Sitting of 15 June 1880

MINUTES.
NEW WHIT ISSUED—For Bandon Borough, v. Captain Percy Brodrick Bernard, Chiltern Hundreds.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order) —Second Heading—Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways (City Lines and Extensions).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Vaccination Acts Amendment*; South Western (of London) District Post Office *.
Second Heading—Land Drainage Provisional Order (Frodsham, &c.) * [207].
Committee—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order (Leith)* [200], discharged.
Report—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* [123].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAYS (CITY LINES AND EXTENSIONS) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Edward Watkin.)
    MR. RITCHIE,in rising to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months, said, he was aware that in proposing to ask the House to reject a Private Bill upon the second reading, he was doing that which was not always a convenient course to pursue. He was quite aware of the inconvenience of asking the House to come to a decision on a question of this kind; but, at the same time, he hoped the House, if sufficient cause was shown for rejecting a Bill, would not part with its right to do so. He believed that in this case he should be perfectly able to show sufficient reason why the House should not consent to the second reading of the Bill. He should content himself with very few words, for he did not propose to detain the House at any length. In a very few words he thought he should be able to show the House that a proposition was contained in the present Bill which was of an altogether unprecedented nature, and one which fully justified him in asking the House not to give the Bill a second reading. The ground upon which he rested his argument was one which required no evidence. It was one which required no investigation, and it was one upon which the House could have no difficulty whatever in coming to a conclusion without any great amount of argument. There was an Act of Parliament which was passed in the year 1845, called the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which was passed for the purpose of securing uniformity in the provisions of Private Bills so far as compensation was concerned. It applied to the provisions of all such Private Bills as that which was now before the House of Commons, and naturally all those whose property was at all likely to be interfered with felt secure that under the provisions of that Act
    44
    they were protected from certain proceedings on the part of the promoters of these Bills which were calculated prejudicially to affect the rights of private property. But the Bill which the House was now asked to read a second time proposed for the first time, he thought, altogether to set aside a very important clause in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and to go under and take portions of premises without the promoters of the Bill being compelled to take the whole. As he had already intimated, the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was passed in 1845 for the purpose of securing uniformity in the various Acts relative to the acquisition of lands for undertakings or works of a public nature; and Section 92 said—
    "Be it enacted that no party shall at any time be required to sell or convey to the promoters of the undertaking a part only of any house, or other building, or manufactory, if such party be willing and able to sell and convey the whole thereof."
    He did not know whether hon. Members had in their hands the Bill which it was now proposed to read a second time. If they had, by turning to Clause 10, they would find the following words:—
    "With respect to any houses or buildings which the two Companies are by the provisions of the Act of 1879 or this Act authorized to enter on, take, and use, for purposes of the railways, and under which, or any part of which, or the premises connected therewith, it is proposed that the railways shall be made; the two Companies shall not be required to take those houses, buildings, or premises, or the site thereof, but the two Companies may appropriate and use the soil or ground lying under any such houses, buildings, or premises, or under any part or parts thereof respectively, and may purchase, and the owners of such houses, buildings, and premises respectively, shall, if required, sell to the two Companies an easement to use for making and maintaining the railway, so much of the said soil or ground as they may require for those purposes, and the purchase of any such easement shall not in any case be deemed the purchase of a part of a house, or other building, or manufactory, within Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."
    This was the clause which it was proposed to insert in the Bill for the benefit of the promoters of the measure; and in order to enable them to pay a somewhat larger dividend to their shareholders this clause proposed to repeal the restricting section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. It might be said that those who were interested in

    45
    the matter would have their remedy by-appearing' and giving evidence before the Committee upstairs upon the question; but he took it that there were many people interested in such a matter as this who would not, even if they desired it, have any locus standi before the Committee. He took it that the inhabitants of the district as inhabitants, the occupiers of houses as occupiers, would have no locus standi before the Committee; but even if they did have a locus standi he contended that it was not fair, it was not just, and it was not expedient that these people should be required to go to the serious expense of appearing before a Committee in order to defend the position which had been given to them by an Act of Parliament in 1845 for the express purpose of providing against any such action as that which was now proposed by the present Bill. He contended, however, that there were many interested in this matter who had no locus standi, and who would receive no compensation, although materially affected by the proposals contained in the Bill. The occupier of a house or building under which it was proposed to run this railway by this Bill would have no claim whatever to any kind of compensation; and it was specially on their behalf that he asked the House of Commons to reject altogether such an unprecedented proposition as that which was now placed before them. But on the part of the owners of property who would have a locus standi, and whom it was proposed in some shadowy way to compensate, he maintained that they had no right to be asked to come before a Committee of the House of Commons and incur the large expense that would be entailed in defending the rights which had been conferred upon them by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. They had no right to be called upon by this Rail-way Company for their own purposes to part with the foundations of their houses, so that for all future time they would be unable to deal with them on the simple understanding that they would have some claim to moderate compensation. He was very unwilling indeed to trespass on the time of the House at any length at such an hour of the day. He hoped he had stated sufficient broadly to enable the House to come to a conclusion that this was a Bill
    46
    which ought not to be read a second time. It was a Bill of such an exceptional nature that he thought the House would be justified in throwing it out on the second reading. He had just had placed in his hands the case of the promoters of the Bill; but a perusal of it led him to the conclusion that it did not alter in one iota the force of the objections he had stated to the House. The case of the promoters simply amounted to this—"We ask the House of Commons, by giving us these extraordinary powers, to enable us to give to our shareholders a larger amount of dividend than we would be able otherwise to do." Upon this ground alone the House was asked to legislate for this Company on other lines than those which all other underground railways in this Metropolis had hitherto been required to go upon. It was one question to say whether negotiations might not be entered into with the owners of property as to whether they were willing to allow a Railway Company to go under their property without requiring them to take the whole of it; but it was altogether a different thing to say by Act of Parliament that they should not have the power of refusing, but should be compelled to part with their rights of property. And for what purpose was this exceptional privilege to be conferred? Simply for the purpose of enabling a private Company to pay a larger dividend to their shareholders; and in order to do that the House of Commons was asked to set aside an Act of Parliament on which all Bills of this nature had hitherto been based. He begged, in conclusion, to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR EDWARD WATKINregretted that, once again in the new Parliament, he should be called upon to trouble the House, even for a moment, in defending the rights of Petitioners for Private Bills. In the old Parliament he had had to defend those rights over and over again; and, with only one exception, the House had permitted the promoters of

    47
    Private Bills to introduce their scheme. Having exercised the Constitutional right of presenting a Petition, and having had the prayer of that Petition granted by the first reading of their Bill, it was altogether unjust and unfair to refuse to those Petitioners, whose Petition had been granted by the House, the right of having their case heard by a Committee upstairs, that Committee being practically the House itself. This was nothing more nor less than an attempt upon the part of the opponents of the Bill to stop a great public work. The hon. Member (Mr. Ritchie) said—and it was a very cheap assertion to make—that the object of the Bill was to contravene the provisions of an Act of Parliament in order to increase the dividends of a private Company. He (Sir Edward Watkin) begged to say that it was nothing of the kind. Certainly, before the hon. Member came to the House and troubled them, at that inconvenient hour of the day, by laying down the law upon the question, he ought to have made himself acquainted with what the law actually was He seemed to be under the impression that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 had never been modified or altered since it was first enacted. But Parliament, in dealing with underground railways, had already given the promoters of Private Bills power to take any part of any premises outside the principal walls of a house, and power to underpin the house without taking the house at all. In this case it was simply proposed to give an extension of that principle, and to say that, if the promoters did not wish to incur the wasteful expense of pulling property down when engineering skill would enable them to do so without inflicting such demolition of property, they might burrow under the property, compensating for all damage to everyone affected. The hon. Member ought, in fairness, to have said that compensation was provided by the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had made that statement. He had said that the owners of property were promised some kind of compensation by the clause.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINwished the House clearly to understand that compensation was provided in the Bill both for the owner and the tenant. The work which it was proposed to sanction by the measure was of a very exceptional nature. It was the completion of the Underground Railway by adding a mile
    48
    of railway between the Mansion House Station and High Street, Aldgate. The line passed through a very important part of the City of London, and if it could not be made cheaply it would not be made at all. The question then was, was the line to be made or not? Were they going to refuse the promoters the right to be heard before a Committee upstairs? He was prepared to submit, as far as he was concerned, to the decision of the House; but he did not believe that the House would be prepared to stop a great and important public work, and refuse to read the Bill a second time, because some Gentlemen in the City of London wanted to have the whole of their premises taken, and to saddle the promoters with a wasteful expenditure, instead of being compensated for the actual injury they sustained. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would reject the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and read the Bill a second time.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, it seemed somewhat strange that the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) should have spoken so strongly in favour of the Bill, of its urgent necessity, and the injustice that would be done to the promoters by rejecting it, when it was well known that the hon. Member had been for many years an opponent of this very line.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINrose to Order. The statement of the hon. and gallant Member, who was a director of the railway in 1874, was entirely out of Order, and was altogether unfounded.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that unless the Speaker ruled that he was out of Order, he would repeat what he had stated—that the hon. Member for Hythe had himself been one of the chief obstacles to the completion of this line from the time it was first projected in 1874, under the name of the Inner Circle Completion Railway, which was a proposal to continue the line from the Mansion House Station to the thickly populated parts of the City about Mincing Lane; and as the hon. Member for Hythe was Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company, he did not wish to see this line completed, as it would draw away some of the traffic on that line between Cannon Street and Charing Cross. The hon. Member said it was quite irregular, or very nearly so, to prevent a Petition for

    49
    a Private Bill from going to a Committee. He (Captain. Aylmer) was sorry to detain the House even for a moment; but he wished to point out that there was a precedent for the course now proposed to be taken by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) in regard to the Bill. The hon. Member for Hythe brought in a Bill in 1876, which contained a clause of exactly the same nature as one in the present Bill; but it was opposed and rejected on the second reading. The present Bill proposed that interest on capital should be paid out of capital, and the Bill of 1876 had a clause to the same effect; and, although it was promoted by the hon. Gentleman, the House rejected it upon the second reading upon that ground. He (Captain Aylmer) thought the House would be justified in rejecting the present Bill for the same reason. The principle it involved was one of an exceptionally dangerous character; and if the House rejected the Bill it would simply be following the precedent which had already been established. It ought also to be rejected because it was an attempt to override an Act passed last Session, in which certain conditions were laid down in regard to another scheme, which conditions were not carried out in the present measure. Upon these grounds he seconded the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for the rejection of the Bill.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that setting aside the question between the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) and the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), as to whether there were rival schemes for the completion of this line of railway, the question they had really to consider was, whether the objections that had been taken to the Bill were in themselves objections to the ordinary practice of the House with regard to Private Bills, and should induce the House to stop the measure now instead of leaving it to a Committee to deal with the Bill when it came in the ordinary course before them. He should not have risen to take part in the debate if it had not been for the circumstance that the completion of this Inner Circle was an object of the greatest possible importance to the division he had the honour to represent of a neighbouring county to the Metropolis. Business
    50
    men who had long been anxious for the completion of the Inner Circle saw the contests which were going on between different Railway Companies to prevent what would be a great public work with the greatest possible regret; and he ventured to say that the question was one of such deep importance to the general commercial world, and of such especial importance to people engaged in commerce who lived in the county which he had the honour to represent, that he thought hon. Members should pause before they adopted a course which was seldom attempted in that House—namely, that of rejecting a Private Bill upon the second reading, and of not allowing it to go before a Select Committee for its merits to be sifted, and for the opponents to be heard in the ordinary way. He sincerely trusted that the House would not adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but would consent to read the Bill a second time.
    MR. ROWLEY HILLhad no desire to interfere with the passing of a measure to promote a great public improvement; but, at the same time, he thought that it was highly important for the House to maintain the rights of the owners of property to whom Parliament in its wisdom had given protection. This Bill, as far as he understood its provisions, proposed not merely to complete the Inner Circle Railway, but also to abolish and get rid of some very important provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which were enacted for the protection of the owners of property. The hon. Baronet who proposed the second reading of the Bill (Sir Edward Watkin) did not pretend to say that the measure conferred the rights it sought in a way which had ever been attempted before. Although Parliament in some cases had allowed the underpinning of walls, this Bill went much further, and allowed an easement to be acquired under the houses beneath which the line was to pass. In this way very valuable property in the City might be destroyed, and the continuity of premises interfered with in a very important manner. He, therefore, trusted that the House would be of opinion that it was due to themselves to stand by the rule they had themselves laid down for the protection of the owners of property, and that they would not consent to set it aside by reading the Bill a second time. It was true that

    51
    the opponents would have an opportunity of going before a Committee upstairs; but what right had any Railway Company to ask that individuals should be put to the cost of appearing before a Committee to protect the rights which Parliament had conferred upon them? These rights were granted by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845; and he trusted that Parliament would now send the Bill back again to its promoters with an intimation that if they desired to pass it they must bring it in again without these objectionable clauses. The hon. Baronet who moved the second reading of the Bill himself admitted that it involved an injustice to the owners of property, because he said that it would enable the line to be made in a cheaper manner than other lines had been able to be made. And how was the cheapening to be effected? Why, by robbing the owners of private property. He hoped the House would stand by the owners of private property, and not allow a Railway Company to exercise these tyrannical powers over them. This Company had for many years past been serving notices of various kinds upon the owners of property, which left such owners in a state of uncertainty with regard to the valuable property they possessed, and prevented them from dealing with it to the advantage they might otherwise have done if there had been no element of uncertainty. In the end, the Acts which had been obtained had not been carried out. He trusted the House would reject the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had justly drawn the attention of the House to a peculiarity in the present Bill which did not yet exist in any of the Acts passed by that House. The peculiarity was that the railway might burrow under a house without the directors being compelled of necessity to buy the whole house under which they burrowed. But the question before the House at present was whether this new power should be carefully considered by a Select Committee, or whether the House should reject the second reading of the Bill. It was, undoubtedly, a new power, which the House had never before given. It had given power to burrow under cellars, and to underpin the
    52
    walls of a house; but, at the present moment, there was no power to burrow under a house itself. Still, though this was a new power, as the attention of the House had been drawn to it, the Select Committee would carefully consider it on its merits, and would be able to advise the House, with a full knowledge of the circumstances, whether it was wise that this power should be given by an Act of Parliament. There was another power to which the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) had referred, and that was also peculiar to this Bill—namely, that interest should be given to capital during the course of construction. It was true that the clause did not profess to pay interest out of capital, but out of some reserve fund. As paying interest on capital during construction was against the spirit of Standing Order 167, the Select Committee would be required to consider that clause also. There was nothing, so far as he saw, in considering this Bill, as Chairman of Committees, which induced him to advise the House to refuse the second reading of the measure. But if it was referred to a Select Committee, he thought they should carefully consider these two points as well as another clause referring to the limits of deviation.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Lyon Play fair) told the House there were peculiarities connected with the present Bill, although he did not see anything to prevent them from reading the Bill a second time, even although it contained clauses that were shown to be of a very exceptional character. He believed that this was the first time that clauses of this kind had ever been introduced into any Railway Bill whatever. Last year the Bill promoted by the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan District Railway was sent upstairs and very ably argued there. It met with very great opposition, and it was thought that the Railway Companies had made an excellent bargain before the Committee upstairs. They were enabled to pass certain new clauses that were strongly objected to; but he was certain that if the Bill of last year had contained this clause—Clause 10—the measure would never have been passed at all. The objection which he entertained to the Bill now

    53
    was to the principle that a Railway Company should come before Parliament with a Bill in one Session, and after it had been ably discussed upstairs, alterations made, and the Bill passed into law, and after having carried on negotiations with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and with the authorities of the City of London, in reference to the contributions to be paid towards the formation of the new street, and finding that they were not able to come to an agreement with them, should introduce another Bill at the next Session of Parliament with entirely different provisions. He might mention in connection with this railway that the completion of the Inner Circle was admitted to be of great importance by everyone. At the same time, there was connected with the completion of the Railway the formation of a new street which was of equal importance, and which was to open up a communication between the West and the East Ends of the Metropolis. The combination of the two schemes was part of the arrangement sanctioned by the Committee upstairs. Clauses were inserted in the Bill for carrying out this arrangement between the Railway Companies, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the authorities of the City of London. Negotiations had been going on, and various sums had been mentioned in connection with the works between the three parties to the arrangement—the Metropolitan Board of Works on the one part, the Corporation of the City of London on the second part, and the Metropolitan Railway Company and the Metropolitan District Railway Company on the third part. They had not yet been able to agree upon all the points, although they had been coming somewhat nearer together. It seemed that two of the parties undertook the responsibility of paying the other party a certain specified sum of money. Under these circumstances, he held that it was too bad for the Railway Companies, after having obtained the passing of their former Bill, and not having been able to complete the negotiations, to object to the arrangement in regard to the new street. It was unfair for the Railway Companies to say now—"We will make the railway without the new street; we will burrow under your houses, and go to Parliament and ask them for power to complete our railway,
    54
    leaving you to do what you like with regard to the new street." The new street was of quite as much importance to the inhabitants of the Metropolis as the completion of the Inner Circle Railway. The Railway Company were to have the advantage of making their railway under that new street, and the arrangement would be of mutual benefit to the three parties. If properly carried out, it would be of benefit to the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of London as well as to the Railway Companies. It would be of benefit to the Board of Works and the Corporation of London to have the new street, and it would be of benefit to the Railway Companies to have their railway completed. In all probability, if the Railway Companies were allowed to have recourse to a new arrangement, the opportunity of forming a new street would be lost. If the House threw out the present Bill he had not the slightest doubt in the world that an arrangement would be come to that would be satisfactory to all the parties concerned. Therefore he urged that if the House was disposed at any time to sanction the principle of enabling a Railway Company to burrow under private property, this was not the time for establishing such a principle, and it was not the time for permitting a Railway Company to bring in a new Bill with a fresh clause setting aside the arrangement which had been made and completed. He had thought that the House had seen the last of everything connected with the completion of the Inner Circle Railway. If the House consented to pass the present Bill, he had no doubt that the Railway Company would bring in another little Bill next year. The Corporation of the City of London and the other authorities opposed the Bill, and he called upon the House to reject it. In that event he had no doubt they would soon find that a great improvement would take place in the arrangements, without troubling a Committee upstairs to discuss this or that peculiar feature of the scheme. The Bill was simply brought in to enable the Railway Company to add a clause to their former Bill conferring powers on the Company which they had not dared to ask for in their original scheme. He hoped the House would reject the second reading of the Bill and refuse to give the power now

    55
    asked for to burrow under the property of private individuals.
    MR. EVANSsaid, the whole matter was fully argued before the Select Committee last year. The Bill then brought forward was a very important one, and several of the questions mooted to-day had been raised before that Committee, and in principle adopted. The Committee consented to allow the underpinning of walls and cellars without requiring the Railway Company to take the whole of the premises; but, on the other hand, they refused to entertain the question without also including the proposal for the formation of a new street. He thought that, in all probability, if the new street had been left out of the Bill altogether, it was very doubtful whether the Committee would have passed the Preamble of the Bill. It was, therefore, a very important point to consider now. What had been said about the underpinning of houses was a matter that was not brought before the Committee, although the question of underpinning cellars and walls was; and it was, therefore, impossible for him to say what view the Committee might have taken upon that point. Still, he thought, with the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, that it was a proper question to be submitted to a Committee upstairs; and he therefore ventured to suggest that the House should assent to the second reading of the Bill, with the view of having that question carefully considered by a Committee, and it was certain to be fully and ably argued before them. The new street was quite another matter, and he very much doubted indeed whether any Committee would consent to the abandonment of that portion of the scheme.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 100: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    CAPTAIN AYLMER,in moving—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider and Report on the course taken by the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railway Companies, the Promoters of the Bill, in carrying into effect the powers of 'The Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways Act, 1879,' and 'The Metropolitan
    56
    Inner Circle Completion Act, 1874,' and also the expediency of granting an extension of time for the purchase of land for the line authorised by the Act of 1874 above-mentioned,"
    said, he thought, after the remarks which had been made by the Chairman of the Committee which sat upon the Bill last year, that the House would consent to the reference which he now proposed. The same thing was done last year, and it was desirable that the new Committee which was to sit upon the present Bill should have before them all the facts connected with the great improvement which the Corporation of the City of London regarded as of so much importance. He would not detain the House longer, but would simply move the Instruction of which he had given Notice. The first part of it was agreed to by the House last year when the Bill was sent to a Committee upstairs, so that the whole of the subject might be fully considered. The last part required one or two remarks from him. When the Bill was considered last year, and the Preamble was declared to have been proved, it was ordered to run alongside of another Bill, and his object was to secure that the same course should be followed now.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it he an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider and report on the course taken by the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railway Companies, the Promoters of the Bill, in carrying into effect the powers of 'The Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railway Act, 1879,' and 'The Metropolitan Inner Circle Completion Act 1874,' and also the expediency of granting an extension of time for the purchase of land for the line authorised by the Act of 1874 above-mentioned."—(Captain Aylmer.)
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was a little more inaccurate in the statement he had just made than he was a little time ago. He should, however, like to ask the authorities of the House if there was any precedent for an Instruction of the kind proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone.
    THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) has put a question on a point of Order. I see no objection, as far as the Forms of the House are concerned, technically speaking, in the proposition which the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) has submitted.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he was sorry that it was necessary for him to trouble the House with any further remarks. The hon. and gallant Member was a projector of the undertaking, if it deserved the name of undertaking, alluded to—namely, the Act of 1874, which he said he wished to reinstate. He (Sir Edward Watkin) had gone through a number of accounts, and he found that the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone figured in them for the sum of £500 in the amount which the Metropolitan Company was to pay. The hon. and gallant Member, and those who acted with him, entered into a speculation for making a mile of railway, intending to make in pay and profit a sum of nearly £800.000. Would the hon. and gallant Member include that in the Reference, and also the way in which the deposit on the Bill had been manipulated? If he did, he (Sir Edward Watkin) should like to have an opportunity of exposing the matter before the Committee. If the hon. and gallant Member would postpone his Instruction until to-morrow, he (Sir Edward Watkin) would then bring up his Amendment to it, and the House could decide upon it. If not, he should oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had not the slightest objection to extend the scope of the Instruction as desired by the hon. Member for Hythe, so that the whole question might go before the Committee.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would ask the hon. and gallant Member to give Notice to postpone his Motion until tomorrow.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
    Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received the following communications from the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions:—
    A Report from Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Manisty relating to the Election for the Borough of Colchester.
    Certificates and Reports from Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Hawkins relating to the Elections for the

    Borough of Evesham; and

    City of Gloucester.

    COLCHESTER ELECTION.
    The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
    The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879.
    Election for the Borough of Colchester, holden on the 31st day of March 1880.
    In the Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice.
    Between Thomas Moy, John Lay, Alfred Robert Staines, James Watson, William Mose-ley Tabrum, and Frederick Abraham Cole, Petitioners; and William Willis, Respondent.
    To the Right Honourable
    The Speaker of the House of Commons.
    We, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Lush knight, and the Honourable Sir Henry Manisty, knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, report to you that, on the twelfth day of June 1880, a summons came on to be heard before us in the matter of the above Petition on behalf of the Petitioners for liberty to withdraw such Petition; and upon hearing the Counsel for the Respondent and the Solicitor for the Petitioners, and upon reading the affidavits produced before us by and on behalf of the respective parties, and upon examining the agents for the Petitioners and Respondent respectively, we ordered that the Petitioners be at liberty to withdraw such Petition, and that they should pay to the Respondent his costs.
    We also report that no person who might have been a Petitioner in respect of the said Election to which the said Petition relates has applied to be substituted for the above-named Petitioners.
    We also report that, in our opinion, the withdrawal of such Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, nor in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition. Dated this 14th day of June 1880.
    ROBT. LUSH.
    H. MANISTY.

    EVESHAM ELECTION.
    In the matter of the Evesham Election Petition. We, Sir Charles Edward Pollock, knight, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, and Sir Henry Hawkins, knight, one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice, two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880, certify that, upon the 7th day of June instant 1880 and the day following, we duly held a Court at Worcester, in the county of Worcester, for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the Borough of Evesham, in the said County of Worcester, between Edward Charles Rudge, Alfred Espley, and Joseph Masters, Petitioners; and Daniel Rowlinson Ratcliff, Respondent.
    And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, We certify that, at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Daniel Row-

    59
    linson Ratcliff, the Member whose Return and Election were complained of in the said Petition was not duly elected, and that his Election and Return were void, because he, by his Agent, one William EdmundBallinger, was guilty of bribery at and before the said Election.
    And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election to which the Petition refers, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
    That, upon the trial of the said Petition, no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of either of the Candidates at the said Election.
    And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we further report that the persons who were proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practices, namely, bribery at the said Election, are, William Edmund Ballinger, William Spiers Wilson Brotherton, Thomas Taylor, and David Plumb.
    And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that, upon the evidence before us to which we have confined our attention, there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the said Election to which the said Petition relates.
    Given under our hands this 15th day of June 1880.
    C. E. POLLOCK.
    H. HAWKINS.
    To the Right Honourable
    The Speaker of
    The House of Commons.

    CITY OF GLOUCESTER ELECTION.
    In the matter of the City of Gloucester Election Petition.
    We, Sir Charles Edward Pollock, knight, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, and Sir Henry Hawkins, knight, one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice, two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880, certify that upon the 9th day of June instant (1880), we duly held a Court within the City of Gloucester for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for that City between Edmund Digby Worsley, James Franklin, and George Twyford, Petitioners; and Thomas Robinson and Charles James Monk, Respondents.
    And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, We certify that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Thomas Robinson, one of the Members whose Return and Election were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected, and that his Election and Return were void, because he, by his Agent, one John Clement Morris, was guilty of bribery at and before the said Election, and that the said Charles James Monk, the other of the said Members whoso Return and Election were complained of in the said Petition, was duly elected and returned.
    And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election to which the Petition
    60
    refers, we in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
    That upon the trials of the said Petition no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any or either of the Candidates at the said Election.
    And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we further report that the persons who were proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practices, namely, of bribery at and before the said Election, are:—
    John Clement Morris, Joseph Stoddart, and Thomas Meadows.
    And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election to which the Petition relates.
    And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we specially report the following matters which arose in the course of the trial, an account of which in our judgment ought to be submitted to the House of Commons.
    The Petition was presented against the said Thomas Robinson and Charles James Monk jointly, and charged them jointly and severally with bribery, treating, and intimidation and undue influence, before, during, and after the said Election.
    In the particulars of the bribery alleged and charged against the Respondents, no less than 80 cases of bribery were specifically mentioned.
    On the day before the trial, the Respondent Thomas Robinson, by a notice under his hand, signified his intention not to oppose the Petition.
    At the trial, the Respondent Thomas Robinson did not appear either in person or by Counsel or otherwise to oppose the Petition. The Respondent Charles James Monk did appear by Counsel. The evidence of Joseph Stoddart and John Clement Morris (Shorthand Notes of which accompany our Report) was abundantly sufficient to satisfy us that bribery had been committed by John Clement Morris, an Agent of the said Thomas Robinson, that he had bribed Joseph Stoddart, Thomas Meadows, and a third man, whose name was unknown, to vote.
    Stoddart was the first Witness examined, and it will be seen that in his evidence he stated that he was asked by Morris to vote for Monk and Robinson.
    This Witness was allowed to leave the box unquestioned by Mr. Monk's Counsel. It is due to Mr. Monk to say that Morris, who was afterwards called, denied that he had mentioned Mr. Monk's name, but this was after Stoddart had left the box.
    No other evidence was offered with respect to any one of the other cases mentioned in the particulars, and there was no attempt made to establish any one of the charges made against Mr. Monk or his Agents.
    We have no reason to suppose that in delivering the particulars the Petitioners acted otherwise than under a belief that they would be in a condition to affect both the seats.
    Before the trial we believe that the charges of personal bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned, but no application was made to withdraw the charges of corrupt practices through his alleged agents, and his Counsel appeared in Court as though those charges were to be persisted in.
    No explanation was offered to us as to the reasons why no attempt even to prove those charges was made, notwithstanding they had never been withdrawn.
    And no observation was addressed to us by Mr. Monk's Counsel, which indicated to our minds that he was surprized at the course adopted, and at the sudden abandonment of the Petition so far as it affected Mr. Monk.
    Moreover, after our judgment was given declaring Mr. Monk to have been duly elected, Mr. Monk's Counsel made no application for his costs, which we were prepared to award him had he asked for them, as we intimated to him; hut he declined to make any application upon the subject.
    Under these circumstances we are not satisfied that the abandonment of the case against Mr. Monk was not the result of an arrangement made with the view of withholding from us the evidence of the extensive corrupt practices which there is reason to believe had taken place at the Election.
    Given under our hands, this 15th day of June 1880.
    C. E. POLLOCK.
    H. HAWKINS.
    To the Eight Honble.
    The Speaker of the House of Commons.
    And the said Report, together with the said Certificates and Reports, were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW—OUT-DOOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the terms of the Local Government Board Circular of the 1st June 1880, requiring, as a condition for the receipt of out-door relief by the able-bodied, that each person shall do eight hours labour; and, whether he will modify the above conditions and assimilate them to those in force in England, by leaving it to the discretion of the guardians to require the labour test?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have seen the Circular referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman, and I must say that the Order now in force is similar to one issued during the famine of 1846. The hon. Member is not altogether correct in thinking that there is no discretion in the hands of Boards of Guardians, the words "so far as practicable," qualifying the condition. I fear the labour test is necessary.

  LOWER THAMES VALLEY—MAIN SEWAGE BOARD.
  MR. CUBITTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has arrived at any decision respecting the sewage scheme of the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewage Board; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the official Reports of the inspectors upon it?
  MR. DODSON: The Department has recently received the Report of the Inspector, which has been referred back to him for some further information. The matter will receive my attention as early as practicable; but the question is one of unusual importance and involving interests of great magnitude, and it cannot be disposed of without the most careful consideration. When a decision has been arrived at I will see whether the Report can be laid on the Table; but it is not usual to do so, as these Reports are intended for the guidance of the Board only. If the Report is laid on the Table, a similar course must be adopted with the Evidence, which extended over more than 40 days.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) ACT—EXAMINATIONS AND REWARDS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed the fact disclosed in the published accounts of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the period from October 1878 to December 1879, that it has cost £11,227 in expense of administration to distribute £11,987 in exhibitions, prizes, and fees, and that a balance of £9,987 of the income for the period has been left unused by the Board; and, whether steps will be taken to secure a better administration than that which applies but one-third of the income for the purposes contemplated by this Statute, whilst another third is absorbed in the cost of administration, and the remaining third is not employed at all?
  Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I have seen the accounts to which the hon. Member refers. I would remind him that the Intermediate Education Act has two objects—namely, the carrying out of the system of public examinations and the

  63
  distribution of the rewards. One half the expense of administration is connected with the cost of examinations, an essential duty of the Board. Much of the other half of the expense of administration arises from expenses necessary in first starting the Act. As regards the fact that one-third of the income has not been employed within the time with which the Report deals, that also arises from the Act having only so recently come into operation; but so great is the increase in the number of candidates that I fear this year the difficulty will be to bring the expenses within the income of the fund allocated.

  BARONIAL SESSIONS (IRELAND)— PRESENTMENTS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the extraordinary presentment session for the barony of Tireragh, county of Sligo, passed in March last 69 presentments, amounting to £2,683; that £1,004 of the outlay so proposed was approved of by the Board of Works; and that, nevertheless, last month the baronial session dissolved itself, having arranged for but one contract of £130, and having allowed all the other presentments to become void, including one in respect of a boundary wall to a road beside the river at Ballina, which road the Grand Jury have left in a condition that is dangerous to the safety of life; whether the presentment session was bound to make arrangements for carrying out the presentments approved of by the Board of Works; and, whether steps will he taken to have these presentments executed?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, at the baronial session referred to by the hon. Member 19 (not 69) presentments were made, amounting to £2,683, of which sum £1,004 was approved of. When notifying the approval to the secretary of the Grand Jury, the Board of Works directed that steps should beat once taken to have the works executed. I am not aware of the action by the baronial session which is stated by the hon. Member to have taken place; but I have directed immediate inquiry to be made, and if I find intervention desirable I will take such steps as I may find necessary.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' RESIDENCE ACT.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether steps will be taken to enable managers of National Schools to avail themselves of the National School Teachers' Residence Act, passed in 1875 and amended in 1879, by affording them facilities for borrowing money to erect residences in places where there are none?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have inquired into this subject, and find that considerable facilities already exist for managers of National Schools to borrow money to erect residences for teachers. The Commissioners of National Education are anxious that these facilities should be availed of; but they inform me they have no control in the matter over the managers, and though some managers find a difficulty in procuring free sites for their residences, the main cause of the difficulty arises from the non-action of the managers themselves. The Commissioners, in their last Report, say—
  "We have to express our regret and disappointment at the apathy exhibited by the managers of National Schools in not availing themselves of the facilities afforded by this measure for providing suitable dwellings for teachers."

  WAYS AND MEANS —THE RESOLUTIONS—STOCKS OF DUTY-PAID WINES.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to follow the principle, adopted in the instance of wines in 1860, as well as with other articles of commerce at different periods, and allow to wholesale dealers a drawback equivalent to the reduction now proposed, on any stocks of Duty paid wines they may have on hand at the time when the new scale of Duties comes into operation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend what I have to say is this. It is true that in the case of wines of 1860, and in regard to other articles of commerce at different periods, allowance has been made to wholesale dealers on the occasion of reductions of duty; but it is true with very great limitations indeed. In fact, it may almost be said that the system of drawback

  65
  or allowance on duty-paid stocks of articles imported from abroad has for a great length of time been practically extinct. A certain amount of allowance was made in 1860 in regard to wines; but the reduction made on the duty of wines at that period was a large and heavy one, amounting to more than 60 per cent where the duty was lowest, and to between 80 and 90 per cent where it was highest. I, therefore, am not prepared to give any pledge at the present time whether any reduction will be made. Any reduction that may be made will be in a very limited amount in proportion to a small percentage of the value of the article. All I can say is, that it would be well if those interested in the matter would be good enough to lay before me all they can in the way of precedent and argument for and against these allowances or drawbacks on articles of this kind, and I can assure them the information will receive my most careful consideration. The matter will be open to discussion in this House when we come to deal with the Resolutions.

  POST OFFICE (MAIL CONTRACTS)—THE ORIENT AND THE PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL COMPANIES.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Postmaster General, What has been the annual loss between the 31st March 1876 and the 31st of March 1879, under the Postal Contract of 1st August 1874, on carrying the India, China, and Australian Mails; what would be the estimated annual loss on that Contract were the postage reduced to the Postal Union rate of 2½d, in compliance with the wishes of various public bodies and meetings in India; and, if his attention has been called to the fact that the Peninsular and Oriental Contract speed to Australia is 10½ to 11 knots, whereas the average speed of the steamers of the unsubsidised Orient Company is 14 to 15 knots, and that, although upwards of 1,000 miles are added to the distance traversed by the latter in consequence of their going out round the Cape, the average length of their passages in 1880 has been only forty days, whereas that of the Peninsular and Oriental vessels during the same period has been forty-eight days?
  MR. FAWCETT: The annual loss to the revenues of the United Kingdom on the contract for the mails to India, China,
  66
  and Australia was, in 1876, £216,000; in 1877–8, £239,000; and the estimated loss on the year 1878–9 is £246,000. The estimate of the loss which would have been incurred if the postage had been reduced to half the amount would be about £28,000 in addition to the loss actually incurred. With regard to the other Question, it is correct to state that the contract speed of the Peninsular and Oriental Company in carrying the mails to India, China, and Australia is about 11 knots an hour. I am by no means answerable for this contract, which was entered into before the present Government came into Office, and I voted against it. The average time taken by the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamers between London and Melbourne via Brindisi in the transmission of mails is not, as my right hon. Friend says, 48 days, but the contract period is 39½ days, and that time, I believe, has been in only one instance exceeded. It is true that the average rate of passage in the vessels of the unsubsidized Orient Company is considerably faster than that of the subsidized line of the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The average rate of speed of the former is between 14 and 15 knots an hour, and from information sent to the Post Office I believe the length of the passage from Plymouth to Adelaide, the first port at which they stop, is a few hours under 40 days. In one instance the passage was completed in 35 days. By the Peninsular and Oriental Line the mails from London to Adelaide are delivered in 37 days on the average.

  BRITISH SUGER REFINERS—THE FRENCH DUTIES.
  MR. MACLIVERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the French Government, in the course of the present negotiations for the reduction of the Wine Duties, has agreed to meet the complaints of British sugar refiners; and if the proposal now before the French House of Assembly for reducing (in October next) the fiscal Duty on sugar in France from 70 to 40 francs per 100 kilos, is the one which is to be substituted for the present system?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, formal negotiations between the two Governments can hardly be said to have commenced. The proposal now before the French.

  67
  House Assembly for reducing in October the fiscal duty on sugar in France was made by the French Government on its own responsibility, and without any previous communication with us. We have to judge it upon its merits and see what becomes of it. There is no engagement bearing upon it in any way. The material object of the Question of my hon. Friend I suppose is to obtain an assurance that the subject will be borne in mind when negotiations come on between the British and French Governments, and that assurance I can freely give him.

  STIPENDARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
  MR. WARTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in consequence of the defeat sustained by them on Friday night, to issue the Returns relating to Stipendary Magistrates in Ireland which they considered should not be issued, due regard being had to the interests of the public; if not, whether it is their intention to take immediate steps to ask the House to rescind the vote?
  MR. SEXTON,as the Mover of the Returns in question, asked whether it was not unprecedented to bring such a Question before the House?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I only saw this Question five minutes ago. Not having been addressed to me, it escaped my notice, and I have not had time to communicate with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to rescind the vote. It was one of those Returns that are put down thinking they are unopposed, and it is usual to give Notice to the Department concerned that they will be pressed if they cannot be so given. I had told the hon. Gentleman two or three days before to be good enough to confer with me. Part of the Return I was willing to give; another part was unnecessary. There is no real objection to the Return, except that it gives very great trouble to the Office. If I had thought the Return would have been seriously pressed on Saturday morning, I should have remained here instead of going to bed. As it is now, I think it better to let the matter stand as it is.

  NAVY—CHATHAM DOCKYARD EXTENSION.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a statement contained in the "Echo" of June 11th, that—
  "On the completion of the works for the extension of the Chatham Dockyard, upon which about 1,500 convicts are employed, Chatham will cease to he a penal station, as the convicts will be removed to other places and the prison will be converted into a Naval barrack. The officers and men of the Naval Reserve will be transferred from Sheerness to Chatham;"
  and, whether such statement is correct?
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is true that the work on the extension of Chatham Dockyard will be nearly complete in about a year's time, and there will then be no further employment for the convicts. It will then be for the consideration of the Home Office whether to maintain the convict prison there; but I have heard of no proposal to convert the prison into a barrack for officers and seamen, in lieu of the naval barracks at Sheerness, and there is no such intention.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—LEGIS. LATION.
  MR. DODDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce during the present Session of Parliament any measure for the consolidation and amendment of the Laws relating to Municipal Corporations?
  SIR WILLAM HARCOURT: I am afraid my answer must be that, in the present state of Public Business, I see no prospect of being able to introduce such a measure.

  ARMY— PROPOSED VOLUNTEER REVIEW IN HYDE PARK.
  LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, inasmuch as Government have refused to sanction a Review of Volunteers in Hyde Park, because public order would be endangered, and the trees, flowers, and shrubberies injured by the crowd that would be assembled on such an occasion, and also on account of the interruption to street traffic, it is to be understood that for the future no Reviews of the regular troops, or militia, nor any

  69
  political demonstrations are to be held in Hyde Park; and, what was the amount of injury, in money value, done to the flowers and shrubberies on the occasion of the last Volunteer Hyde Park Review?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my noble Friend, I must remind him and the House that, as Secretary of State for War, I have nothing to do with the general regulations for the use of Hyde Park, and I am not aware that it is intended under the Statute to make any change in those regulations. So far as the use of the Park for Reviews is concerned, no general decision has been adopted by the War Department, but each case will stand on its own merits. The proposals for the great Volunteer Review were brought before us by a committee of officers, who stated that 45,000 men would be assembled; and Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that, considering the enormous crowds which would probably be collected to witness a Review on such a scale, it ought not to be held in Hyde Park. As to the second Question of my noble Friend, I can only say that I have not charge of the Park, and therefore it is not in my power to say what was the extent of the money value of the injury done on the occasion of the last Volunteer Review.

  THE CENSUS BILL.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the President of the Local Government Board, When he hopes to be able to introduce a Bill for taking the Census in 1881?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, it was his intention to introduce the Bill as soon as the progress of the Business afforded a prospect of the House being able to practically deal with it.

  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (PATRONAGE, &c.)
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state to the House what offices in Ireland are in his patronage, and the statutes or other authority by virtue of which such patronage is vested in him; whether, in addition to such patronage (if any), there has, under the arrangements of the Irish department of the present Go- vernment, been also vested in him, in
  70
  whole or part, the patronage which by statute or the Queen's Patent rightfully belongs to the Lord Lieutenant; and, whether, with a view of giving the House information on the subject, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of Her Majesty's Letters Patent under the Great Seal, appointing Earl Cowper, K. G., Lord Lieutenant General and Governor General of Ireland; and also a Copy of the Warrant, Letter, or other Document whereby the Chief Secretary was appointed?
  MR W. E. FORSTER: Sir, in order fully to answer the Question of the noble Lord, I should have to detain the House with a somewhat long speech; and I cannot but think the matters referred to would be more fitting for a Motion than a Question. If the nolle Lord brings on a discussion about them I shall he ready to take part in it. I doubt there being much practical advantage in such discussion; but that I must leave to the discretion of the noble Lord. Meantime, if he will put in the form of a Return the information he desires, I will tell him whether I am able to give it to him. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to add that I know of nothing novel in the relations orarrange-ments between my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant and myself, either as regards patronage or anything else.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to give Notice that I will call attention to this matter at an early opportunity, and as soon as possible after the publication of the documents to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I shall wait for the noble Lord to move for those documents, and for him to say what documents he wishes laid on the Table. I did not issue any invitation to him to move for those Papers.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Then, does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to grant the documents?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: If the noble Lord will put that and other matters in the form of a Return, I will be happy to consider the question.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—CIRCULAR OF "THE LIBERAL CENTRAL OFFICE."
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When

  71
  ther he has now farther considered the Circular of the "Liberal Central Office" and Mr. Justice Lush's opinion that—
  "It suggested to the partisans (of the Liberal Party) throughout the Country how they might violate the Law with comparative impunity and yet secure a safe majority;"
  whether he has succeeded in discovering the persons who issued a Circular calculated and intended, in the learned Judge's opinion, to incite to a breach of the Law; and, whether, in view of the extent of the alleged incitement to break the Law, and the relations of the authors of the Circular to Her Majesty's Government, he intends to submit the case to the consideration of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: When the Act for the establishment of a Public Prosecutor was passed last Session, my Predecessor in Office pointed out—I think with great wisdom—the advantage of placing the responsibility for prosecutions undertaken by the Sate in the hands of "a permanent officer, who would be absolutely free from all political bias in his work." It will be obvious to the House that this consideration applies with peculiar force to dealing with cases arising out of election matters. The Act of last Session, and the regulations made under it for the creation of a Public Prosecutor, define his duty to be—
  "The taking action in such class of cases as have hitherto been conducted by the Solicitor to the Treasury by order of the Secretary of State, and in other cases for the proper conducting of which, in his opinion, the ordinary mode of prosecution is insufficient."
  It seems to me that there is a great advantage in having in the Public Prosecutor an independent authority, to determine upon his own judgment on the action to be taken. First, generally, because it is not convenient that the Home Office, which has ultimately to revise sentences, should be the instigator of prosecutions; and, secondly, because it is desirable that the Executive Government of the day should be dissociated from judicial proceedings which may be supposed to involve political and Party questions. I have, therefore, before this case declined to interfere in all cases where I have been asked to institute prosecutions relating to bribery or other election matters. The proper course now is, when any person thinks
  72
  that in any such case there is ground for criminal proceedings, and that the ordinary mode of prosecution is insufficient, he should bring the matter under the immediate cognizance of the Public Prosecutor, who will take such action upon it as, in his unfettered judgment, he deems fit and expedient.
  MR. GORST: In consequence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman not having answered my second Question, I I shall on Thursday ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, Whether, upon the Committee responsible for the issue of the Liberal Circular alluded to by Mr. Justice Lush, the names appear of the following Members of Her Majesty's present Government:—Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Lord Kensington, the Eight Hon. W. P. Adam, Sir Henry James, and the Marquess of Harrington?

  NAVY—H. M. S. "ATALANTA" AND "IRIS."
  MR. BENTINCKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Up to what date a copy of the log of H. M. S. "Atalanta" has been lodged at the Admiralty; if his attention has been called to the conflicting statements respecting H. M. S. "Iris" in the" St. James's Gazette" of the 9th, and the "Standard" of the 10th instant, the former stating that—
  "Owing to the severe tests to which the engines were subjected, the engines broke down. The ship was put under sail, but she had not proceeded far when the topmasts were carried away, leaving her in an almost disabled condition;"
  whilst the "Standard" reports that—
  "Her engines worked satisfactorily, and that she will make a trial of her speed on the measured mile in Stokes Bay, and shortly proceed to the Mediterranean;"
  and, whether he will give the particulars of the trial trips of the "Iris" referred to by those journals?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, the log of the Atalanta had been received at the Admiralty up to January 21. As to the trial trip of the Iris, the official report was to the effect that the engines worked very satisfactorily. The vessel was tried at the measured mile on Saturday; she realized a speed of 18 knots, and her engines worked up to 350-horse power beyond the contract power. In the course of her trial trip the foremast was sprung; it would be

  73
  replaced by a light steel mast. Otherwise, the vessel was ready to proceed to the Mediterranean.

  HARES AND RABBITS BILL—THE VALUATION ACT.
  MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the Hares and Babbits Bill becoming Law and so depriving the landlord of the exclusive right of sporting, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to modify or repeal the sixth section of the Act of Victoria, 37 and 38, entitled—
  "An Act to amend the Law respecting the liability and valuation of certain Property for the purposes of rates,"
  whereby the landlord pays the whole of the rate to the poor in respect of such sporting rights?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As far as I understand the matter, it will certainly not be right to repeal or modify this Statute. The hon. Member and myself read the Act in totally different ways. In the 6th clause of the Statute the law assumes that the whole of the game belongs to the tenant, and the consequence is that the tenant is rated in respect to the game; but he may recover that rate from the landlord if the latter reserves the game. If the Hares and Babbits Bill passes into law and the tenant claims a portion of the game, of course he will not be able to recover from the landlord in respect of such portion. Therefore, the law will remain exactly as it is now. In a sub-section of Clause 6 it is provided that where the right of sporting is severed from the occupation of the land, either the owner or the lessee may be rated as the occupier thereof. Therefore, the landlord will be rated only in respect of that portion of sporting rights which he enjoys. These being the circumstances of the case, I think no modification of the Statute cited will be required; but, of course, if it be found that any alteration is wanted, the attention of the Government will be turned to it.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 24— EUROPEAN CONFERENCE.
  MR. A. BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it be true, as is commonly re-
  74
  ported, that a Conference of the Representatives of the European Powers is about to meet at Berlin; and, if so, whether he can tell the House with what matters it is proposed that the Conference should deal; and, whether the Government intend to lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to this subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government, in common with the other Powers whose mediation is contemplated in the 24th Article of the Treaty of Berlin, have received an invitation from the German Government to take part in a Conference which is to meet at Berlin to-morrow in order to consider the question of the Greek Frontier, and Her Majesty's Government have accepted this invitation. They will be represented by Lord Odo Russell, who will be assisted by Sir Lintorn Simmons. Papers on the subject will be laid before Parliament very shortly.

  SPAIN—COMMERCIAL RELATIONS.
  MR. MACIVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of a reduction in the Duty upon Spanish Wines, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insist that Spain shall withdraw her differential Duties in such manner that British and Irish vessels may be placed on the same footing as Spanish ships, and may be enabled to land manufactured goods in Spanish ports without being met by a system of taxation which is practically prohibitory? The hon. Member also asked, Whether, in the event of a reduction in the Duty upon French Wines, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insist that France shall make a corresponding reduction in the Duties which are at present levied upon British and Irish manufactures; or if it is intended that France shall continue to tax largely the whole of our manufactures, while we are to admit all hers (except wines) absolutely Duty free?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The matters to which the hon. Member alludes will be carefully considered in the course of the commercial negotiations which Her Majesty's Government hope they may shortly be able to commence with Spain. Her Majesty's Government trust that the result of these negotiations

  75
  will be to effect a substantial improvement in the commercial relations of the two countries; but it must be obvious to the hon. Member that it would be quite impossible to make any announcement at present with regard to the particular points on which Her Majesty's Government will insist, or the particular objects which they have in view. The answer which I have already given with regard to the Spanish negotiations will apply equally to the hon. Member's Question about France.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) asked me late last evening what course Her Majesty's Government intended to take with regard to the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr, O'Connor Power). I promised to answer the Question next Thursday, but it may be to the convenience of the House that I should at once state that we cannot assent to its second reading; but that, in consequence of the distress prevailing in some parts of Ireland, we shall think it right to ask Parliament to enlarge for a time—that is, until the end of the year 1881—the discretionary power of the County Court Judge, so that he may, under certain circumstances, give compensation to tenants in certain districts who are ejected for non-payment of rent. For that purpose I shall propose a new clause in the Belief of Distress (Ireland) Bill now before the House. I shall put this clause on the Table to-night, together with a Schedule of the districts to which it will apply. I may add that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes me to take this opportunity of stating that he will forthwith advise Her Majesty to appoint a small Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Irish Land Act of 1870.
  LORD ELCHO: in consequence of the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I wish to ask the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), as a Member of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, Whether it is or is not the case that, at the close of the present week, the Members of the Commission intend to proceed to Dublin, for the purpose of making inquiries in regard to
  76
  the state of the Land Question in Ire-land, and whether the matter to which the Chief Secretary has alluded does not form part of the subject which the Commission has to investigate? ["Order, order !"]
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that as the noble Lord had not given him Notice of the Question, he was not prepared to give to it a definite answer.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out, that it was irregular to put Questions to Members, not being Ministers of the Crown, in relation to Business which was not before the House.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, on the day set apart for the debate on the second reading of my Bill, he will be able to state the objections which the Government entertain to that measure?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Certainly.
  LORD ELCHO: I thought I was in Order just now, and I apologise for my interposition. I desire to give Notice that, on Thursday, I will ask the Prime Minister the Question which I put to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  In reply to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: The Belief of Distress (Ireland) Bill will be the first Order of the Day on Thursday, and the clause of my right hon. Friend will be in the hands of hon. Members tomorrow. I wish to say a word with reference to a Question put to me by my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Malt Duties. He made an inquiry about the computation of the drawback on stocks of malt on hand on the 30th of September next, and I mentioned the computations which had been made, and the grounds of those computations. But these were, of course, made under a disadvantage, inasmuch as they could not be conveniently founded upon positive and direct inquiry of competent persons in the trade before the production of the proposals of the Government. As we now stand we are in a position to communicate with the trade with greater freedom, and I have thought it better we should endeavour to check and verify those computations by new inquiries. I shall not be able to produce the figures

  77
  probably till shortly before we proceed to discussion on the Bill, and we shall reserve in the Bill power to make detailed arrangements for the levy of the duty, and to fix the time after which the brewers will be called on to pay the new tax on beer.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked when the Employers' Liability Bill would be proceeded with?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid there was no probability of his being able to fix an early day for the discussion of the measure. Due Notice would, however, be given before it was proceeded with.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONwished to know when the Hares and Rabbits Bill would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No day is fixed at present; probably at the beginning of next week.

  CO-OPERATIVE STORES—APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE.
  MR. E. POWERasked the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, When he intended to move the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Co-operative Stores?
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL,in reply, said, that as soon as the slight complications which had arisen had been settled, one way or another, he should do his best to get the Committee re-appointed.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868—NEW WRITS.—RESOLUTION.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENORmoved—
  "That where any Election has been declared void, under the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, and the Judges have reported that any person has been guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without two days' previous Notice being given in the Votes, such Notice to be appointed for consideration before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion."
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, the subject to which the Motion related was one of considerable interest. He recollected that it was his duty in 1866 to sit as a Member of a Committee of that House on an Inquiry which involved the conduct of the constituency of Galway, when
  78
  it was unanimously reported that corrupt practices had prevailed at the previous election for that borough. He waited a few days in expectation that a Motion would be made to the effect that a Commission should be issued to inquire into the existence of such practices, and he had then been informed by the Chairman of the Committee, and by Sir George Grey, who was at the time Secretary of State for the Home Department, that they did not intend to take any step of that kind. In spite of the Report of the Committee, no Member thought it his duty to take action; the Report was a nullity, and the constituency went on its way rejoicing to distinguish itself afterwards more than once in a similar manner. Since that time the law against candidates had been made more stringent. The risks to which a candidate was exposed were enough to make him shrink from seeking election. He found an agent chosen for him, and all the machinery of corruption fortified by ancient custom, against which it was impossible for him to contend. If the law was to be stringently enforced against anyone, it ought not to be against the unfortunate candidate, but rather against those who maintained these customs If a candidate was guilty of personal bribery, he was liable to be indieted for misdemeanour and to be punished by imprisonment; he was disqualified for voting at any Parliamentary or municipal election; he was debarred from holding any municipal or judicial office; and he was to be removed from the Commission of the Peace. In the case of Launces-ton, a Member had just been unseated for having, in a moment of impatience at the complaints made to him about the ravages of rabbits, practically said—"Oh, bother the rabbits. Do what you like with them. "The Judges held that the law held a candidate responsible for illegal acts which he had directly forbidden.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was travelling far beyond the question.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid. he was endeavouring to show the hardship with which the law pressed upon the candidate as compared with the constituency. Liberal Members were now falling, and the House would soon have before it the question of the issue of Writs; and it was

  79
  better that they should determine beforehand the principles by which they were to be guided.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) rose to Order.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was travelling beyond the scope of the Resolution, which was strictly limited to the time which should elapse before the House ordered the issue of a New Writ.
  MR. J. E. YORKEsaid, he should not pursue the subject, but would conclude with a Motion that instead of the words "two days" they should insert the words "one fortnight."
  Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the word "two" and insert the word"fourteen,"—(Mr. J. R. Yorlce,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Motion was not that the Writ should issue after two days' Notice, but that it should not issue until after two days' Notice. The object was simply to allow of sufficient time for Members to consider whether any case was one in which further delay ought to be asked for. The Resolution did not apply to cases in which it had been reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, as these cases were distinctly provided for by the Act. If in other cases there was no reason for further delay, it would be unjust to the constituencies that such delay should occur, and two days were enough to enable Members to consider whether it was necessary to inflict a penalty on the whole constituency. It appeared from Sir Erskine May's work on The Law and Practice of Parliament, that at one period, in 1853 and 1854, it was ordered that no such Motion should be made without seven days' previous Notice in the Votes. The House appeared to have thought, however, that this was rather hard on a constituency unless a more positive presumption of mischief prevailed; for in succeeding Sessions until 1860, and again in 1866, 1874, and 1875, it was ordered that no such Motion should be made without two days' previous Notice being given. He did not think it mattered much whether it was a question of two or three days; but he believed he was supported by the
  80
  experience of the House when he said that 14 days was too long a time, considering that, in the great majority of cases, there would be no ground whatever for preventing the issue of the Writ. Therefore, he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put.
  Ordered, That where any Election has been declared void, under the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, and the Judges have reported that any person has been guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without two days' previous Notice being given in the Votes, such Notice to he appointed for consideration before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion.

EUROPEAN ARMAMENTS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. RICHARD,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to instruct Her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with other Powers, with a view to bring about a mutual and simultaneous reduction of European Armaments;"
  said: I must cast myself on the kind indulgence of the House while I attempt to bring under its attention a subject which all will admit to be one of great importance, and which—as no one feels more deeply than I do—is also one of great difficulty. But while I am oppressed with a sense of the onerous nature of the task I have undertaken, there is some satisfaction in the thought that I am free at least from one kind of embarrassment which sometimes attends discussions in this House, because the question with which I have to deal is one that stands quite apart from all considerations of Party. It is not a question of Party; it is a question of humanity; and certainly nothing shall fall from my lips that will be calculated to provoke the spirit of Party. I recall with pleasure at this moment, that when I brought forward a Motion on International Arbitration in this House, in 1873, a considerable number of Gentlemen on the Conservative side did me the honour to vote in favour of my proposal, and there is no Party reason whatever why they should not support the Resolution which I am now about to submit to the House. There is one other preliminary

  81
  remark which I wish to make. I am very anxious that this Motion should be judged on its own merits, apart from any reference to the supposed opinions of the Proposer, or of any class of persons who are thought to take a special interest in it. I believe I lie under the suspicion of belonging to what is called "the Peace-at-any-price Party." "What that means, I confess I do not know, except that it is one of those vague terms of reproach with which it is found convenient to smite a political adversary when nothing more precise and pertinent is available for the purpose. Whatever may be my views on certain abstract (questions, I hope I have the courage of my convictions, and that I shall be prepared to avow and defend them with such ability as I possess on all fitting occasions. But, on the present occasion, extreme views of that kind are not brought in question at all. I promise the House that I shall not proclaim any dangerously pacific views, and that I shall not ask the House to assent to anything which the most devout believer in the right of war may not consistently support. There is one point I presume on which we are all agreed—namely, that the present armed condition of Europe, the rampant militaryism which pervades and overshadows the nations has grown to such enormous dimensions that it is scarcely possible to use exaggerated language with respect to it. We all feel that this state of things is an affront to reason, a scandal to civilization, a scourge upon humanity, and. above all, that it is a reproach to that holy religion which the nations of Christendom profess to accept and reverence. It seems to me most humiliating when we consider the fact that all the nations of Europe, with one exception, have been for more than 1,000 years professedly subject to the influences of Christian civilization, to the power of that religion which is pre-eminently the religion of peace, and yet at this moment by far the larger proportion of the resources of all these nations is devoted to the construction of weapons of destruction, and to the training and disciplining of millions of men to the adroit use of those weapons for the purpose of mutual slaughter and devastation. There is a celebrated catechism, which, I believe, is still much in use in Scotland; the first question in it is—"What is the chief end of man?
  82
  I have sometimes thought that if any celestial visitor were to come to our world, and were to cast his eye on the state of things which now actually exists in Europe, his answer to that question would be, that the chief end of man must be to fight and to prepare for fighting. It is not easy to say when this insane system of rivalry in armaments during peace came into vogue in Europe. Montesquieu spoke of it 130 years ago as "a new disease" which was spreading through Europe—
  "For as soon, "ho says," as one State augments its troops, the others forthwith augment theirs, so that they gain nothing by it but a common ruin."
  Things were not always so. Vattel tells us that, in the 17th century, when a war was concluded—
  "They seldom failed to stipulate in Treaties of Peace that both parties should disband their troops; and why, "he asked," is not this salutary custom continued?"
  So far is that from being the case now, that every fresh peace, as it is called— though it may be more fitly termed an armed truce—instead of affording relief to the nations by the diminution of their burdens, becomes a starting-point for new and enormous augmentations of their military forces. Béranger, the celebrated French lyrist, in describing the cost of war, says—
  "L'ogre a diné payez la carte;"
  and Bastiat, the distinguished writer on Political Economy, thereupon remarks that the ogre now costs as much for his digestion as for his meals. One thing is certain—that the Russian War, among the many other evils which we owe to it, gave an immense impulse to this process. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote), in a very able work which he published about 17 years ago, entitled Twenty Years of Financial Policy, remarks pointedly on this effect of the Russian War. He said he was not going to inquire whether that war was worth what it cost to mankind at large, or to England in particular—
  "But," he adds, "there can be no doubt that among its results have been those two—that it stirred up in Europe a spirit of restlessness, and set all the world to seek for the means of improving the instruments of attack and defence; and to add enormously and without stint or measure to the most unprofitable and unsatisfactory of all possible forms of expenditure."

  83
  After every succeeding; war the same race of mutual folly and ruin has been renewed with increasing celerity, so that the armed forces of Europe have been growing with so much rapidity as to be almost incredible. An article in the last volume yet published of the new edition of 'The Encyclopoeia Britannica, under the word "Europe," contains certain statements, founded on elaborate statistical calculations, which go to show that between the years 1859 and 1874—that is, in the course of 15 years—there have been added to the armed forces of Europe nearly 2,000,000 men. It is not easy to give with accuracy the statistics of European armaments, because they are continually changing, and always changing, I may add, in the direction of increase. Lord Derby stated not long ago his belief that there were 10,000,000 men trained to arms in all ways in Europe, and The Times newspaper, at the same time, or shortly afterwards, spoke of 12,000,000 men. Of course, under this estimate all the Reserves are taken into account—the Militia, the Volunteers, the Landwehr. the Landsturm, the territorial army of France, and so on. But I believe it will be no exaggeration to say that at any one moment you may find 4,000,000 men under arms in Europe. This, of course, must entail an enormous cost on the various countries. I have seen many calculations of the amount, and one, by a French gentleman of great reputation, which makes the total estimated cost as much as £500,000,000 a-year. Now, there are three items into which that sum may be divided; first, the money actually extracted from the pockets of the people by the Naval and Military Budgets, which may be put down at £160,000,000 a-year; but that is the smallest part of the matter, and a far more important item is the loss to society by the withdrawal of so many millions of able-bodied men from industrial pursuits. We must remember, of course, that, though it is not his own fault, a soldier merely consumes, and is in no way a producer. I have mentioned two items of the monstrous amount, and now have to add to them the interest of the prodigious sums laid out on instruments and munitions of war of all sorts, ships of war, fortifications, arms, ammunition, accoutrements, and so on; and which, it must be borne in mind, are absolutely
  84
  unproductive. I ask the House to consider what might be done if only half of this great sum could be economized, if only part of the broad stream of wealth that is yearly carried down the bottomless abyss of military expenditure could be directed to irrigate and fructify the waste places of humanity; how much might be done to relieve the misery, to elevate the character of the people, to provide better dwellings for the poor, to furnish them with productive occupation, to spread the blessings of education among the ignorant and degraded, and generally to improve the material and moral condition of the great masses, whom God, I contend, has given in charge to the civilized and Christian Governments of Europe. Unhappily, also, the expenditure on these armaments is growing with appalling rapidity. In The Times newspaper, about the beginning of the year, there was a remarkable article, founded on a calculation by a German statistician, which showed that the annual public expenditure of Europe has risen in 14 years, between 1865 and 1879,from£398,000,000to£585,000,000. For Russia and Germany, expenditure has more than doubled itself in that period. But, large as these amounts are, they do not satisfy the demands of the Governments, and, in addition, the future is mortgaged to supply the needs of the present. National Debts have grown, in the same period, from £2,626,000,000 to £4,324,000,000, the cause being war and warlike armaments. In the year 1865, Germany spent £10,000,000 on her Army and Navy; now she spends £21,000,000. At the former date Russia spent £22,000,000, and now spends £36,000,000; and a similar increase is noticeable in the case of the other European Powers. Remarking on these astounding figures, The Economist says—
  "The total increase of expenditure caused by wars and the apprehension of wars has, if we take the average interest at 4 per cent, been £131,000,000 a-year, or considerably more than the taxation of either of the two richest countries in Europe, England and France. The amount at 4 per cent represents a capital of £3,200,000,000, which, as long as that expenditure continues, and much of it is perpetual, is lost to the industrial work of Europe, and, consequently, to the progress of civilization and to the material well-being of the people."
  This expenditure is still going on, and, on the principle which seems to be ac-

  85
  cepted by European statesmen—that civilized nations can exist, side by side, in no other attitude than that of armed and mutual menace, it seems likely that it must continue. If it be true that all European nations are only organized gangs of robbers, constantly watching for opportunities to attack and plunder each other, it is evident that when one of them adds to its means of offence, the others must follow its example, and there can be no limit to the process, so far as I can see, until all the men and all the means of all the nations are absorbed in their military preparations. And we really seem as though we were approximating this consummation. Already in most countries by far the largest portion of their revenues are swallowed up in warlike expenditure, in paying for the interest of debts contracted by past wars, and in making preparations for future wars. And in some of the largest States of Europe— in France, in Germany, and, I believe, now in Russia—all able-bodied men, with inconsiderable exceptions, are liable to military service. There are only two classes of the population exempt from it —namely, the women and the clergy. And who can tell whether, in the mad rivalry still going on, the time may not come when the Governments will lay their hands on the daughters and pastors of the people? So that, instead of the "sweet girl-graduates," of which the Poet Laureate speaks, we may have fierce girl-captains and colonels. In Italy, and, I believe, in Germany, already some classes of the clergy are subject to military service. This is, no doubt, deplorable enough, so long at least as ministers of religion act consistently as servants of the Prince of Peace. But when the clergy, of whatever church or sect, are prompt to "beat the drum ecclesiastic," and to use the pulpit as an instrument to inflame warlike passion, it is difficult to see why they should be exempt from sharing the hardships and sufferings into which they help by their exhortations to plunge others. Now, what is the practical result? Do nations after all enjoy rest and quiet and a sense of security? That is the pretext constantly alleged in defence of these armaments. There is a musty old Latin proverb which is quoted usque ad nauseam. It is this—Si vis pacem., para bellum. This is flung at us
  86
  in a tone so peremptory and off-hand, as though it afforded "confirmation strong as proof of Holy Writ" in justification of large armies. Indeed, I am not sure whether there are not some people who think that it is a verse from the Bible. But a more absurd axiom, one more at variance with common sense, and the common experience of mankind, has never been propounded. They fill all Europe with warlike materials; they train millions of men to the use of arms; they inspire them with warlike passions by appeals to patriotism and love of military glory; they nourish in their hearts—as they are bound to do as a justification of their own existence— feelings of jealousy and suspicion towards their neighbours, until they "stand like greyhounds in the slips straining upon the start," and then they tell us that all this is done as a security for peace. Let them bring their axiom to the test of experience and historical fact. Never since the world began have there been such enormous preparations for war as there have been in Europe during the last 25 years. But have these preparations for war preserved peace? So far otherwise, that during that period there have been six desolating and sanguinary wars in Europe, in the course of which it is estimated that 2,000,000 of human lives have been sacrificed, and £3,000,000,000. I contend, on the contrary, that these great armaments, so far from being preservatives of peace, are provocatives of war. The existence of such hugh masses of armed men ready to be launched forth at any moment at the pleasure of some ambitious Monarch or unscrupulous Minister —for the people have no voice in the making of wars—are a perpetual peril to the peace of nations. I think, therefore, one of our own poets has given wise and sound counsel, when he said—
  "Nations would do well To extort their truncheons from the puny hands Of heroes, whose infirm and baby minds Are gratified with mischief, and who spoil, Because men suffer it, their toy, the world."
  What is the true effect of this state of things? One result is that the finances of many, I might say of most, the great States of Europe are in a chronic condition of embarrassment or deficit. Look at Austria. Mr. Martin, in his Statesman's Manual, states that in eight years—between 1870 and 1877—

  87
  her accumulated deficit amounted to £33,000,000. In France the same thing was going on even before the tremendous catastrophe of the war with Germany. From 1848 to 1869 her accumulated deficits amounted to £100,000,000. It is difficult to know what is the financial condition of Russia, as no authentic statements are published. But we may be very certain that her finances are in, at least, quite as unsatisfactory a condition as that of any European nation, and we know that her Debt has increased from £208,000,000 in 1865 to £600,000,000 in 1879. And even Germany, in spite of the enormous indemnity she received from France, and with no Debt to speak of, has found her expenditure constantly on the increase, while her revenue has been as steadily diminishing. In 1873 her expenditure, as stated in the Imperial Budget, was 340,000,000 of marks, and in 1878 it was 540,000,000 of marks; or, an increase in the course of five years, of 200,000,000 of marks, or £16,000,000. In consequence, Prince Bismarck has been compelled to impose heavy protective duties, which have very seriously interfered with and damaged the commerce of his own and other countries. Lord Salisbury, speaking at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, called attention to the heavy protective duties imposed on British goods by some of the Continental Governments, and said—
  "The real cause of this increase of protective duties is the establishment of those gigantic military forces which are increasing every year in every one of the larger countries of this hemisphere, which constitute a permanent drain on the forces of industry, a permanent danger to the interests of commerce, and which impose upon the Governments which feel themselves bound—and if one Government does it all Governments have to do it—in order to maintain these forces, the necessity of finding money in some way that shall not too heavily gall the interests and susceptibilities of their people. Indirect taxation, it is well known, is more readily paid than direct taxation, because its amount is not so easily recognized; and it is the necessity of finding the sustenance of those vast armaments that forces Governments to have recourse to indirect taxation, and they naturally avail themselves of the political support which is to be obtained from those trades that wish for protection in order to carry their policy into effect."
  Look, again, at Italy, that young nationality to which the sympathy of all is drawn so strongly. That country is staggering under the weight of a
  88
  crushing taxation in order to maintain vast and useless armaments. The annual deficits of Italy since 1860 have been so large, varying from £1,743,000 to £24,680,000, that the public debt, which in 1860 stood at £97,480,000, had increased to £400,000,000 in 1876. Well, what is the effect upon the condition of the people? The effect is, that in all the countries of Europe there are multitudes of people—thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands—sunk in poverty, misery, and ignorance. In the language of one of our own poets—
  "The racked inhabitants repine, complain,
  Taxed till the brow of labour sweats in vain;
  War lays a burden on the reeling State,
  And peace does nothing to relievo the weight.
  Successive loads successive toils impose,
  And sighing millions prophesy the close."
  During last winter, I collected a series of extracts from our own and other journals describing the bitter and widespread distress that existed in various parts of Europe. We were told that in Upper Silesia out of a population of 298,000 no fewer than 150,000 "were next door to starvation." In Hungary, destructive floods had swept away whole villages, and some of the unfortunate inhabitants were found frozen to death in the woods where they had sought shelter. From Cettigne telegrams reported that a sixth part of the population were nearly dying of famine. Miss Irby wrote that in Bosnia and Herzegovina,, and in the recently-occupied portions of Novi-Bazar, people were dying of want, cold, and hunger. Sir Henry Layard wrote to Lord Salisbury that in Mossul the people were reduced by want to sell their children. In Italy we read of large meetings of working men demanding—not with clamour and menace, but with a really pathetic moderation—that, if the Government wanted them to pay the heavy taxes imposed upon them, they must first find them work by which they could earn bread for themselves and their families. Nearer at home, in Ireland, there has been distress so severe as to approach to famine. And so in most other European countries, especially in those countries where the mania of militarism is pushed to the greatest length. But, in the meanwhile, what are the Governments of this distressed, paralyzed, half-famishing Europe doing? Oh! they are in full and feverish activity, organizing Armies, Navies, and

  89
  Reserves; forging rifled cannon, manufacturing Minie rifles and chassepots by the million; building iron-clads and torpedoes; constructing new fortifications; drilling and dragooning the people in martial exercises, and stimulating with lavish rewards the inventors of infernal machines for the destruction of life and property. And thus, the resources of all nations, whether derived from the gifts of Nature or the rewards of industry, instead of being turned to purposes of utility and advantage, are squandered, to use again the words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the most unsatisfactory and unprofitable of all forms of expenditure. Is it any wonder to find, as we do, that multitudes of people in some European countries are streaming away from their own homes, to seek in foreign lands some rest and relief from this intolerable system of taxation and military servitude? And those who are too poor to emigrate, which is by far the largest number, are driven in sheer desperation into sullen discontent and dangerous conspiracies against the Governments, until Society becomes honeycombed by Socialism, Communism, and Nihilism; while the Governments, instead of removing the causes of these evils, which they dread, seem to have no other resource than to add to the incumbent weight of militarism, which tends only still more to exasperate the angry and mutinous spirit of the people. Now, the question I wish to ask the House to-night is this—Can nothing be done to put some check upon that system? This, of course, is the very knot of the problem with which we have to deal. Of the magnitude of the evil there are no two opinions. All men acknowledge it freely. Even the statesmen who most actively promote it declare, with more or less sincerity, they do so with infinite regret. The more thoughtful among military men, while professing to consider it inevitable, join in the lamentation over such sinister necessity. All our leading statesmen have given their testimony in the same direction, and in powerful and eloquent terms deprecate, deplore, denounce, as preposterous, insane, and ruinous, this system of universal armaments. I have quoted already the words of Lord Salisbury. I could quote equally emphatic words from Lord Derby, from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he
  90
  spoke of "the demon of militarism;" I could quote numberless passages from the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and a forcible passage from a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). All the journals of the country are constantly denouncing this state of things; but I shall content myself with quoting one sentence from an article which appeared a little time ago in The Times—
  "If such a state of things," says The Times, "is permitted to continue, it will he a disgrace to European statesmen; it is upon their shoulders that the real blame will rest."
  What, then, are we to do to get rid of this hideous nightmare, which is sitting on the heart of nations and almost suffocating their life? Is what I propose impracticable?—that the different Governments should come to an understanding with a view to the mutual and simultaneous diminution of their armaments. Sir Robert Peel did not think so, when he said—
  "Is not the time come when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce those military armaments which they have so sedulously raised? Is not the time come when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishments? What is the advantage of one Power greatly increasing its Army and Navy? Does it not see that if it proposes such increase for self protection and. defence the other Powers will follow its example? The consequence of this state must he that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any Power; but there must be a universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparations…The interest of Europe is not that any one Power should exercise a peculiar influence; but the true interest of Europe is to come to some common accord so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace. I do wish that the councils of every country (or that the public voice and mind, if the councils did not) would willingly proclaim that doctrine."
  I will now quote the authority of one who will be admitted by Gentlemen opposite to be a great statesman. Lord Beacons-field, speaking on the 21st of July, 1859, with a special reference to France, said—
  "Let us terminate this disastrous system of wild expenditure by mutually agreeing, with no hypocrisy, but in a manner and under circumstances which admit of no doubt, by the reduction of armaments, that peace is really our policy, and then the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) may look forward

  91
  with no apprehension to his next Budget, and England may then witness the termination of the Income Tax."
  Has anything of this kind been done or attempted before? I will not again refer to Vattel's testimony as to what was formerly done in Europe. I will only now allude to the Convention between Great Britain and the United States in 1817, as to the number of armed boats that they would keep on the American Lakes. Nor was that a matter of small moment. The greatest importance was attached to naval supremacy on those Lakes, so much so that the Duke of Wellington thus wrote to Sir George Murray—
  "I have told the Ministers repeatedly that a naval superiority on the Lakes is a sine qua non of success in Avar on the frontiers of Canada, even if our object be solely defensive, and I hope that when you are there they will take care to secure it for you."
  And yet, in the face of this opinion of that great military authority, the two nations had the good sense to enter into this Convention, limiting the number of ships-of-war upon the American Lakes. And what was the result of that? The number of armed boats agreed upon was four or five; but the effect of this limitation was, that the spirit of jealousy and rivalry having been laid asleep, they ceased to have any armed boats at all on those Lakes. In 1851, the year of the Great Exhibition, the late Mr. Cobden brought forward a Motion in this House expressed in much the same language as I have adopted,—proposing a mutual reduction of armaments between England and France. He was answered by Lord Palmerston in a most friendly and complimentary speech, in which he said he adopted both the Motion and the language of the hon. Gentleman. Lord Palmerston said—
  "I am glad the hon. Member has taken advantage of this meeting of the world to declare, in his place in Parliament, those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed."— [3 Hansard, cxvii. 941.]
  But while thoroughly approving of the object, he did not like to be fettered and bound in a negotiation. The next movement was made in the memorable proposal of the Emperor of the French, in 1863, to hold an International Congress on the subject. In the speech which he made at the opening of the
  92
  I French Chambers, he shadowed forth his intentions in these words—
  "Have not the prejudices and rancours which divided us lasted long enough? Shall the jealous rivalries of the Great Powers unceasingly impede the progress of civilization? Are we still to maintain mutual distrust by exaggerated armaments? Must our most precious resources he indefinitely exhausted in a barren display of our forces?"
  Unhappily our Government alone, of all the Governments of Europe, peremptorily refused to entertain this proposal of the Emperor of the French, although the late Lord Derby said that—
  "If there was a country in all Europe that had less interest in sending a blank refusal to have anything to do with the Congress it was England."
  I hope I shall not appear too egotistical if I refer now for a moment to myself. In 1869 I visited several of the capitals of Europe, including Paris, Brussels, the Hague, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and Florence, then the capital of the Italian Kingdom, to put myself in communication with members of different Representatives Assemblies in order to see whether we could not promote some concerted action for reduction of armaments in the respective Legislatures. I met many of the leading politicians in these capitals, and found them well disposed to entertain my proposals. Soon after, as the first fruit of my visit, Dr. Virchow proposed in the Prussian Chamber of Deputies the following Resolution:—
  "That the Royal Government be requested to use all its influence with a view to reduce within the narrowest practical limits, the expenses of the military administration of the Northern Confederacy, and to seek to bring about by diplomatic negociations, a general disarmament."
  There was a very interesting and animated debate upon the Resolution, and although Dr. Virchow did not succeed, he was sustained by no fewer than 99 votes. Soon after a similar Motion was made in the Chamber of Saxony and carried by a large majority. And, but for the outbreak next year, of the unhappy Franco-German War, this would have been followed up in other Legislatures. Another movement in this direction, of which I do not know much, was made in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) has told me that while he was in the Foreign Office as Under Secretary, about the

  93
  year 1869, Lord Clarendon originated the movement. Communications were opened with various Crowned Heads and leading statesmen of Europe, with a view to bring about a simultaneous reduction of armaments. I do not know why the matter was broken off; but I suppose the Franco-German War put an end to that also. However, it did great credit to Lord Clarendon to have made the effort. In Austria, Dr. Fischoff, a very distinguished writer, published some important articles in a leading journal of Vienna, which led to the matter being taken up by a considerable party. The result was that 49 Members of the Austrian Parliament, headed by MM. Fux and Heilsberg, have lately laid upon the Table of the House this Resolution—
  "The House of Deputies express a hope that the united Imperial and Royal Government may take into consideration the plan of such a general, proportionate, and simultaneous reduction of armaments, as shall not alter the respective position of the States of Europe; and that the Government will not withhold such efforts as may he necessary for the attainment of this object. The Imperial and Royal Government is also besought to bring this Resolution formally before the Minister for Foreign Affairs."
  The Minister of War himself, in his Report on the Army Bill, joyfully hailed the idea of a simultaneous reduction of the Armies of the various States of Europe, and acknowledged the idea as a practical one, which he was willing to support. It may be said there are difficulties in the way; but no great service was ever accomplished for humanity that had not to encounter difficulties. The triumph of true statesmanship is to overcome difficulties. I cannot see why, if the various States of Europe pursue the process of increasing their armaments on a principal of emulation, if they can add to forces, batteries, ships, guns, fortifications, &c, against each other; why, in the name of common sense, cannot they reverse that process, and begin to undo the mischief they have been doing so long? I cannot but think that the present time is favourable for such overtures as this. We enjoy a lucid interval of peace; and there seems no present danger of a breach of that peace, except from the existence of these enormous armaments. All the people of the earth are groaning under the burdens which these armaments fasten upon them, and they would hail with gladness and grati-
  94
  tude any proposal of this kind, especially coming with the approval of a powerful Government like this. I cannot but think that foreign Governments themselves would rejoice to have such proposals made to them. There are ominous signs abroad among them. When Sovereigns are spending their time in congratualing each other on escaping from assassination, it is surely time that they took some means of removing the dangers which threaten them through driving people into such extremities as these by adding constantly to their armaments. Sir, I venture, in conclusion, to make a very earnest and respectful appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that he will not turn aside from this great question. The task to which I invite him is not unworthy even of his transcendent abilities. It is not unworthy of his high character, as I estimate it, as the passionate friend of justice and humanity. He has already won many laurels by great deeds of practical statesmanship; and a greater than any of them awaits his hand. No greener wreath ever surrounded any man's brow than that which will encircle his if he will only consent to grapple with this high argument, and endeavour to bring the various nations of Europe into general concert to reduce those armaments. Above all, he will earn the grateful benedictions of millions of the people who are now groaning under this baneful system of militarism. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  MR. W. H. JAMESseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to instruct Her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with other Powers, with a view to bring about a mutual and simultaneous reduction of European Armaments."—(Mr. Richard.)
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he was glad, whatever the issue of this Motion might be, that it had afforded to his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) an opportunity of delivering one of his terse and telling speeches in favour of the good cause he had so much at heart to a far more sympathetic Parliamentary audience than he had ever addressed before upon the

  95
  subject. He (Mr. Baxter) was old enough to remember the time when a Motion of this kind and sentiments such as he had uttered would have been received with derision; but, fortunately, the last General Election had added very largely to the number of Gentlemen in that House who sympathized with those opinions, and, however distant they might be from the time of universal peace and the abolition of those armaments to which his hon. Friend referred, he might console himself with the reflection that his cause was steadily making progress. It had been his (Mr. Baxter's) lot, especially in recent years, to travel very extensively in various countries in Europe, and if there was one thing that struck him more than another it was the deplorable results of this military system. The idea of several millions of men being taken away from industrial pursuits ! What an incalculable loss to a nation through their being abstracted from its productive power! What a waste of time and an interruption of business were caused by the system of compulsory military service. These things had really made him think sometimes that civilization was not advancing but retrograding. They even cast a reflection upon their common Christianity. The other day, after his election, he paid a short visit to France, and spent a day or two in the great frontier garrison town of Bayonne, and it was positively pitiable to look at the streets and boulevards of that city crowded with soldiers in every stage of dress and undress, nearly all of them being boys, very dirty, drafted by the conscription, which was weighing like an incubus on the prosperity of France. Then, what was going on in Germany? They all knew perfectly well that Germany was suffering at the present time, and had been for years past, in consequence of the mighty multitude of soldiers she thought it necessary to support, and they also knew that there was an increasing amount of emigration from Germany to the United States in order to evade military service. He had spent a great deal of time in Italy, and the great difficulty in that country, which imperilled its very existence, was the immense pecuniary pressure occasioned by keeping up such an absurdly large military force. When the Italians were asked why they kept it up, they all
  96
  said that it was to protect them against France; but directly the traveller got over the frontier into France on the Riviera coast he found himself in the midst of the most preposterous fortifications, some of them still in course of construction around Toulon, which he was told were put there as a protection against the Italians. Then Austria was in constant financial embarrassment in consequence of her enormous military forces; and only the other day he was reading an account of the fearful misery caused by the conscription in the Southern part of Russia. The writer describes the piteous shrieks, heartrending cries, and bitter lamentation of young men and boys taken away from their homes and friends to serve in distant parts of the Empire, most of them never to return. But he wanted to say a few words about military spirit in this country. It was very true, and he was thankful for it, that no such scenes as those he had alluded to were witnessed here; but he was sorry to say —and they had much experience of it of late years-—that the spirit of militaryism was far from being dead in Great Britain. There were some people who said there was really no class amongst them who were in favour of war; but he was not quite so sure about that. There were professional soldiers who, very naturally—and he could not blame them for it—wished opportunities to distinguish themselves in their Profession, and to obtain promotion. There was also a certain class of traders and contractors who had a direct interest in promoting war. He was very much struck with an observation which was made in his hearing by a merchant from South Africa not long ago. That gentleman was conversing about the prosperity of the country, and he made this remark—
  "Well, plentiful rains and fine seasons and all that sort of thing are very well of their kind, hut there is nothing so good for business as a jolly Kaffir War."
  Therefore, there were many people who were directly interested in promoting war; but, not only so, he was sorry to say there was a vast body of people in this country ignorant and barbarous enough to take delight in the pomp and circumstance and vain-glory of victory, without the slightest regard to the justice of the case or the sacrifice of

  97
  human life. It must not be said that such people were to be found principally, or even largely, amongst the working classes. There was no class so much to blame in that respect as that which was called "Society." "Society" was constantly getting up and fomenting panics, suggesting and playing upon unrea soning and unreasonable fears, and inventing hobgoblins to terrify the community in order to increase the national expenditure. He recollected at the time when the people of this country had gone a kind of crazy about French invasion and the wild utterances of certain French colonels, a distinguished politician, now deceased, telling him that if he went about as he was doing, laughing at the whole thing as a mere bugbear, he would certainly lose his seat at next election. We were ashamed now of that panic. At the close of the Civil War in America, the same wise people told us that the 1,100,000 men there in arms would certainly make an attempt to annex both Canada and Jamaica; and, therefore, that it was our duty at once to raise a force sufficient to cope with the United States. The French and Americans were now very good friends, and so, he ventured to predict, would be the Russians when this deplorable national enemy game should have been entirely played out. He maintained that the verdict of the nation at the recent election was against this spirit of militaryism and these unnecessary wars. That was the main issue that was brought before the country; and a clear indication was given to the "Services" that in future they would be expected to obey, and not to control, the Government of the country. The attitude of the constituencies offered a very strong encouragement to those who took the view of the author of the Motion before the House; and another reason why the time was favourable for bringing it forward now was that they had got rid of pretty nearly every remnant of the unfortunate Treaty of 1815, which was founded entirely upon the interests of Kings, Princes, and Dukes, who were all to be provided for without the slightest reference to the wishes of their subjects. He was reading yesterday the newly published autobiography of Prince Met-ternich, in the introductory explanatory note to which occurs the following re-
  98
  markable sentence, written in December, 1844:—
  "Architects present themselves on all sides; not one, however, is permitted to see the work concluded; for that, the life of man is too short. Happy the man who can say himself that he has not run counter to Eternal Laws. This testimony my conscience does not deny me."
  Was there ever such a delusion? This was precisely what he did do. Eternal Law requires that statesman should consult the wishes of the people. Metter-nich disregarded them entirely, and he had not been 20 years in his grave when his cherished edifice fell to pieces, like a house built of cards. The principle of nationalities had received many practical illustrations of late yearn, and this consideration of itself removed one of the principal causes of war. Italy had now become free and independent. The long-desired unification of Germany had taken place, and the same process was going on on both sides of the Lower Danube, and the best results might be hoped for from the permanent establishment of a peaceable and peace-loving Republican Government in France. Dynastic ambition had been the bane of that country; and, now that the Napoleonist, Legitimist, and Orleanist factions were losing strength every day, he hoped they might look forward with some degree of confidence to seeing France playing an entirely new roóle in the history of Europe. The principle of international arbitration had advanced considerably in the estimation of public men all over the world during the last 25 years. It was recommended in the Protocol of Paris in 1856, and received a most practical illustration in the settlement of the Alabama Claims. During the next two or three years Her Majesty's Government would have ample opportunities of recommending to the other Cabinets the principle of international arbitration. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had many times and in many difficult and complicated circumstances, which Members of the House as old as he well recollected, in connection with the French Treaty of 1860 and the Fortification Vote, proved himself pre-eminentty a man of peace; and now that he had a powerful majority at his back, elected and sustained by the sense and conscience of the nation, he had no doubt that his foreign

  99
  policy would be in accord with the spirit of the Motion now before the House.
  COLONEL BURNABYwould take this opportunity of reminding the House of the words uttered by Lord John Russell at the time of the Duke of Wellington's death, that England had buried a man whose greatest horror was of war. He believed that that feeling was shared by every military man, and by none more than himself. He thought they might congratulate themselves on the fact that this country had never set an example that would encourage other nations to keep up great armaments. He quite agreed that European armaments were at present too large. There were 9,500,000 men under arms at this moment, the odd 500,000 being our own countrymen. That number was as small as it possibly could be consistently with the safety of our shores from invasion. The number of our troops actually under Colours was 135,000. Foreigners often said that our Army made up in efficiency for its want of numbers. One matter for congratulation was the great improvement in our Volunteer Force, which now numbered 200,000 efficient men—24,000 of them trained to the use of the cannon, and this auxiliary would render it unnecessary for England ever to resort to foreign mercenaries, as she did at the time of the Crimean War. He feared it would be found very difficult for any Minister to bring about the disarmament of this country, much as he might wish to do so. The great object which they should keep in view was the uprooting of national rivalries and enmities. Until that object was successfully accomplished he feared foreign countries would turn a deaf ear to any advice we might give them. In conclusion, he urged the House to believe that he and most of his comrades would be very glad to see a reduction in the armaments of Europe, for he had the greatest horror of war in common with the majority of military men.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no desire to obstruct the declaration of opinion by an hon. Gentleman; but the appeal made by me by the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, and by my right hon. Friend behind me, has been sufficiently pointed to make me think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I proceed at once to declare the sentiments with which I regard the proposition it-
  100
  self, and the general opinions upon which it is based; but I must draw a distinction between the basis of this Motion and the opinions and convictions that have been expressed, which I place on one side, and the adoption of a Resolution of this kind by the House at the present moment, the effect of which is not only to indicate a particular course as the course desirable to be pursued; but to indicate that course in such a manner as to commit the House to the proposition that the moment has arrived for taking the step described in the Motion. Now, Sir, upon that subject I will presently state my reasons for being compelled to act and speak with some reserve. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend, and that of my right hon. Friend behind me, and in the same manner and in the same sense of that speech we have heard from the opposite side of the House, I need hardly say that they command my fullest concurrence. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution before the House has quoted from speeches made by me a strong expression of opinion, not, I am sure, with a desire to catch me tripping by a reference to those speeches, but because he thought that he was expressing the opinions which were really in my mind; and it is, I will at once say, impossible to exaggerate the mischief and. the danger attending many of the operations to which he has called our attention. I must, however, point out to my hon. Friend that great operations have been accomplished in Europe in the course of the last 30 years, and that, although those operations have been accomplished by the sad and painful and deplorable, but sometimes necessary, means of war, they have been favourable in the result, in various important instances, to the permanent happiness of mankind. I will now speak of the Crimean War— for in that I had, perhaps, a particular concern—except to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend in the censure which he passed upon it. But when I consider such great constructive operations as the creation of a really national and united Italy in lieu of the number of sectional fragments of people among whom violence and corruption were resorted to in large portions of their country, if not entirely, to keep down the spirit of freedom and the sentiment of nationality, and to extinguish the glorious traditions of the race, I find, I

  101
  am sorry to say, that it is not by peaceable means that that great change has been effected. In the same way the reconstruction of Germany, however attained, has been a great advance in the political system of Europe. Nor can I refrain from saying that when I recollect that within the last two years from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 people have obtained a new position, and made a great advance on the road from the most degrading servitude and violence to freedom, and through the means of war, while agreeing with my hon. Friend in everything he says as to the deplorable consequences of war itself, yet I will not travel with him in holding the opinion that those wars—wars of liberty—however we may lament that an end desirable to be attained was not attained by other means, are to be regarded as unmixed evils. As to dynastic wars for the purposes of aggrandisement, needless wars, wanton wars—and I am sorry to say we have not to go far for our experience of them —no words which my hon. Friend can devise, or which the wit of man can invent, are strong enough to describe the folly and the guilt of wars of that description. But I think the distinction is a real one which may be drawn between a war made for lawful purposes, and carried through with benefit to mankind, and wars which have no such justification, and which are to be regarded as among the most terrible plagues that can afflict mankind. Even though we may refrain from censuring the objects of a war, yet I go all lengths with my hon. Friend in expressing a desire that we should endeavour to devise and encourage other more rational, less costly, and less demoralizing means of securing these objects. He has quoted figures which must have startled the House as to the cost of wars. The cost of wars belonging to the present and the past, and the preparations for the future, he places at £500,000,000 a-year in Europe. I wish I could re-duco greatly that estimate, but I cannot. I believe my hon. Friend has not greatly overstated the cost of past wars and of the preparations for future wars. I have not had an opportunity of minutely examining the figures; but he was, no doubt, very near the mark when he spoke of £150,000,000 of actual Military Estimates, and I think I am justifying in saying that the conse-
  102
  quence of the withdrawal from useful industry to military purposes of a vast number of hands doubles the cost; because not only are men occupied in an employment which does not produce, but they are taken away from the business of production in which they might otherwise be occupied. I am not, of course, saying that this is an argument against adequate, rational, and becoming measures of defence for the security of a country which is bound to have regard to its own safety; nor am I contending that the pecuniary aspect of the question is the whole, or even the most important part of the various branches of the subject. But if my hon. Friend, on account of the withdrawal of labour from peaceful industry to warlike purposes, doubles the £150,000,000 I cannot find fault with him. We have, first, to consider the effect of the War Estimates; next, the withdrawal of labour from other pursuits; and, thirdly, the consequences of former wars of which we are now bearing the charge. In this matter it is wonderful to see how much more easy it is to judge our ancestors than ourselves. It is exactly the case of judging one's neighbour as compared with oneself. It is very easy for us to find out that other nations are extravagant in the military and naval establishments which they maintain; but the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Burnaby) has told us that his friends in foreign armies have pressed the point upon him that we have the advantage of an insular position, and that we ought, in consequence, to be able to afford a better example to the world. I shall not enter into any argument on that point at present; but I may observe that, as a general rule, the wars which have led to the creation of the National Debts of the world have been chiefly dynastic or religious or re-action-ary wars, and almost all of them wrong and unjust. If those wars have left behind them National Debts now passing £4,000,000,000—I was not aware that the figures were quite so high—there has to be paid in the shape of interest an amount little short of £160,000,000, to be added to the £150,000,000 which my hon. Friend has mentioned in his computation. I am afraid, therefore, that £450,000,000 or £500,000,000 is somewhere about the actual charge to Europe for past wars and its present

  103
  preparations for the same purposes. That is the pecuninary view of the matter; but there is a point at which this pecuniary question becomes connected with another question. My hon. Friend was quite right when he said that, in many countries, what may be called war interests are created by the extraordinary expenditure which is indulged in. The case of the Cape of Good Hope has been quoted, and I do not think a fairer or better instance could be cited. Nothing can be so ruinous to a country, nothing so mischievous as to its progress and the formation of a just civilization, as to be in the position which we have too often witnessed in the case of the inhabitants of our own Colonies in later times, of having the privilege of provoking wars for which they were not called upon to pay. When we say to a community—"We will pay the expenses of your wars," they may imagine that we are conferring upon them a great favour; hut I believe their worst enemies could not devise a scheme more lowering to the character of free citizens in a free State. Going back to the debates of 30 or 40 years, we find Mr. Cobden in a very marked degree, and Sir Robert Peel in a degree less marked, but, no doubt, not less sincere, even then deploring the enormous scale on which the military establishments of Europe were maintained, and the tendency of those military establishments not to preserve peace, but to weaken the securities for its continnance. Since that period— since Sir Robert Peel thought it his duty in his place in Parliament to call attention to the dangers which menaced Europe through the maintenance of needless establishments—these establishments have been in some cases doubled, or trebled, and the cost of them is advancing at, perhaps, even a greater rate. Amid all our boasts of civilization—amid all our ideas of incessant progress—we have this sad, almost plague spot, as it may be called, upon us; and, as my hon. Friend says, we delude ourselves with the notion and cling to the idle and empty formula— for such it has become—that to be prepared for war is the best way to avert it. My hon. Friend has said, and said with truth, that at one time an endeavour was made by Lord Clarendon, in conjunction with the Government of which I had
  104
  the honour to be the head in 1869, to setin motion if we could some small measure, at least as a beginning, of disarmament. It was not an attempt to combine the armed nations of Europe for that purpose. Lord Clarendon's belief, in which I still share, was that if you could gather the Plenipotentiaries of Europe round a table to hear a discussion on disarmament, their meetings would end in no positive and substantial result, and that the only way in which a measure of disarmament can be initiated is in detail. It is to take advantage of some occasion when particular countries are in face of each other—burdening their own people, exhausting their own resources, and endangering peace—and to endeavour to prevail on them relatively to these particular circumstances to pursue a more rational course. Lord Clarendon was apprehensive, in 1869, of those difficulties with respect to which his prognostications were but too speedily and surely verified. He thought the relations between France and Germany were menacing to Europe; and he endeavoured to prevail on those two countries to begin the good work of some small measure of disarmament. It is not for me to refer to this matter in the character of a judge between those two great countries. What happened was simply this: The French Government adopted the first part of Lord Clarendon's proposal to this extent—that they offered to make a reduction in their Army of 10,000 men. It was not a large reduction; but it was a reduction. On the other hand, the Government of Germany stated that the force they had under arms was smaller in proportion to their population than the force of France, and that, consequently, they could not undertake to make any reduction whatever. That is the history of the effort made by Lord Clarendon; and I would ask my hon. Friend to note that the effort made in 1869 was not forced upon the Government by any Parliamentary movement. It was an effort made by them spontaneously, and from a desire, if possible, to make some progress, however small, in the beginning of an undertaking which would, if it acquired any considerable development, be of immeasurable benefit to Europe. It is on that ground I ask my hon. Friend not to compel me to vote upon his Motion. What I would say to my hon. Friend is

  105
  this: If he has reason to suspect a want of inclination on the part of the Government to move in the direction of promoting peace and pacific means in the reduction of armaments, then he would be perfectly justified, whatever our general political relations may be, in striving to force the Motion upon us. But if he really believes that we are associated with him in the desire he entertains, then I would ask my hon. Friend to allow us some discretion in regard to the time and the circumstances of our action. With regard to addressing other Powers upon the question, that is a very serious step. When Lord Clarendon made overtures to France and Germany, there was nothing in our policy in any portion of the globe that at all weakened our position or made it otherwise than desirable to be the authors of such overtures. This was an essential point. It was necessary that we should stand recti in curiâ, and that we should not be met with the remark—"What are you doing yourselves? You preach the gospel of peace; but are your hands free from the stain of blood? Have you purged yourselves effectually from that stain? Have you retired from the positions into which you have been driven?" I need not enter into particulars; it is not necessary, for everyone would understand the allusions I might make. I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that we must have some regard to the situation in which we are able to place ourselves before we undertake the lofty and, in certain circumstances, the pretentious office of instructing other nations. There are, in my opinion, three distinct modes by which, apart from application to other Powers, the Government of this country may walk in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend. The first and the most essential is that they shall pursue a foreign policy of peace and justice. Unless they do that, the words of admonition they may use to others will be a bitter mockery in the estimate of others. The second condition is that they shall study to the best of their ability whether they can honestly moderate their defensive establishments. That is a point on which Her Majesty's Government are not in a position at this very early period of their existence to make any announcement or to give any definite promise. Of course, when I speak of moderate establishments I esti-
  106
  mate moderation by the just proportion between the real demands of the country for its honour and its safety and the charge and the extent of establishments which are required by Parliament and by the people in order to maintain these essential things. There is a third way, however, in which I think it is in the power of the Government to qualify itself for becoming a missionary for those beneficial purposes which are contemplated by my hon. Friend; that is, by showing their disposition, when they are themselves engaged in controversy, to adopt those amicable and pacific means of escape from their disputes rather than to resort to war. Need I assure my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Baxter) that the dispositions which led us to become parties to the arbitration on the Alabama case are still with us the same as ever; that we are not discouraged; that we are not damped in the exercise of these feelings by the fact that we were amerced, and severely amerced, by the sentence of the International Tribunal; and that, although we may think the sentence was harsh in its extent, and unjust in its basis, we regard the fine imposed on this country as dust in the balance compared with the moral value of the example set when these two great nations of England and America—which are among the most fiery and the most jealous in the world with regard to anything that touches national honour—went in peace and concord before a judicial tribunal to dispose of these painful differences, rather than to resort to the arbitrament of the sword. These are the means by which I think it is in the power of the Government at all events to prepare the way for holding the language of peace, and even for recommending on the proper occasion disarmament among the assembled Powers of Europe. Some time must, in my judgment, elapse before these conditions can have been sufficiently realized in our case to qualify us for the duties which my hon. Friend benevolently and philanthropically wishes us to undertake. My hon. Friend has been referring, as I have been referring myself, to the proceedings of Mr. Cobden on this subject. In 1849 Mr. Cobden made a Motion very closely corresponding in its terms with that of my hon. Friend. On that occasion, when Mr. Cobden had in view

  107
  something of the nature of general disarmament, Lord Palmerston made a speech expressing his great admiration of the sentiments of Mr. Cohden, and expressing the conviction, which I entirely share, that a discussion of this kind is not a thing to be viewed with jealousy or grudge, but to be regarded as an opportunity—a beneficial opportunity—of declaring one's opinion on matters of the highest importance. Lord Palmerston, on that occasion, moved the Previous Question, in order that he might not appear to negative Mr. Cobden's Motion. Mr. Cobden, however, thought fit on that occasion to go to a division. In the year 1851 Mr. Cobden renewed his Motion in substance, but gave it a more specific application, and made it refer only to the relations between England and Prance. He moved an Address to Her Majesty, praying her—
  "To enter into communication with the Government of France, and endeavour to prevent in future that rivalry of warlike preparation in time of Peace, which has hitherto been the policy of the two Governments, and to promote, if possible, a mutual reduction of armaments."
  I am interested in finding a difference between Mr. Cobden's two Motions, because I think he perceived that an attempt to act on all Powers simultaneously was not as likely to succeed as an invitation to one other Power to enter into communication with a view to disarmament. On the occasion in question Lord Palmerston said—
  "I am glad that the hon. Member for the West Riding has taken advantage of this meeting of the world (the Exhibition of 1851) to declare in his place in Parliament those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed; and, if I object to being sent bound and fettered into a negotiation through which I confess I cannot see my practical way, it is not because I object to the end the hon. Member desires and proposes to accomplish, but because I think that end is more likely to be accelerated by the language of the hon. Member, and the sentiments he and the House have expressed, than it would be by the particular and specific Motion he has this evening brought before us."—[3 Hansard, cxvii. 941.]
  He went on to say—
  "Her Majesty's Government feel as ardently on the subject as any man in this country or in the world can do; and as far as their influence, and power, and persuasion may extend, they will, so long as it may be their lot to have anything to do with the affairs of the country, use every effort in their power to avert the miseries and calamities of war."—[Ibid.]
  108
  Mr. Cobden expressed his unfeigned satisfaction with the tone of the debate and with the declaration of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, and withdrew his Motion without pressing it to a division. I venture to express my hope that that course may be taken by my hon. Friend on the present occasion. It is not desirable, under present circumstances, that the House should place the Government in a position in which they would be compelled either to seem to slight the great authority of the House, or to be driven at a time which we do not believe yet to be ripe or opportune to make overtures to other Powers of the world under circumstances and at a moment from which we could not anticipate beneficial results.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that while he was prepared to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Merthyr, he was also ready to acquiesce in its withdrawal, or in any course his hon. Friend might think it wise to take after the speech of the Prime Minister. He quite appreciated the force of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) remarks, and understood that in many cases it was more easy to teach by precept than by example. He could not help thinking that in the present complicated state of Europe the great armaments which they saw were as much a result as a cause. He could not help feeling that the unhappy state of the political organization of many countries, the unhappy union of Provinces that ought more properly to be parted, and the separation of States and sections of States from their natural connection, led to that antagonism between nation and nation which had its natural outcome in those increased armaments which had been referred to. He did not wish to particularize by illustrations, because where responsible Ministers shrank from pointing their remarks by apposite illustrations which were in the minds of all, it was better for others to follow the example of eloquent silence. In the Parliament of England and in the House of Commons they had a right, as it was their duty, first of all to look at home, to do what was practical, and to ask themselves whether, in proclaiming their love for peace and disinclination to armaments and military preparations, it was not possible to do something to give effect to their views. The course of this

  109
  country ought to be one of peaceful progress, not of military aggression; and the expression which that sentiment had found in the House of Commons in the course of that debate would strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government if they should choose to enter on a course of peace and military retrenchment. It was perhaps by example that they could best promote the course the hon. Member for Merthyr had at heart. He feared that if they were to go at that moment into the councils of Europe, and invite the nations to simultaneous disarmament, they would say—"Would you guarantee us against the consequences of the jealousies and hatreds resulting from past wars? Will you secure to us that the state of Europe, so eminently unstable, shall become stable?" When they thought of these things they must see that it was difficult, say oven for such a country as Spain, to consent to something which involved the relinquishment of an object of national longing on their part. He thought, considering all these things, it was more possible for them to do something by acting on those organizations where they were complete masters of the situation within the region of their own authority and political responsibility, and then, when they had washed their hands of that blood of aggression of which many of them felt that they were guiltily enjoying the gains, they might go, fortified by example, and speak a word of counsel that might be advantageous in Europe.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought they might all be satisfied at hearing that the spirit of the Government was in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend. In the belief that that opinion deserved to be recorded he would propose an Amendment to that effect; but before doing so he wished to observe that he would not be the first to denounce the employment of force for a just object. Almost the first speech he had the honour of making in that House was a speech distinctly in favour of the employment of force for the procuring of what he believed to be just ends. He would not, therefore, engage in any abstract condemnation of war when justified by such an object. The Prime Minister referred to the case of Italy. No one could deny that the unification of Italy, which had given so much satisfaction, could not have been produced so soon, if at all in
  110
  this generation, if force had not been employed. The Austrian Government did not withdraw its forces from Lom-bardy and Venice from any conviction of the injustice of its domination over the Italian people. Nor was it simply from a feeling of injustice on the part of the Bourbon dynasty that the Two Sicilies became lost to them. He would have been glad if in the course of recent years a desire had been shown by the British Government and Parliament for the promotion of the great work of liberation further in the East of Europe. All that brought him to the conclusion that if there was a desire to promote peace and the disarmament of Europe their efforts must be primarily devoted to the establishment of just international relations in Europe. It was in the establishment of justice between nations that they should have the best security for the establishment of peace between nations. As long as they had injustice between nations they could not possibly prevent a spirit of international antipathy from being maintained, nor avert the danger of war. The Government over which the Prime Minister formerly presided did something towards establishing partial disarmament between France and Germany. When the Franco-German War unhappily seemed to be certain they entered into a Treaty with the two principals in that war, by which they bound themselves by certain definite obligations to incur the risk of hostilities in order to maintain the just rights of Belgium. No act of the Government could be regarded with greater satisfaction. But the Prime Minister would forgive him when he said that he wished the conclusion of the Franco-German War had been accompanied by some similar act. They all knew perfectly well that there was no danger to the peace of Europe so formidable as the terms of the Treaty between France and Germany which closed that war. The French were not satisfied; the Germans were apprehensive. Therefore, the terms of that Treaty were a standing menace to Europe. He was speaking in ignorance of the efforts of Her Majesty's Government at the time; but he would have been glad if there had been some public record that they had approached the two belligerents and proffered to enter into some engagement which, upon a just termination of the war, should have

  111
  bound the Powers of Europe to maintain that just termination. That would have been a real step towards peace. But, as he said before, he rose to move an Amendment to which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would assent, an Amendment which would enunciate the sentiments which had been heard with great satisfaction from the Prime Minister, and which might satisfy the ambition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) by putting on record the policy of England on the matter. He begged to move to omit all the words after the word "that" in order to insert—
  "In the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government on all occasions, when circumstances admit of it, to recommend to Foreign Governments the reduction of European Armaments."
  MR. W. FOWLERseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  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 the duty of Her Majesty's Government on all occasions, when circumstances admit of it, to recommend to Foreign Governments a reduction of European Armaments,"—(Mr. Courtney,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should rather acquiesce than concur in the adoption of this Amendment, but simply upon the ground that I am not friendly, as a general rule, to the assertion by the House of Commons of propositions not susceptible of immediate application to practice. I doubt the policy of it. At the same time, I should not wish, in the present state of things, to go so far as to resist the passing of the Amendment, embodying, as it does, what is undoubtedly true, and what is likewise in itself of the highest importance. I therefore will not take any steps, even by moving the Previous Question, to prevent the adoption of the Amendment, if there be a general wish in the House to adopt it; but, on the ground I have stated, I confess I should not have recommended that course.
  MR. RICHARDexpressed the extreme satisfaction with which he had listened to what he must call the magnificent speech of the Prime Minister, which was one of the most eloquent expositions
  112
  of the policy of peace he had ever heard, and its effect, he was sure, would be most beneficial. He would withdraw his Motion; but it would be very gratifying if the Prime Minister would allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard to be passed without a division.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government on all occasions, when circumstances admit of it, to recommend to Foreign Governments a reduction of European Armaments.

  VACCINATION' ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to amend the Vaccination Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON and Mr. HIEBERT.

  SOUTH WESTERN (OF LONDON) DISTRICT POST OFFICE BILL.
  On Motion of Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to enlarge and acquire a Site for the South Western (of London) District Post Office, ordered to be brought in by Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH and Mr. FAWCETT.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Burials (73–86).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* (77); Glebe Loan Acts (Ireland) Amendment * (84).
Report — Settled Land * (81); Conveyancing and Law of Property* (82).
Third Reading —Limitation of Actions* (61); Solicitors Remuneration* (63), and passed.

BURIALS BILL—(No. 73.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BURIALS BILL—(No. 73.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL NELSONwished to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, before the House went into Committee, what the position of those trusts would be in which graveyards had been specially granted to the Church of England on condition that the Church of England Burial Service only be performed therein, and where the graveyards were in the hands of trustees for the purpose of carrying out the donor's intention? He (Earl Nelson) knew of such a case occurring last year, and would like to hear the noble and learned Lord's opinion upon the matter.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEalso wished to remark that they all knew that burial had two sides—-one religious, and the other sanitary. The Bill proposed to deal with the religious side. Now, whatever happened with the Bill, whether it was passed in its present form, or with Amendments, or whether it was not passed at all, he thought, after what had taken place, those with

  3
  country parishes would find themselves in this position. Hitherto there had been practically no difficulty in getting people buried, because the owners of land and the clergy had been very kind and liberal in giving land for the enlargement of churchyards. But he thought he did not at all misrepresent the case when he said that, for evil or for good, they would not meet with that kind of liberality in future, and he wished to ask what they were practically to do with regard to getting people buried in country parishes? There were many places where churchyards should be shut up, and if the Home Office did shut them up, there would be no possibility of finding a place for the burial of the dead. This opened up a question of great practical importance, and it was obvious that the sanitary side of the problem should have their serious attention. By remedying what was considered the religious difficulty, they might be intensifying a sanitary difficulty, which was of infinitely greater importance.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORconfessed that he did not share the anticipations of the rev. Prelate with regard to additional grants of land. He did not believe that any sensible effect would be produced with respect to those gifts. There were few among the landlords of England willing to grant land for burial purposes purely and narrowly denominational, who would not also grant it for purposes of a wider character. With regard to the larger question, as to the possibility of supplying new churchyards and new cemeteries when the old ought to be shut up, his own opinion was that, by passing this Bill, their Lordships would remove a very considerable obstruction out of the way of that operation, because the sanitary question would be no longer mixed up with questions of a quite different character, and there would be no jealousy of any steps which might be taken for real sanitary reasons on account of any controversial matter. He, therefore, thought that not only the existing Acts might be much more readily worked and put into operation, but also that the Government would find it more easy to review those existing Acts than when the religious difficulty stood in the way. He was not authorized to give any pledge on the part of the Government as to the time at which they would under-
  4
  take to review the existing Acts as to burial grounds; but he might confidently assure their Lordships that Government would not lose sight of that important subject. With regard to the Question of the noble Earl (Earl Nelson), he was glad to say that the noble Earl's views and his were precisely the same. It had been urged by some persons as an objection to the Bill, that it did not throw open to the Church the burial grounds of other religious denominations; but the Bill did not interfere with private burial grounds at all; it dealt only with those in which the parishioners or inhabitants generally had right of burial. He was not aware of there being at the present time any obstacle whatever to the creation of private trusts as to burial grounds for members of the Church of England any more than there was to the creation of such private trusts for the Baptists, or Wesleyans, or any other religious community; and if a trust had been created, as described by his noble Friend, he had no difficulty in stating his opinion that this Bill would in no way affect it.
  LORD FORBESexpressed regret if he had done wrong in not making his proposal that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, which would have postponed the evil as long as he possibly could. It was a serious thing to deprive the Church of England of her rights and privileges, and give over her heritage to her enemies. He called their Lordships' attention to the fact that members of the Liberation Society regarded the churchyards as outworks of the Church of England, and did not conceal the certainty that when they had carried those outworks it was their intention to attack the citadel itself. He begged the Government, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, by the love he bore the Church, in a spirit not of anger but of sorrow, in the interest of the Church of England, to withdraw the Bill. He would admit that the noble Lords who had brought on the measure were actuated by the best spirit; but what they proposed would be most prejudicial to the interests of that Church.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 (After passing of Act, notice may be given that burial will take place

  5
  in churchyard or graveyard without the rites of the Church of England).
  On The Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, Amendments made, in page 1, line 7, by omitting ("person"), and substituting the words ("relative, friend, or legal representative"); and in line 9, for ("twenty-four") substituting ("forty-eight"); and after ("writing") adding ("in the form or to the effect of Schedule A annexed to this Act").
  On the Motion of The Earl FORTESCUE, Amendment made, in line 9, after ("writing") by inserting ("plainly signed with the name and address of the person giving it").
  THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBE,in rising to move, as an Amendment, the insertion in line 13, after ("or place") of the words—
  "Where there is no unconsecrated burial ground or cemetery in which the parishioners or inhabitants hare rights of burial,"
  said, it had been urged that that Bill sought to establish religious equality for all denominations in the matter of interment; but much depended on how that expression was to be interpreted. If it meant that all were to have facilities for the use of their religious services at burials, that was a principle which all should support. But if it meant that all religious sects in this country, and others who did not belong to any religious communion whatever, were to have in future concurrent rights which were never exercised before in the property of the Church of England, that was a principle which must carry them far beyond the churchyards, and that was a claim which, in the interests of justice and constitutional principle, the Legislature was bound to resist. He admitted that the Dissenters had a grievance—although some thought it was a sentimental grievance—which could not be ignored. On the other hand, if that Bill passed, it would entail on the Church of England a grievance which many of the clergy had described as intolerable, while many others would feel it most keenly. The House was, therefore, placed in this difficulty, that it must consider which of these two grievances was the more serious one; and, as far as individuals and as laymen were concerned, he could not come to any other conclusion than that the exist-
  6
  ing grievance of the Dissenters was the more real grievance of the two. If Churchmen felt that it would be a grievance to them if a service different from that of their own Church should be held in their consecrated ground, although it did not affect their own interment or the interment of their friends, surely their feeling would be a much more painful one if they knew, as Dissenters did, that neither they nor their friends could be interred without a service in which they did not concur, or without a minister whom they did not recognize. He would, therefore, admit that the grievance of the Dissenter was the greater; but he deprecated the provisions of the Bill being enforced in places where a grievance did not exist. He held that they should only be applied in cases of necessity where there was no uneonse-crated ground. He thought it was a dangerous principle not to give a man his rights; but it was a more dangerous principle to go beyond these.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, after ("place") to insert—
  ("Where there is no unconsecrated burial ground or cemetery in which the parishioners or inhabitants have rights of burial.")—[The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the laity of the Church of England had a very great respect for the clergy, and he could not help thinking that if the clergy themselves viewed this matter with more dispassionate eyes, there would be little objection on the part of the laity. He quite agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe) that the pressure of the grievance was much less severe where there were cemeteries and burial grounds other than the churchyards; but he still thought it would be very unwise to adopt the Amendment, which would tend to interfere with the beneficial operation of the measure as a settlement of the controversy. It would at once draw a line between parish and parish throughout the Kingdom. In one parish a Nonconformist would be able to avail himself of the provisions of the Act. In an adjoining parish a Nonconformist would not be able to do so. If the Amendment were adopted, all the controversies which it was sought to put an end to would continue; and he thought that if it was open to no other objection, that ought to be a suffi-

  7
  cient objection to it. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle) had expressed a fear that the operation of the Bill as it stood might check the application of the provisions of the Burial Acts, for the creation of new public burial grounds, where they were wanted. He did not share that opinion; but the Amendment of the noble Earl would really have that effect, because Dissenters would be likely to object to the creation of new unconsecrated burial grounds, when it would have the effect of excluding them from the liberty in the use of the churchyard given them by this Bill. They would always feel it a grievance, if the Services of the Church were forced upon them when they desired to be buried with their friends.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the truth of the matter was, that this distinction between parish and parish would not be created to a greater extent than at present by the Bill—it already existed. What the Legislature now proposed to do was this. The Legislature had, at the expense of the ratepayers, provided equal burial grounds to meet the wants of both parties, and, while that legislation was to remain in force, it was proposed in this Bill to pass a Proviso to the effect that, besides burying in their own unconsecrated grounds, the Dissenters should use the consecrated grounds of the Church as much as they liked. Unless the Amendment were agreed to, there was great danger that the consecrated grounds would be very speedily filled up. Already a tendency in that way had been displayed, and sufficient time had not elapsed for ancestral associations to gather round the ordinary cemeteries. Even people who did not believe there was much in consecration would have their friends buried in consecrated ground, thinking that, if there did happen to be anything in it, they would do them greater honour by putting them there. This would result in a confiscation of Church property. The present law with regard to the cemeteries answered very well, and it was going too far to attempt to apply to them arguments which were only good as regarded churchyards, which stood on a totally different footing.
  EARL NELSONpointed out, as regarded ancestral associations, that the claim of persons to be buried side by side with their ancestors had been set
  8
  aside before by the Sanitary Acts. In his opinion, a great hardship would be inflicted upon members of the Church of England if the Amendment were not accepted. It would be a great grievance to Churchmen that, while there was abundant room in the unconsecrated portions of the cemeteries, the Dissenters should, by claiming the right of burial in the consecrated portion of the ground, fill it up, as had been pointed out by the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York). He further thought it would be unfair not to accept the Amendment in order to meet the circumstances of certain parishes, such as in the case of Ribchester, near Preston, where the old churchyard was closed 10 years ago; and another piece of ground was given to the church for a burial ground, there being at the time burial grounds for the Independents and the Roman Catholics. In this case it would be a hardship if all parties should, under the operation of the Bill, resort to the Church burial ground; therefore, he should vote for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York), would it be wise, by passing the Amendment, to allow an opportunity for ancestral rights to grow up, with their accompanying grievances? They would be perpetuating a small grievance among those whom they should seek to conciliate, by preventing them from being buried by the side of their relatives who might have been interred in consecrated ground. He hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 130; Not - Contents 106: Majority 24.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, Amendment made, in page 1, line 16, after ("without the"), by adding ("performance, in the manner prescribed by law, of the"), and omitting ("prescribed by law") after ("service").
  LORD STRATHNAIRNmoved an Amendment providing that the provi-

  11
  sions of the Bill should not apply to the burial of any person who had by word of mouth or writing publicly declared that he did not believe in God. He considered that it would be a very injurious thing to inter an Atheist in the burial ground of a Christian people. He could not agree with the so-called generous sentiment on this important subject.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 20, at the end of clause insert—
  ("Provided always, that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the burial of any person who shall have by word of mouth or writing publicly declared that he did not believe in God.")—[The Lord Strathnairn.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that at present such persons were entitled to be buried in the churchyard, and the real effect of the Amendment, taken in connection with other clauses in the Bill, would be the opposite of what was desired by the noble and gallant Lord, for it would be that every such person would have to be buried with the Service of the Church of England.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, Amendment made, in page 1, line 30, after ("and") by adding ("a copy of it;") and, in same line by omitting ("given"), and instead thereof inserting the words ("be delivered or sent by post not less than twenty-four hours before the time appointed for such burial").
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK moved an Amendment, declaring that a graveyard within the meaning of the Act should not apply to any consecrated portion of a burial ground of which some portion had been left unconsecrated, nor to any consecrated burial ground in a place where one or more unconsecrated grounds were also provided under the Act.
  Moved, to leave out the last paragraph of the clause, and insert—
  ("But such power of giving notice of burial shall not apply to any consecrated portion of a burial ground formed under the Acts fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter eighty-five, and sixteenth and seventeenth Victoria, chapter one hundred and thirty-four, of which some portion has been left unconsecrated; nor to any consecrated burial ground in a place where one or more unconsecrated grounds are also provided
  Lord Strathnairn
  12
  under the Act twentieth and twenty-first Victoria, chapter eighty-one, section three.")— (The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in opposing the Amendment, said, he hoped their Lordships would not accept it, as by so doing they would only change the area of the grievance which Dissenters had complained of. He had, on the second reading of the Bill, stated at some length his reasons for that opinion; and he would not now repeat them. He could not think it probable that, so long as the fees charged for burials in the consecrated parts of cemeteries were greater than those in the unconsecrated parts, which was at present the case, the use of the consecrated parts by Nonconformists under this Bill would be likely so largely to increase as to make the space left insufficient for Churchmen. The Committee would remember that the provisions of the Bill on this subject were not one-sided. It contained a clause which the most rev. Prelate did not propose to omit, enabling the Burial Service of the Church of England to be performed in an unconsecrated portion of a burial ground by any clergyman of the Church of England who might be willing to officiate at a burial there.
  EARL FORTESCUE,in supporting the Amendment, said, that he had voted for the second reading because he was anxious to remove the grievance which was felt to exist; but it could not be alleged that this Amendment would perpetuate a grievance.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 108; Not-Contents 127: Majority 19.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Archp.

  Cairns, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Richmond, D.

  De La Warr, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

  Aberoorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Eldon,E.

  Exeter, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Haddington, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Lathom, E. [Teller.]

  Bradford, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Cadogan, E,

  Morton, E.

  9

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Nelson, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Powis, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Radnor, E.

  De Saumarez, D.

  Ravensworth, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Digby, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Saint Germans, E-

  Selkirk, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Somers, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Sondes, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton)

  Tankerville, E.

  Haldon, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Head-fort.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Gough, V.

  Leconfield, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Lilford, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Hood, V.

  Melville, V.

  Lyveden, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Moore, L. (M. Drog-heda.)

  Templetown, V.

  Northwiek, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Norton, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Oriel, L. (V. Masse-reene.)

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Raglan, L.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Rowton, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Abinger, L.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barring-ton.)

  Bagot, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E.Longford.)

  Beaumont, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Borthwick, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Templemore, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Byron, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Ventry, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Lei-trim.)

  Windsor, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Somerset, D.

  Westminster, D.

  Bedford, D.

  Bristol, M.

  Cleveland, D.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Devonshire, D.

  Northampton, M.

  Grafton, D.

  10

  Airlie, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Derby, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Devon, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Greville, L.

  Durham, E.

  Gwydir, L.

  Granville, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Rox-burghe.)

  Hanmer, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Hatherley, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Ken-mare.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  North'brook, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kin-tore.)

  Spencer, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lis-more.)

  Eversley, V.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Methuen, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Monck,L. (V.Monch.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Lein-ster.)

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Powerscourt, V.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Llandaff, L. Bp.

  Mount Temple, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Robartes, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Belper, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Blachford, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Brabourne, L.

  Braye, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Caltborpe, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Carew, L.

  Tollemaohe, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Vernon, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Airlie, E.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Dartrey, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Derby, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Devon, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Ducie, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Durham, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Granville, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Innes, E. (V. Roxburghe.)

  Bath, M.

  Kimberloy, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Lovelace, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lucan, E.

  Northampton, M.

  Minto, E.

  13

  Morley, E.

  Greville, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Gwydir, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Hanmer, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Yarborough, E.

  Hatherley, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and MountEarl.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Halifax, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Powerseourt, V.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Llandaff, L. Bp.

  Methuen, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Mount Temple, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Auckland, L.

  Belper, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Robartes, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Braye, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Carew, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Carrington, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Gardner, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, L. Archp.

  Coventry, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Norfolk, D.

  De La Warr, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Rutland, D.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Eldon, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Fortescue, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Haddington, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Lathom.E. [Teller.]

  Bradford, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Cadogan,E.

  Morton, E.

  Cairns, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  14

  Nelson, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Powis, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Radnor, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Digby, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Saint Germans, E,

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Somers, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Sondes, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Haldon, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Gough, V.

  Leconfield, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Lilford, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Hood, V.

  Melville, V.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  North wick, L.

  Norton, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Poltimore, L.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Raglan, L.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Abinger, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Aveland, L.

  Searsdale, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Beaumont, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Borthwick, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Templemore, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Trevor, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Ventry, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Wimborne, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that they had been dealing with the old churchyards and other matters, and he now wished to introduce quite another subject for consideration. He would propose, as an Amendment, to move the insertion, at the end of the clause, of these words—

  15
  ("This Act shall not affect any consecrated burial ground given as a free gift within 50 years before the commencement of this Act unless the consent of the donor or his representative shall have been previously obtained in writing.")
  Their Lordships had decided that in the ancient churchyard services should be celebrated which were not the Services of the Church of England. The principle of the Bill was intelligible enough as applied to them, although the title of the Church to these churchyards was undoubtedly strong. It rested upon the possession of centuries. But he wished to direct attention to the churchyards to which her title was also strong, but which she held by the will of the donors who were living, or who lived recently, and whose wishes were perfectly well known. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack (Lord Selborne) had said that this was a question upon which the clergy were on one side and the laity on the other; but he thought there was absolutely no foundation for that statement. Many Members of that House and of the other House of Parliament had been donors of graveyards in recent times. Among such donors he might instance the Duke of Northumberland and the Duke of Rutland. The noble and learned Lord told them that they had no representatives from the laity on the subject of the Bill; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) had in his hand a protest from donors of land given for either new churchyards or for additions to old churchyards, and the same was given under the existing laws, which it was imagined would continue in force, otherwise they would not have given it; and that showed the strong feeling of the laity against this Bill. To this protest there were some 300 names of Members of both Houses and other donors. His noble and learned Friend said, the other evening, that the new churchyards would remain as they were—that was, dedicated to the purpose of burial for all Her Majesty's subjects; but there were two trusts, and his noble and learned Friend ignored one. No doubt, everyone could be interred who died in the parish. As to that there would be no difference. The churchyard would be used for all classes of Her Majesty's subjects; but as to the other trust—that persons interred in them should be buried with the Service of the Church
  16
  of England, it was on that trust that this Bill would make a vital alteration. It was a serious grievance, and one which the donors complained of, that if persons had given land for the purpose of having celebrated in it the Services of the Church in whose dogmas they believed, and to which they were attached, the power of Parliament should be called into play for the purpose of wresting it from that purpose, and for the purpose of celebrating in it the service of communities which differed widely from the Church of England. The noble and learned Lord would, no doubt, say that these Services would be Christian, and in no way widely different from those of the Established Church; but the noble and learned Lord had already furnished an answer to that argument, for he had defined a Christian to be anyone calling himself by the name of Christian. It was absurd to maintain that there was no violation of the donors' wishes when there might be celebrated in the churchyards the service of the body which rejected every one of the distinctive doctrines of his own Church. He was glad, however, to believe that his noble and learned Friend's statement was true in a majority of instances. But there was also a widely different spirit abroad—a spirit which might be exemplified by what took place not very long ago in the Paris University. A few months ago, a celebrated writer—a Protestant—was appointed a Professor in Paris. The students of that city were not very fond of dogmas of any kind, and there was a probability that the new Professor would be received with some discontent, because he was suspected of the cardinal vice of Christianity. His defence was—"I am a Christian if you will, but a Christian without dogma and without belief." He (the Marquess of Salisbury) believed that Christians without dogmas and without belief were not so uncommon in this country as some people imagined; it was a fashion which seemed to be increasing. He admitted that the majority of those who would take advantage of this did not differ from them on matters which, in view of the great controversies of the day, they were entitled to characterize as of primary importance; but that did not alter the position, rights, and claims of the donors of churchyards. They had practically opened the door for every kind of belief,

  17
  and whether such cases as he had indicated were few or many, the rights of the donors were equally violated. He feared, too, that in time to come the differences which now marked off the Nonconformist Body from the Church of England would not be of the same secondary importance as at present. A study of the religious doctrines of the present day led to the conclusion that the dissidents with whom the Church of England would have to deal in the future would be persons whom no stretch of comprehensiveness or charity could include in the pale of the same belief with it. He therefore thought they were indulging themselves in a vain hope, if they thought that after the lapse of a few years those who now differed from the Church would be satisfied with what was now proposed to be done. Whether the difference between the Church of England and Dissenters was great or small, the rights of donors were equally injured. It was not a question whether he and his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack thought the difference between them a large one. The question was, What did those persons think who granted their property for a specific purpose? They had a right to decide for themselves whether the matters were great or small. They were matters of private judgment, of individual decision, and no one had a right to lay down a rule on the question. It used to be objected to equity, in olden times, that its measure was the length of the Chancellor's foot. But if we were to have the degrees of dogma which separated respective sects decided by the length of the Chancellor's foot, or in accordance with his particular opinions, we should be in a worse state still. The noble and learned Lord was known as an attached friend of the Church of England; but the Chancellor of tomorrow would stretch his charity further than the Chancellor of to-day, and include Unitarians; and a Chancellor after that might stretch a little further, and include those who did not believe in any Divinity at all. The question whether the bequests or gifts of those donors had been dealt with honestly was in no degree affected by the feeling of the present Lord Chancellor as to how far Dissenters might differ from the Church of England. When he (the Marquess of Salisbury) said it was a question of
  18
  honesty to donors, he rested on the language used by Parliament itself. He would draw the attention of their Lordships to the fact that Parliament, 60 years ago, awoke to the fact that the provision for the spiritual destitution in this land was quite inadequate, and that churches and churchyards required to be extended. Of the churches it was not now necessary to speak. Parliament, while making provision for supplying this need, in some cases by public money, in other cases invited the munificence of private individuals to supply that which was wanted; and, in doing so, Parliament stated the terms on which the assistance could be accepted. In 1823, in one of the earliest Church Building Acts, there was laid down the deed of conveyance by which the ground added by free gift to churchyards was to be conveyed to the Church Building Commissioners, who were the predecessors in title of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of to-day. In this Act were cited various other Acts on the same subject, and they contained these words—
  "And every piece of land, 'when conveyed to the said Commissioners, shall become for ever thereafter devoted to ecclesiastical purposes, in order that the same may be consecrated by the Bishop according to the rites of the United Church of England as Ireland 'as by' law established.'"
  It was impossible for Parliament to put a pledge in more distinct and absolute terms than what the words of the Act conveyed. Our Parliamentary practice did not know a more distinct pledge than that, and yet it was now proposed that Parliament should disregard it. If any member of the Episcopal Bench was to invite a man to give his land on a promise that it should be used for the service of the Church of England and Ireland, and were then to use some legal power for the purpose of opening it to all classes of men who called themselves Christians, their Lordships knew by what name to call this. It would be nothing less than defrauding the owner of the land. Why was it less fraud when committed by the Imperial Parliament? Was Parliament the only body which could not make any binding promise? Were they to assume that, however solemn and detailed the promise made, and in however blind a confidence it had been acted on by a donor, yet when, in the changing course of politics, it became

  19
  necessary to repay some sectarian aid in the General Election, that promise was to be treated as of no avail, and torn up as so much waste paper. What, he asked, would be the effect of wresting the churchyards from their original purpose on the future flow of charitable bequests? Parliament had taken strange liberties with ancient charitable endowments; but it had also placed this restraint upon itself, that modern endowments had been respected. Even a philosopher like Mr. John Stuart Mill was of opinion that the space of 60 years was a right and proper interval for adherence to a donor's bequest, lest such bequests and gifts should be altogether prevented, and Parliament had pursued a policy of that kind. In the Irish Church Acts the gifts were respected up to the Reformation. In the Endowed Schools Act they were respected for a distance of 50 years. In the Education Act no recent gift was taken unless the actual managers of the school consented. The policy on this point had hitherto been uniform, and this was the first departure from that uniformity. This Bill was the first precedent for the alienation and spoliation of a recent endowment that Parliament would have sanctioned if the Bill were adopted as it stood. It was a very grave step that was proposed to be taken by the Government. It touched a question far graver than that which concerned the Church and Churchmen, for it touched the sacredness of endowments in this country. It affected the possibility of obtaining any further supply from that rich source of private charity on which it had depended; and therefore it was that the Amendment which he had to submit was one of exceptional importance.
  After Clause 1, moved to insert the following clause:—
  ("This Act shall not affect any consecrated burial ground given as a free gift within sixty years before the passing of this Act if the donor or his representative shall have dissented from the application of this Act to such burial ground within six months after the passing of this Act.")—{The Marquess of Salisbury).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he must take issue with the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), both on his facts and on his principles. The Bill did not propose either alienation or spoliation of recent gifts or endowments. The Bill proposed
  20
  merely a regulation by law in a matter which he (Lord Selborne) maintained, on every principle of reason, ought to be within the moral, as well as the legal, competency of Parliament. It proposed to regulate, not as to the right of burial itself, but as to certain accessories and incidents of that right, the manner in which these endowments should be used for the purposes for which they were given. What was the effect which the Bill would have on such endowments? That which was given to be part of the churchyard would still remain part of the churchyard. It would still be used, according to law, for the burial of those who were members of the Church of England, and who desired to have the Service of the Church of England. Not one of the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England would be taken away from those to whom they were acceptable; by all such persons the endowment would be enjoyed as it had hither to been enjoyed. With regard to those who by law never could have had performed at their funerals the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, the gifts which were given, and the terms on which they were accepted, did not exclude those persons from the churchyards or from the grounds so given. They were, as much as any other inhabitants of the parish, entitled to the use of the ground for burial; and it was a false, and not a legal, construction of the Acts of Parliament to which the noble Marquess had referred, to suppose that the effect of these gifts was that nobody could be laid in that ground unless the Service of the Church of England was performed. All, therefore, that the present Bill did was to permit the same persons who were now entitled to be laid in the ground, in some cases to be laid in it with a different form of service, and in others with some form of service where none was now allowed by law. A more complete contrast and difference could not be imagined than between legislation such as that, and legislation which withdrew the subject of the gift altogether from the purposes for which it had been given. By the Irish Church Act the endowments which were not allowed to revert to the donors were withdrawn altogether from the purpose for which they were given; and he would be the last to ask their Lord-

  21
  ships, in any similar case, to depart from the principle on which the Government of that day determined that, whatever course might be justifiable, when the representation to such donors was very remote, it was not right to take away entirely from the purposes for which they were given, and devote to other public objects recent gifts to which, if the State made the observance of all the express conditions on which they were given impossible, the donor or his representative might have a moral claim. And in the cases of the Endowed Schools Act and the University Trusts, those also were trusts, constituted by private donation for specific purposes; and what was done was to say that from those specific purposes the endowments should not be withdrawn, if given within the last 60 years, or whatever period it was thought right to take. If such private trusts as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Nelson) had mentioned were constituted for the specific purpose of burial under particular conditions, whether those conditions had reference to the usages of the Church of England or of any other denomination, the argument from the Endowed Schools Act and the University Endowments would apply. But this was a totally different case; and, apart altogether from the construction of certain words in particular Statutes to which his noble Friend had referred, he maintained on broader grounds that it would be fatal to all sound principle of public legislation for their Lordships to sanction the doctrine, that those who had given out and out for public purposes land which was once private property ought to be treated as if they had reserved, or could have reserved, to themselves the right of dictating to Parliament as to how its use for such public purposes should, or should not, be regulated or modified. The additions to churchyards were additions made to that which was the subject of a known public use, regulated, and to be regulated, by public law. If the donors had reserved to themselves some rights of property or some control, which they had not done, they might then possibly have been entitled to say that the grants were to apply to churchyards, only so long as they might continue to be regulated in exactly the same manner as they were at the date of the grants; but to say
  22
  that the Legislature was to hold its hand and not to be at liberty to use its power of modifying the regulations applicable to such burying grounds after the land had been given out and out without reservation, would be to introduce a principle to the mischief of which there would be no limit. A man who gave property for a road, or for a public park, or for any other public purpose, might come forward and object to all subsequent legislation concerning the manner of regulating it, and might say—"This was not the state of the law when I gave the land, and therefore I object to it." Why, it would be a clear duty of Parliament to refuse to take gifts from persons on any such conditions as that. Parliament had never accepted them under such limitation of its powers. If the principle were good for churchyards, it would be equally good for churches. It would give every private donor or builder of a church a right of veto, so far as that church was concerned, upon any subsequent alteration by law of the rites and ceremonies, formularies or discipline of the Church of England. They might have private donors, notwithstanding the united authority of Convocation and of Parliament, objecting and saying that they had not contemplated the permission of this thing or of that thing. Against that principle, therefore, he, for one, must steadily set his face, and he hoped their Lordships would do the same. It was perfectly consistent, both with the true legal effect and the real spirit and meaning of the Acts of Parliament which had been referred to, that such a modification as this Bill proposed should be made in the regulations enforced by law as to the manner of performing the service at funerals in grounds given for the purposes of those Acts, if such a modification were thought proper, not as to those grounds by way of exception, but as to churchyards generally. To except grants made within the last 50 or 60 years would also, in practice, lead to endless confusion. In doing so, their Lordships were asked to mark out a line which nobody had ever thought of drawing, defining exactly where an old churchyard began and where it ended; and although the old part might be filled up so that it would be contrary to decency to make additional interments in it, and although the new part might be the only

  23
  part fit for interments, they were asked in such a case to exclude Dissenters from the rights given under this Bill— from the rights given them in all other churchyards, even although there might be no other consecrated or unconsecrated ground accessible to them in which they could be buried. He protested against this, and repeated that there was no spoliation proposed by the Bill, and no taking away of any of these gifts from the purposes for which they were given.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKthought that the Bill unquestionably gave to Dissenters a right they did not possess at present. In the case of a donor giving a churchyard to the Church of England, under its provisions they were about to take the ground which belonged to one person, and which was given to him for a certain limited number of persons, and they were to increase the number of persons who might use it. It was impossible to admit the argument of the noble and learned Lord, and he would therefore suggest an Amendment of the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), one providing that it should only apply to those cases where the donors should have dissented from the application of the Act within six months after its commencement.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that in spite of the favour with which the remarks of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had been received, and in spite of the two recent divisions, he hoped that a little further reflection, and somewhat fuller consideration of the principles involved in the proposition of the noble Marquess, would induce their Lordships to come to the conclusion that it could not possibly be accepted. The noble Marquess had held in his hand a Memorial signed by 300 donors of lands for churchyard purposes, on whose behalf he spoke, their gifts having been made within the last 35 years. But the papers which had been sent round with that Memorial stated that additions had been made to upwards of 5,000 churchyards within the last 50 years. So that, making the noble Marquess a present of 200 donors on account of the difference between 35 and 50 years, he might be said to speak in the name of 500 persons, or 10 per cent of the whole number who had given land for these purposes. And in order
  24
  to gratify the feelings of this limited number of persons, their Lordships were asked to do that which would mar the symmetry and spoil the completeness of the measure which was proposed to them as a settlement of this important question. He (Lord Brabourne) ventured to say that if they accepted this Amendment for the sake of this limited number of individuals, all of whom were of the higher or richer classes, in a matter which concerned the whole population of England and Wales, such a course would not tend to increase the respect with which their Lordships' decisions were received by the country, whilst it would infallibly prevent the acceptance of this measure by the country as anything like a satisfactory settlement. But yet, if a legal and equitable claim could be established by these persons, he would not venture to ask their Lordships to refuse to recognize that claim, even though its recognition might be attended with some inconvenience. He was, however, prepared to contend that no such claim could be established, whilst its recognition would be attended, not only with great inconvenience, but with consequences most unfortunate and most mischievous to the Church. What was that claim? It was a claim by persons who had given property to a National Institution that they, and not the Parliament of the nation, should still control and regulate the property which they had thus given. He (Lord Brabourne) would not attempt to add anything to the argument of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) upon this point; but he must ask their Lordships to consider that it would be impossible to stop here if they once conceded the principle of the Amendment. Other property besides sites for churchyards had been given to the Church. Many persons had given sites for churches, and had restored, built, and endowed churches at their own cost. Now, there were constant applications to Parliament for alterations in the Rubric or Services of the Church. Only the other day, a noble Lord had presented a number of Petitions praying for some alteration which would put an end to what was called Auricular Confession. Again, it had been proposed that the Atha-nasian Creed should be expunged from the Church Service; and other changes or relaxations of discipline had been mooted

  25
  from time to time. But once admit the principle of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and every donor of a site for a church, or of money to build a church, would have a claim to demand that only those exact services should be used in that church which were used at the time of his gift; and so we should have different services in different churches belonging to the same National Church, and divisions created which could not but be most injurious to the Establishment. He (Lord Brabourne) did not know why the noble Marquess had fixed upon 60 years as the term to which his Amendment should apply. It was a kind of "scientific frontier" against Nonconformity, which, like other scientific frontiers, the noble Marquess would find generally indefensible and always incomprehensible. Moreover, the noble Marquess had reversed the natural order of things. Instead of allowing the general law to be applicable, unless the donors of churchyards objected, he had proposed that the general law should not be applicable until the consent of the donors to its application had been obtained. There were two practical difficulties in the way to which he (Lord Brabourne) begged their Lordships' attention. First, there was the question of boundaries. Some years ago it had fallen to his lot to have to dissect for division between two properties, allotments upon a common which had been enclosed not 50 nor 35, but less than 30 years before. In that case there were fences and landmarks, but yet the difficulty of dissection was great. But in the case of a churchyard to which addition had been made many years ago, and where no line of demarcation had ever been set up, the difficulty would be ten-fold greater, and many disputes would arise. Another difficulty arose in the fact that these additions to churchyards had not all been made by single donors. He (Lord Brabourne) knew of cases, and doubtless there were many more, in which land had been purchased by subscriptions and given to the Church for those purposes. How would they proceed with the Amendment of the noble Marquess in such cases? Would the consent of a numerical majority of the donors be necessary, or would it suffice to obtain the consent of a minority who had contributed the larger amount? If the Amendment were passed, it would
  26
  land them in a sea of difficulties and litigation which the noble Marquess could hardly have contemplated. He (Lord Brabourne) craved pardon of their Lordships if he spoke warmly on the subject. He spoke warmly, because he felt deeply that, upon their manner of dealing with this Amendment, depended the success or failure of the present measure as a settlement of the Burials Question. By the large majority upon the second reading, their Lordships had given good hope to the country that they intended to accept this measure as a settlement of the question. But there were two ways in which that acceptance might be given. It might be given grudgingly, or it might be given in a frank, large-hearted, and generous spirit. If it was given grudgingly—if the idea was suffered to go abroad that, in order to end the long agitation upon the subject, their Lordships were about to give a tardy and reluctant assent to that of which in their hearts they did not approve—if they doled out a measure of relief to the Dissenter with one hand, and strove to grasp a portion of it back with the other by such Amendments as that before them, they would fail to accomplish their object. Every such Amendment as the present tended to drag down the Church to the level of a sectarian denomination, and left behind a grievance to the Nonconformists which would infallibly form the basis of future agitation. But if the acceptance of this measure was given in a frank and generous spirit, they would strengthen the Church whilst they relieved the Nonconformists. They must deal with the Church as with a National Institution. The time had come when these questions must be dealt with in that comprehensive spirit and with that breadth of Christian charity which had characterized the speech of the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) upon the second reading of the Bill, a speech which had added one more to the many services which he had rendered the Church since he had occupied his present exalted position. He (Lord Brabourne) knew that the noble Marquess had moved his Amendment in the supposed interests of the Church. The noble Marquess was a recognized champion of the Church. But, unfortunately, the Church seemed destined to receive her severest wounds from, her

  27
  recognized champions, rather than from her open enemies. What could he more disastrous to the Church than that, for the first time in our history, there should be drawn a line of demarcation across our old churchyards, and that if a stranger should ask its meaning he should be told that on one side reposed the bodies of English Churchmen and on the other the bodies of English Christians? A comparison would be suggested between the claims of the Church on one side and of Christianity on the other—between the claims on one side of a narrow sectarian spirit which sought to perpetuate theological differences after death, and on the other of a broader, more comprehensive, and more Christian spirit, which desired to bury such differences in the grave, and at the last solemn moment of interment to remember only that tie of common Christianity which had bound the living together. In the belief that the proposition of the noble Marquess would do infinite injury to the Church, whilst it would offend the Nonconformists, prevent the settlement of the question, and give rise to heartburnings, litigation, and continued agitation, he earnestly begged their Lordships to reject it by a decisive majority.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 91; Not-Contents 104: Majority 13.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Paupers) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Time of burial to be stated, subject to variation).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments were made in the clause:—In page 2, line 12, omit ("time at which") and substitute ("day and hour when"); line 13, omit ("named") and substitute ("stated"); line 18, omit ("eighteen") and substitute ("twenty-four"); line 22, at the beginning of the line, before ("such"), insert these words "or (if such day shall be a Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day) of the day next following"; line 31, add at the end of the clause these words—
  ("Provided also, that no such burial shall take place in any churchyard on Sunday, or on Good Friday or Christmas Bay, except by the consent of the person receiving such notice.")
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK,in moving an addition to the clause providing that, unless it should be otherwise mutually arranged, no such burial should take place in a churchyard on Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Ascension Day, said, the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had an Amendment to the same effect, except that Ascension Day was not included.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, at end of clause, to add—
  ("And be it further provided that, unless it be otherwise mutually arranged, no such burial
  30
  shall take place in a churchyard on a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Ascension Day.")—{The Earl of Limerick.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that under the Amendment he had proposed it was provided that such burials should not take place on Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day. The question as to excluding Ascension Day could be considered before the Report.
  EARL CAIRNSthought that Ascension Day should be included in the list.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked, that Ascension Day was not generally observed throughout the country as a festival of the Church; and, therefore, there was no ground for including it in the list.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNobserved, that in more than 600 out of the 800 parishes in his diocese Ascension Day was kept as a religious festival.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 31, at the end of the clause, to add—
  ("Provided also, that no such burial shall take place on a Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day, or on any other day during, or half an hour before or half an hour after, the performance of any Divine service in the church.")—(The Viscount Templetown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that in cases where the time proposed for burial was inconvenient, the clergyman might himself fix an hour.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Burial to take place accordingly) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Regulations and fees).
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 42, after ("fee") insert ("or offering"); and in line 43, after ("fee") insert ("or offering.")—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
  After an explanation by the LORD CHANCELLOR,
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Burial may be with or without religious service).
  LORD HOUGHTONmoved an Amendment, to insert the words "or Jewish," so as to make it read that
  ("The burial in the churchyard or graveyard might take place either without any religious service, or" with such Christian, or Jewish, and orderly religious service as the persons in charge of the burial might think fit.")
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 5, after ("Christian")insert ("or Jewish.") —(The Lord Houghton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORregretted that he could not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend, as it would break in upon the principle on which this clause was drawn. The burial grounds referred to in the Bill were places of Christian burial for all parishioners; and unless they were to lose that character, it followed when they came to consider the question of religious services to be performed in them, that they must either have no service in the churchyard, or the service must be Christian. They must draw the line somewhere as to the character of the service. There was no principle on which it could be necessary, or—as he thought—reasonable, to allow Pagan ceremonies or the delivery of secular harangues in a churchyard. And while a Jew, if he were a parishioner, would have a civil right to burial, that right was satisfied if it were silent and without a religious ceremony. It was impossible to admit the religious services of Jews, and to exclude other non-Christian services. The word "Christian" must either stand or go. He preferred that it should stand. It was in accordance with the feelings of almost all religious people that there should be some line drawn, and he knew no other which it was possible to draw. The common law drew the line for him by stating that Christianity was part and parcel of the common law of the land. In point of fact, too, the Jews not only possessed, but decidedly preferred, their own burial grounds; and no single intimation had reached him from any quarter that they desired any alteration to be made, so far as they were concerned, in the Bill. While he had every sympathy with and respect for those who professed the Jewish religion with sincerity, yet he did not think it was necessary on their account to throw down all
  32
  barriers against that which it was right to exclude.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNobserved that the modern Jews made it a fundamental part of their religion to affirm that the promised Messiah was not come; and that, consequently, our blessed Lord, who claimed to be the Messiah, was a deceiver. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he had on several occasions attended Jewish services, and they were conducted with extreme solemnity. There was nothing in them to outrage anyone's feelings. Still he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKmoved an Amendment to provide that the persons permitted to read any service should not be in Holy Orders in the Church of England.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 7, after ("persons") insert ("not being in holy orders of the Church of England".)—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Amendment would exclude any person who had been ordained, but had since left the Church of England.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEasked whether the object of the Amendment was not to prevent one clergyman officiating in the churchyard of another without his consent, where the incumbent was objected to? He could not help thinking some such security ought to be given by the Bill.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that was the object of the Amendment, and, in the hope that the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) would consider the matter before the Report, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, Amendment made, in page 3, line 4, at the beginning of the line before ("having") insert ("so"), and after ("same") insert ("as aforesaid").
  Amendment moved, in line 10, at the end of the clause, add—

  33
  ("The word 'Christian' in this section shall include every religious service used by any church, denomination, or person professing to he Christian.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished to know whether, if any person were taken to task for conducting improper services in the churchyards, it would be a sufficient plea to say that he was a Churchman, no matter what were his doctrines, or the services which he performed?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it would certainly be understood that anyone professing to be Christian was acting in good faith.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, it was not some recognized service that was required; but the matter was made to depend upon a person professing to be a Christian. He would suggest that the clause should be left as it originally stood.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwished to know whether a clergyman would have power to prevent a service when he knew that it was to be conducted by a person unfit for the purpose?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that an incumbent would have no power to prevent a service; but anyone offending against the provisions of the Bill might be punished for a misdemeanour. He had put the words upon the Paper for the purpose of avoiding any controversy, as to the doctrines of any service, or of those using it, which some thought (though he did not) might be open under the clause as it now stood, and which it was certainly not desirable to invite or allow.
  LORD LILFORDasked the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) and the right rev. Bench if they could give a definition of the difference between the views of a Mahomedan respecting the mission on earth of our Lord Jesus Christ and those of a Unitarian? He (Lord Lilford) thought it would be difficult to give it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhad no doubt it would be difficult, for, in many cases, the Mahomedan had quite as much respect and reverence for Christ as the Unitarian had. The result of the qualifications and modifications which the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had introduced from time to time, had left in his mind the impression that the word Christian represented no substance and no reality, but was simply
  34
  a species of declaration intended to reconcile without just foundation those to whom the reality was a great matter.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendment moved in page 3, at end of clause insert—
  "Provided always, that the foregoing clauses of this Act shall only apply to the churchyard or graveyard in any parish or ecclesiastical district where there is no unconsecrated burial ground or cemetery in which the parishioners or inhabitants have rights of burial, and shall cease and determine in respect of any such parish or ecclesiastical district so soon as such unconsecrated burial ground or cemetery has been provided.")—(The Earl of Mount Edg-cumbe.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK opposed the Amendment.
  On Question?Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERin moving, as an Amendment to the clause, the addition of the words—"Provided that no such religious service shall last more than 30 minutes," said, that he did not know how decorum could be preserved unless some limitation of time of services was agreed upon. The Church of England service did not last more than a quarter of an hour. But at Nonconformist funerals addresses were likely to be delivered and hymns sung. Sometimes two or three addresses might be delivered—on such an occasion, for example, as the presence of a popular and eloquent minister. He had, when he was a clergyman in Cornwall, witnessed scenes which showed the danger of this. Funeral processions sometimes used to travel five miles, and the mourners sang hymns (often very beautiful hymns) until they came to the churchyard. The law would not permit this, and he had often been kept waiting an hour. He looked upon his Amendment as one conducive to peace, and calculated to prevent disorder. In some circumstances, no doubt, if there were no pressure of time or duties, a sensible clergyman would relax the rule as to time. For himself, he would not insist upon half an hour; but he would like to have a limit of time fixed. He had often known funerals where disagreeable occurrences took place, and unless some time was mentioned for the service much inconvenience might be experienced.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 10, at end of clause add—
  ("Provided that, unless it shall he otherwise mutually arranged, no such religious service shall last more than thirty minutes.")—[The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD WAVENEYobjected to the Amendment, and thought that everything ought to be left to the good feeling of the people and the solemnity of the occasion.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that it would be very easy to make arrangements with pious Nonconformist ministers; but other persons of quite a different character might have the conduct of funerals, and therefore it would be well that a time should be limited for the service. It was represented to him the long services might lead to some collision.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he was clearly in favour of investing the clergy with the power of determining how long the services should last. In that view, he would urge that power in the matter should be given to the incumbent.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEwas of opinion that the Amendment would place the clergy in a most invidious position, and make the Bill still more unpalatable to them. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that the clergyman should have to negotiate with the friends of the deceased person as to the length of the service. Again, the services might be led sometimes by women, and he should like to know how a woman was to be stopped?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the Amendment would be a good thing as a general direction; but he did not see how it was to be carried out.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it would be wiser to trust to the power of the clergymen, under the 3rd clause of the Bill, to fix a time which would leave a reasonable margin, so as to avoid any risk of practical inconvenience. It would be impossible, if parties came not quite punctually, or if they exceeded the limited time, as with extempore services might be very liable to happen, to stop the funeral before it came naturally to an end. To protract the service unreasonably could not be for the convenience of those concerned. If a maximum time were fixed, it might soon be re-
  36
  garded in practice as a minimum; and, in that case, it would be habitually exceeded.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Burials to be conducted in a decent and orderly manner, and without obstruction).
  LORD WAVENEYmoved, as an Amendment, in lines 15 to 18, to omit certain words which accounted as a misdemeanour the delivery of an address, not being part of or incidental to a religious service permitted by the Act, in a grave3'ard or churchyard.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORappealed to the noble Lord not to press the Amendment. The words were intended to exclude secular addresses.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Act not to give right of burial where no previous right existed) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Burials Under Act to be registered).
  On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 29, at the beginning of the line, before ("having") insert the word ("so") and after ("burial") insert ("as aforesaid"); line 31, instead of ("Schedule (A.)") insert ("Schedule (B.)"); line 40, after ("thereof") add these words—
  ("Such entry, instead of stating by whom the ceremony of burial was performed, shall state by whom the same has been certified under this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Liberty to use burial service of Church of England in unconsecrated ground).
  On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made to the clause:—
  In page 4, line 10, at the end of the clause add these words ("The relative, friend, or legal representative, having charge of or being responsible for the burial of any deceased person who had a right of interment in any such un-consecrated ground vested in any burial board,

  37
  or provided under any Act relating to the burial of the dead, shall be entitled, if he think fit, to have such burial performed therein according to the rites of the Church of England by any minister of the said church who may be willing to perform the same."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Relief of clergy of Church of England from penalties in certain cases).
  On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR the following Amendments made: —
  In Page 4, line 21, instead of ("Schedule B.") insert ("Schedule C"); line 23, after ("whereas") add ("such of"); lines 23 and 24, omit ("except that numbered 2 in the schedule hereto,") and substitute ("as are numbered 1, 3, 4, and 5 in the said Schedule C"); line 35, instead of ("Schedule B.") insert ("Schedule C."); line 37, at the end of the clause add these words—
  ("Provided also that the word 'crime' in the said Schedule C. shall mean only an offence against the criminal law of this realm").
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that he entertained a great objection to the clause, and doubted whether it should pass. It professed to follow the Letters of Business and the action of Convocation; but it did not in reality follow them at all. The recommendations of Convocation suggested an alteration of the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer; but the clause did not effect an alteration of the rubric. The Bill introduced into the Schedule a supposititious and hypothetical rubric which had no existence, could have none, and was never intended to have any. It said that, supposing there was such an imaginary rubric, the clergyman who acted under it should be absolved from any penalties for not obeying the rubric which did exist. He would still remain under the moral obligations imposed by the actual rubric; but he would be absolved from the legal penalties attached to disobeying it, on the hypothesis that some other rubric might exist, but which did not exist in fact. That did not seem to him to be quite a satisfactory mode of legislating. Parliament was absolutely deprived, under the clause, of its legitimate power of considering the recommendations of Convocation, and, if necessary, of modifying and altering them. It re-
  38
  cited, and truly recited, that Convocation had made certain recommendations, which were mentioned in the Schedule; but their Lordships could not exercise the right of altering a single word in the Schedule from beginning to end. He asked whether his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was able to produce, in the whole history of Parliaments, any instance in which such a course had ever been taken before? If the rubric was to be altered, it should be done by a law as clear and unequivocal as that which it was proposed to alter. The recommendation of Convocation was that on the request or with the consent of the kindred or the friends of the deceased it should be lawful to administer the following service of burial. Kindred or friends—which was it to be? If the kindred thought one way and the friends another, who was to prevail? Supposing the friends had one view of the life and character of the deceased, and of what should be the service at his burial, and the kindred had another, were the votes to be taken and the heads counted? Again, who were the friends? The question was one involving penalties which a Court of Law might be called upon to enforce; and was it possible that Parliament could deal with a law imposing a penalty in such a fashion as that? There were very grave objections to the clause; and he hoped that before the Bill reached a further stage these objections would be considered.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he could not concur with the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) in his criticism of the clause, and maintained that the rubric in the Schedule was properly constituted. If the rubrics could never be altered, then the noble and learned Earl's objection would have force. The law practically was broken now, and the incumbent said—"I am legally bound to read the whole of the service as it stands; but there are words in it which do not apply to your people, and I cannot use them. I mean to leave out one or two portions." That was the kind of case with which their Lordships had to deal. The noble and learned Earl, he was sure, was most sensitive as to the rights of the clergy; but there was on this matter a pressure which was quite intolerable. It was a matter connected with the churchyard; and when they

  39
  were dealing very hardly with the clergy, why did they not afford them the relief they could easily afford them? There was great need of some relief; and they were only asked to give a very moderate relief to the clergy, from whom they had taken much. He maintained that when such a rubric as that proposed was passed by Parliament it became law, and was binding on the Church.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, this was not at all the case.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKcontended that it was in this manner the whole Book of Common Prayer and the rubrics had come into existence. As to the noble and learned Earl's objection that the words "kindred or friends" conveyed a vague or ambiguous meaning, he asked the Committee not to be led away by subleties and fine distinctions. The plain meaning of "kindred or friends" was those persons having charge of the funeral, and who alone would have the power to deal with the incumbent.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, his most rev. Brother had referred to ancient instances of the manner in which rubrics were formed, and obtained the sanction of law. He would direct the noble and learned Earl's attention to parallel modern cases. In the Lec-tionary Bill and the Occasional Services Bill, it would be found that that which was sanctioned by Convocation was afterwards approved by Parliament and obtained a legal sanction. He did not understand why the rules regulating the burial of the dead could not be altered in the same way. He was convinced that the noble and learned Earl was anxious that the clergy should be relieved from the great difficulty in which they were placed in this matter. He repudiated the idea that the Bill was only intended to enable persons who were not members of the Church of England to use services different from our own in our burial grounds. He had insisted on a former occasion that there was a number of persons who, being desirous of being buried by a clergyman of the Church of England in churchyards were not allowed so to be buried because of certain rubrics which at present existed, and he pointed out that Convocation had reported that some relief ought to be given in this matter. In consequence of that report, the noble and learned
  40
  Lord (the Lord Chancellor) desired that the clergy should be incidentally relieved; and he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) altogether protested against the idea which would sever the two parts.
  EARL CAIRNSobserved, that the effect of the clause would be by a side wind to make an alteration in the rubrics of the Church of England. The most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) seemed to think that the Bill proposed to alter the rubrics; but that was exactly what it did not do, and that was exactly what he complained of. The cases he had cited were all instances in which the rubrics had been altered; but here it was proposed that the rubrics should remain, but that the penalties for its non-observance should be removed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcharacterized the argument which they had just heard from his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) as a technical one. It was, in fact, super-hyper extra technical. In the case of the Shortened Service Act the same course, in substance, was followed as was followed in this case. None of the existing rubrics were altered by that Act; but it authorized many deviations from them by the clergy, in the performance of divine service, and the clergy, of all schools, had found no difficulty in acting upon that authority. With respect to the criticisms of his noble and learned Friend upon the substance of the clause, he could only say that they all appeared to him to rest upon false assumptions as to its effect. The Convocations and the clergy were not asking to be allowed to sit in judgment on Dissenters or others. All that was now proposed was that where the law did not permit of any service being used, the clergyman might, with the consent of the friends, use another service taken from the Prayer Book or the Bible; and that, where the clergyman now was required by law to use the full service, he might for the future, if the relatives or friends approved of it (not otherwise), use a shortened service, from which certain prayers, generally objected to by Dissenters, and which in some cases were the cause of conscientious scruples by the clergy, might be omitted. There would be no difficulty about the persons to give the consent; the term "relatives or friends" would mean, as in the rest of the Bill, those who had the charge of,

  41
  and were responsible for, the burial. He hoped that neither in this House, nor the other, would they be induced to disregard the wishes or the conscientious scruples of the clergy. The House could relieve the Nonconformists of the disabilities imposed upon them by law; and they could also in this way, to some very moderate extent, relieve the clergy of the disabilities imposed upon them by law. If they were to enter upon the question of altering the Prayer Book they launched into an interminable controversy. It would be most harsh— he had almost said it would be most unjust—to the clergy if this provision were not allowed to remain in the Bill, for the most bitter taunts had been from time to time levelled at them by Dissenters on account of the unsuitability of the Burial Service under certain circumstances.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsupported the clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would consider whether some improvement could not be made in it upon the Report to meet the difficulties suggested by his noble and learned Friend. (Earl Cairns).
  LORD ORANMORE and BROWNEcomplained that the clause gave permission to the clergy to use any hymns and anthems at their discretion; that in the last edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern there was one hymn invoking the intercession of Saints, and others by like invocation of the Virgin. Considering the contempt of the law shown by Mr. Mackonochie and other, it appeared to him that the clergy of the Church of England should be restrained, instead of encouraging a lawless spirit by such enactments as were contained in this clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Application of Act), and Clause 13 (Short title of Act), severally agreed to.
  Schedules A and B read, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the folio wing Amendments made: —
  In page 5, after ("Schedules to which this Act refers") insert a new Schedule to be headed ("SCHEDULEA."), as follows:—
  Notice of Burial.
  I, of, being the relative [or friend, or legal representative as the case may be, describing the relation, if a relative having the charge of or being responsible for the burial of A. B., of, who died at in the parish of, on the day of, do hereby give you notice that it is intended by me that the body of the said A.B. shall be buried within the [here describe the churchyard or graveyard in which the body is to be buried,] on the day of at the hour of, without the performance in the manner prescribed by law of the service for the burial of the dead according to the rites of the Church of England, and I give this notice pursuant to the "Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880."
  To the Rector [or, as the case may bc,] of
  Page 5, line 2, for ("Schedule A.") substitute ("Schedule B."); line 9, for ("Schedule B.") substitute ("Schedule C."); page 6, line 19, omit all the words from ("8. Insert, &.") down to the end of the Schedule inclusive.
  Postponed Preamble agreed to. House resumed.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 86.)
  House adjourned at half past Ten o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.