well, then, there remained only two other Scotch Members who supported the clause, and those hon. Gentlemen were the Members for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews, and the Wigtown Burghs. Neither of those hon. Members, however, represented a burgh constituency having a higher class school. Nor was it to be forgotten that the clause was opposed by the Representative of the Falkirk Burghs—a Gentleman who knew all about the old parish schools of Scotland, who was a Member of the Endowed Schools Commission, and also of the Education Board in Scotland, which had

    1703
    been just extinguished, and who possessed the confidence of the Government so far that he had been appointed a member of the new Board to be formed under the Act to which he referred. He (Mr. M'Laren) thought the Government had inadvertently allowed the provision to which he had alluded to be placed in the Bill. He did not blame them very much for it; but he begged to give Notice of his intention to move that the clause should be restored to the shape in which it came down to this House from the Upper Chamber.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLcould not admit that there was a conspiracy on the part of a clique of Scotch Members to carry a particular part of the Bill which had been referred to. He was one of the culprits under whose eyes the Bill was recently brought on at an early hour of the morning. He supported the clause entirely unsolicited, and was no hand to any Party move whatever. No one was more opposed, as a general rule, than he was to the transaction of Scotch Business at late hours of the morning; but Scotch affairs had had comparatively a larger share of attention this Session than before, and on the occasion alluded to the circumstances were somewhat peculiar. A large number of Scotch Members were assembled at the great division on Eastern matters, and a wish having been expressed that advantage should be taken of the opportunity of proceeding with the Bill, he, for one, had given his voice in favour of going on with it. He should have hesitated in the course he took, if he had known that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had inadvertently left the House. He was extremely sorry that was the case; but what was done was done in entire good faith, and the decision was not arrived at until the question had been deliberately discussed. He therefore thought that hon. Member had acted judiciously in not opposing this branch of the Bill on the present occasion; and he saw no reason why the only other clause, concerning which there was any serious dispute, should not be settled in the course of the present Sitting.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he was under the impression that the fact of going on with the Bill on the previous Saturday morning showed great unanimity on the part of the Scotch Members. The
    1704
    Amendments were of such a nature as for the most part not to be hostile to the Bill, and altogether he thought the measure had received sufficient consideration at the hands of Scotch Members. Although there might be some difference of opinion as to the principle embodied in the 18th clause, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had referred, he (Mr. W. Holms), for one, held the principle to be a sound one. It was extremely desirable that the school boards should provide a part of the funds necessary for the higher education of poorer pupils in Board schools who showed a peculiar aptitude for such studies. The clause for this purpose clearly defined that its operation should be tentative in its character.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause (Union of school board,)— (Mr. James Stewart,)—added.
    Clause (Removal of doubt as to right of certain schoolmasters to the franchise,) —(Mr. Mark Stewart,)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.
    Clause (Examination of higher class schools under management of school boards,—(Mr. William Holms,)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.
    Clause (Procedure where parochial board refuse to pay school fees,)—(Mr. William Holms,)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.
    Amendments made.
    MR. M'LARENmoved, in Clause A, page 5, line 15, after the word "management " to leave out—
    "And shall be empowered to pay from the school fund such other expenses for the promotion of efficient education in the said school as are not provided for by the revenues stated in section sixty-two of the principal Act: Provided That no expenditure under this section shall he incurred without the consent of the Scotch Education Department."
    His desire was that the clause should be left as it originally went from the House of Commons.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, to leave out from the word "management," to the word "Act," in line 23, inclusive.—(Mr. M'Laren.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the terms of the Bill were perfectly well known in Scotland, not only to Scotch Members and to Scotch boards, but to every person who took any interest in education in Scotland before the Bill was introduced into that House. The various provisions of the Bill were not the result of practical suggestions which had been communicated by Scotch school boards to the Government, and which had been considered and approved by the Government. He did not in the least dispute the importance of the question raised by the Amendment; but he certainly could not admit that the subject with which it dealt had not been fully and fairly considered by the Scotch burgh constituencies, which were mainly interested in it, and by the hon. Members of the House who represented those constituencies. The hon. Members for the Wigtown Burghs and the Ayr Burghs, who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, had supported the clause at the instance of their constituents, and also in pursuance of their own individual opinions; and some 15 hon. Members who sat in Opposition as the Representatives of much of the industry and intelligence of Scotland also supported the proposition contained in the clause. The only expressions of dissent—and they were of a hesitating character— came from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) and the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). As far as the Members for burghs were concerned, they gave a general approval, which was not to be wondered at in face of the fact that the clause was drawn mainly in the interest of education in the burghs. In Scotland it was not only within the power, but was also the duty of school boards administering the education rates to provide for secondary, as well as elementary education—wherever it was in their power so to do—for the same class of children as those who were receiving elementary education. It was important, in cases where secondary as well as elementary education was given, that the different branches should be taught in separate departments of the school, in order that the grants in aid from Government might be secured. If the clause under consideration was rejected, great difficulties would be put in the way of educational bodies desirous of afford-
    1706
    ing instruction in the higher branches of learning, exercising the powers at present intrusted to them by the Act of 1872, of providing for the secondary education of children in Scottish schools. Sufficient provision was not made in the Act of 1872 to enable them to keep their secondary schools efficient, and it was stated from the opposite Bench by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair)—than whom no man better knew the circumstances of Scotland in that respect—that these schools were not flourishing simply from the want of a little pecuniary aid. It was perfectly easy for the school board to teach such a class of studies; but if they taught them in an elementary school, they would do so at a higher expense, and they would lose the Government subsidy. The only proposal of the Bill was that where school boards were in the administration of a secondary school which was not efficient, they should, with the consent of the Education Department, devote so much of the rates as was necessary to render the school efficient. He contended that in this there were two most efficient checks. In the first place, the school board was essentially representative. There was nothing to bind one board to continue the administration of another, and if they thought the existing board had done wrong, the ratepayers had nothing to do but to elect representatives who would carry their views into execution, and administer the rates according to the ideas of the majority of the community. But there was also this check, that even the declared intention of the school board could not be carried into effect until they had got the consent of the Education Department. It was entirely out of the question to say that that Department, being directly amenable to both Houses of Parliament, would consent, without the wish of the ratepayers of a district, to a system of secondary education for the children of the rich at the expense of the poor. It seemed to him that what was desired was most reasonable. In an ordinary parish or district, to establish a secondary school as well as a primary school was out of the question. If school boards were sincerely desirous of administering the functions committed to them, they had ample power to teach secondary

    1707
    education; but instead of through the parish school, they might do so through the high class school which already existed.
    MR. LEITHregarded the arguments of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as most convincing. He would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) to Subsection 4 of Section 62, which provided that school boards might relieve schools which taught elementary and higher education of the elementary branch, and establish schools for the purpose of carrying on the elementary work.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he had stated that three or four schools had availed themselves of the advantages of that clause.
    MR. LEITHsaid, the object of the present clause was to give power to the school boards to apply a portion of the rates to schools which required assistance, and as this was to be done under the sanction of the Education Office, he should certainly support the new clause.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas sorry to say that the right hon. and learned Lord was exceedingly clear on everything except the point on which he desired to be enlightened, and which he wanted to understand. He could understand what was the position of elementary and secondary schools; hut he could not see what would happen to an intermediate class of schools in which he was especially interested. He was quite aware that under the Act secondary education might be given in elementary schools; but he thought it was undesirable to attempt to give secondary education in an ordinary rural school. He wanted to have some information on a class of intermediate schools, and as an instance he might mention that of Kirkcaldy. A flourishing burgh school existed there, and the Kirkcaldy people had taken a course which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said was a very prudent one—they had divided the burgh school into two parts, a higher school and an elementary school. The latter came under the Act, and obtained the grant in the usual way; the former was kept entirely separate, and received no grant from Government or the rates, except a certain allowance. What he wanted to know was, could the ratepayers, if they chose, supplement
    1708
    the educational funds of the higher branch of the burgh school of Kirkcaldy? He held a very strong opinion that if not allowed to do so they ought to be, and for this reason—if it was inexpedient to afford secondary education in rural schools of the country, on the other hand, it was desirable that secondary education should be afforded in burgh centres, such as Kirkcaldy was. The school there was a very excellent one. No less a man than Thomas Carlyle commenced his career in it as a teacher. In his opinion, it was but fair that inasmuch as the more wealthy classes paid the large proportion of rates for elementary schools some assistance should be given to higher class schools where not only the children of the better classes, but of the poor might be received. And it was highly desirable that the ratepayers, if they chose, might be enabled to assist these schools. Therefore he wished to know whether there was power for them under the present law to do so. He thought this would have been the case; but he now found that the new clause referred only to 14 superior schools.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, perhaps he might be allowed to make this explanation. By Section 62 of the Act of 1872, certain schools were recognized by statute as being high-class schools, and, therefore, falling under the regulations of the section. These schools were enumerated; but it was also contemplated by the Act that school boards should, in dealing with a similar class of schools, put them in precisely the same position as those which were enumerated. The first part of the clause dealt with the schools enumerated in the Schedule, and it then provided for specified schools being deemed high-class public schools; the school hoard being, with the consent of the Education Department, able to take them under its management, and they were to be deemed high-class public schools, and whenever a school board found it necessary to separate the higher education from the lower they had only to pass a resolution to that effect. This, he had no doubt, had been done in the case of Kirkcaldy, and to all intents and purposes their school became a higher class school within the meaning of the 62nd section.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas very much obliged to the right hon. and

    1709
    learned Lord; but—[Cries of "Order " and "Spoke!"]—He had not finished his speech when the Lord Advocate made his explanation.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member had concluded his speech; but, with the indulgence of the House, he may make an explanation, if he thinks proper. Of course, he cannot deliver a second speech.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was in the way of explanation that he desired to address the House. What he wanted to know was, could the school board of Kirkcaldy make theirs a high school, which it was not at present?
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEregarded the words of the proposal as indistinct; but, so far as he understood it, he thought it was a move in the right direction.
    DR. CAMERONpointed out that if they simply subsidized schools where high fees were charged, they did no good to the cause or to the spread of general education. He had understood that the clause was to be introduced for the purpose of enabling secondary education to be promoted in elementary schools; but it now turned out to be exactly the reverse. There was a very serious defect in the present arrangements for public education in Scotland, because of the change for the worse which had taken place in the character of the old parochial schools. More than one agricultural society had complained that, whereas the children of farmers were formerly able to receive the education they desired in parochial schools, now they were unable to obtain any but the most elementary instruction. The consequence was that although heavily taxed to keep up the elementary schools, these farmers were compelled to send their children elsewhere to be educated. That being so, he was disappointed at the aims of the right hon. and learned Lord's new clause, which would leave untouched a very serious blot on the present educational system of Scotland.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had too much in view high schools, such as those of Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the fees were high. His (Mr. C. S. Parker's) impression was that in smaller burghs, this clause, which afforded some means of providing from the rates some of the
    1710
    expenses of a higher education, would be found to be of considerable advantage. Where the population was sufficient, it was well to have the higher class education separated from the elementary, at the same time keeping down the cost, so that children of any class might avail themselves of either system of teaching. He regretted that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had not been in the House when this subject was discussed previously, as he had an erroneous impression of what was done. The Amendment had the approval of the great majority of Scotch Members, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was conclusive as to the need for some such provision. The whole effect of the clause was to turn over a new leaf in Scotch education. He hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would withdraw his Amendment, as the clause would be sure to do good to the cause of higher education. The Education Act, as it stood, had transferred the management of higher schools to the school boards; but the difficulty was to get funds to carry on the schools. A small sum would put the whole thing right, and he hoped it might be secured by the clause. After all, the Bill was entirely permissive, and if the ratepayers did not choose to allow the school boards to spend their money in this way, they need not do so.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he would consent to his own Amendment being negatived without a division. At the same time, he must be allowed to say that after hearing the discussion which had just taken place, he adhered to the views which he had originally expressed.
    Question, "That the words 'and shall be empowered to pay ' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HOLMS, Amendments made, in Clause 19, in page 5, line 24, to leave out "a school board or other authority," and insert "an authority other than a school board;" and in page 5, line 38, after "purpose," leave out to end of clause.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made, in Clause 21, in page 6, line 5, leave out "under this Act

    1711
    stall," and insert "or other proceedings under the principal Act or this Act may."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had an Amendment in Clause 32, line 29, which was to give that which had never been given before—free access to the valuation rolls to persons desiring information. Therefore, he would after the word "roll" move to insert these words—
    "Reasonable access to such roll either in his official chambers, or where no such chambers are provided, in such public place as the sheriff shall appoint."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, as there were no further Amendments to the Bill, he would ask leave of the House, seeing the period of the Session, and the fact that it had to be printed and sent to "another place," to have the Bill read a third time at that Sitting.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he had no objection to that being done.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    TRAINING- SCHOOLS AND SHIPS BILL.
    (Captain Pim, Mr. Wheelhouse.)

    [BILL. 48.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time this day."—(Captain Pim.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved that the second reading be postponed to the following Tuesday, on the ground that there could be no use in putting on the Order for a Saturday Sitting a Bill which could not possibly be passed.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "this day," in order to add the words "upon Tuesday next," — (Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the words 'this day' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 42: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 265.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That the Bill be read a second time upon Tuesday next.

    BLIND AND DEAF MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) (re-committed) BILL. [BILL 130.]
    (Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lush, Mr. Isaac.)

    COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, this day, resolve itself into the said Committee. — (Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "this day," in order to insert the words "upon Tuesday next," — (Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—instead thereof.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, his vote on this question would depend very much upon the answer he received from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Wheelhouse). He thought the Bill might be made a very good one with certain Amendments, and he had himself placed several upon the Notice Paper. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to receive his proposals with favour, he would support the Motion to take the next stage at the earliest possible moment. He knew that the Amendments he proposed to introduce were regarded with favour by other hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill.
    MR. WHEELHOUSE,in reply, said, he could not accept the Amendments which had been put upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Samuelson).
    MR. DILLWYNsupported the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), on the ground that it would be unfair to put upon the Paper for a Saturday Sitting a Bill which had been set down for almost every night since the commencement of the Session.
    Question put, "That the words 'this day' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 40.
    And the numbers being equal, Mr. Speaker stated that the House seemed to be in doubt regarding the day on which this Bill should be proceeded with; but as, in the case of the prior Order of the Day, the House decided upon its postponement to Tuesday next,

    1713
    he should follow a similar course, and accordingly declared his vote with the Noes.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
    Words inserted.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee.

    ELECTION OF ALDERMEN (CUMULATIVE VOTE) BILL.— [BILL 71.]
    (Mr. Wheelhouse, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Tennant.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will this day resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved, as an Amendment, that the stage be taken on Thursday (August 15.)
    MR. COURTNEYseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "this day," in order to insert the words "upon Thursday next,"— (Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—instead thereof.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment. The Bill had been on the Paper for several months, and he had wished to be able to pass it; but its progress had been met with most persistent opposition. He saw no chance of making progress, unless he was allowed to put it down for the Saturday Sitting, and therefore he must persist with his Motion. As far as the general principle was concerned, he did not think the Bill of any private Member should be put down for a Saturday Sitting; but as he understood that a private Member's Bill was to take first place among the Orders of the Day, he saw no reason for giving up the privilege—right he should prefer to call it—of putting his own Bill upon the Paper. He should therefore persist in his right not only to put his Bill among the Orders of the Day, but to take the precedence which was his due in accordance with the Rules which regulated the conduct of Business.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) had himself given a
    1714
    strong reason for not putting his Bill on the Orders for a Saturday Sitting, by stating that through several months its progress had been persistently opposed. It must be obvious to the hon. and learned Gentleman that under the circumstances he had himself mentioned, there was no chance of his being able to pass the Bill in the course of the few remaining days of the present Session.
    MR. ONSLOWhoped his hon. and learned Friend would not divide. There was little or no chance of his passing his Bill that Session, and he thought it highly desirable that no private Member's Bill should be taken at a Saturday Sitting so close to the end of the Session.
    Question put, "That the words 'this day' stand part of Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 48: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 267.)
    Words inserted.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That this House will, upon Thursday next, resolve itself into the said Committee.

    CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
    (Mr. Monk, Mr. Forsyth.)

    [BILL 176.] COMMITTEE.
    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. MONKproposed that the Committee on the Bill be taken at the Sitting on that day (Saturday). He could give good reasons why his request should be acceded to. The Bill was read a second time without any opposition, and if hon. Members looked at the Notice Paper, they would see there was not a single Amendment to it. The measure was one which was very much needed, and he had in his possession letters from high dignitaries of the Church, asking him to persevere with it. Therefore, he hoped the House would permit him to take the Committee that day.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till this day."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "this day," in order to add the words "upon Thursday next,"— (Mr. Dillwyn,)—instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the words 'this day' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 48: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 268.)
    MR. MONKthen moved that the Order be discharged, and gave Notice that he would re-introduce the Bill early next Session.
    MR. SPEAKER: Having already decided that this House, on Thursday next, will resolve itself into the said Committee, the House cannot consider the Motion of the hon. Member to discharge the Order until Thursday next.
    MR. MONKasked permission to rise to Order. He understood the Question put to the House was, that it resolve itself into Committee on the Bill that day. That had been decided in the negative, and now the Speaker would have to put from the Chair the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that the House would resolve itself into Committee on Thursday. That being the substantive Motion, he merely put it to the Speaker, whether he was not in Order in moving, as an Amendment to that substantive Motion, that the Order be discharged.
    MR. SPEAKER: The House has already decided that certain words should stand part of the Question, and the hon. Member now proposes to move that the Order be discharged. It would be inconsistent with what the House has already decided to put the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester; and, therefore, the Question I have to put is that this House, on Thursday next, will resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Ordered, That the Debate be further adjourned till Thursday next.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
    (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)
    [BILL 215.] THIRD READING.
    MR. O'SULLIVANmoved that the House do not meet on Saturday to read the Bill a third time.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, the Notice of this Motion was only given the previous night, and therefore he objected to it.
    MR. SPEAKER: This Notice of Motion having been only given yesterday for this day, and an objection being raised, the hon. Member cannot proceed with it consistently with the Resolution relating to opposed Business.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, there was no Amendment to his Motion on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Resolution in reference to opposed Business provided that no Notice of Motion given one day should be taken on the next, if objection be taken to it; and objection had been taken in this case.
    THE O'CONOR DONmoved, that the Order for the Third Reading of the Bill be taken that day.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time this day."—(The O'Conor Don.)
    MR. O'SULLIVANopposed the Motion, on the ground that Notice had not been given.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, this was a dropped Order, and, according to the practice of the House, the hon. Member having charge of it could move to fix a day for its third reading without Notice.
    MR. O'SULLIVANthought it a very unreasonable thing that the House should be asked to sit on Saturday, to entertain a Bill to which there was very strong opposition in Ireland. He would admit that the supporters of the Bill included a large number of the wealthy classes.
    MR. MONKrose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in discussing the merits of the Bill on the Motion that it be put down for that day?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House relates to the time at which this Bill is to be taken, and any observations on that Motion should be limited to the question of time. It would be quite irregular now to enter into the merits of the Bill.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the Bill having been so strongly opposed both in that House and in Ireland, he thought it was unfair that the House should meet that day to discuss the Bill. The measure of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), which was not even opposed, had been post-

    1717
    poned by the House until Thursday, and yet this Sunday Closing Bill, which had been opposed at every stage, was to come on. The House had sat late during the whole week—they would not rise that morning until between 3 and 4, and were hon. Members to be brought there again at 12 o'clock, to pass a Bill which had been so strongly opposed? It was most inconsistent after the decision of the House as to the other Bills, that that one should come on and be taken before any Government Business. He believed up to the present time there had been no precedent for taking a private Member's Bill on a Saturday; but this would create a very bad one. Considering the time the House and its officers had sat, he thought it unfair to take a Bill on Saturday, which he should oppose in every way he could.
    THE O'DONOGHUEdid not think it was treating the opponents of the Bill fairly to take it that day. Of course, they could not discuss the merits of the measure; but he quite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Sullivan) that the people of Ireland were opposed to it, and that they had never yet expressed an opinion upon it. The opponents of the Bill availed themselves of all the recognized means for opposing the Bill, and yet the Government, in what they had done, had gone out of their way, and taken a most exceptional course to suit the desires of his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill (the O'Conor Don).
    MR. STACPOOLEsaid, in consenting to the Bill being taken on Saturday, the Government were going against the interests of those who had put them in office, because it was well known that the publicans secured for them their majority in the House.
    DR. O'LEARYwished to know, why the Government should take the very exceptional course of giving a Saturday Sitting to a private Member? No doubt, he heard on the previous night from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a sort of promise had been given at an early period of the Session to facilitate the passing of this Sunday Closing Bill. He thought there was no hon. Member in the House who could for a moment accuse either the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Member of the Government, of having broken faith upon this question. But a
    1718
    most extraordinary cause had been taken by the Government to facilitate the passing of the Bill. He believed—and if he was wrong he should be glad to be corrected—that the Government, to help on this Bill, had absolutely dropped the Order of Supply for three days. If that were true, surely the Government had fulfilled their promise—he considered, more than fulfilled their promise—to the promoters of the Bill. He would not then go into the reasons which had induced the Government to give a Saturday Sitting for the discussion of the Bill, as to do so would detain the House too long, and he did not forget that they were to meet on Saturday, and to sit all through Sunday as the promoters of the Bill had expressed their readiness to do so, and he believed there was no Rule to the contrary. That being so, of course, the bar of the House of Commons would be kept open, and at the instigation of Sunday closers. Why should the Government give such facilities? They had undoubtedly been told that there was a large preponderance of public feeling in Ireland in favour of the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member must not go into the merits of the Bill.
    DR. O'LEARYbowed to the decision of the Chair; but although he thought he touched the margin very closely, he did not actually go into the merits of the Bill. He maintained that the Government had no justification for giving a special day to a private Member. The reason they had done so was that it was said there was a large preponderance of feeling in favour of the Bill; and, believing that to be true, they gave facilities for passing the Bill. But what were the facts? He would only touch the margin closely; but he remembered that two years since, the justification of the Government in helping on the Bill was that the people of Ireland were in favour of it, and that 170,000 petitioned in favour of it. But what was the case now? Look at the Petitions which had been presented to the House this year.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was going beyond the Question, which was the time at which the Bill should be taken. He must ask him to keep to the Question.
    DR. O'LEARYsaid, he had sought through the authorities for precedents

    1719
    and could find none. It must be perfectly well known to the House that ever since the year 1874, the Government had given a quasi-opposition to the principle of the Bill which they were now assisting, and he thought the onus laid upon the Government of showing good reason for the course they now proposed to take. The Government had entirely changed their ground, and, without giving either Notice or reason therefore, had given unprecedented facilities for the passing of a Bill which they for several years opposed. Irish Members who were opposed to the Bill were determined to use every means in their power to give effect to their opposition. They were prepared, if necessary, to carry on the discussion during the whole of Saturday and Sunday; and he asked the Government whether they were prepared to accept so awful a responsibility? A good deal had been said about obstruction in that House. He knew nothing about that point; but he should certainly protest against any course which might have the effect of curtailing the rights of minorities either inside Parliament, or beyond its walls. If the Government persisted in the course upon which they had entered, they would run the risk of causing a fearful scandal by compelling the House of Parliament to sit on a Sunday, in order to pass a Bill whose object was to close all public-houses in Ireland on all corresponding days during the period through which the Act had to run. As far as the Sitting on Saturday was concerned, he would point out to the House that such a Sitting would be unjust to those Members of the House who held the Jewish faith.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member that he was travelling beyond the Question before the House, which was simply as to when the Bill should proceed to its next stage.
    DR. O'LEARYsaid, he only wished, in conclusion, to express his opinion that the conduct of the Government in giving a Saturday to the third reading of the Bill was such as to bring discredit not only upon the Government, but upon the House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of saying anything as to the conduct of the Government in this matter. That must be judged by the House.
    1720
    What he rose for was to make an appeal to the good feeling of the House, and to ask hon. Members to consider whether they were not inflicting needless cruelty upon the Speaker—an official whom they all honoured—by keeping him in the Chair up to so late (orearly) an hour, with the almost absolute certainty that he would have to resume his seat at noon?
    MR. MURPHYsaid, he regretted that the Government had so far furthered this Bill as to facilitate its passing before the people of Ireland had really been able to pronounce an opinion upon it.
    MR. ONSLOWasked, whether the Bill would be put upon the Paper as the First Order of the Day at the Saturday Sitting.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative.
    CAPTAIN PIMmoved that the third reading be taken on the following Tuesday, the 13th instant.
    MR. STACPOOLEseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "this day," in order to add the words "upon Tuesday next,"—(Captain Pim,)—instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the words 'this day," stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:— Ayes 61; Noes 18: Majority 43. — (Div. List, No. 269.)
    Main Question put.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read the third time this day.

    WAYS AND MEAN'S.
    Resolution [August 8] reported;
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, the sum of £21,556,807 7s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Marriages (Fiji) * (195); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * (170); Prison (Officers' Superannuation) * (184).
Committee—Report—Locomotives on Highways (Scotland) (190).
Report—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (128).
Third Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * (193); British Museum (Transfer of Collection)* (183); Commons Regulation (Expenses) * (181); Statute Law Revision (Ireland) * (185), and passed.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
Commons' Amendments considered.
Order of the Day for the Consideration of the Commons' Amendments, read.
EARL PORTESCUEsaid, that as he was the Peer who last ventured, while President of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of legislating for the protection of their flocks and herds from diseases imported from abroad, he must ask their Lordships' indulgence for a few moments while he made some observations before the Bill finally passed away from their Lordships' House. He might begin by thanking Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of the agriculturists, both as regarded the producer and the enlightened portion of the consumers of England, for having undertaken the laborious duty of passing this measure.

1621
On the whole, although he did not think it would leave their Lordships' House in as satisfactory a form as it might have done, still he was of opinion that it was likely to be a very valuable measure. He had said that he must thank the Government on the behalf of the intelligent consumer, and he did so because he was quite sure that the consumers would be as much interested in the matter as the producers of meat. In his view, the production of meat would be considerably increased by the passing of this measure, because it would certainly prevent the introduction of disease; and he had very little doubt that the consumers would—most of them—be of that opinion, notwithstanding the electioneering arts to which had been used in and out of Parliament to persuade them to the contrary. He must say that he felt very indignant at the calumnies and misrepresentations of the motives and objects of this measure, when he remembered that the Central Chamber of Agriculturists, comprising the representatives of local chambers and numerous bodies throughout the Kingdom, passed a resolution which was read to their Lordships last year expressly disclaiming any design to reverse the well established Free Trade policy of the country, and stating distinctly that the protection they desired for their flocks and herds was protection from imported contagion, and not at all from foreign competition. There was no doubt that since the free introduction of foreign live stock had been permitted by law, the farmers of this country had experienced a most terrible outbreak of the cattle plague, the introduction of which had destroyed many millions' worth of property. But since that great outbreak of cattle plague, he was assured by high authorities that foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, which had been existing ever since, more or less, in various parts of this country, had entailed even a heavier than that loss caused by the cattle plague to the farmers, who naturally felt very great alarm on the subject of disease. And that had led to a considerable diminution of live stock in this country, in spite of the most undesirably high price of meat. The great loss from disease had out-weighed any benefit that might be derived from the free movement of the cattle, and many farmers and consumers had now arrived at the conclusion that
1622
the only satisfactory way to deal with the matter was to exclude the importation of all live stock from the country. His own conviction was that as one good result of the measure, the proportion of dead meat at home and abroad for the consumption of this Metropolis and other large towns would constantly increase. The introduction of a system of cold storage here would probably be productive of a very large and rapid increase in the quantity of meat daily sent to the Metropolis both from abroad and from distant counties. From information obtained from the evidence taken by the Parliamentary Committee on the subject, it appeared that a large increase had already taken place in the quantity of meat sent from Aberdeen and other parts of Scotland—as from his own knowledge he could state that it had from Devonshire and Cornwall—because experience had taught the dealers there that it was a much more satisfactory and profitable mode of disposing of their fat stock. He rejoiced heartily at it on other grounds; because, while it improved the health of man, it diminished the sufferings of the animals themselves, and he expressed his conviction that notwithstanding all that had been said about the suffering caused by vivisection, it was nothing compared with the aggregate suffering of the hundreds of animals during the passage to the Metropolitan Market, from want of food and water, pressure and suffocation, ending, in some instances, in the death of the whole cargo during their long journey. He had had it from good practical authority that every day the cattle spent in travelling they diminished in weight to the extent of eight pounds each animal, at least, on the average; consequently the loss in the aggregate quantity as well as quality of the meat was very great. A great deal of this inconvenience would be saved by the introduction of a system of cold storage into this country. By the present system of importation, the meat was brought to the seaports in ice compartments; but it was taken out immediately on its arrival into the hot streets, and had to be sold at once, because it would not keep. If, however, there were an extensive cold storage system, it would enable the supply of one day's market to be kept over for the next, and tend to equalize prices, which

1623
would be a most beneficial thing both for the consumer and for the producer. In America a very extensive system of cold storage had been established, with the best results; and it had been applied there, not only to the preservation of meat, but to that of vegetables and fruit, and he confidently looked forward to the time when a large proportion of the meat consumed in London which was brought from a distance would be killed at the place at which it had been fattened, whether at home or abroad. Regarding the various criticisms that had been indulged in upon this matter, and more especially those which had reference to the consumption of offal, he had heard from a good practical authority that the price of offal, notwithstanding the large increase in the importation of dead meat from abroad and from distant parts of the country into the Metropolis, had not risen at all relatively to the high prices at which joints were sold. It must be remembered that it was only a small proportion of offal that would bear the cost of transport from the country, although protected by the application of ice. A considerable portion of what was called offal was by no means fit for human food, there being a large quantity of slime and filth from the carcase of the animals, which would make excellent manure if they were killed in the country; but which was not only useless when they were killed in the town, but liable to become a nuisance, and even dangerous to the health of the community, unless the slaughter-houses were most carefully watched by the authorities. It was, therefore, upon sanitary as well as economical grounds that he contemplated with satisfaction the substitution of the importation of meat in the carcase to the Metropolis instead of live animals. He had heard the clap-trap cry of "Free Trade in danger" raised, and he thought that many of those who had taken part in the debates upon the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government had not scrupled to endeavour to obtain support for themselves by raising the cry of "Free Trade in danger." For his own part, he had always been a consistent Liberal and free trader from his youth upwards; but he could not help remembering that the same cry had been raised again and again by those who had been opposed to different reforms. They should re-
1624
member that interference with trade was not always interference for the purposes of protection. For instance, the Members who pressed for the Factory Acts were charged with interference with the natural laws of supply and demand, and the recognized principles of political economy; and this by Sir Robert Peel, when he had just made his alterations in the Corn Laws, continuing that economical anomaly and absurdity known as the sliding scale. He remembered, also, the opposition to interference with lodging-houses, and the same cry was raised with reference to the adulteration of food, by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, who protested indignantly against having Government inspection to protect the people from the practice of adulteration. He thought the good sense of the country was sufficient to put an end to such chimeras, which were at once the offspring of ignorance and selfishness, and that it was now admitted that legislative interference with trade was in many cases the best course they could adopt, not only as regarded the interests of humanity, but also as being in conformity with the soundest and truest political economy.
EARL SPENCERsaid, that he had listened with attention to the address which had just been delivered by the noble Earl, and begged to join with him in congratulating Her Majesty's Government in having succeeded in passing this important measure through Parliament; and he thought that the agriculturists of the Kingdom were indebted to the Government for agreeing to the Amendment which was pressed upon them in the other House. The Act would be one of great importance, not only because it effected uniformity of action throughout the country with regard to the various interests concerned, but in other important respects, and would have great influence in diminishing disease. He must, however, protest against some of the views that had been put forward by his noble Friend. His noble Friend used some strong expressions as to the motives of the opponents of the important clause which had reference to the importation of live cattle. He alluded to them as electioneering arts, and even went so far as to say that some speakers in and out of the House had adopted those views

1625
in order to counteract the successful policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to its foreign policy. He need hardly argue against the latter view; but whatever might be his own opinion of the original clause, he had a right to protest against the motives by which it had been stated they were actuated. In "another place" that matter was taken up by leading statesmen, and it was rather hard to charge them with electioneering arts because they opposed a measure which affected so materially and prejudicially, as they thought, the interests of their constituents. He did not think it was fair to those who entertained those views to accuse them of adopting electioneering arts, because the arguments used against the measure were of great weight and importance. They did not argue that it was a return to Protectionism—for the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon), and those who spoke upon that side, carefully guarded themselves against accusing the noble Duke and his Friend opposite from entertaining Protectionist views. They said, however, that some people in the country had supported the measure because they looked upon it as a return to Protectionism; but they did not impute any motives of that kind to the Government who introduced the measure. He thought it right to protest against this imputation upon the motives of those who were opposed to a measure upon the passing of which he heartily congratulated the Government. He wished to ask the noble Duke a question upon an important point that had been raised in the course of the discussion with reference to the Irish cattle trade to this country. Considerable stress had been laid before their Lordships' Committee upon the importance of having a proper veterinary management in Ireland, and they were unanimous in saying that the Veterinary Department in Ireland was hardly equal to this work, especially considering the great importance of the question to Ireland, where large districts depended almost entirely upon the cattle trade. He could not, therefore, help impressing upon his noble Friend the necessity of strengthening that Department which had the regulation of all the cattle traffic in Ireland, just as the Privy Council had in England. His own recollection
1626
of the Veterinary Department, when he was in Ireland, was that they had not a sufficiently large staff, and his noble Friend would see the importance of its being vigorously dealt with. He therefore ventured to ask the noble Duke, whether he could give the House some information with regard to what had been done towards strengthening the Veterinary Department in Ireland?
EARL FORTESCUEexplained that he did not mean to impute any improper motive either to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) or to the noble Lords who had opposed the Bill in that House; but it certainly was the impression that many of the speeches, both in and out of Parliament, were mere claptrap for political purposes.
THE DUKE or RICHMOND AND GORDONdid not think it necessary for him to reply upon the latter point, and having already expressed his opinion and belief that the measure would be one of a very useful character, and for the benefit of all classes of the community, no one would be more rejoiced than he should be when it received the Royal Assent. With regard to the question put by his noble Friend (Earl Spencer), he was not able to give any details as to what had been done with regard to the Veterinary Department in Ireland. Their Lordships were aware that the Privy Council had no jurisdiction in Ireland as regarded issuing Orders or making regulations. Those matters rested entirely with the Government and the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin, and he might say that for weeks, if not months, he had been in communication with his Excellency on the subject of the Veterinary Department, and upon the form of the Orders that should be issued by the Irish Government. The two Governments desired to act as much as possible together, so as to put a stop to the progress of disease both in England and Ireland, and he had great hopes that the measures which had been referred to by his noble Friend would be found to be satisfactory. His noble Friend might rely upon it that it was the desire of the Government to make the Veterinary Department as strong as possible.
Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order); several agreed to, with an Amendment, and a consequen-

1627
tial Amendment to the Bill; and one disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare a reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to the said Amendment: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from Committee of the reason prepared by them; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the Amendments and reason.

NAVY—H. M. S. "EURYDICE."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, seeing the noble Lord who represented the Admiralty (Lord Elphinstone) in his place, and knowing the great interest that was felt by the public in everything that related to the Eurydice, begged to ask, Whether the noble Lord was in a position to give the House, before Parliament separated, any information with respect to the condition of this vessel? He was induced to put the Question more especially by the unfavourable reports which had reached him of the progress of the operations. Those operations had now been going on for some time, and no doubt they would eventually be successful; but he wished to know if anything had happened which had delayed them?
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that he was very glad the Question had been asked, because it enabled him, before the House separated, to fulfil a promise that he had made in the early part of the Session, to the effect that he should be at all times happy to give every information in his power with regard to the Eurydice; and he was happy to be able to inform their Lordships that she was now lying inside the Isle of Wight in a position in which she was perfectly protected from the influence either of tide or weather, and in 11 feet of water. She was being pumped out that day, and in a few days she would be cleared out, and taken into Portsmouth Harbour. When she arrived there, there would be a very searching investigation made, and a court martial would be held; although he confessed he did not for one moment think that anything would result from that investigation, or that any new light would be thrown by the court martial upon the cause of the catastrophe. The cause was, to his own mind, perfectly clear. The ship was
  1628
  struck by a sudden and violent squall, and received what he might term a knock-down blow. She never recovered from that blow, but sunk at once. He was the more confirmed in this opinion from having seen several bodies recovered from the upper deck of the vessel showing that they were thrown to leeward. The ropes and other gear had been thrown on the top of them, and they had not had time to extricate themselves before the vessel sank. He stated on a former occasion that he thought that in all probability, within three or four weeks' time, the Eurydice would be raised and towed into Portsmouth Harbour; and from what he had since seen he did not think that, had the weather been at all favourable, he had very much understated the time. But everything had been, as their Lordships knew, against the raising of that ship. In the first place, it must be borne in mind that the ship sank in 12 fathoms of water, in a strong tide way, with a very short period of, slack water, the tide running from 3 to 5 knots an hour, with a period of slackwater of only 20 minutes; and it was only during that short period of slack water that diving operations could be carried on. In the second place, the weather had been most unusually stormy, and the whole of the operations had been interrupted in consequence. The result had been that the ship gradually worked herself into a dock, or hole, nearly 12 feet deep, and out of that hole she had to be lifted. She was lifted, and she was then brought into Sandown Bay by successive lifts—a distance of about 2¼ miles —where it was intended that her ports should be securely closed. She would then have been pumped out, floated, and taken into Portsmouth Harbour. Everything was nearly ready for this operation. Two tides—and two tides only— would have been sufficient to complete the operation. But the same evil fate seemed to pursue the ship. A strong easterly wind sprang up, and so damaged the upper deck that it destroyed the preparations which had been made. The idea of pumping her out had to be abandoned, and it was decided that she should again be lifted and brought inside the Isle of Wight—a distance of about six miles from her former position, and where she now was. It had often been asked why she had been

  1629
  taken into so exposed a position as San-down Bay at all? The answer was that it was absolutely necessary to move her into shoal water as quickly as possible, and Sandown Bay was the nearest and most convenient place. There was no reason to anticipate a gale of wind from the east at that time of the year; and, indeed, the records of weather, for the last three years at any rate—probably for a much longer period—had not led one to anticipate the weather that was then experienced. However, he was glad to add that all cause of further apprehension had ceased, she was now in a place of safety, and no further difficulties of that nature need be apprehended. Such was briefly an account of the recovery of that ship, and he could not altogether pass from this subject without alluding to the impression he had formed of the manner in which that result had been obtained; and that impression was formed, not from any hearsay evidence, but from repeated personal observations. He was present at the attempt made to lift her on the 2nd of last month; all was then going well, the ship was off the ground, when a strong breeze set in from the east, bringing with it a nasty sea that caused the lifting vessels to pitch heavily. The consequence was that an unequal strain was brought upon the hawsers, one of the toggles broke, and the attempt had to be abandoned. He was again present a fortnight later when the tides suited, the weather proved favourable, and the ship was lifted and placed upon a new bed. That was the crucial test. It was successful, and he was perfectly satisfied that he was right in saying that had the weather been favourable for the operations, that result would have been obtained long before. He had repeatedly been present since that day; but what had struck him most—more even than the great skill, both scientific and professional, that had undoubtedly been displayed—was the wonderful amount of energy shown, not only by Admiral Foley himself, but by every officer and man under his orders. The energy which had been displayed was, in his opinion, beyond praise. Difficulties that would have daunted most men only made them the more determined to succeed. Many—indeed, most—men would have been tempted to give up in despair, as time after time they were
  1630
  driven from their work by bad weather. Not less than 15 times they were forced to desist. Several times the whole of the vessels had to be brought into harbour for shelter, yet they were not discouraged, and their untiring efforts had been at last crowned with success. It had been, he could assure their Lordships, no child's play. To fully estimate and appreciate the work that had to be accomplished, the wreck should have been visited during the operations. There were no instances on record of similar results having been achieved under similar circumstances; and all must, he felt sure, rejoice at the success of those who had laboured so long and so determinedly to bring about that result.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 190.)
(The Lord President.)
LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 190.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power to local authorities to make orders as to hours during which locomotives may pass over roads).
  LORD DENMANmoved an Amendment, of which Notice was given, to omit the words "during eight consecutive hours only." He felt sure that the authorities were most anxious to give every facility to the transit of steam engines, especially in an agricultural county, and that they might safely have discretionary power.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he gave his noble Friend every credit for proposing an Amendment which he thought would be a bonâfide improvement of the Bill; but it was necessary that the words which he proposed to deal with should remain in the clause, because, on communicating with the road authorities, it was decided that there must be a certain portion of the day during which the locomotives must work upon the roads, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that power should be given to them to do so in this clause.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that it had recently been the custom to propose Amendments on the third reading which

  1631
  had been rejected in Committee, and he hoped the noble Duke would not think him disrespectful if he again proposed his Amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the words were precisely the same as those in the Highways Bill they had just passed, and that it would be very unadvisable to have the two systems in reference to highways.
  LORD FORBESconsidered that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord should not be pressed at so late a period of the Session, and he certainly thought that it would be desirable that the periods of time during which these engines were not permitted to work on the roads should be divided. He therefore thought that the limit of time during which they should not be allowed to work should be altered from eight consecutive hours within the 24 hours, to four hours in the earlier part of the day and four hours in the later part of the day. By adopting that principle, a really useful measure would be passed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING SHIPS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATTONS.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What was the estimated cost of the purchase and fitting up of the ship bought by the London School Board; and the number and salaries of the staff employed in it; and what arrangements are proposed to be made about the meals of the boys to be trained on board? said, that with respect to the last portion of the Question, it was unnecessary to put it, because he had received the information he required since he had been in the House by a note which had been sent to him, and which stated that the arrangement made with respect to meals were satisfactory, and that proper precautions had been taken for the prevention of any contagious diseases spreading among the
  1632
  inmates of the ship. Of course, it would be a very serious thing if any such disease did break out, and it was obvious that measures should be taken to prevent it spreading, and to have the proper remedies immediately available in such case. His Question, therefore, would be confined to the cost of the vessel and the fittings.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in reply, said, that the first part of the Question, of which Notice had been given, was to ask the Government whether such a ship had been purchased, and what was the estimated cost? The Minutes of the London School Board, which had been forwarded to him that morning for the information of the Education Department of the Privy Council, stated that the Industrial School Ship Shaftesbury, formerly the ship Nubia, had been purchased by them. The first Vote was £12,000, and there was an additional Vote of £5,000 for the purchase and equipment of the vessel, and a further sum of £1,000 for the cost of dredging a place for the ship, and £569 to the Thames Conservancy Board for the expenses attending the mooring. The cost had been larger than was at first anticipated, because it was believed that the Admiralty would have been able to have given one of Her Majesty's ships for this purpose; but, unfortunately, they were not in a position to do so. The next Question was as to the number of staff employed on board the vessel, and those particulars were not known to the Home Office. It was a matter of discretion with the London School Board as to the number of boys which were to be placed on board a vessel and trained. If he recollected rightly, it was intended that the ship should provide accommodation, in the first instance, for 500 boys; but he believed that that number had been reduced.
  LORD TRUROthought that £1,000 was a very large sum of money to be given for dredging a hole for mooring purposes. He thought that the ship might have been provided with convenient moorings at much less cost than that.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the payment had been agreed on between the two Boards; but of course he was not able to state the details or the reasons on which that Estimate was framed.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, while admitting that the cost was very large, could not help expressing his opinion that if any one thing was more valuable than another in reference to the work of the School Board, it was the establishment of school ships, by means of which boys could be trained up in a manner which would be useful both to themselves and to the country. He should, therefore, be extremely sorry to hear any attack made upon them on the part of his noble Friend, or any doubt thrown upon the proceedings of the Board, because any reflection made upon experiments of this kind could not but be detrimental to the success of the experiment. For his own part, he thought that the employment of training ships would be most valuable.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROasked the permission of their Lord ships, before they adjourned, to say a few words upon a topic which had been before them upon a previous occasion. They knew that Her Majesty's Government was a Conservative Government, and that it was not desirous of interfering with any of the old institutions of the country until their defects were clearly pointed out; but if they were clearly pointed out he had no doubt that they would take steps to remedy any existing evils. He alluded to the Metropolitan Police Force, and expressed himself gratified that as soon as Her Majesty's Government were satisfied that it was absolutely necessary to institute an inquiry into the Detective Department they had appointed a Committee for that purpose. He thought that would give great satisfaction to the country.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONrose to Order, observing that the noble Lord was pursuing an extremely irregular course, and he must say an unjust one, because he was about to discuss the regulations of the Metropolitan Police without having given any Notice. If the noble Lord wished to call attention to any of the conditions under which the Force now existed he ought to give Notice, and noble Lords would then be able to come down to that House and express their views either for or against the Motion. Although
  1634
  there was, undoubtedly, a great deal of license allowed in their Lordships' House, he put it to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, whether the course which was being pursued by the noble Lord was one that could be permitted?
  LORD TRUROdisclaimed any intention of forcing on a discussion upon the subject to which he had alluded; but thought it was permissible, at the close of the Session, to any noble Lord to make suggestions that should be considered by the Committee that had been appointed to inquire into the subject. That was the object with which he rose. He did not propose to raise any discussion, but wished to throw out certain suggestions for the consideration of the Committee. If, however, he could not do that without a breach of the Rules of the House, in consequence of his having omitted to give Notice, he would do so before the end of the Session.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.