Sitting of 14 May 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned,
*MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to certain Bills which had passed both Houses. [See List above, under Proceedings of House of Lords, p. 1129.]

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read 1°:—
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALEDONIAN AND CRINAN CANALS).
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic and the Schedule of Maximum Tolls and Charges applicable thereto for the Caledonian and Crinan Canals.—[Bill 246.]
CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (STRABANE CANAL).
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic and the Schedule of Maximum Rates, Tolls, and Charges applicable thereto for the Strabane Canal.—[Bill 247.]
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relating to the London and English Channel Pilotage Districts.—[Bill 248.]
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 9th May, Mr. George Rusell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]
POLLING DISTRICTS (WARWICK).
Copy presented,—of Order made by Warwickshire County Council altering the Polling Districts of the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS, AND WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889.
Copy presented,—of Scheme for the Management of the Funds applicable to the Intermediate and Technical Education of the Inhabitants of the County of Glamorgan in the matter of the Foundation of Edward Lewis for a School at Gelligaer, &c., Alldworth's Foundation at Eglwysilan, &c., and of the Cowbridge Grammar School, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 265.]

ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND.)
Return ordered,
"Giving the number of Arrests for Drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin, and the cities of Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, on Sundays, between the 1st day of May 1894 and the 30th day of April 1895, both days inclusive the Arrests being given from 8 a.m. on Sundays till 8 a.m. on Mondays."
"And, similar Return for the rest of Ireland from the 1st day of May 1894 to the 30th day April, 1895 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 260, of Session 1894)."— (Mr. William Johnston.)

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for—
"Return showing the number of Experiments performed on Living Animals during the year 1894, under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic. c. 77, distinguishing painless from painful experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 103, of Session 1894)."—(Mr. George Rusell).

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
MOTION.

  NEWSPAPERS (REGISTRATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Henniker Heaton, Bill to enable bona fide periodical publications issued at intervals exceeding seven days to be registered as newspapers in order to be conveyed by post at the newspaper rate.
  Bill presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 249].

QUESTIONS.

  FORAGE.
  MR. J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will obtain a Return from the leading railway companies and tram way companies paying dividends, and the great carriers in the country, as to how much of the forage they purchase is Home grown, Foreign, or Colonial?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. W. WOODALL, Hanley): I am afraid that my Department has no special means of obtaining this information from the railway companies.
  MR. MACLUREgave notice that on that day week he should move for a Return on the subject.
  *MR. WOODALL: Might I suggest that the hon. Member himself might privately obtain the information he wants?
  MR. MACLUREsaid, that no doubt he could obtain a certain amount of information himself, but he wished for a public Return in the interests of the British farmer.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerset, Wellington): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what are the contract prices for meat and forage supplied to the London garrison?
  *MR. WOODALL: I would refer the hon. Member, and also the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division, who has a somewhat similar question on the Paper, to the joint Report of the Directors of Army and Navy Contracts, which was presented to Parliament in 1888, for the reasons why it is undesirable to publish contract prices. Acting on that Report, it is not the practice to disclose prices.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: May I ask without notice whether, when the Secretary of State for War, in his answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Preston the day before yesterday, mentioned the fact of contractors mixing frozen or refrigerated meat with home-killed meat, he referred to home produce killed at home or to imported beasts slaughtered in England?
  *MR. WOODALL: I was not present when my right hon. Friend gave the answer referred to. I hope he will be in the House presently, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will then put the question to the Secretary of State for War.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston the day before yesterday, when he mentioned the fact that contractors mixed foreign meat with home-killed meat, he meant home produce, killed at home, or merely imported meat slaughtered at home?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I was not then prepared, nor am I now prepared, to answer that question.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give a list of the names of the Justices of the Peace who have been appointed during the last three years, and a statement of the number of times each of them has attended Quarter or Petty Sessions, exclusive of the day they attended to qualify; and, how many, having been nominated, have not yet qualified?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,): The
  1160
  names and dates of qualification of the Justices of the Peace appointed during the last three years were given in a Return granted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland in August last. To obtain the information as to the number of times each magistrate has attended Quarter or Petty Sessions, application would have to be made to the Clerk of the Peace and Clerks of each Petty Sessional Division, who could only furnish it presumably by going through the record of their Courts sitting by sitting. As there are about 700 magistrates in the country, the labour would be very considerable, and in the opinion of the Chancellor the value of the information would hardly justify putting this amount of work on the Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of Petty Sessional Divisions.

  FLAX MILL WORKERS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the workers in flax mills find the respirators they have been recently required to use quite unbearable, consequent on their impeding respiration and becoming dirty and offensive, so that they wear them round their necks instead of over their mouths; whether the proper ventilation of the mills, by exhaust fans and otherwise, does not make the use of such respirators unnecessary; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of ventilators and respirators?
  MR. ASQUITH: In reply to my hon. Friend's question, I have to say that the respirators used in flax mills are light and simple, and can easily be washed. Cases have occurred of operatives failing to wear the respirators, as required by the Rules, but steps have been taken to secure that this is done. Good ventilation is most desirable; but it does not, in the opinion of the Inspectors, dispense in all processes with the need for respirators. The matter was made the subject of full inquiry before the rules for flax and linen factories were established. Any suggestions for their improvement from practical men will receive careful consideration.

  KENSINGTON PALACE.
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware of the fact that the grand staircase and State rooms in Kensington Palace (the birthplace of Her Majesty the Queen) are in a most dilapidated condition; whether he will have them restored, as far as practicable, to their original state, replacing therein the furniture, pictures, and other works of art pertaining to the Royal House; and whether he will then give the public free access to this interesting palace?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE): With the exception of the north wing, which forms no part of the State rooms, the structure of Kensington Palace is in sound condition. But the internal decoration of the grand staircases and State rooms has for many years been left unrepaired, as there seemed no object in spending money on it, unless the rooms were to be used for some definite purpose. I doubt whether restoration for the purpose proposed would be worth the considerable expenditure that it would entail. Owing to the danger from fire it would be extremely undesirable to place any valuable collection of pictures and other works of art in the palace.
  SIR S. MONTAGUasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain an estimate of the probable cost of the restoration.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid that he would inquire as to the advisability of doing so.

  OIL LAMP EXPLOSIONS.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in consequence of the number of fatal accidents that have recently taken place in Belfast and elsewhere from explosions of oil lamps, he will consent to the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Petroleum, which reported to the House on the 24th of April 1894; and, if he will initiate such legislation, at the earliest possible date, as may prevent the sale of unsafe lamps and low-standard oil?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have consulted my right hon. Friend who presided over the Select Committee on Petroleum last
  1162
  Session, and although I am unable to give a definite assurance at present, I hope it may be found possible to reappoint the Committee after Whitsuntide, with a view mainly to considering the question of dangers arising from explosions of oil lamps.

  DRAWING IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the number of schools in England, and the number of schools in Scotland, the drawing in which was reported by the Science and Art Department as "fair," the number reported as "good," and the number reported as "excellent," for each of the following years: 16th May 1891 to 15th May 1892; 16th May 1892 to 15th May 1893; 16th May 1893 to 15th May 1894; and 16th May 1894 down to date.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): I am sorry that I am unable to give the hon. member the figures he asks for. It would be a great labour to obtain them for the particular dates he mentions. I shall be glad to give him the figures from August to August in the years mentioned if they will be of service to him.

  FACTORY INSPECTORS' REPORT.
  MR. GEORGE WYNDHAM: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir JOHN GORST), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, why the presentation to Parliament of the Report of the Factory Inspectors for 1892–3–4 has been delayed; and whether it is possible to make it accessible to Members before the Committee on the Factory Bill is closed?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Report was presented to Parliament yesterday. It will, I hope, be issued in a few days. The delay of some weeks in the publication is due to the printers, but it has to be remembered that the Report is a long one, and that a large number of plans and diagrams had to be reproduced for publication. Arrangements have been made to obtain some proof copies for the use of members of the Standing Committee on Trade.

  NAVAL COURTS MARTIAL.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state what steps have been taken, to carry out the promise made to the House by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, that a clause should be inserted in the Naval Discipline Act enabling officers of the Royal Marines to sit on Naval Courts Martial when members of that corps are being tried.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH): My hon. Friend's question correctly suggests that this subject can only be dealt with by legislation. It will be considered when a Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act becomes necessary. There is no prospect of adding such a Bill to the legislative programme of the Government during the present Session.

  BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Johannesburg Times of 1st February, to the effect that a field-cornet of the name of Bodenstein had forcibly expelled certain British subjects from the town of Krugersdorp on the ground that they were Asiatics; whether the persons expelled were British subjects and Natives of India; and whether the law of the Boer Republic permits the expulsion of British subjects from Boer territory on no other ground than that of their nationality; and, if so, whether the Sikh soldiers and policemen now being enlisted under the authority of the Crown for Service in South Africa are liable to be subjected to a similar indignity in case they cross the Boer frontier?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): We have not yet received the Report of the High Commissioner on the statement in question, which was referred to him a few weeks ago. The legal position of British Indian subjects in the Transvaal being open to doubt, the question was lately referred to arbitration, and we have only just received the Report of the arbitrator. As regards the
  1164
  Sikh soldiers in Nyassaland, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it probable that any question will arise in regard to them, as the frontier of the South African Republic is at least 500 miles from the place where they will be stationed.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether there was any precedent for making distinctions of this kind between British subjects in accordance with the colour of their skins?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked for notice of the question.

  CHITRAL.
  *SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether he will state what amount of breech-loading rifles, and what amount of ammunition have from time to time been given by the Government of India to successive Mihtars of Chitral; what amount to Umra Khan; and what amount Umra Khan was allowed by the Government of India to purchase in India; with what object the rifles and ammunition were given; and whether they have been used against our troops during the recent fighting in Chitral; (2) whether the statement made by Captain Younghusband at a meeting of the Geographical Society, as reported in The Times of the 25th March last, to the effect that—
  "Nizam-ul-Mulk started from Gilghit with the support of Colonel Durand, and with that was able to turn out Sher Afzul,"
  is correct; if so, what offence had Sher Afzul given the Government of India at that time so as to justify our Agent in supporting against him another pretender to the Mihtarship of Chitral; whether Colonel Durand acted in this matter under the orders of the Government of India, and whether such action was consistent with the policy of recognising the de facto ruler of Chitral; (3) whether at the forcing of the Malakand Pass about 500 Swat tribesmen were killed, and about 1,500 wounded; whether the Swat tribes live in independent territory; whether the Government of India have any right, by treaty or prescription, to march troops through that territory; and, whether on this occasion the Swat tribes had agreed to troops being marched through their

  1165
  territory; and if not, for what offence the losses above referred to were inflicted on them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. HENRY FOWLER,): My hon. Friend has put to me fifteen separate questions dealing with the policy and details of the recent Chitral relief expedition. In due course Papers relating to that expedition will be laid upon the Table of the House; but in the meantime it is impossible to give by means of question and answer a history of the circumstances connected with these operations.

  INDIAN REVENUES.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is within his recollection that a pledge was given by him to the House on 15th August last that, if the hon. Member for Flintshire would withdraw his Motion for an inquiry into the condition of the people of India, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake, on the part of the Government, that, at the very commencement of the present Session, they would propose the appointment of a Select Committee which would inquire into the financial expenditure of the Indian revenues, both in England and in India, and also a pledge that it would be open to any Member of the House, when the Motion for the appointment of the Committee was made, to submit any Amendment he thought necessary in regard to the terms of the reference to be made to such Committee; and whether, with a view to implement these pledges, Her Majesty's Government will give an opportunity to Members of this House to discuss the terms of the reference to the Royal Commission which has been appointed as a substitute for the Select Committee originally offered to the House by the Government on 15th August last?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: It is quite true that in August last I did promise an inquiry into the expenditure of the Indian revenues, both in England and in India, and, as I intimated then, I thought that such an inquiry should be conducted through the instrumentality of a Parliamentary Committee. I also stated—but I gave no pledge—that, of course any hon. Member could move an
  1166
  Amendment upon any Motion made in this House. But in the Debate upon the Address this Session the whole question was discussed again, and I then explained to the House the objection that had been raised to the constitution of a Parliamentary Committee to deal with this subject—namely, that such a Committee would be confined to Members of Parliament, and that other gentlemen who were specially qualified to deal with the question, who were in fact experts, would be excluded. Another objection taken was that, in the not improbable contingency of an early Dissolution of Parliament, a Parliamentary Committee would come to an end, and its labours would be rendered futile. Therefore I stated that it was desirable to conduct the inquiry by Royal Commission, and I gathered that the view which I then took was endorsed by the general sense of the House. My colleagues and myself, therefore, came to the conclusion that a Royal Commission would be the best mode of inquiry, and yesterday the names appeared in the newspapers of those gentlemen whom Her Majesty has been pleased to approve of as constituting that Commission. I have endeavoured to constitute the Commission as fairly and impartially as possible, and every section of opinion interested in Indian finance is represented upon it. It is not in harmony with the usual practice of this House to discuss the terms of the reference to a Royal Commission.

  FRENCH EXPEDITION IN NIGER TERRITORY.
  MR. DISRAELI: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further news has been received by Her Majesty's Government of the French expedition under Captain Toutée in the Niger Territory; whether he is aware that it was openly stated in the French Geographical Society that Captain Toutée was charged with a mission to the basin of the Niger; arid whether Her Majesty's Government has obtained from the French Government a distinct disavowal that this is not a military expedition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I have no alteration to make in

  1167
  the terms of the answer which was given last week, nor can I at present add to it.
  MR. DISRAELI: Is the hon. Member aware that the statement as to Captain Toutée's being charged with a mission came from an officer of the headquarter staff?
  SIR E. GREY: I do not think that affects the answer which I have given, namely, that I have no alteration to make in the answer which I gave last week.

  REFORMS IN ARMENIA.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON, (Suffolk, Eye): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is the fact that the joint note relating to reforms for the Armenian provinces was presented by the British, Russian, and French Ambassadors to the Porte on Saturday; and when it will be possible to make public a statement as to the nature of the reforms specified?
  SIR E. GREY: The Ambassadors of Great Britain, France, and Russia at Constantinople have presented proposals for reforms in the Government of the provinces of Turkey inhabited by Armenians, but I cannot yet say when I shall be able to state the terms of them?

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be able to state the names of the proposed Welsh Commissioners under the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
  MR. ASQUITH: The names of the proposed Commissioners are the Right Hon. Sir Algernon West, late chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue; the Hon. William Napier Bruce, an assistant Charity Commissioner; and Colonel Hugh Roberts Hughes, of Ystrad, Denbigh.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: Are these paid Commissioners?
  MR. ASQUITH: Sir Algernon West will be the only unpaid Commissioner.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  MR. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any objection
  1168
  to extend to Ireland the provisions of the Light Railways Bill with such modifications as the present system of local government in that country may render necessary?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,): It would be necessary to alter so very largely the machinery of the Bill to make it fit with the present system of local government in Ireland that I fear the suggestion of the hon. Member, even apart from other aspects of the subject, is impracticable. In any case I should have to consult the Irish Government upon the subject.

  STATUE TO OLIVER CROMWELL.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether a contract has been entered into by Her Majesty's Government for the erection of a statue to Oliver Cromwell; when was the authority of Parliament obtained for the proposed expenditure; what is the amount of the contract entered into, and what will be the entire estimated expense; and will the cost of the erection be derived from Irish as well as English taxes; if so, have any steps been taken to obtain the views of Members from Ireland upon the subject?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: A contract has not yet been entered into for a statue of Oliver Cromwell. An opportunity will be given, in the discussion of the estimate for the Houses of Parliament buildings, for any hon. Members to express their views on the subject. The House will be asked to vote £500 on account towards the cost of a statue, and further particulars as to the proposal will then be announced.
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether this statue is for the Houses of Parliament, or is it to be sent to Ireland?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The question of site has not yet been determined.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the contract be entered into before the discussion takes place in the House?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I think not.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether tenders will be invited from Ireland?
  [No answer was given.]

  COUNTY COURT HOUSES.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works under what Statute large payments are made annually by Parliament for the erection, repair, maintenance, heating, &c., of the County Court houses in England and Scotland; and whether, seeing that the entire similar expenditure for County Court houses in Ireland is charged to the local cess, levied upon the occupiers of houses and lands, steps will be taken to assimilate the law in this respect between the two countries?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The Statutes are quoted on the face of the Parliamentary Estimates for Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain, Class I, Vote 5, Page 19. The latter part of the question it is beyond my province to deal with.

  MILITIA BATTALIONS AND THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Militia battalions now armed with the Lee-Metford rifle use black powder for their musketry course this year; whether the battalions of the Line similarly continue to use black powder; and whether it is intended to use up the large quantity of black powder in stock in the case of either the Militia or Line battalions before using in their musketry course the powder (cordite) for which their rifles are sighted?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Except as regards Line battalions at home, the answer to each of the three parts of the question is affirmative. There is in stock a large quantity of black powder cartridges; and this is, practically, the only way of using them. An allowance for different strength is easily made with respect to the sighting.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have that answer to read? I have not heard a word of it.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that was my fault.
  MR. WEIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these black powder cartridges will last?
  *MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I cannot answer that question.

  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the North British Railway Bill now before the House, whether he is aware that, in opposing the Kirkcaldy and District Railway Bill, the representatives of the North British Company entered into an agreement to complete the lines for which authority was being sought by the Kirkcaldy and District Railway Company; whether he is aware that the present Bill asks relief from this undertaking; and whether the Board of Trade propose to offer any objection to this portion of the Bill?
  MR. BRYCE: The General Manager of the North British Railway informs me that in 1891 counsel for the company made a statement to a Committee of this House to the effect that the company would complete the lines, and he points out that there is nothing in the Bill which is inconsistent with this pledge, although the company may not be in a position fully to carry it out at present. The Bill is, in fact, promoted to help the Company towards carrying it into effect. This is a matter which may properly be dealt with by the Committee, and I reserve to myself the right to again consider it when the Bill comes back to the House.

  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS.
  MR. CYRIL DODD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the subordinate public officials on the staff at the Royal Courts of Justice, such as the Robing Room attendants and the like, are mulcted of their pay if away through illness for a week, whilst the higher officials at the Royal Courts of Justice receive their salaries even if away through illness for a year, or even longer; whether some arrangement could be made to prevent the loss to these minor officials of pay through illness not of a protracted character?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,): This is not a matter in which the Treasury has jurisdiction, but the Lord Chancellor has asked me to say that the rule (laid down by Statutory authority) as to the attendants at the Royal Courts of Justice is, that their absence from illness, without stoppage of pay, shall

  1171
  not exceed 14 days in the year; but in fact, if it is found possible to arrange for the work being carried on without paying for additional assistance, the stoppage of pay is frequently not enforced. There appears to be no Statutory authority on the subject as regards the clerks and other officers of the Supreme Court. There ought, no doubt, to be such authority, and a Bill has been introduced this Session to deal with it; but the Lord Chancellor is informed that there are not in fact such cases as the question suggests. The rule of the Civil Service is, that full pay ceases after six months' absence.

  WITHDRAWAL OF STRANGERS DURING DIVISIONS.
  MR. W. P. BYLES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when he intends to proceed with his Motion for the suspension of Standing Order No. 92, relating to the withdrawal of Strangers during Divisions?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I am unable to say at present when the Motion will be proceeded with, as I have reason to believe that it will be opposed.
  MR. BYLES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what is the nature of the objections made to a proposal which is for the obvious convenience of all parts of the House?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I cannot say.

  EMPIRE OF INDIA EXHIBITION.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD: On behalf of the hon. Member for South-West Ham (Mr. KEIR HARDIE), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a forthcoming exhibition in London, called the Empire of India Exhibition; whether he is aware that several Native Indian Princes have received applications to send over Indian workpeople and various Indian treasures to the exhibition, and that these applications bear the imprint of names of various Indian officials (retired or otherwise); and, whether he will take immediate steps to inform the Indian Princes concerned that there is no Governmental connection with this Exhibition?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: I am aware that an Indian Exhibition is being prepared, but I have no information regarding applications to Indian Princes, such as are described in the hon. Member's question. It was announced in the Bombay Gazette of the 7th February, 1895, that "the Exhibition was a purely private adventure, the Government of India having decided to take no part in it." I do not propose to take any steps in the matter. I believe that Indian Princes are not likely to be misled as to the facts of the case.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD: On behalf of Mr. KEIR HARDIE, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men who are engaged as wood-workers in the Royal Carriage Department, Woolwich Arsenal, have a price-list hung up in the various shops to enable them to check their earnings; and, if not, whether he will cause such to be displayed?
  *MR. WOODALL: No, Sir; such is not our practice; but the information can always be obtained by the men concerned.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALDasked, whether the exhibition of such a price-list was not required by the spirit of the Resolution of the House in favour of trades union conditions?
  *MR. WOODALLsaid, there had been no undertaking given to exhibit such a list.
  MR. J. G. WEIRasked, whether it was not the practice, in all cases in which there was piece-work, a list should be hung up in the workshops, so that every man might know what he was entitled to?
  *MR. WOODALL: No, Sir; there is no such practice in the War Department that I am aware of, nor do I know that it is the practice with private employers.
  MR. W. P. BYLES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are now trying to enforce this practice on private employers by Clause 38 of the Factories and Workshops Bill?
  *MR. WOODALL: I must ask for notice of further questions.

  COLONIAL MILITARY CONTRIBUTIONS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under

  1173
  Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on the subject of the Military Contribution from Singapore, Mauritius and Hong Kong has been framed and brought up, and what is the date of such Report; and, whether the decision as to the respective amounts payable and the principle of assessment will shortly be made known?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Committee on the subject of the Military Contribution from Singapore, Mauritius and Hong Kong reported on the 1st inst. That Report is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The Colonies concerned will be made acquainted with the views of Her Majesty's Government as soon as such views have been matured. I cannot say exactly when this will be.

  COLONIAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that official and non-official members of the Legislative and Executive Councils of Crown Colonies are debarred from the use of the title "Honourable" when on a visit to this country; whether this privilege has been expressly granted to members of the Legislative Councils visiting us from Colonies enjoying responsible government; and, whether the Secretary of State will take steps to abolish this inequality, and place all these members on the same footing?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I informed the hon. Gentleman yesterday that the Queen in 1893 approved of the official use arid recognition of the title "Honourable" in the case of those persons who hold political positions in the self-governing Colonies. When Her Majesty granted this distinction, it was felt that the responsible government Colonies stand on a different plane to the Crown Colonies; and as it was not contemplated to give the honour so extensively as would become necessary if it were conceded in the case of all Colonies alike, great and small, it appeared to Her Majesty's advisers that the simplest line to draw would be between these two classes of Her Majesty's Colonial possessions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EARLDOM OF SELBORNE.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,)*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Derby) rose to move:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to Inquire and Report whether the Honourable William Waldegrave Palmer, commonly called Viscount Wolmer, has, since his election to this House, succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne in the Peerage of the United Kingdom."
  He said,—I rise to make the Motion of which I gave notice yesterday. The Motion is in the form which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that is to say, for the appointment of a small Committee for the purpose of ascertaining whether Viscount Wolmer has, since his election to this House, succeeded to a Peerage. I have no particular preference for one Committee over another, but in cases of this kind I regard myself merely as the organ of the general feeling of the House; and I should desire that in the discussion on a question of this far and wide reaching character the feeling of the House should quite prevail irrespective of any difference of Party. Now, Sir, the point which I apprehend would have to be ascertained by the Committee would simply be the point which usually in such a case is ascertained by the Lord Chancellor—not by the House of Lords, not by the Committee of Privileges, but, as I understand, by the Lord Chancellor acting on behalf of the Crown—namely, whether a person claiming a seat in the House of Lords is in fact entitled to such seat. That plan not being available in ordinary course in the House of Lords, it is understood that the House should take the matter into its own hands and make an investigation and decide the point for itself. The right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) wishes the matter to be referred to the Select Committee now sitting in the House of Commons on the Vacation of Seats. That was my original proposition, but deferring to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—I think it was the only point on which we differed yesterday—and admitting its superior convenience, I agree

  1175
  to adopt it. It is a very short question that is to be referred, and I should hope that a Committee would not take 11 months to decide the point and report to the House. There is no doubt one personal advantage of the larger Committee I should feel. Probably I should feel it my duty to serve on the smaller Committee. I am not a member of the larger Committee, and therefore I shall not be able to take any part in its deliberations. The right hon. Gentleman has that advantage with regard to the larger Committee; but, on the whole, I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is the best and most convenient, and therefore I put down the Motion in that form. There is one thing I should say: Whether it is referred to the smaller Committee or to the larger one, it must be distinctly understood that no Committee of the House of Commons can decide the question; it can only be decided by the House itself. It is not like some question of a claim to a particular seat being referred to a Committee, as it used to be, and as it may be in certain circumstances now. It is not the question of the seat of a particular individual Member of this House. The issue raised is a great constitutional question, and although, of course, we shall be extremely glad of any information or instruction that any Committee can afford us on the subject, I desire it to be distinctly understood—I am sure that will be the feeling of the whole House—that, on the question of the moving for a Writ, the House of Commons as a whole, and only the House of Commons as a whole, can decide a question of this character. That, I think, is quite clear; and in these circumstances I move the Motion I have put down.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that his original intention was to refer the question to the Committee appointed last Session and reappointed this Session on the Vacation of Seats, but he has agreed to accept the smaller Committee; and the whole question to be determined is this—whether this Committee will be able to furnish the information the House should have before taking further action, or whether we shall have to await the result of the deliberations of the larger Committee
  1176
  All must agree that no Committee, however authoritative, can decide the question. The matter now under consideration must be decided either by the House at large, or, if a legal question should arise, by a Court of Law. Obviously, in no circumstances can it be decided by a Committee of this House. But a Committee may examine precedents, decide as to the pertinence or relevance, and may come to conclusions which may give great assistance to this House in further proceedings. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us that—the simple question of a fact being referred to this smaller Committee—he will not proceed to move the House further in the matter until the larger Committee on the Vacation of Seats has reported, I do not think there would be any strong objection to the preliminary question being referred to the limited Committee. It is a simple question of fact, which will be examined with great facility and probably with dispatch, and a question of fact about which there may be no dispute may be reported to the House. But my right hon. Friend, as he suggested yesterday, wished to take action immediately on the determinanation of the question of fact, without letting the House consider what might have been brought before the Committee on the Vacation of Seats, and what were the resolutions of that Committee on the matters brought before it. If it be proposed to take action at once we are confronted with a serious difficulty, on which we should take our stand.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will say at once that I am perfectly willing to await the result of that Committee, but I only hope that its Report will be produced with a certain dispatch.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am not a Member of that Committee, and I cannot accelerate its proceedings; but the declaration now made relieves me from any further difficulty. I do not care to which Committee this simple matter of fact may be referred, if it is understood, as we now understand, that a constitutional question which must be considered at no distant date by this House, will not be submitted to this House until it has had the advantage of the assistance which may be given it by the deliberations of the Committee. I can only say

  1177
  now, as I did yesterday, that I demur to the positions laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being exhaustive or accurate. Even to-day he has suggested that this Committee will be appointed to discharge a duty which the Lord Chancellor discharges as a Minister of the Crown when a person who claims to succeed to the Peerage applies for a new Writ of Summons to be issued to him. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "Not always."] Has there been no case in which, without application, a Writ of Summons has been issued? Such cases may be brought before the Committee, and may illustrate the advantage which may proceed from its investigations. As to the cases brought before the Committee, I will only say that throughout, in every succession to the Peerage, there has been an action of volition of the person who wished to be summoned, and no act of volition is found in the case before us. In my judgment it is a perfectly new question which is not embarrassed by any precedent upon which there is any decision to bind us, with respect to which there are dicta indeed, such as the dictum of Mr. Speaker Manners Sutton quoted yesterday, which was not acted upon, and which is a mere obiter dictum, which had no effect whatever. We are, therefore, in the presence of a question which may have to be illustrated by late experience, by precedents of the past, by action taken in different circumstances by different parties. The question as a whole must be decided, as I believe, as a matter of expediency. I accept the view of my right hon. Friend opposite that it is not to be settled by precedent; it is to be settled as a matter of expediency. If that is once accepted we see what large issues are opened. On the question of expediency we find the two Front Benches agreed, which is pronounced to be a dangerous state of affairs, and we find their concurrence fortified by the admission of the hon. Member for Northampton. All there have apparently come to the same conclusion on the same line of argument. In the circumstances I do not proceed with the Amendment of which I have given notice, and I do not desire to detain the House further.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the right hon. Gentleman has
  1178
  told us, it is at my suggestion that he moves for a Second Committee to deal with this subject. I will venture to state why I think that the most convenient course, and when the proper time comes I will show that the presumption, against the union of both Front Benches and the Benches opposite below the Gangway is rebutted successfully by considerations which I think will meet with the approval of the House and of the country. I will leave; other questions which will wait until we come to discuss the Writ which will ultimately be moved for to fill the seat for West Edinburgh, and on which there must be a great constitutional Debate, which will probably for ever settle the vexed question raised by my noble Friend Lord Selborne. These large questions will not come up until the Committee now sitting has reported; and I think we may gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is an understanding that that Committee shall set to work and really finish its business. We have not had a single meeting in the course of the present Session; and I think it is now time we brought our protracted investigation to a close. I hope, without moving any formal Instruction to the Committee, it may be distinctly understood that it will set its shoulder to the wheel, and carry through the work entrusted to it by the House. The question submitted to the new Committee will be a small one, and it will not take long to discuss; but there is an Amendment on the paper which, if carried, will materially increase the labours of the Committee. If we want a rapid Report on this question, we ought not to overload the Committee by asking it also to investigate questions of fact connected with Peerages held by other persons who are or claim to be at present Members of this House. The Home Secretary is Chairman of the Select Committee appointed to deal with the subject, and it would add to his colossal labours and overburdened shoulders, capable as they may be, if the Committee had to pursue a further investigation. For these reasons I hope the House will defer to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and appoint the Committee.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The statement made by the

  1179
  Chancellor of the Exchequer removes the first of the objections I ventured to take to the reference proposed yesterday. It is evident now that, while the new Committee to be appointed will have to deal only with the question of vacating seats, no decision will be asked from this House on the general question until it has before it the decision of the other Committee on the matter of principle. That is the whole point I wished to lay before the House. I quite agree with what has been said as to the inconvenience of overloading the Committee on the Vacation of Seats, and I see no objection to the proposal in its present form and with its present understanding, I now have another Amendment to propose. My object is to extend the inquiry of this Committee, and to make it co-extensive with all cases of heirs to Peerages or reputed heirs to Peerages who may be sitting in this House. There will be no objection to the Committee reporting first on the case of my noble Friend, the Member for West Edinburgh, leaving more complicated matters for a subsequent report. The hon. Baronet, the Member for St. Rollox, is not in England, but I may say I have only used his name to illustrate the point I want to bring forward, and I have not the slightest desire to force him or anybody else to be a Peer against his will. The case of the hon. Baronet is not the only case within our experience. I am told that Mr. Cuninghame Graham, who was a Member of the last Parliament, is reputed heir to a dormant Scotch Peerage, and if the question is to be raised at all, as the evident consequence of the new precedent which the Government are making, we must consider not only the case of my noble Friend, but other cases may, with equal propriety, be brought under the purview of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave very interesting evidence before the Committee on the Vacating of Seats, and disputed altogether the dictum attributed to Speaker Onslow as to the vacation of seats that the seat was not vacated on the death of the ancestor, but had only been vacated in the practice of Parliament on proof of succession, followed by a Writ of Summons addressed to his successor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly laid it down that up to the present time the universal practice of Parliament had been to wait for the
  1180
  Writ of Summons, and on the only occasion on which Parliament proceeded to act without a Writ of Summons and issued a Writ, without the information that afforded, that Writ had afterwards to be superseded. So that is a precedent we should not be anxious to follow. Now, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says a case has been made which justifies a new precedent, and justifies the House in doing what has hitherto been done by the House of Peers. We are going to create a Peer-finding Committee, or, as was done in the Middle Ages, we are going to prick the Peers. That is open to grave objection. If you prick in one case, you must prick in all, and wherever a case of suspicion—for that is it—of Peerdom attaches to any Member of the House you must appoint a Committee to inquire into his case. That is the logical conclusion. I object to the appointment of the Committee altogether. I think the House is taking upon itself a duty not incumbent upon it, which it has never undertaken, and by undertaking which we may be landed in considerable embarrassment. It is proposed to appoint this Committee to find out whether Lord Wolmer has become Lord Selborne. Suppose Lord Wolmer refuses to appear, can you force him to appear? According to you he is a Peer, and you cannot force a Peer to appear before a Committee. But supposing Lord Wolmer, assuming himself to be still a Member of the House of Commons, goes before the Committee, you cannot force him to give the evidence you require, and, if you cannot force him, are you quite certain you can get it in any other way? It does not seem so simple a matter as the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagines, because you are dealing with a reluctant witness. You cannot send him to another place without proof of his succession, and I am doubtful whether you can get proof without his good will; and I am pretty certain you will not get his good will. What is your theory with regard to the case of Lord Wolmer? The theory is he becomes incapable of sitting in this House from the moment you have proof that he has succeeded to a Peerage, and, further, that if that proof is not voluntarily afforded to you, then you are to seek it for yourselves. Then, I

  1181
  point to the case of another hon. Member who is under a similar suspicion of being a Peer, and I call upon you to inquire into his case also. How do you know that my noble Friend has become a Peer? You know it either because attention was called to the fact by the hon. Member for Northampton, or because you say it is a matter of public notoriety. Then I say the case is the same with regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Rollox. I have looked into Debrett's "House of Commons," and I find a long account given of the hon. Member for St. Rollox, and the useful arid important offices he has occupied. The account concludes with these words:—
  "He claims the dormant Scotch Earldom of Hyndford and the Barony of Carmichael."
  In turning to "Dod" I find the same remark. Therefore it is a matter of public notoriety that the hon. Gentleman claims this Peerage. It is a matter of common knowledge that the contents of these publications are revised by those to whom they refer. I venture to assume that that has been done in the case of the hon. Baronet, and that it is, at all events, with his sanction that he is represented in this work of reference as claiming this dormant Scotch Peerage. Under these circumstances, on what ground do you deny to him the inquiry you are prepared to force on my noble Friend? They are both reputed heirs to Peerages, and have hitherto neglected, one to claim his Peerage and the other his Writ of Summons. If they were anxious to become Peers, both Gentlemen could have taken the usual course, and, after necessary inquiry had been made, it would have been a matter of absolute certainty whether they were Peers of the Realm or not. The same difficulty arises in both cases—namely, that of the Peer himself being unwilling to take the necessary steps to have the Writ of Summons issued. There are some who consider it necessary to purge the House of Commons of the presence of a Peer—why a Peer may be a Peer unawares! I say that if we are bound to clear ourselves of the presence of a Peer, we are bound, when public attention is called to the facts that I have laid before the House, to deal with
  1182
  all such cases on exactly the same principle. There are certain distinctions that may be drawn between the two cases, but I do not think they are distinctions which affect in the slightest degree the principle. The first distinction is this—that in the one case, that of my noble Friend, there is no doubt as to the succession. My noble Friend, when appealed to by you, Sir, admitted that he was a Peer of the Realm, although he drew the distinction that he was not a Lord of Parliament. As to the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox, I am afraid you cannot interrogate him. But no doubt we may assume so much in his absence—that his claim is not proved, that it is a doubtful claim, and that probably it would be disputed. But that does not affect the case. My point is not that he is a Peer, but that he may be a Peer, and that it is your business to find out whether he is or is not a Peer. You have no right to assume in the case of my noble Friend, although he has felt himself bound to answer the question which you, Sir, have put to him, that he is a Peer any more than that the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox is a Peer. But then it may be said that proof in the one case is much more difficult than in the other. I admit that. But what is the position? This House of Commons is called upon to erect itself into a Court of Justice for the purpose of deciding this important legal question. But is it tolerable that we are to refuse to take into consideration one case because it is a difficult one, and that we are to take into consideration another case because it is easy? No Court of Justice could sit for a day if it transacted its business upon a principle of that kind. The second distinction is, that the Peerage which is in question in the case of the hon. Member for St. Rollox is a Scotch Peerage. I mentioned yesterday, on incorrect information which I had received, that it was an English Peerage. I find that that is a mistake. It is a Scotch Peerage, and I believe that no English Peerage is attached to it. But that makes the case all the stronger, and that makes it all the more urgent; and, let me add, it makes the position of the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Rollox more critical. The case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh is, that he can sit and

  1183
  vote in this House without incurring any statutory penalties. The only question for this House to decide is, whether he shall or shall not sit. If the House decide that he can sit the matter could not be tried in a Court of Law. But it is quite different in the case of the hon. Member for St. Rollox. Under the Act of Union, if he be proved to be a Scotch Peer he cannot sit in this House, and he cannot vote in this House without suffering the possibility of penalties. In the case of a Scotch Peer it has always been held by this House that the House does not require to wait for a Writ of Summons. In the case of an English Peerage it is necessary that there should be a Writ of Summons or alternative proof before the House can act. But in the case of a Scotch Peer the moment succession is proved all the obligations of the Peerage are entailed, together with the disability of sitting in this House. Therefore, if there be any distinction to be made at all, it is in favour of the urgency of the case which I am now bringing before the House. For the reasons I have already given, the House will see that I am opposed to the appointment of the Committee to make this investigation, and if a Division be taken I shall certainly vote against the appointment of the Committee at all. But, if it is to be appointed, I hope the House will admit the claim I make that this other case shall be submitted to it. If the House do not admit it now, as sure as fate similar cases will be admitted hereafter. There will be other cases brought forward from time to time, and we shall be involved in investigations of an extremely complicated and delicate character, with which we have no business at all. In my opinion the House will only be doing common justice if, having to deal with two cases, both of which are before us at the same time, we mete out to the constituency of West Edinburgh precisely the same justice and no more that we mete out to the constituency of St. Rollox. I should like to go one step farther. I have recognised from the first that against the main contention of my noble Friend there is the strongest possible feeling on the part of the majority of this House on both sides, and I think I am right in saying that the reason for it was admirably stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when
  1184
  he said that no man should be allowed to occupy this kind of intermediate position, in which it would be a sort of conundrum whether he was or was not a peer, and in which it should be left to him to determine whether he was to sit in this House as long as he liked, and then to give up his seat here in order to go to the House of Lords. I am bound to say that I, for my part, agree in that view, and I share the feeling which, I believe, is common to the majority of the House; but I do beg the House not to allow the question which I am raising now to be prejudiced by their opinion on the main issue. That is a totally different thing. We have to decide two separate questions. In the first place, what is the practice and the law of Parliament? Because there is no statutory law with regard to these cases. With regard to the propositions which I am going to lay down, I shall have the high support for two of them of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first point is that it has been the practice and the law of Parliament to insist upon evidence before proceeding to declare a seat vacant. The second point is that the only evidence which we have hitherto accepted as sufficient has been the issue of the writ of summons in the case of an English Peerage. Then I take the third point, with which I am not certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees, although he gave a doubtful answer before the Committee on the subject, and declared it to be a debate-able question which he would rather was decided by the Committee. My point is—and I think that it has been proved by recent experience—that until some evidence has been before us that a person who is the heir to a Peerage he may sit and vote in this House. The position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that such was the case.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My memory does not serve me exactly who it was that made the statement, but it was laid down before the Committee that such a gentleman was in the position of being a Member of the House of Commons, but was disqualified from voting. For that I see no reason whatever, whether he is a member or he is not. That is to say, either his seat is vacated at the very

  1185
  moment of the death of his ancestor, or else, if it is not vacated until the Writ of Summons on evidence of succession has been given, he is not only a Member of the House of Commons, but he is a Member with all the powers, and he is entitled to sit and vote. I believe that that is proved by our recent experience. I refer to the case which brought about the appointment of the Committee—that of Lord Coleridge. What is Lord Coleridge's position? His father had died, but the Writ of Summons had not been issued, and there was likely to be some delay which it was thought might be a wrong to the constituents. Thereupon Lord Coleridge applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him the Chiltern Hundreds. To that I think the House can see no possible objection. Even if Lord Coleridge was a Peer, I imagine that there is no rule whatever why the Chiltern Hundreds should not be given to a Peer or any other subject of Her Majesty. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right in granting him the Chiltern Hundreds. But the new writ for the purpose of filling the vacancy in the representation was moved for in this House on the ground that "the Hon. B. Coleridge"—not "Lord Coleridge"—had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. Is it not the direct inference from that that the "Hon. B. Coleridge" was a Member of this House until he accepted the Chiltern Hundreds? He so remained, it may be said, for only a short time after the death of his father; but if he so remained for a day or a week after the death of his father, why should he not have so remained a Member of this House for a month or a year? Therefore I say that our practice has been to permit a Member of this House who has succeeded to a Peerage to remain a Member until proof is given of the succession, and to allow him to sit and vote as such. I will take another case, which is a very striking, one, although it is not one involving the position of a Member of the House of Commons. That is the case of Lord Iddesleigh. Lord Iddesleigh, on the death of his father, of course succeeded to the Peerage, but he definitely and avowedly refused to make a claim to the Writ of Summons, and did not, in fact,
  1186
  make it for six years afterwards, in order that he might retain his position, a high office in the Inland Revenue Department, which cannot be held by a Peer. Surely the fact that he was allowed to do that without opposition, without any question being raised, is, at all events inferentially, an argument in favour of the position taken up by my noble Friend, that a man may be a peer of the realm, and yet, by not applying for the necessary writ, may avoid the disability which now attaches to the position of a Lord of Parliament. I say that my noble Friend's position is that of a man who, at the present moment, is entitled to sit and vote in this House until adequate proof has been given of his having succeeded to the Peerage. But then there would arise the question whether it is expedient in the interests of the House of Commons, and having regard to other great political interests, that people should be allowed to have this sort of double option; whether they should be allowed to sit and vote in this House, and yet, at any moment, upon their own mere volition, be permitted to leave it, and to take their seat in another place. I have said that in my humble judgment there is a proposition to which the House will not be willing to give its assent. But do not let our feeling on that point prejudice our judgment on a question of fact. Let us first decide whether a Member is is in this position or not. If we decide that he is in this position, then let us deal with it. My own feeling has always been that it is a real hardship in many cases that a man should be forced against his will to take up a Peerage which he has done nothing whatever to obtain. I confess it seems to me a self-evident proposition, and I could give, if it were worth while, many illustrations of that hardship. I dare say there are many people here who know perfectly well that a title is not always an advantage. In the case of a poor man, for instance, it is a distinct disadvantage. If the heir to a Peerage becomes, owing to circumstances, a man of no fortune, there probably may be many cases in which such a person would gladly be relieved of the obligation to take up a Peerage descended to him from his ancestors. I cannot see myself what harm can accrue either to the House of

  1187
  Lords, or to the country, or to the general political situation, if such a man wore given an option, once for all, and were allowed to say whether or not he would take up his hereditary title, with all its obligations, or whether he would be content to return to the ranks of the commoners. That would be a common-sense conclusion of the matter, and I only want to guard myself, in pressing upon the House the extension of the reference to the Committee which I now urge, against being supposed to be a supporter of the proposition that a man can, as it were sit in two places at once, or at all events, that he can of his own option choose which of the two dignified offices he will fulfil. That, I think, is a totally separate question, and nobody who votes either for my Amendment, or against this Committee altogether, can be held to be in the slightest degree committing himself or pledging himself upon the larger question of whether it is desirable that this hybrid kind of Peerage should be allowed to exist. I move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  MR. E. HENEAGEseconded the Amendment.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have the misfortune, whatever I do, never to be able to please the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. When the late Chief Justice Coleridge died and his eldest son was the successor to his Peerage, there arose the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The delay between the death of the Chief Justice and the Writ of Summons to his son having been found inconvenient, I granted, at his request, the Chiltern Hundreds. For that I was most severely censured in this House by the right hon. Gentleman, who attributed to me and the Government to which I belong the most sinister motives for that conduct. He then said I was wrong in doing that because the seat was already vacant, for a seat was always vacant instantly upon the death of the Peer. The right hon. Gentleman's censure upon me, and the origin of this Committee, was because he had made up his mind—he always does make up his mind upon every question—and upon this, without investigation, without a Committee, he pronounced ex cathedrâ upon this subject; and this is
  1188
  what he said—this was the ground of his condemnation of my conduct—
  "I think the House will see that in all these cases there is one consistent logical plain rule— namely, that the seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant on the death of the predecessor."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I only wish to say that the evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman himself and others to the Committee has changed my opinion.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then the prisoner at the bar stands acquitted by his accuser. This Committee was appointed to indict me and my conduct in that case as unconstitutional. The seriousness of the charges makes me all the more glad that I should be acquitted of them, because the head and front of my offending was this—
  "That this Government, which is committed to mending or ending the House of Peers, have really hit upon a means of granting the Peers a new and exceptional privilege, the privilege of exhausting all the delights of the House of Commons, and then in their old ago retiring to the House of Lords."
  That is the charge of which, I am happy to say, I am now acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman went on—
  "What has been suggested to me is that, after all, this may be an invidious way of ending the House of Peers, because every successor to a peerage who has enterprise, energy, and ambition—"
  he must have been anticipating the action of Lord Selborne and his friends—
  "will probably choose the House of Commons during his period of juvenility and will only seek the House of Lords when he reaches the stage of decrepitude."
  These were the base and sinister motives—first, to injure the House of Commons and then to swamp the House of Lords with used-up Commoners—that I was supposed to have contemplated when I gave the Chiltern Hundreds to the present Lord Coleridge. I am happy to say that the right hon. Gentleman has acquitted me, and he thinks upon my own evidence. But I took very good care not to give any evidence upon this point before the Committee. As I am on my own defence now against the right hon. Gentleman, as I was on June 28th 1894, permit me

  1189
  to clear myself of having given a different opinion on that occasion from that which I have offered to this House now. One reason why I gave no opinion is because at that time—as I continue to he now—I was more or less responsible to this House for advice in this matter, and therefore I thought it more prudent to reserve my opinion till after the question has been investigated by the Committee, though I confess I never regarded the matter as one on which there could be any serious doubt. But I said on that occasion:—
  "The question of the intermediate condition of the man who is supposed to be a peer and is not proved to be a peer is a very intricate question. It might well exercise the ingenuity of the schoolmen, I think. I do not know what to call him. Is he a ghost? It is certain, if that view is taken, that he cannot sit and vote in the House of Commons. It is equally certain that he cannot sit and vote in the House of Lords, and during that interval he is a dummy peer, because he has no power in either capacity. That is a possible view of his situation. Or there is another view of his situation that may be taken. The House of Commons caterpillar, before he becomes a fully-fledged butterfly, may pass through the pupa or larva stage. He may spin for himself a cocoon of silk and ultimately reach that condition where he will neither toil nor spin. That is a view which may be taken of his intermediate condition. Those are deep political and natural mysteries which I do not myself pretend to fathom. I must allow myself to be considered as an Agnostic on that subject, and to leave it as a question of philosophic doubt what is this intermediate condition in which this unproved peer is in regard to his political status."
  Well, Sir, I adhered strictly to that and resisted every attempt to compel me to offer an opinion upon that subject; I gave no opinion, and, therefore, the converter of the right hon. Gentleman must have been somebody else than myself. I confess that the situation is just the reverse. I cannot say I was converted because I offered no opinion; but I do hold the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman expressed to this House when he said that the seat really is vacated upon the death of the predecessor. That is the only true view of the case. But, then, this House must obtain evidence that the person sitting in this House is the true successor of the man who has died. That is a very simple proposition. One of the real reasons why I was not prepared to give an opinion then was because I found it was a matter which, in the opinion of some people, required investigation. Whether right or wrong, that is
  1190
  the conclusion I have arrived at on this matter. It is quite true that in the report of that evidence I am reported to have made the distinction between, a Peer of the realm and a Peer of Parliament. If I used that expression I used it inaccurately, and I should have said, "a Peer entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords." That would make the true distinction. But, as I said, I did not undertake to give any opinion upon that subject, because, in point of fact, I had not made up my mind what was the accurate view of the situation. With reference to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, we have two things before us. We have, first, the case of a Member of the House of Commons who has declared to us that he is a Peer of the Realm. That is the fact we have to deal with. He is the successor of a nobleman, who, up to the time of his death, was a Member of the House of Lords—which was, of course a fact well known to everybody. The right hon. Gentleman says he knows, or thinks he knows, there is in this House a claimant to a dormant Peerage. Well, anybody may be a claimant to a dormant peerage. The 670 Members might be claimants to dormant Peerages. There are a great many persons who interest themselves, some with success and some with want of success, as claimants to dormant Peerages. But they are not in the situation of the present Earl of Selborne. We are supposed to have in this House a claimant to a dormant Peerage. I do not know exactly the date of this dormant Peerage, but I believe it was some two centuries ago. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "1817."] Well that is very nearly two centuries ago. [Laughter.] I thought the date given was 1717. At all events, it is some time ago. I know it was before I was born, therefore, I am sure it was a long time ago. But the claimant to a peerage is not a Peer. The whole difference is that the Earl of Selborne is a Peer, and states himself so to be a Peer. There is hardly anybody in the House, I think, who does not remember the admirable satirical sketch by Mr. Disraeli in "Sybil," of the visit of Sir Vavasour Firebrace to the famous Mr. Hatton, who was a manufacturer of dormant Peerages, or, rather, manufactured Peers out of dormant Peerages. It is described there how

  1191
  Sir Vavasour Firebrace, not being content with being a Baronet, goes to this gentleman in a back chamber in the Temple. He had a Persian cat on the table, and he would make anybody a Peer who paid the requisite price. The writer says he had made more Peers than the Sovereign by a process—I do not think it is stated in the book, but I have heard it surmised, that for a consideration he manufactured the documents, that time was given for the moss to grow on the tombstone, and so the pedigree was established. That is a process which takes a long time and is very expensive. The famous Mr. Hatton tells Sir Vavasour Firebrace that if he spends £30,000 he thinks he can make him something like premier Earl of this country. To pretend a similarity between the present case and that of a claimant to a dormant Peerage is to bring the whole thing into even more ridicule than attaches to it already. I must say I was never able to treat this claim on the part of Lord Selborne and his friends really as a serious claim until the noble Earl actually appeared in his place. I thought it was a farce, and I think so still. I hope that, whenever the House of Commons has to determine this question it will be determined by an overwhelming majority that a man who is a Peer is not capable of sitting in the House of Commons. That is a very plain and simple issue. I believe it is Parliamentary law and always has been Parliamentary law in this country. The only question now is to ascertain whether the man is a Peer. We undertake to ascertain the facts, and the facts are very simple. In the case of Lord Selborne it will be the production of the Patent, the register of his birth and the marriage of his parents, and that practically establishes the fact that he is the person to whom the Patent refers. That is all. But if you are going to refer to the Committee to inquire whether a man who is a claimant to a dormant Peerage is or is not a Peer, you send to them a thing that no Committee of this House can determine. It is only in the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords that a man who is the claimant to a dormant Peerage can establish his right to be a Peer, and therefore you are referring to this Committee a thing which the Committee could not ascertain. It might take
  1192
  years, as it has done in some famous cases where there was the most elaborate and expensive investigation. We are not to be guided by the gossip of the Lobby or the legends of "Debrett," but must have something like substantial grounds on which to go, and surely with such admissions as we have had from Lord Selborne himself to compare his case with that of a claimant to a dormant Peerage is incongruous and absurd. That being so, if the House of Commons does not intend to treat the whole thing as a farce, as they might do perhaps, and if they mean to deal with this matter seriously, let us, at all events, confine the investigation to that which can be investigated—that is, the question whether the man is now a Peer or not. Do not let us raise these by-issues about investigating claims to dormant Peerages which no Committee of the House of Commons can undertake. For these reasons I could not agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONESsaid, there was absolutely no similarity between the case of the hon. Member for Glasgow and the case of Lord Selborne. A precedent as regarded a claimant to a dormant Peerage, was afforded by the case of General Burleigh. In that case a Writ for the re-election of a Member in the place of General Burleigh had been moved for and granted. But subsequently it was pointed out that General Burleigh was merely a claimant to a Peerage, and that 160 years' investigation of title would be necessary in order to enable him to establish before a Committee of Privileges whether or not he was entitled to succeed to a Peerage. Thereupon the then Speaker of the House of Commons stated that they were accustomed to act on notoriously known facts, and, said he:—
  "When the Writ was moved I regarded it as a notoriously known fact that General Burleigh had succeeded to a Peerage. Now it appears that he is merely a claimant to a Peerage, therefore, in that case, the Writ must be cancelled, and General Burleigh must continue to act as a Member of the House of Commons."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt remember that, until the Registration Acts were passed, it was the practice for an inquisition to be held and upon the return to that inquisition, without any

  1193
  application by the heir, the Crown sent to him his Writ of Summons. The Registration Acts had thrown upon the heir the duty of sending in his own evidence. Now Lord Selborne, having deliberately chosen to prevent the due execution of these formalities altogether, and having refused to give the information, the Crown was unable, without certainly further inquiry, which he believed to be within the prerogative of the Crown to exercise, to send the Writ of Summons. What was the position of the House of Commons? The position of the House of Commons was this—that they were thereupon compelled to do that which Lord Selborne contumaciously declined to do, and they were obliged to find the simple evidence, aye or no, whether he was or was not a Peer of Parliament. It had been argued that there was a distinction between a Peer of the realm and a Lord of Parliament. There was no such distinction historically or constitutionally. Prior to the Acts of Union between England and Scotland and England and Ireland there was no such phrase known as Lord of Parliament, but inasmuch as they had certain elective Lords on the Scotch Peerage, and certain Lords of the Scotch Peerage who were not elective, therefore a Peer of the realm of Scotland who was sent to represent the Peers of Scotland in England was described as a Lord of Parliament. And so, in the same way, a Peer of Ireland who was sent to represent the Peers of Ireland was rightly described as a Lord of Parliament. But there was no Lord of Parliament in England. A Peer of the realm of England was a Lord of Parliament, and there was no distinction, between a Lord of Parliament in England and a Peer of the realm; therefore, he ventured to say that the distinction which was sought to be established was a distinction which was absolutely non-existent. If they looked through the most ancient treatises with regard to the description of Peers, and with regard to precedents, it would be found there was no reference whatever to a Lord of Parliament until the Acts of Union between the two countries, and he could not help thinking that that practically concluded this question. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Lord Iddesleigh was incapacitated from sitting and voting in the
  1194
  House of Peers by reason of his holding an office under Government.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No; it is the other way about. Lord Iddesleigh would have been incapacitated from holding the office he did if he had taken up his position as a Member of the Upper House.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONES: That is practically the same thing in substance. He ventured to say that there was no authority, statutory or otherwise, which the right hon. Gentleman was able to quote to show that the office which Lord Iddesleigh held in the Civil Service in the smallest degree interfered with his position and functions as a Peer. The statute of Anne, indeed, imposed various disqualifications and disabilities, but they were confined to the House of Commons, and did not extend to the House of Peers. The vital issue in the case was this—he maintained that, so soon as the late Lord Selborne died, so soon did the present Lord Selborne become a Peer of the Realm, and therefore a Lord of Parliament, because, he contended, no distinction existed between the two cases; that thereupon, inasmuch as the machinery ascertaining whether he had become a Peer of the realm or not, had not been placed at the disposal of the House of Commons by Lord Selborne, it was the plain duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move for a Committee particularly directed to that object—namely, to ascertain whether or not he had succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne. If the noble Lord wished to be a Member of the House of Commons, the proper course was to bring in a Bill disqualifying and degrading him from the position of a Peer. There was a precedent for such a course in the case of the Earl of Bedford. Following that precedent, the Bill might recite, mutatis mutandis, that inasmuch as Lord Solborne is desirous of remaining an elected representative of the people to serve in the House of Commons, be it enacted that henceforth he and his heirs for ever shall cease to enjoy the honour of being Peers of the United Kingdom.
  MR. GEORGE CURZONsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Selborne) now sitting below the Bar, and those who were acting with him in this

  1195
  matter, believed they had a case which was capable of being submitted with seriousness and respect to the House of Commons; but at the same time they realised that a better opportunity for discussing the main aspects of the case would occur when a Motion was made, not improbably later on, for the issue of a new writ. The last speaker informed the House that the distinction between a Peerage of the Realm and a Lordship of Parliament was a distinction in the Peerage for which there was no authority in precedent, in tradition, or in law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in his evidence before the Committee last year clearly admitted the existence of such a distinction, now endeavoured to qualify the unmistakeable words he, then used when, referring to Speaker Onslow's dictum, he said, "He may be a Peer of the realm, but he is certainly not a Peer of Parliament."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is exactly the phrase I took the trouble to look up this morning, and I observe it is so reported. All I can say is, the words are entirely inconsistent with any view I held or expressed to the Committee. What I intended to say was a "Peer entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords." I never intended to say a Peer of the realm is not also a Peer of Parliament. I believe he is.
  *MR. CURZONwould confront the right hon. Gentleman with an opinion, the value of which he would himself recognise. More than 70 years ago there was a special Committee of the House of Lords appointed to discuss and report upon the "Dignity of the Peerage," and that Committee, having sat for 9 or 10 years, presented a report in four great tomes. In that Report the distinction between a Peerage of the realm and a Lordship of Parliament was most clearly admitted and laid down; and with reference to the notion that this distinction only existed in consequence of the Acts of Union, first with Scotland and afterwards with Ireland, the Lords' Report said—
  "But such a distinction previously existed in the case of minors and of women claiming' to lie Peeresses in their own right."
  And these were the words which he
  1196
  commended to the attention of the House—
  "And with respect also to such persons who, being Peers of the realm by right, might not think fit to qualify themselves to sit and vote as Lords of Parliament."
  The right hon. Gentleman would at once admit, then, that there was very considerable authority for the constitutional view which his noble Friend, and those associated with him, took. He heard with surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he was doubtful whether the attitude of his noble Friend, and those associated with him in this matter, ought not to be regarded as a farce and not intended seriously. In reply to that he would like to say that it was mainly upon the evidence given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself before the Committee upstairs that they realised the strength of their case, and that they had a legal and constitutional right to bring it before the Bar of the House of Commons. And if the personal opinion or ipse dixit of anyone was of value, he might mention what his noble Friend (Lord Selborne) had given him authority to say—namely, that having on many occasions discussed this matter with his late father, than whom, it would be admitted, there was no higher legal and constitutional authority, nor one less likely to take a revolutionary view of the constitution of either this or the other House of Parliament, he never received anything but encouragement from the late Lord Selborne in the step he proposed to take, and the possibility of taking it he more than once discussed with the late Lord Selborne. It was only fair to mention that, with a view of relieving his noble Friend from the charge of having acted in a spirit of unbecoming levity in this matter. A point had been made of the anomaly of the supposed position—namely, that a Peer should have the option of choosing in which House he would serve. He declined to admit that they had ever taken up that position. But when the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was descanting upon the inexpediency and outrage of such a proceeding, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that there had been actual cases in which hon. Members in that House had exercised precisely such an option. Only two years ago there was in that

  1197
  House an hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Plunkett) who was the heir to an Irish Peerage. In 1889 he succeeded his father and became Lord Dunsany, but being an Irish Peer he did not cease to sit in that House, and remained in it until 1892. In that year he found that he could be elected by his fellow Peers a Representative Peer for Ireland, and accordingly he took up his Peerage, and did not stand again for a seat in the House of Commons. Therefore, Lord Dunsany exercised precisely that option which his right hon. Friend had so derided. He did not propose to go further into the matter now, as he recognised that this was not the right occasion for arguing the larger issues of the question. In conclusion, he merely desired to say on behalf of his noble Friend and himself, that they had raised this question, which they believed to be a serious constitutional one, in a spirit of becoming deference to the dignity and feelings of the House of Commons, and that their desire was that a solution of it should be arrived at on fair, constitutional grounds.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid, he rose to surest that the discussion need not be prolonged. What was the position when it began? It was that the noble Lord (Lord Wolmer) desired to raise a great point of constitutional law in that House. That point had been raised, and now by the agreement of everybody it was to be discussed by the Committee which was already sitting upstairs. Important as might be the decision of that Committee, the question was so large that it was sure to be re-discussed on the floor of the House. That being the state of things, he thought the object of the noble Lord, which was to have this question fairly considered and tried, would be accomplished. The noble Lord did not desire, he understood, to take his stand upon the technical question whether there was evidence that he had succeeded to the Peerage of Selborne. If that were so, why should they refer the question of the noble Lord's static to a special Committee? It was a most unusual course.
  *THK CHANCKLLOR OF THIS EXCHEQUERsaid, that they could not accept a man's own statement that he was a Peer as conclusive evidence. The man might be mistaken. Therefore,
  1198
  whatever confidence they had in Lord Selborne himself, his own mere statement as to his status was not evidence upon which the House of Commons could Act.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, that of course they would not accept the statements of the noble Lord as conclusive in regard to the question of status, but that question could easily be settled in the ordinary way elsewhere. Why then appoint a special Committee to settle it? He should view with regret any course that would establish a new precedent for cases of this kind. It would be far better to leave the question of status to the Committee on Privileges of the other House. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham proposed to enlarge the scope of the inquiry entrusted to the small Committee for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked. Such an enlargement was unnecessary, for machinery was already provided for testing the validity of the return of a Member who was alleged to be a Scotch Peer. The validity of the return could be challenged in the Scotch Courts. The inquiry, if enlarged in the way proposed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, might be most protracted and might involve very great expenditure.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: There is a point which has hardly been considered at all in this discussion, and that is the question of the rights of the electors of the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had persevered with the Motion which he, perhaps somewhat hastily, made yesterday I should have been happy to support him. I am sorry that he found it necessary, in consequence of remonstrances that were made in one quarter of the House to depart from that proposal. I do not say this in order to cast any blame upon him; but it does seem to me that when the noble Lord (Lord Selborne) got up and told us what was a matter of common notoriety—namely, that he was a Peer of the Realm as successor to his lather—it does seen to me that that was sufficient evidence upon which this House could have acted, and that it might forthwith have ordered I the issue of a Writ. My right hon. Friend near me and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have thought differently, and as a result we have this Motion for the

  1199
  appointment of a Special Committee. I do not wish to oppose that Motion, but I suggest that it is really unnecessary. I do not believe that a more preposterous claim was ever made by anyone in this country than the claim of Lord Selborne to be allowed to sit in this House after succeeding to a Peerage of the Realm. My hon. Friend near me (Mr. Curzon) has stated that he has a very strong belief that that claim is well founded on constitutional grounds, and that he bases that belief upon the evidence given before the Committee which was appointed last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that is so it is very strange that a Bill should have been introduced in the present Session which bears upon its back the names of my two hon. Friends (Mr. Curzon and Mr. Brodrick) and Lord Wolmer, and the Preamble of which says—
  ,"Whereas it is expedint to remove certain disqualifications attaching to persons succeeding to a Peerage, and to make provision for enabling them to serve as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons."
  Then the enacting clause of this Bill says—
  "From and after the passing of this Act any person succeeding to a Peerage shall not thereby be disqualified from being elected to serve after any election, if he shall so think fit, or from serving or continuing to serve, if he shall so think tit, for any county or borough of the United Kingdom in the House of Commons."
  If there be any reality, which I deny, in this wonderful constitutional claim, why did my hon. Friend introduce such a Bill as that? I agree in what has been already said that the whole tiling is a farce. I object altogether to depriving the electors of West Edinburgh, or any other constituency of the rights which they possess of representation in the House of Commons, while such a claim is considered. It is proposed to refer this question to the Committee upstairs, of which the Home Secretary is Chairman. That Committee transacts its business in so leisurely a fashion that it has not even met since last year, and it may be many weeks before it meets again. When it does meet it might think it necessary, if this question were referred to it, to call evidence on one side and the other, with the result that many weeks would be taken up, and
  1200
  during the whole of that time West Edinburgh would not be represented. I do hope, therefore, that when this small Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman has moved the appointment, has reported, he will act upon the opinions which he has expressed, and will support a Motion for the immediate issue of a Writ for the election of a Member for West Edinburgh.
  *MR. H. J. ROBYsaid, that the appointment of this Committee might in itself be a comparatively small matter, but he feared that it would establish a precedent which would lead to much inconvenience. He did not dispute the competency of that House to inquire into anything it chose, but when dealing with matters in which the other House was specially concerned, when dealing with what might be called the mysterious status of the Peerage, it was desirable that they should leave the question in the hands of the Peers and avoid coming into conflict with them. The facts as to the Selborne Peerage he admitted might be easily disposed of, but the next case that arose might be complicated, and a Committee of that House was not the proper body to inquire into the question whether a person had become a Peer or not. There was, in his opinion, no reason why this question should be referred to a Committee. The safest course in the present case was to wait, as the House had always waited, for the Writ of Summons, even if the issue of that Writ be delayed. And for his part he saw no harm whatever in the presence of a Peer in that House provided that he had been elected by a constituency. And in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) remarks of the hardship to a constituency he might remind the House that not many years since the House was in conflict with a constituency which elected Mr. Bradlaugh over and over again. He objected to this Reference to a Committee, and he thought it would be better to leave the matter to the tribunal which had always acted hitherto.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, he would like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the danger and difficulty in which the House might find itself involved if it should take the course suggested. It was a matter of common knowledge that

  1201
  Lord Wolmer was now a Peer, but it was equally true that other claims might be set up which were not so clear. In the case of the Berkeley Peerage, there was a man who called himself Lord Dursley and heir to the Earldom of Berkeley. The case turned upon the question of whether the entry in the register of marriages was a forgery or not. It was proved to be a forgery, and this man did not secure the Earldom. Suppose the claimant in such a case as that, being a member of the House of Commons, came before the Committee, and the Committee came to the conclusion that the claim to the Peerage was a good one, that man would be prevented from sitting in the House of Commons because he was an Earl, though the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords might find, on investigation, that he was not. That would place the House of Commons in a ridiculous position. He trusted the House would consider that point before it went to a Vote.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the point of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was that the House would incur a grave liability by undertaking the investigation of questions with regard to the succession to Peerages. So far he agreed with his hon. Friend. This very case of Viscount Dursley was exactly the kind of case that would arise. A Member would only have to stand up in his place and say that he was a Peer and his seat would be vacated. Thus, any number of seats might be vacated. He wished to answer a question addressed to him personally by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman asked why those who supported the position taken up by Lord Wolmer introduced a Bill if they believed they had a constitutional right to sit in the House of Commons. Their Bill was introduced before the Committee of last Session was appointed. That Committee was very deliberate in its labours, and therefore the Bill was introduced again this Session for the purpose of raising a discussion on the question. They had no desire to test the matter as it was proposed to test it. The final Court of Appeal must in this case be the House itself, and to that Court of Appeal they were quite ready to submit their appeal in due course. But it was desirable that judgment
  1202
  should be given on a full knowledge of the facts, and it was proposed that the duty of ascertaining the facts should be carried out by a Committee.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid, that this Motion had been brought about by a number of gentlemen whom he would call "Peerikins" instead of Peers. The notion seemed to be that the country would not be able to geton if they were not Members of the House of Commons. He was not at all sorry that the discussion had arisen, for anything that did away with the fetishism, as regarded the wisdom of Peers, was to him very desirable. He had always admired the argumentative ability of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; but when he heard his speech he could not help thinking that it was utter nonsense, if he would excuse him for saving so. He came to the conclusion that a gentleman with so acute a mind must be perfectly aware that he was talking nonsense. However, it was a gentleman who was one of the right hon. Gentleman's Whips who had caused this Motion to be made, and he supposed the right hon. Gentleman felt bound in honour to support him though it was contrary to common-sense. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be useless to have a Committee, because the Committee could not call the Earl of Selborne before them; and that being so that it would be impossible to prove that he was the son of his father. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Committee could get the marriage certificate of the Earl's late respected father. They could get his own birth certificate, and, if necessary, there were the family Bible and the family butler. But the right hon. Gentleman was even more astounding when he told the House that the two cases of the Earl of Selborne and his hon. Friend the Member for the St Rollox Division of Glasgow were on all fours, that both were under the suspicion of a Peerage. But the Earl of Selborne was not under the suspicion of a Peerage. Was there any Member in the House who doubted for a moment that he was the Earl of Selborne? He had stated it himself! It seemed to him somewhat hard on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to throw doubt on a question of this kind. He differed from the Earl of Selborne in

  1203
  politics, but he believed he was an honourable man, and would be one of the very last men to vamp up some pretence of being a Peer. What was the case of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division? The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the hon. Gentleman was under suspicion of a Peerage, because he was referred to in "Debrett," and because "Debrett" said he had a claim. They all knew how absurd these genealogies were, but the right hon. Gentleman told the House that they were to be accepted as authorities because they had been submitted to the Peers, who had given them their imprimatur. The Speaker had himself asked the Earl of Selborne the question: "Are you a Peer of the Realm or not?" and he admitted that he was. It was impossible to ask that question of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division, because he did not happen to be in England. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to have the matter settled he ought at least to wait until the hon. Member returned to the House, when the same question might be put to him. Otherwise the House might be placed in a ridiculous position, for the hon. Member might return and tell them that he never in his life dreamt of making any claim. He had had the pleasure of knowing a great many Scotchmen, and he had very seldom found himself long with a Scotchman without his confiding to him that he was a dormant Marquess. It was the same thing with hon. Members opposite from Ireland, for they had often confided to him in secrecy that they were dormant Monarchs; and only a little while ago he received a letter, apparently a circular letter, from some person in London who said that if he would send him ten guineas he would prove him a member of the Royal Family. He made this confession to the House that he could be proved to be a member of the Royal Family. Had he a right, then, to sit in the House of Commons? The fact was, that the whole thing, from beginning to end, was absurd. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol for the very sound and excellent speech he had made. For his part he would have been glad if the Writ had simply been moved It did seem absurd that they were to have a separate Committee in order simply to look into
  1204
  facts they all knew perfectly well. They all knew perfectly well that the Earl of Selborne was the Earl of Selborne, and, as he himself said, a Peer of the Realm. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the existing Committee had met this Session to elect a Chairman, and they had done nothing more. There appeared to be the gestation of an elephant, and there was no indication when it would cease. If they were to wait for the Report of that Committee perhaps the Home Secretary could tell them when it might be expected. If it were a mere question of a week, and some right hon. Gentlemen were anxious to wait for it, let the House by all means wait; but if there were to be a delay of months, while fresh evidence was taken and long discussions were held, and West Edinburgh were left without a Member, as they knew well what would be the decision of the House by a large majority, the sooner the Writ was moved for the better.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it seemed to him that the effect of these two Committees sitting would be that the House would be deprived of a Member for the rest of the Session. The hon. Member for Manchester looked upon that as a blessing, and the view was intelligible, because the vote belonged to the Opposition, who would lose it. There was really no question at all; everybody knew what the facts were. It seemed to him it was useless to appoint a Committee to inquire into the facts, which the Registrar General could state in five minutes. As to the question whether the vacation of a seat in this House depended upon the arrival of a Writ of Summons from the other House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might cause it to be delayed. He recognised the hardship of the position of the two Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench, who had a laudable ambition to arrive in time at the Leadership of this House, and if they wished to put off the taint of the Peerage there was an easy way in which they could do it. All that each had to do was to introduce a Bill of Attainder, to attaint his own blood and that of all his descendants, and that would make it impossible for him to sit in the House of Peers. That would meet the case, and there would be no opposition to the Bills.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I gather from indications in different quarters of the House that I should not have a majority for this Amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The House divided on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after putting the Question for the last time,
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid: Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Thomas Ellis and Mr. McArthur; tellers for the Noes—
  DR. TANNER: Mr. Chamberlain and Dr. Tanner. [Great laughter.]
  The tellers for the Noes were Mr. Harry Foster and Mr. V. Gibbs.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 330; Noes, 143.—(Division List, No. 77.)

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2:—

  ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS AND BISHOPS.
  "(1) On the date of Disestablishment every cathedral and ecclesiastical corporation in Wales or Monmouthshire, whether sole or aggregate, shall be dissolved. (2) After the date of Disestablishment no Bishop of the Church in Wales shall be summoned to, or be qualified to sit, in the House of Lords as such. Provided that every person who is at the passing of this Act a Bishop, Dean, or Archdeacon of the Church in Wales, shall during his life enjoy the same title and precedence as if this Act had not passed. (3) Writs of Summons shall he issued to Bishops not disqualified by this enactment for sitting in the House of Lords as if the Bishops so disqualified had vacated their seats."
  *MR W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid he proposed by his two Amendments taken together to provide for the continuance of ecclesiastical corporations till the representative body desired that they should be terminated. He supposed he would receive the stereotyped answer that the clause was copied
  1206
  from the Irish Church Bill. That was the answer they had hitherto received when any question had arisen as to displacing or taking away the privileges of the Church. But as it was never used in favour of the Church, they fairly expected some more logical reason for adopting it in this case. In the first place, the privilege of being a corporation, sole or aggregate, was one that did no harm to any one who did not possess it, and it was a matter of convenience (perhaps considerably so) to those who did. Some hon. Members might not be familiar with the legal incidents of a corporation sole, and if he might be allowed, he would read a short passage from a work of great authority with which those who studied and practised the law were familiar. In Blackstone's "Commentaries,'' Vol. 1, page 448, dealing with ecclesiastical corporations, it was said:—
  "The necessity, or, at least, use, of this institution will be very apparent if we consider the case of a parson of a church. At the original endowment of parish churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard, the parsonage house, the glebe, and the tithes of the parish were vested in the then parson by the bounty of the donor as a temporal recompense to him for his spiritual care of the inhabitants, and with intent that the same emoluments should ever afterwards continue as a recompense for the same care. But how was this to be effected? The freehold was vested in the parson; and if we suppose it vested in his natural capacity, on his death it might descend to his heir, and would be liable to his debts and incumbrances; or, at best, the heir might be compellable, at some trouble and expense, to convey these rights to the succeeding incumbent."
  Then Blackstone went on to say on the subject:—
  "The law, therefore, has wisely ordained that the parson quatenus parson shall never die any more than the sovereign by making him and his successors a Corporation. By which means all the original rights of the parsonage are preserved entire to the successor, for the present incumbent and his predecessor who lived seven centuries ago are in law one and the same person, and what was given to the one was given to the other also."
  He ventured to say that if the continued existence of these Corporations did no harm, they ought not to be summarily put an end to. It might, perhaps, be said that if the whole of the Church property was to be taken away, there would be no good in continuing these Corporations, because there would be no Church property for them to hold. But it was

  1207
  quite possible that the Bill might be so amended as to leave to particular parishes property given to them specifically, but whatever became of the Church property now in existence, fresh property might be given to particular parishes which the old Corporations would most conveniently hold.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.) rose to order. The hon. and learned Member was discussing the subject of private benefactions, which were not dealt with by the clause now before the Committee.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid hon. Members were entitled to point out what would be the effect of the dissolution of these Corporations.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that what he was about to point out was that property might remain which it would be impolitic to take away from particular parishes, and that therefore the Corporations ought to be allowed to remain for the purpose of ownership.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that that was exactly what he complained of. They were not discussing the question of private benefactions which might be given subsequently to the Church, but whether these Corporations should be dissolved.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is clearly out of order in discussing the subject of private benefactions upon this clause.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the property in the parish churches could not be omitted from consideration, and it was evident that it was the intention of the Government that they should continue to be used for the purposes of the Church as at present. He maintained that on this ground alone there was great convenience in permitting the Church Corporations to continue to exist if the Church so desired. If the Church was not to be treated as a wrong-doer, why should they deprive the clergy of the Church of their ancient right of succession. He begged to move the first Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name, that was to say, to leave out the words "on the date of" in order to insert "notwithstanding."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that on the part of the Government he certainly could not assent to the Amendment which had just been moved by the hon. and
  1208
  learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tomlinson). The language of the clause was almost identical with that of the Irish Church Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that the dissolution of these Church Corporations in some way or other might deprive the Church, not of property, but of a convenient mode of managing its property. The Bill had amply provided for that, because whatever property would remain in the Church would rest in the Representative Body, which would have exactly the same powers of holding property as the present Corporations did except that they would hold it upon certain specific terms—namely, for the purposes of the Church.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that this Amendment involved a matter of great importance. He did not think that it was desirable that they should follow implicitly, not to say servilely, the language of the Irish Church Act. Indeed, the experience which they had had of the Irish Church Act justified the hon. and learned Member in moving this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) appeared to think that all objections were met when he said that the clause was almost identical in language with a similar clause in the Irish Church Act. He very much doubted whether the Representative Body could hold the Church property in the same way in which it was held by the existing Corporations.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir F. LOCKWOOD,): Certainly not.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that this was his own view of the matter. He could not understand what principle was involved in the policy which the right hon. Gentleman was now endeavouring to carry out. He hoped that the matter would be further considered, as a great many Members on the Opposition side of the House deemed this policy of dissolving the Church Corporations as an unnecessary interference with the status of the Church.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that he thought that that was a favourable opportunity for him to repeat the question which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) early in the afternoon,

  1209
  and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would now be able to give him an answer to it. He wished to know what would be the condition of affairs as regarded marriage after this Bill became law. Speaking on the Irish Church Bill, Sir Roundell Palmer said that by the marriage law of Ireland a clergyman of the Church of Ireland could not perform the marriage ceremony unless the banns had been published or a licence granted, the whole law on this matter proceeding on a footing which would be put an end to if the clause in question came into operation. On that occasion the Attorney General replied that it was intended to bring in a separate measure on this subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see; that that has anything to do with the clause.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the observations made by Sir Roundell Palmer, in the Committee of the House of Commons, on a clause in the Irish Bill precisely identical to the clause of the present Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: The fact that an irrelevant discussion was permitted in the Committee on the Irish Church Bill is no reason why it should be permitted now.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is quite irrelevant.
  *SR F. S. POWELL: Is it not competent for me to argue that inconvenience would arise should this sub-section become law?
  THE CHAIRMAN: So long as the hon. Member confines himself to the clause he will be in order. I was merely pointing out to him that the point he raised with regard to the Irish Marriage Law does not seem to me to apply to this particular Amendment.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLhoped he would have some information on the subject. He did not think the Government was alive to the great importance of the change which they had inaugurated. After the experience they had had in the case of the Irish Church Bill they ought to be quite sure that the continuity of the Corporations was maintained; there was not only the question, of property, there was the question of the performance of duties which at one stage or another must be discussed.
  *MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid the Amendment raised a very important question, namely, whether the Church Corporations should remain notwithstanding the Disestablishment of the Church. He could understand the Government thinking it necessary to dissolve these Corporations if the alternative were that the Corporations were to remain for all times and to interfere with the proper working of the new Church Body But that was not the purport of the Amendment. Ample libe y was left to the Church in the future to dissolve these Corporations where they thought it necessary, and it was an unnecessary hampering of the ordinary arrangements of the Church that these Corporations should be suddenly and by a stroke of the pen dissolved. Why should they not wait and see how the new Church Body worked; and if it was found by the authorities of the Church that it was desirable that these Corporations should be dissolved he would not then be opposed to that course.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid the Home Secretary, instead of replying to the reasonable arguments addressed to him, thought it sufficient to say that such and such a clause was in the Irish Act. They had a right to ask what was the connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment and the dissolution of these Corporations. He failed to see any connection whatever. He was not sure that there were not Nonconformist and Roman Catholic Corporations; and they ought to have an assurance that no such Corporations existed in the case of other religious communities in Wales before they were asked to do away with the privilege now enjoyed by the Church. After all it was merely the privilege of being able to hand property down from time to time without having to pay the cost of conveyance from one trustee to another. The dissolution of the Corporations would prejudice the Church in Wales. It would create the presumption that the Disestablished Church would not be allowed to create Corporations; and the right hon. Gentleman had provided no means in the Bill for the creation of such Corporations. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the property of the Church had been assigned to particular purposes under the Bill. But it was

  1211
  quite possible that when the House reached the clause assigning it they might choose to assign some of it to those parochial and cathedral purposes to which it was devoted at the present time. If they did, why should the Corporations not continue? Again, every encouragement should be given to pious donors to make contributions to the Disestablished Church. But there were a good many benefactors who would not be inclined to contribute to a Church in which there were no Corporations.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had paid very little attention to what he had said. Otherwise he would not have accused him of relying simply on the precedent of the Irish Church Act, because he endeavoured to explain what was the meaning of the proposal in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not appear himself to be very familiar with the law. Every parson in Wales was a Corporation, and the great bulk of the Corporations dealt with were not bodies like the Cathedral Chapters, but the ordinary parish clergymen in Wales. These clergymen were under the Bill to cease to hold the endowments which they at present possessed, and therefore the sole reason for the continuance of the Corporations disappeared. The hon. Gentleman surmised that other religious bodies possessed Corporations. He should be extremely surprised if any instance of the kind could be produced.
  *MR. A. S. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENpointed out that by Clause 5 private benefactions given since 1703 were retained, and were to be handed over to the Commissioners and a representative body, but by Clause 15 the representative body need not come into existence. It only "may" come into existence. But even if it came into existence, then almost for certain it would not come into existence for some time after the date of Disestablishment. Unless, therefore, these corporations were maintained, who, he asked, was to hold private benefactions between the date of Disestablishment and the formation of a representative body; or if the representative body was not formed at all, who was to keep the benefactions for all time? If the Amendment was adopted, those corporations would continue, and the benefactions could be
  1212
  handed over by the Commissioners to the existing corporations.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that the whole property of the Church was transferred to the Commissioners from the moment of Disestablishment. There was, therefore, no lacuna, and the Commissioners would hold the property until a representative body was constituted. So long as any existing interest remained, the property attached to that interest must go on being paid to the holder of the benefice; the interest which the representative body had in the property was rather reversionary than a present benefit. In that state of facts, where it was so much to the interest of the Church to constitute a representative body to succeed to this property he thought that they need not entertain the idea that the Church would neglect the precaution.
  *MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid he was not dealing with an existing interest, but with private benefactions since 1703. But an interval might occur between the date of Disestablishment and the formation of the representative body. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend that the Commissioners were to withhold this money for the use of the Church during any interval between Disestablishment and the formation of a representative body?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the Commissioners would have the money in their hands, and they would keep it in their hands until the Church constituted a Trust for its acceptance.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEhoped that his hon. Friend would go to a Division, because they could not rest satisfied with the explanation of the Home Secretary. There might be a lacuna between Disestablishment and the formation of a representative body, and there might be great delay in the formation of the latter. Why add insult to injury by dissolving corporations? It was quite an unnecessary severity. The maintenance of these corporations was necessary—first, because they were the relic of an old Church, and second, because there was a very good reason for saying that their maintenance was essential for the administration of the property of the Church during the interregnum which must ensue.
  MR. R. U. PENROSE FITZGERALDput this case to

  1213
  the Home Secretary. In the interregnum which might or must ensue between the Disestablishment and the formation of a, representative body, a lay donor was desirous to endow a parish with money of his own. In the olden times he would have endowed it in the name of the rector of the parish; but if this Bill was passed, during the most important time of the Disestablished and Disendowed Church, the rector of the parish and the parish itself would be absolutely unable to hold property which was left to him or to it during the interregnum. In the case of the Irish Church there were many instances where donors disliked leaving their money for the parish in which they were interested in the hands of a representative body, because they did not feel perfectly certain that that body might not join the particular parish with another. In. that case could a parish hold property safely?
  MR. ASQUITHdid not think that the point raised presented any serious difficulty. If there should be a lacuna in point of time between the date of Disestablishment and the constitution of a representative body, it would be open to any donor who wished to benefit a particular parish or district to create a Trust, and vest the benefactions in trustees until the date when a representative body should be constituted and the Trust handed over to them. That was the machinery which other religious communities adopted.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 186.—(Division List No. 78).
  MR. G. C. T. HARTLEY MR. G. C. T. HARTLEY (Islington, N.) moved to amend the clause by omitting from page 1, line 15, the words "cathedral arid," his object being that the corporations of the four Welsh cathedrals should not be dissolved. This was a reasonable proposition, and would not interfere with the spirit of the measure under consideration. It might, perhaps, be urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) that the clause was copied from that in the Irish Church Act, but he would point out, in answer to such a plea, that in dealing with the Irish Church they were doing away with a body which was largely a self-contained institution, whereas now they were asked to do
  1214
  away with a part of the Church of England which was in Wales. These were institutions with which the Church of England was very strongly connected, and it seemed to him to be a matter of course that they should not do away with the corporate position of the cathedrals. It was true that the corporate power of the cathedrals might not be a matter of very great importance in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but it was a practical point of very great importance to the Church. He pressed the matter not for financial reasons, but in consideration of the religious spirit and sentiment of the people. A very strong feeling had existed for many years among the people in regard to the cathedrals. At one time some of the cathedrals were in a miserable state of dilapidation; but by dint of great energy, to a very large extent exhibited by the Welsh themselves, they had been restored, and were now regarded as monuments of the life and power and vigour of the Church in Wales. That being the case, he thought it would be a gratuitous injury to the Church to abolish the corporate capacity of the cathedrals. If the cathedrals were to be carried on in future as they had been in the past—and Clause 7 of the Bill distinctly stated that they were to be—it was absolutely necessary that the Dean and Chapter, and all persons and things connected with them should continue on precisely the same corporate conditions as at present. Otherwise he failed to see how the cathedrals could occupy the same position or fulfil the same purposes as hitherto. It might be said that some arrangement would be I made under Clause 15 for carrying on the cathedrals. Much difficulty would probably ensue in making any such arrangement, but whatever arrangement was made under that clause the practical result must be that the cathedrals would be ultimately reinstated as corporations in some form or other. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had no desire to injure the Church or to offend the sentiments of Churchmen. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the veneration with which the cathedrals were regarded by Church-people and Dissenters alike, and that they were looked upon as evidences of the power and vitality of the Church by the people

  1215
  generally, the right hon. Gentleman would surely see that little advantage was to be gained by pressing this severe provision on the Church in Wales. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment. There might be an idea on the part of some persons that ultimately a great change would be made in respect to the cathedrals—that the time would come when they might be used for the purposes of all denominations. But it could not be reasonably supposed that that would ever be allowed, and it would be in direct contradiction to the words of Clause 7 of the present Bill. The desire on all hands was so strong that the four cathedrals in question should be left as they were, and justice and argument were so completely in favour of it, that he earnestly hoped the desire of the Church in this matter, at least, would be acceded to. For those reasons he begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was important in dealing with the Amendment to bear in mind that the question of the future use or the future ownership of the cathedrals was not involved in the clause then under discussion. It would be quite open to hon. Members after the clause was carried to raise the whole question on subsequent clauses. The sole question the Committee had now to consider was whether, having already resolved that the Ecclesiastical Corporations in Wales should be disestablished, the cathedral bodies should be exempted from the scope of the Bill. He thought they should not. It was quite possible for a cathedral to be carried on by its Dean and Chapter and other officers without their being constituted a corporation. There were cathedrals already so carried on. The legal instrument of a corporation, therefore, was not essential to the management of a cathedral as at present; and he saw no reason whatever, if the Church in Wales was disestablished, why a privilege or distinctive feature should be continued to the cathedrals which was not shared by the other religious communities. Moreover, the retention by the cathedrals of their corporate capacity could be, for no practical purpose, of advantage to the Church. Under those circumstances he could not assent to the Amendment.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he entirely agreed that it was not necessary then to raise the question whether the property in the cathedrals should in future be vested in the Commissioners, as the Bill proposed, or in the Church itself. That point might be dealt with subsequently. Of course, if it was eventually decided by the Committee that the property in the cathedrals should remain with the Church, then the arguments for the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be much stronger than ever. There was a point to which he thought the Home Secretary had not given sufficient attention. The cathedrals had always been vested in the Dean and Chapter. They had had a separate ecclesiastical existence. They had been in a different position to that of any other ecclesiastical corporation within the Church—more independent of the Diocesan—and it was a position which could not fairly be called one of privilege, as regarded other religious bodies. If, then, the cathedrals were to be held by the Church, it was a matter of considerable importance whether they should be vested in the Chapter as a separate corporation or in the Church at large. To continue the existence of Cathedral Chapters as separate Corporations would be a continuance of the most ancient tradition of the Church. He thought it was a matter which the right hon. Gentleman might fairly concede. Other religious bodies in Wales or England had Corporations within them of a similar character to that which these Chapters would assume if the amendment of his hon. friend were carried. He did not pretend to say that it was a matter to which he attached vital importance, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman attached vital importance to it either. It only referred to four places in the whole of Wales, where there were four very ancient institutions round which a great deal of ecclesiastical sentiment lingered, and that sentiment would be gratified if the right hon. Gentleman would make this concession.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman treated the cathedrals in an exceptional manner, and if he had been logical

  1217
  he would have given them over to the Welsh Commissioners to deal with. He had given the whole use of the Cathedrals to the Church, and the Bill promised a certain sum of money to keep them in repair, therefore no fault could be found with his hon. friend's desire to make the treatment of a Cathedral Corporation exceptional. The actual every-day work of the Cathedrals must be carried on by some subordinate authority or other. That subordinate authority would probably not consent to a simple individual having the power. Therefore it was reasonable to suppose that the devolution of the authority of the representative body would be to a body of men differing, except in status, in no way from the existing Cathedral Chapter.
  MR. ASQUITH: Probably.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEasked why they should not preserve not only the Cathedrals, but the great bodies which had control over them.
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, there was some slight misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord, who had been arguing as if they were going to do away with Deans and Chapters. They contended that the Deans and Chapters should continue after the passing of the Bill to occupy a similar position to that now occupied by the Dean and Chapter of Truro, or the Provost and Chapter of the Roman Catholic See of Westminster. It was not intended to interfere with these officers, or their rights or dignities, or their power to order the Cathedral Services, it was only intended that they should cease to exist as Corporations. Sentiment was an element which had to be considered, but there was not much sentiment about the legal meaning of a Corporation. It was, in fact, a legal matter. There was no service more orderly than that of the Cathedral Church of Truro, where the body was voluntary, and was not a Corporation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the speech of the hon. Gentleman was not consistent with the argument advanced by the Home Secretary, whose objection to the Amendment was, that if it were carried, one of the existing privileges of the Church, which distinguished it from Nonconformist bodies, would be left to them, and that therefore complete religious equality would not be attained. The hon. Gentleman said there was no
  1218
  sentiment connected with a Corporation neither did the power of a Corporation give any substantial privilege to the Church.
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, that he had pointed out that it had a legal meaning.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked, if the argument touched neither sentime nor practice, what did it touch? If nnoentiment attached to Corporations, why on earth did the Government object to the amendment?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the right honourable Gentleman, in his somewhat microscopical dialectics, professed to have discovered a difference between his honourable Friend and himself. He entirely subscribed to what his honourable Friend had said, and could see no inconsistency in doing so. A chapter had a certain status which enabled it to hold property by perpetual succession, and that was a legal status which might be described as a privilege peculiar to these Corporations. On the other hand, his honourable Friend was perfectly right in saying that it did not confer any privilege on the Chapter in the larger sense of the term privilege, meaning something of advantage to an institution in carrying on its work. The Church parted with nothing that gave it any substantial assistance in carrying on its work when these Chapters ceased to be incorporated.
  *MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he rose to support the Amendment. He believed there were several colleges in Wales, some for the training of ministers and others for educational purposes, and he should be surprised to be told that none of these were incorporated. And if they were incorporated why was it more invidious that cathedrals should be incorporated than that these institutions should be? They denied that this was an offensive privilege because they believed it was enjoyed by others.
  *MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid, there were only three colleges in Wales which were incorporated, all of a lay character, and by the charters in connection with which the study of theology was expressly excluded. There was another incorporated college of a theological character, namely, Lampeter College, which was

  1219
  in point of fact, purely a Church of England college. None of the colleges for the training of Nonconformist ministers were incorporated at all.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, that surely the statement of the lion. Member gave force to the contention of those who supported this Amendment. They had it from the hon. Member that Lampeter College, being a college of the Church of England in Wales, was incorporated. If that were so why not allow these cathedrals to be incorporated?
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEasked whether Lampeter College would come within the interpretation applying to Ecclesiastical Corporations?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that Lampeter College was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1828. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners then transferred to the college the lands that were vested in them in connection with the Cathedral of St. David's. His impression was that Lampeter College did not come within the Bill, as it came within the definition of a private benefaction, and was not an ecclesiastical corporation.
  VISCOUNT CRAN BORNE: But surely, Mr. Chairman, private benefactions are confined to benefactions of private individuals, whilst Lampeter College was endowed from funds belonging to one of the Chapters?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is not in order in the line he is taking.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he only wished to refer to the point which had been put by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who had asked whether under this term "ecclesiastical corporation" Lampeter College would be included.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, Lampeter College was not an ecclesiastical corporation at all, and if the property of the college were, under the third clause of this Bill, vested in the Welsh Commissioners it would be transferred to them only subject to existing interests. As it was a Corporation it lived for ever, and as the Welsh Commissioners would only obtain a reversionary interest subject to all existing interests their interest would be absolutely inappreciable The college would not, therefore, be affected in the least degree.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEremarked, that it was satisfactory to find that at any rate there was one institution connected with the Church of England in Wales which the Goverment did not intend to sacrifice. He thought, however, it was unfortunate that the Government, having made up their minds that they must preserve the use of the cathedrals in Wales for the Church, which was now in possession of them, should not have yielded the shadow as well as the substance, and should not have reserved the cathedrals to the corporations, in whose possession they now were. Surely they might have gone as far as this in deference to the sentiment which, he conceived, was just as legitimate when it existed in members of the Church of England as the corresponding sentiment when it existed in the breast of persons who did not belong, but were actively opposed to that Church.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE, in supporting the Amendment, said, that probably of all the sentiments aroused by this Bill, the sentiment relating to the cathedrals was among the strongest; and the injury done to the cause of the Church by this matter of the cathedrals would, he ventured to say, never be forgotten by Churchmen in England. The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, not be surprised if they persisted in pushing this Amendment to a Division. Though he should be anxious to take the right hon. Gentleman at his word, yet considering that he was the author of the Bill containing subsequent clauses relating to these cathedrals, which they regarded as being needlessly wanton and cruel—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Baronet cannot now discuss or describe subsequent clauses in that way.
  SIR R. TEMPLEwould not repeat the expression. Though these subsequent clauses had been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman in conciliatory terms—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I want to point out that the hon. Baronet cannot discuss these clauses at the present time.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that notwithstanding the conciliatory expressions of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be necessary, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to press this Amendment to a Division.

  1221
  The Under Secretary for the Home Department informed the Committee that one essential part of these corporations would remain, namely, the Dean and Chapter, but not in a corporate capacity. That they should remain in their corporate capacity, however, was essential to the due performance, of their duties; if they were shorn of that capacity, it would deprive them of much of their usefulness and efficiency. There were various reasons why they wished to omit cathedrals from the clause. They were anxious to maintain them because they were connected with some of the most sacred and venerable associations which cluster around the Church in Wales.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYcould not help thinking that the Home Secretary, in the reasons he had given against the Amendment, the sentiment on the part of the Nonconformists of Wales against any vestige of privilege being allowed to exist which had no place in connection with Nonconformist Ecclesiastical Bodies, had done gross injustice to the Nonconformists of Wales. To begin with, it was by no means clear that the Nonconformist bodies had not exactly the same privileges, and the Home Secretary had guarded himself against making the general assertion that no such corporation existed.
  MR. ASQUITH: I say that, to the best of my knowledge, I should be much surprised if it did exist.
  MR. HANBURY: But that is not sufficient ground—"to the best of my knowledge"—for the assertion. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman rested upon an assumption which he was not able to prove. He did not believe there was this extreme jealousy on the part of the Nonconformists of Wales against the cathedrals. What an absurdity it was to sweep away these corporate bodies when it was quite possible, after the Church was disestablished, for the new representative body to set them on their legs again. There were many respects in which the Cathedral Corporations differed from corporations sole in the parishes. If there were any portion of the Church in Wales with which the Nonconformists had shown their sympathy, it had been the cathedrals. A large amount of the money spent on the restoration of these cathedrals in the
  1222
  last 10 or 20 years had come from Nonconformists themselves, who regarded the cathedrals, and rightly, as great national monuments. He believed, therefore, the Welsh Members entirely misrepresented the views of the people of Wales in this matter.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSappealed to the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision. He should have thought there was no Nonconformist in the House who would refuse the Church this little concession, seeing they were going to take away their Establishment and their money.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 135; Noes, 85.—(Division List No. 79.)
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.) moved to omit the word "ecclesiastical" as describing the corporations to be dissolved. He would like to point out that the ecclesiastical corporations were practically the oldest corporations in the county. They were older than Parliament itself. They had not been created in any form or shape by the State, but were created by rich and generous donors when Christianity was originally introduced into this country. Hon. Members who supported the Bill seemed to think that those ecclesiastical establishments were solely Church created. They were nothing of the sort. They were founded by the funds and donations of pious people in the early days of the Church, and the State had no more right to do away, at one fell swoop, with those ecclesiastical corporations, than it had to do away with secular corporations. He strongly opposed the notion, that because at the present moment it was asserted there was a majority of the people of Wales against the Church of England, Parliament should disestablish the ecclesiastical corporations also in that part of the country. He thought it was a great and grave mistake to destroy those important ecclesiastical corporations which had been for so long a time doing beneficent work for the people of Wales and the United Kingdom. The clause practically meant the destruction of the whole machinery of the parochial system in Wales, which was doing such excellent service to the people and especially to the poor. That was a system under which any man could go to the Church and

  1223
  claim the services of the Church without money or price.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now going beyond the limits of his Amendment. The question is solely with regard to the dissolution of those corporations.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he would point out, with all respect, that the dissolution of those corporations would mean the loss by the corporations of the funds by which at the present time they were able to carry on their beneficent parochial work. There was, besides, no proposal to put in the place of those corporations any body that would carry on their great and good and useful work. He therefore asked the Committee to omit the words "and ecclesiastical" from the clause.
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, there appeared to be some misconception in the mind of the hon. Gentleman as to the effect of the words he proposed to omit from the clause. One would gather from his observations that they would do away with the parochial system and would meddle with Church property. With regard to Church property, it was dealt with by Clause 3, and did not arise here, and with respect to the parochial system, the clause did not propose to interfere with the present organisation of the Church or with the incumbents of parishes in the administration of their parochial duties. The word "corporation" was used in the clause in what he might call its legal sense. The Committee had just decided to do away with cathedrals as aggregate, corporations, and if the Amendment were carried the incumbents as corporations sole, would be allowed to continue The Home Secretary had stated the reasons which made the Government unwilling to continue the attribute of corporation, in its legal sense, to any part of the Welsh Church, and having rejected it in the case of cathedrals, it could hardly be expected that the Government would retain it in relation to parish churches.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that apart from the property confiscated by the Bill there was a considerable amount of property still remaining, which in all fairness and reasonableness ought to be allowed to remain in the hands of persons who now, as corporations sole,
  1224
  administered it for the benefit of the particular parishes to which it was given. There were no ministrations for the poor but the ministrations of the Church, and it was the duty of the opponents of this Bill to persist in opposing provisions which would in great part deprive the poor of those ministrations.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONpointed out that the clause provided for one of the very things the promoters of the Bill said they wished to get rid of. The Bill provided for the creation of representative bodies with powers of continuous life—the very thing that was objected to in regard to Cathedral bodies. How did the Home Secretary reconcile these facts? He might cut these Gordian knots in the Division Lobby, but let him reconcile them in Debate. The Home Secretary said he did not wish to interfere with the parochial system of the Church of England. The best way to preserve it would be by legal form. Let Parliament take every atom of property from these corporations, but let them remain as they were—the form by which the future munificence and benefactions of Churchmen might be devoted for the advantage of parishioners. He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade, who was very precise as to the terms he used in such matters, to define what he meant by the word "ecclesiastical." What was the difference in the term as applied to the association of religious men who belonged to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and those who belonged to the Catholic Church according to the Roman use, or the Baptists, Calvinistic Methodists, and others. If he could not differentiate the use of the term, he would appeal to him to accept this Amendment, and remove a word of indefinite value from an Act of Parliament. The Under Secretary at the Home Office desired, above all things, that the existing organisation of the Church should not be interfered with. It would not be interfered with by the preservation of these corporations. If their present status was taken away from them they were suspended, as it were, and an Act of Attainder was passed against them, and Parliament would consider hereafter what punishment or penalties were to be inflicted. Hon. Members opposite did not care two pins about destroying

  1225
  the status of the Church. What they wanted to do was to take her money. Then why not preserve these corporations in their present legal form and promote the desire preferred by the Government not to interfere with the continuous life of the Church?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERremarked that, having regard to what the Government had said with regard to the Cathedrals, they could scarcely expect them to accept the omission of these words. So he advised his hon. Friend to be satisfied with the protest he had made.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HANBURY MR. HANBURY moved to amend the Clause by inserting after "Corporation" the words "of the Church in Wales." He said the Amendment was not moved in the interests of the Church, but on behalf of those who were the cause and origin of this Bill. It was moved entirely in the interests of Nonconformists, and of the Roman Catholics, and other religious bodies in Wales. He and his hon. Colleague represented a greater number of Roman Catholics than any other Members of the House, and it was quite possible, and even probable, that if the words which he proposed to insert were not inserted, some of the privileges of the Roman Catholic Church would be interfered with. He should have thought that the Home Secretary, while attacking the rights of the Church of England, would see that he was safeguarding those of other communities. But he was unable to express an opinion whether there were any ecclesiastical corporations belonging to religious communities which would be affected by this Sub-section. More or less irresponsible Members below the Gangway said there were none; but they required something more definite than that casual opinion, and the farthest the Home Secretary was prepared to go was to say that, as far as he knew, there were no ecclesiastical corporations except those belonging to the Church of England. If hon. Members opposite did not care to have these words inserted in their own interest they, ought at any rate to agree to the Amendment in the interest of another strong body, the
  1226
  Roman Catholics. There was no evidence that no such corporation as he contemplated did not exist, and, therefore for that reason alone he was entitled to have these words inserted. But there were other grounds besides the mere want of information on the part of the Home Secretary. The very looseness of the language of the clause was sufficient justification for the desire to define it as closely as possible. What was meant by "ecclesiastical corporation"? There was no definition "of ecclesiastical" in the Bill. What evidence there was went to prove that other communions besides the Church of England would be affected. In the definition clause, great pains were taken to define the word "ecclesiastical" when it occurred in connection with any other substantive. For instance, "ecclesiastical office," "ecclesiastical person," "ecclesiastical residence" were carefully defined. Again, there was no definition of "corporation." "Corporation" was a word which might be applied very loosely. It might mean a corporation by charter, or under the Companies' Act or some recent Act. If the word "corporation" was one of such large and different meaning, as he believed it was, there was all the more necessity for some definition. It might be to the interest of the supporters of the Church to let the Bill do as much mischief as possible, but as a matter of fact they did not wish the Bill to be a complete absurdity. He wanted to protect other ecclesiastical communities. He represented a large number of Roman Catholics, and did not want to see their case jeopardised by loose words.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he appreciated the benevolent spirit the hon. Member had exhibited, and he hoped those who represented the Nonconformists of Wales would appreciate the hon. Member's burning zeal for their interests.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he distinctly stated that he moved the Amendment in the interest of Roman Catholics, a large number of whom he represented.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that unless his recollection deceived him the hon. Member referred several times to the Nonconformists. The hon. Member asked why they did not define the word "Corporation." The Government assumed the

  1227
  House, and those who would have to interpret the Act, would have some knowledge, not only of legal language, but of the ordinary meaning of terms. They, therefore, did not define the words "Cathedral," "Bishop," and "Church," and they believed every lawyer and nearly every layman would understand what was meant by "Corporation." He could not conceive the slightest use of the Amendment. The Bill was one for Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and therefore it could not operate upon anything except the Church of England. The hon. Member had not given any instance of any corporation, whether existing for the benefit of Nonconformists or Roman Catholics, which these words could affect, and if there were such corporations the Bill would not affect them. This particular Clause said:
  "On the date of Disestablishment every Cathedral and Ecclesiastical Corporation in Wales or Monmouthshire, whether sole or aggregate, shall be dissolved."
  He put it to the Committee with some confidence, that there was nothing in the words which could operate upon any corporation, except one belonging to the Church of England in Wales. In their view, therefore, the Amendment was wholly superfluous, and in the interest of drafting and common sense they could not accept it.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman thought that by speeches such as he had just made he would promote the passing of the Bill, he was greatly mistaken. A more unworthy answer to a very fair speech had never been made. The right hon. Gentleman talked about drafting and common sense. If the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to bring his great mind down to the level of those who were dealing with the Bill he might have shown there was common sense and drafting involved in the arguments addressed to him. They were dealing with twelve counties immediately to the westward of the English counties. Take the case of an Ecclesiastical college, which had nothing to do with the actual dioceses of Wales, and yet happened to be locally situate in Monmouthshire. It was absurd to say the present words of
  1228
  the Clause would not disestablish the college. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the words:
  "Any Ecclesiastical Corporation connected with the Church in Wales."
  There were similar words in Clause 1. On the question of drafting he might point out that in Clause 1 it was said:
  "The Church of England, so far as it is established by law in Wales or Monmouthshire (in this Act roferred to as the Church in Wales)."
  What was the common argument which was properly used by lawyers and judges when they found in two consecutive sections phrases at variance? It was seen that the Church in Wales was that which was referred to as the Church disestablished, but that was abandoned when Ecclesiastical corporations were dealt with, then it was that the words: "In Wales or Monmouthshire" were used. The consequence was that if there should by chance be an Ecclesiastical corporation which happened to be locally situated across the imaginary boundary, it would be disestablished. The boundary was to be fixed by the Commissioners. This was not an Amendment put forward for the purpose of occupying time, but it was one intended to make the Bill read logically. "An Ecclesiastical corporation in Wales or Monmouthshire" would not be construed as being "An Ecclesiastical corporation of the Church in Wales or Monmouthshire," and he did not think the Solicitor General would controvert that statement. No one could suggest that the Amendments would do any harm, and therefore what possible exception could be taken to them?
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD,)said, that nothing could have been further from the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith), than to have treated this subject in a manner calculated to give offence to hon. Members opposite, and he regretted that the feelings of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir R. Webster) should have apparently-been somewhat ruffled at the right hon. Gentlemen's observations. Had not his honourable and learned Friend made a direct personal appeal to him upon the point in question, he should certainly not have taken any

  1229
  part in the debate upon this Amendment. In answer to the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend, all he could say was that, as regarded the protection to be given to the various other I religious denominations, he was perfectly satisfied with the words as they stood in the Clause, which were amply sufficient to effect that object. They were all agreed in intention on the point, and it certainly did not appear to him that it was necessary that the words in the Clause should be altered in order to carry out that intention. He fully recognised the intention with which the Amendment had been moved, but he could only repeat that he was perfectly with the wording of the Clause as it stood in the Bill.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, that when lawyers in that House differed as to the meaning of words in a Clause, the other Members of the Committee were bound to decide upon the meaning for themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, had said that it did not matter whether the words in the Amendment were inserted in the Clause or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed his opinion that the words were wholly unnecessary to effect the object upon which all parties were agreed, namely, that the various other religious denominations in Wales and Monmouthshire should be protected from the provisions of the Bill, but his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Richard Webster) who, upon a legal question of this kind, was at least as high an authority as the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, had said that the words of the Amendment would make a material difference in the meaning of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, could at once put an end to the discussion by allowing the words of the Amendment to be inserted in the clause.
  MR. C. DIAMONDsaid, that the contention of the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment was that the words he proposed to insert would have the effect of protecting the Catholics in Wales and Monmouthshire. It was a noticeable fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) did not adopt that argument. As far as his information on the subject
  1230
  went, no Catholics in Wales or Monmouthshire imagined for a moment that their interests would be endangered by the provisions of this Bill, and therefore, in his opinion, the Amendment was unnecessary and uncalled for.
  *MR. T. BUCKNILLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, appeared to have forgotten that the Government had given a definition of the words "Cathedral Corporation." In that case, why did they now refuse to define the words "Ecclesiastical Corporation"? The object that the Committee must keep in view was to make this Bill as plain as possible in order that it might be easily intelligible to those who had to construe it. He was certain that a court of law would have much difficulty in explaining the meaning of the words "Ecclesiastical Corporations" unless they were defined in the Bill. It appeared to him that the Government were merely wasting the time of the Committee in refusing to accept this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he thought that considerable risk would be run by allowing the words of the Clause to remain unamended. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that the Clause did not bear the precise meaning that the Government desired should attach to it, and the right hon. Gentleman had now an opportunity of amending the clause so that it should bear the meaning which the Government desired to give it. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who was himself a lawyer was in doubt as to the meaning of the Clause that meaning could not be quite as clear as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General thought it was. He thought the same definition should be given in the Bill of the meaning of the words in question. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman accept the words? No one on the Ministerial Bench had shown that they could do any harm. They were framed on the words already included in Clause I., and were manifestedly wanted, because "Cathedral Corporation" was already defined. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to get the Bill through in reasonable time, he would do well to accept Amendments against which there was nothing to be said.
  MR. E. W. BYRNEsaid, that in the definition clause "Cathedral Corporation" was denned with admirable precision. Amongst other things it included the Dean and Chapter, which "Ecclesiastical Corporation" did not include. A definition for "Ecclesiastical Corporation" being wanted, he followed the reference of the right hon. Member for Denbighshire to "Wharton Law's Lexicon," and from that he learnt that "Ecclesiastical Corporation" meant Bishops, Deans, Parsons, and Vicars. Did the clause mean then that every Bishop, Parson and Dean was to be dissolved? That was ridiculous. An ecclesiastical corporation might be a corporation having operations over the whole of the United Kingdom, and yet situated in Wales or Monmouthshire. Then the words "of the Church in Wales" were precisely the words which were wanted, because they confined the dissolution to Wales and Monmouthshire.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, that it had been shown how the Bishop might be dissolved. Was he right or wrong in supposing that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of all ecclesiastical corporations in Wales? And if he was, was he to be dissolved too, or was he the only ecclesiastical person who was not to be dissolved? Again, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Waltham-stow had introduced a comic element into the discussion which was hardly appropriate. There could be no doubt, as the hon. and learned Gentle man knew perfectly well, about the meaning of the words in point of law The word "dissolved" applied to "corporation," and the words "sole or aggregate" exhausted the categories of corporations. The hon. and learned Member's criticism was not serious. The only real point was that raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, who suggested, surmised o conjectured that there might be a possibility of such a thing as an ecclesiastical corporation situated in Wales geographically, but belonging not to the Church in Wales, but to the Church in England No instances of such an ecclesiastical corporation had been cited, but to put an
  1232
  end to the discussion, which seemed to him to be purely academic, he would agree to insert the words "of the Church in Wales," provided, of course, that the words "in Wales or Monmouthshire" were allowed to follow. What hon. Gentlemen opposite contended for was the intention of the clause and the effect f the clause.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's concession. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to be in the House when the Amendment was Moved, and had replied instead of the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bryce) the matter could have been settled half an hour earlier.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid) rose to Move the addition of the words "of England" after the word "Church."
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Lowther)ruled the Amendment out of order.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that if the Home Secretary would look back to the first section he would find that it was unnecessary to have the words "or Monmouthshire" here, as in;hat section the Church in Wales was described as including Monmouthshire.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY Moved to add the words "as far as they are established by law," after the word "aggregate." The meaning of the Amendment was that these Corporations should simply be dissolved so far as they had any advantage under the present system of establishment. If the Church when disestablished was to be in every way in the same position as any Nonconformist body, there could be no possible reason for objecting to the Amendment. If it were adopted, the clause would provide that cathedral and ecclesiastical corporations in Wales and Monmouthshire should be dissolved so far as they were established by law, but that they should continue to act for al practical purposes in connection with the Church as a body of religious persons and that they should act as they did a present until some constitution and regulations were framed as he proposed to provide in Clause 15. If it were the

  1233
  right hon. Gentleman's desire that no unnecessary hardship or injury should be done to the Church in Wales, he might fairly accept the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the words which the hon. Member proposed to insert were quite unnecessary and were pure surplusage. They had already defined the subject-matter with which they were dealing as "the Church so far as it is established by law." It was the Church and not the individual corporation that was established by law, and the words of the Amendment as applicable to the corporations had absolutely no meaning. He, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. BARTLEYprotested strongly against this manner of treating serious Amendments. Instead of using any argument the right hon. Gentleman simply gave a stereotyped answer. He had much better say at once that he was going to guillotine the whole of the Amendments and pass the Bill as it stood.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the Amendment was based on the fact that there was no definition of the words "established by law." These words had been borrowed entirely from the Irish Act, though the cases of Ireland and Wales were entirely different. The object of the Amendment was to insure that the members of these corporations after the Church was disestablished would have exactly the same privileges as were granted by law to members of other religious communities.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, this was a matter that should be pressed upon the Government. They wanted this proviso to be inserted, in order to place the Corporations on precisely the same equality with Nonconformist bodies. The Amendment was a very reasonable one.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not see how this clause would read if the words of his hon. Friend were inserted. He hoped that he would not go to a Division.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, his object was that those cathedrals and ecclesiastical corporations should be treated in every sense like a Nonconformist body.
  MR. HARRY FOSTERhoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division. The Home Secretary
  1234
  had not shown that there would be any danger or difficulty created if those words were inserted.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the words would be absolutely inappropriate. How could a corporation be partly dissolved and not dissolved? The words of the hon. Member had no sense whatever, and the Government would not consent to their insertion.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERjoined in the appeal to the hon. Member not to divide the Committee, believing that it would be unwise to insert these words.
  MR. BARTLEYread from the Irish Church Act, and showed that the words complained of were actually part of that statute. In these circumstances he preferred to take his own course, and to divide the Committee.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 131; Noes, 198.—(Division List, No. 80.)
  MR. HAYES FISHER MR. HAYES FISHER (Fulham) moved, in Clause 2, page 1, line 18, before the word "after," to insert "no Bishop of the Church of Wales appointed." He said the effect of the Amendment would be to insert words in the second sub-section of the clause limiting the disability of Bishops of the Welsh Church to sit in the House of Lords to those who were appointed after the passing of this Bill. The present Bishops, therefore, would, if the Amendment were carried, be entitled to retain their seats in the Upper House. He confessed that when he looked over the Amendments he was surprised at the extreme moderation of the Gentlemen with whom he acted, and was of opinion that the Bill ought to have provided—even if the Church of Wales were to be disestablished and disendowed—that the present Bishops should retain their representation of the Church in the House of Lords. There could be no doubt that this Bill was a gigantic inroad upon the Constitution. When it was remembered that the Bishops of the Church had held a place in our Parliaments from the earliest times, that they sat in the Saxon Witenagemot, and that Parliament had for so many centuries been composed of the Lords Spiritual as well as the Lords Temporal and the Commons, it was obvious that the exclusion of the Bishops of any part of the Church from the

  1235
  House of Lords was a serious inroad upon the Constitution. It might be worth while for hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether, in addition to despoiling an historic Church, it was wise also to so seriously invade, at the same time, an historic Constitution. There had been more than one attempt that night to invade the Constitution. When he was told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that Bishops should not be allowed to sit in the House of Lords, and when he was told by the eldest sons of Peers on that side of the House that they would not sit in the House of Lords, he began to wonder whether it would ever be necessary to bring either a Bill or a Resolution to abolish that august Assembly. Well, he thought that on this ground also he might argue his case, but as no Amendment had been put down on the general question of the representation in the House of Lords, he would not carry the point further, except to say that if he had his way in forming a representative Chamber—a second Chamber—in this country, instead of removing the Bishops from the House of Lords, he would retain them and give some equivalent representation to Nonconformists in that House. At least, it might be conceded that Bishops who already held seats in the House of Lords ought not to be deprived of the honour, dignity, and influence by this Bill. There were only four of them in the Church of Wales, and what he urged would, after all, be only a very small concession to make. Why should the Bishops of the Church of Wales be treated in the hard and exceptional way proposed? By the Bill compensation was granted to lay patrons and present holders of benefices, while the Bishops and Curates were granted no compensation at all—they were to be the only persons deprived of any position, dignity, or emolument without any compensation whatever for what the Bill took from them. It was unjust and cruel. It was a sentence of deprivation and disfranchisement. For their lives, at all events, and so long as they enjoyed their offices, the Bishops ought to be allowed to remain, as they were now representatives in the Lords. But he did not attach so much importance to the argument from the point of view of the Church interests of this country, as well as of Wales, which
  1236
  their Lordships sat in the House to defend. For the question might be seriously regarded from the point of view also of the interests of the Church in England. There might probably come a time in that period of transition from the present state of affairs to that condition of things which hon. Gentlemen opposite were attempting to set up under this Bill, when the Bishops would be sadly needed by those who belonged to the Church of England to defend the interests of that Church. It was the boast of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Church of England in Wales had scarcely any representation in that House; most of the Welsh Members were the implacable foes of the Church, and surely it was a very small concession that there should be at least four persons in another Chamber to look after the interests of that Church. In the future it might happen that these arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman thought so fair to the Church might be upset, and the very least they could do was that during the period of transition and the lives of the present Bishops they should be allowed to remain in the other Chamber. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite declared that the Bishops were to be no longer summoned to sit in Convocation; in what representative assembly then could they lift up their voices? If the Government believed in the strength of their own case they would make this small concession, especially if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been sincere when he said, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that the Government wished to promote the best interests of the Church. He concluded by moving the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that where matters which were essential were concerned they had shown no want of respect, but this, of course, was a point which it would be absolutely impossible for them to concede. The proposition of the hon. Member was that Bishops of a Disestablished Church, which had ceased to have any connection with the State, and which would stand on precisely the same footing as all the Nonconformist bodies, were still for the term of their natural lives to sit in the House of Lords. By what title could the

  1237
  ministers of any Church in this country which had ceased to be a State Church claim any right to sit in either House of Parliament? He had never heard the doctrine of vested interests carried so far before. The hon. Member thought the presence of the Bishops in the other House was necessary in the interests of the Church; but he had been given to understand by hon. Members opposite that the Church of England and the Church of England in Wales were so indissolubly connected that it was imposssble to make any separation between them; and if that were so, the hon. Member's Amendment amounted to want of confidence in the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, not to mention the temporal Members of the other Assembly, who might be trusted even by hon. Gentlemen opposite to watch over the interests of the Church. He thought the hon. Member might rest satisfied that the interests of the Church would be safe in the other House whatever the effect of this Bill would be, and it would certainly be inconsistent with the principle and object of the Bill to assent to a proposal admitting the Bishops of a Disestablished Church to be members of one of the branches of the Legislature of this country.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENdescribed the Amendment as a good one, and also a modest one. They did not ask that all the Bishops of the Church in Wales should have the right to sit in the House of Lords, but they asked the right hon. Gentleman to carry out what he had stated to be a principle of this Bill, namely, that no individual's position should be made worse by the operation of this measure. The Home Secretary asked why should a Bishop of a Disestablished Church sit in the House of Lords when no representative of any Nonconformist body sat there? They might answer why should the rector of any parish continue to enjoy his endowment during his lifetime? All they asked was that the principle of vested interests in the Church should be maintained. This clause commenced by excluding, after Disestablishment, all Bishops from the House of Lords, and it went on to provide that after the passing of the Act any Bishop, Dean, or Archdeacon of the Church in Wales should
  1238
  continue to enjoy his title and precedence as if the Act had not passed. From that it was clear that the Government did not limit vested interests to pecuniary considerations. They included the question of title and precedence, and, having done that, why should they not include the absolute right a Bishop had to sit in the House of Lords? What was the good of title and precedence if not coupled with the power that a seat in the House of Lords gave? Some Members of the House of Commons, as they knew, would like the title and precedence without sitting in the House of Lords; but that feeling was not shared by the Bishops, and they had no right to prejudice the case by deciding that an existing Bishop at the time of the passing of this Act, might not go to the House of Lords if he wished to do so. If the Government adhered to the proposal as it stood in the Bill, they were breaking entirely through the principle they had already laid down, that no individual affected by the Act should be in a worse position than he was before the Act passed. As his hon. Friend had pointed out, it would be a great advantage to the Church during this transition period if the existing bishops should be allowed to go to the House of Lords. By Clause 14, it was clear that the Church in Wales and the Church of England remained, until the Representative Body decided to the contrary, one and the same Church. Even the jurisdiction of the Archbishop was to remain in force in the Church in Wales, unless he gave it up, or unless the Representative body so decided. Was it not right and proper that when the Government had broken up Convocation and destroyed the power of the Church in Wales to send a representative to that body which the rest of the Church enjoyed, that, at all events they should grant to the existing Bishops there right to still go to the House of Lords? The Representative Body, which came into existence by Clause 15, might decide to get rid of the Archbishop's jurisdiction. That Body, however, might not come into existence for some time after the date of Disestablishment. During that period it was most important that the Church should have some advocates with special knowledge in the House of Lords. It

  1239
  was in this transition period that the whole constitution of the Church would be settled, and he urged that the existing Bishops should at least have conferred upon them the right to sit in the House of Lords for the rest of their lives. On the principle of conserving existing interests, and what was useful and good to the Church, this ought to be granted. Why should these Bishops not sit in the House of Lords? He should like to ask the Home Secretary on what principles Bishops sat in the House of Lords at all at present. Very well; if they objected to the bishops in the House of Lords, let them say so, and bring in a Bill. According to the "Constitutions of Clarendon," it would be found that the Bishops were originally sent to the House of Lords, not as spiritual persons, but as tenants in fee to the Crown, and by virtue of the property they held. During the lives of present Bishops the Government did not propose to take away their property; therefore, they did not take away the principal ground on which the Bishops originally were summoned to the House of Lords. Consequently the original reason why they were sent there remained so long as they retained a vested interest in their property. Hon. Members opposite wanted to reform the House of Lords by a system of Life Peerages. But Bishops were practically Life Peers, and yet these were the very people whom the philosophic Radicals opposite wanted to strike out by this clause.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, that while they all admitted that after Disestablishment future Bishops must be excluded from the House of Lords, yet he contended that the present Bishops should remain there as a question of privilege. Now, the Home Secretary asked by what right were the Bishops to be in the House of Lords? His reply was—By the right of possession. By remaining there they would be of use to the Church in Wales. The Home Secretary very naturally said that the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England could look after the interests of the Church in Wales. Of course they would, to the best of their local knowledge; but they could not have the local
  1240
  knowledge necessary for guarding the interests of the Disestablished Church, and that local knowledge would be possessed by the prelates who, he contended, ought to remain there for the rest of their lives at all events. Their presence was peculiarly necessary during the interregnum. In the official and administrative world in which he had moved all his life, he had seen great and sweeping changes, in other countries besides this country of England, and in every case there always had been a saving clause for present incumbents. In the whole of his recollection he could not recall a case in which present incumbents had been so satisfied as the Welsh Bishops would be by the clause he was anxious to see amended. He would say to the Home Secretary as the great woodman—"Woodman, spare these trees at least." The prelates to whom the Amendment applied were very distinguished men. The Bishop of St. Asaph, to mention one out of the four, was one of the lights of the Church and one of the luminaries of the age. He was held in the highest respect and esteem of everyone sitting on the Opposition Benches, and to exclude him from the House of Lords would be a national detriment and a great loss to that Assembly. It was melancholy to reflect that the effects of this clause would be to silence that right reverend prelate's voice in the Parliament of this country.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEwished to say a few words in support of the Amendment. The proposal of the Government was not to reduce the number of bishops in the House of Lords by four. Their plan was to turn out of the House of Lords the four Welsh bishops who by virtue of the occupancy of Welsh sees were now Members of that House, and to introduce in their places four new Bishops from among the English Bishops. He would draw attention to the extraordinary drafting of the subsection with which they were dealing. It said—
  "After the date of Disestablishment no bishop of the Church in Wales shall be summoned to or be qualified to sit in the House of Lords as such;"
  and then came a proviso, which was larger in its area than the sub-section

  1241
  to which it was annexed. That provisoran—
  "Provided that every person who is at the passing of this Act a bishop, dean, or archdeacon of the Church in Wales, shall during his life enjoy the same title and precedence as if this Act had not been passed."
  That was the clumsiest proviso ever inserted in any Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: It was in the Irish Act.
  SIR E. CLARKEpointed out that the proviso applied to "bishops, deans, and archdeacons," and was attached to words which referred to Bishops only. The proviso provided for the retention of the Bishops' titles and precedence, whilst the clause abolished their dignity altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no excuse for having the Bishops in the House of Lords because they would represent anybody But there was a precedent for the course which the supporters of the Amendment proposed. Provision was made some years ago for the addition to the House of Lords of certain Lords of Appeal, who were to hold the position during life of Lords of Parliament, and a Lord of Appeal might now be appointed, and might in a short time, say two years, resign his position as Lord of Appeal, and yet, during the remainder of his life, he would continue to be a Lord of Parliament. This was not a question of reducing the number of Bishops in the House of Lords. He must take the scheme of the Government altogether if he took it at all, and he supposed they would adhere as strongly to the proposal in Sub-section 3 that four new English Bishops should be allowed to sit, as they would to the proposal to exclude the Welsh Bishops. He thought it would be more reasonable that the four Welsh Bishops should continue to be Lords of Parliament until the end of their lives. He did not admit that there was any anomaly in the matter at all. Surely it was absolutely right, by the illustration he had given of the Lords of Appeal, who when they ceased to be Judges remained Lords of Appeal, if by the authority of Parliament the established position of these bishops was put an end to, they should be allowed to remain in the position of
  1242
  Councillors of the nation. The Government might wait until they died before they introduced four new English bishops into the House of Lords. He hoped a Division would be taken on the Amendment.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid, that the proposal of the Amendment would retain a serious inequality in a measure which professed to be based on religious equality. Hon. Members opposite had spoken solely in the interest of the Church. He wished to say a word in the interest of the Welsh people. There were 31 representatives of Wales in that House who supported Liberal measures, and when those measures reached the other House they were very often mutilated or defeated by the four Welsh bishops. Anyone who had observed the Divisions in the Local Government Act in the other House would find that was the case. It would be a great grievance to the Welsh people if these right reverend Gentlemen should continue to sit in the other House and misrepresent the opinions of the Welsh people. It would be good for the bishops and good for the Church if none of the bishops occupied seats in the House of Lords, but it would be an extraordinary anomaly if the Welsh bishops should be retained in that House. He was glad to see that two hon. Members opposite intended to propose the omission of Sub-section 3. He thought it would be felt generally that the excission of that part of the Bill would be a considerable improvement.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he had never heard a speech breathing so entirely of the illiberality of Liberalism. The hon. Gentleman desired to get rid of the Welsh bishops from the House of Lords because they did not vote with him, just in the same way as he would get rid of every Member of the House of Commons who voted against him. This question ought not to be fought on such mean arguments, but on arguments of a higher and broader character. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary know that the bishops sat in the House of Lords long before the words "establishment by law" were ever heard of? The term Establishment which the right hon. Gentleman had used as the main groundwork of his argument, only came into use in

  1243
  1700, and the bishops had sat in the House of Lords as Counsellors for a very much longer time than that. The reason why the bishops were summoned to the House of Lords was because they were barons. In a Bill brought in for other purposes, it was proposed to deal with the manner in which persons should be called to the House of Lords. He was not sure whether it was not beyond the sphere of their business and duty to consider the question how peers should be called to the House of Lords. At all events it was clear that the old constitutional idea was this—once a peer always a peer—and that a man called to the House of Lords should not be removed after having once become a peer. The late Solicitor General had adduced the strongest argument with regard to members of his own profession, arguing that when a Law Lord was called to the House of Lords he remained a Peer of Parliament for the rest of his life. It seemed to be suggested that those who were only life peers were useless members of the House of Lords. In the old days, it was when Bishops were in opposition to the King that they had the greatest power. It was Stephen Langton lead the barons who extorted Magna Charta from King John; and the Bishop of St. Asaph was one of the seven Bishops who were sent to the Tower. He asked the Committee to adhere to the constitutional rule that when a peer was called to Parliament he remained a peer all the days of his life. He asked the Committee to omit this clause and not in any way to prejudge a question on which he differed from some of his friends with regard to the House of Lords. The simple question before them was, whether the most constitutional way of dealing with Bishops who had been called to Parliament was not to leave them Peers of Parliament for the rest of their lives.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid the real reason why the Welsh Bishops were to be excluded from the House of Lords was that they had done their duty there
  1244
  and had stood by the Church. Education schemes prepared by the Charity Commissioners became law if they lay unchallenged on the Table of either House for forty days. The Welsh Bishops had called attention to the fact that some of these schemes, relating to Church Schools supported by Church Funds, deprived those schools of their distinctive character by preventing the use in them of the formularies of the Church. On that ground they had successfully opposed those schemes and secured the modification of them, and that was the chief ground for wishing to get rid of the Welsh Bishops.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 191.—(Division List No. 81.)

  DRAFTING OF BILLS.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. THOMAS ELLIS,)THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. THOMAS ELLIS, Merionethshire) moved:—
  "That the Lords Message [8th April] relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Drafting of Bills be now considered: That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider in what manner such inconvenience as arises from legislation by reference in Acts of Parliament to prior enactments can best be avoided: That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith."
  DR. CLARKsaid, that, as a rule, on these Committees the Government had a majority. But in this case the Opposition had a majority. How was this?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Gentleman must raise that point on the nomination of the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  On the question, "That Mr. Hanbury be a Member of the Committee,"
  MR. D. CRILLYobjected.
  Question postponed.
  House adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Mr. Speaker's Retirement.

2. Grand Juries (Ireland) (No. 2).

3. Documentary Evidence.

4. Lands Clauses (Taxation of Costs).

5. Metropolitan Police (Receiver).

6. London (Boundary Street, Bethnal Green) Provisional Order.

7. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).

8. Metropolitan Outer Circle Railway (Abandonment).

9. New market Gas.

10. Bristol Water.

11. Brecon and Merthyr Railway.

12. Legal and General Life Assurance Society.

13. New Russia Company.

14. Edinburgh Merchant Company Endowments.

15. Felixstowe and Walton Water.

16. St. Leonards-on-Sea and Hollington Parishes.

17. Crystal Palace Company.

18. Heriot's Trust.

19. Wrexham and Ellesmere Railway.

20. British Gas Light Company (Staffordshire Potteries).

21. City and South London Railway.

22. East Indian Railway.

23. North Staffordshire Railway.

24. American Mortgage Company of Scotland.

25. Great Southern and Western Railway.

The Commissioners were:—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Carrington, and Lord Kensington.

EXTRADITION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Extradition Acts, 1870 and 1873, was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.— [No. 115].
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MIDWIVES REGISTRATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*LORD BALFOURsaid, he need hardly assure their Lordships that he approached the performance of the task he had set himself under a deep sense of the responsibility which attached to him, not because he had any doubt or misgiving as to the strength of the case which he had to set forth, or that he had any doubt of the need, the clamant need which existed of reform in this matter; but owing to the feeling that he would not be able to do full justice to the strength of the case, and lest the excellence of the case be lost sight of through his failure adequately to perform his part. He would have preferred to see the Bill introduced by someone whose position arid previous experience and training would have been recognised as giving him a right to speak upon the subject. Personally, he approached the question as a layman and he hoped without prejudice, and unbiassed by any past controversies. In taking it up he endeavoured to ascertain the opinions of those who were entitled to express an opinion from technical knowledge, whether on one side or the other. He consulted, so far as he had the power, persons who held official positions. He had the opportunity of having two interviews with the present President of the General Medical Council, and he had also the advantage of the advice and counsel of many personal friends, members of the profession of Medicine, and well entitled to form an opinion on the subject. The information he had been able to get together led him to the conclusion that a case for this measure, or something like it, could be presented, which, so far as its main outlines were concerned, must carry conviction to every unbiassed mind. He supposed their Lordships would expect anyone who undertook to move the Second Reading of this Bill to prove to the House two things—firstly, that an undoubted evil existed; and secondly, that the remedy proposed proceeded on safe and wise lines, and would not bring in its train evils greater than those which now existed, or even any evils at all. As to the first point, he must rely largely on the evidence of others. Anyone who studied the Returns of the

1131
Registrar General would see that there were every year in this country between 800,000 and 900,000 births, and he thought it would surprise many of their Lordships when he said that more than half of those births were attended by midwives only, without any intervention on the part of a fully qualified medical man. Of course it was the case, but it would not lessen the interest their Lordships took in the matter that the great proportion of those cases must take place amongst the humbler or labouring classes of the community. It was also universally acknowledged that the great majority of the midwives who attended those cases were almost wholly, if not wholly, untrained, and were, in too many instances, lamentably ignorant of the important duties they undertook to discharge. In this country alone, amongst European countries, was no care or supervision exercised over the calling of the midwife. It was actually the fact that at the present time no conduct, however improper or disgraceful, would prevent any woman from undertaking and continuing this calling. Even the fact that a woman who had undertaken it had been convicted upon a criminal charge, would not justify any authority in intervening and preventing her continuing the practice. The state of matters consequent upon this was, by competent medical authorities, proclaimed to be that the mortality amongst mothers of the classes who chiefly employed these women was much greater than it ought to be, and much greater than it might easily be. In addition to that, the reports of the out-patient departments of many of the hospitals which were set apart for the treatment of diseases to which women were more peculiarly liable, were crowded with cases showing most lamentable results which had arisen from incompetent attendance during childbirth. In the case of children it was not too much to say that a very large proportion of the cases of ophthalmia, and of partial, and even in some instances of total, blindness, were due to the same cause. This was no new question. It had a long medical and Parliamentary history. They might search the Transactions of the General Medical Council for nearly a quarter of a century, and they would find constant references to it. That
1132
Council had, over and over again, committed itself to the support of a Bill which would run upon the lines of the one he had the honour to submit. They had resolved—
"(1) That this Council regards the absence of public provision for the education and supervision of midwives as productive of a large amount of grave suffering and fatal disease among the poorer classes, and urges upon the Government the importance of passing into law some measure for the education and registration of midwives. (2) That, if any department of Her Majesty's Government were constituted controlling authority in relation to local arrangements made under statute for the licensing and registration of midwives, the Medical Council would, if the Government Department so wished, be willing to advise as to the general rules of education, examination and discipline, which ought to be established in the matter."
The first of those resolutions was proposed and the second was seconded by Sir Walter Foster, who was now Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. The College of Physicians had passed resolutions quite as strong. In 1891 they passed the following resolutions:—
"(1) It appears that there are from 10,000 to 15,000 midwives practising in England and Wales, many of them entirely uneducated and incompetent. This must be taken as an existing fact which cannot be ignored. (2) Midwives are under careful State Regulation in all the other principal countries of Europe, and, in the opinion of your Committee, the education, examination, and registration of midwives in Great Britain are urgently required in the interests of the women they attend."
The usual organs of medical opinion had from time to time been equally emphatic. The Lancet had this in its editorial columns:—
"The records of our coroner's court within the last twenty years would furnish material enough to fill many columns of The Lancet with said illustrations of the fatal results caused by the ignorance, and, what is worse, by the persistent recklessness, of these women in refusing to send for medical aid when it is imperative. It is bad enough in large towns and cities, but what must it be in remote villages and hamlets far away from medical aid? Legislation is absolutely necessary to prevent ignorant and incompetent women from practising for gain to the danger of those women who employ them. A drunken old hag could not obtain a situation as nurse to a hospital or workhouse, but there is nothing to prevent her putting a brass plate with 'midwife' under her name on her door. In this simple fact lies the whole question to be solved."

1133
The British Medical Journal had not been behindhand in expressing a similar opinion. Frequent allusions were made to the same matter in the summing-up of coroners and in the finding of coroners' juries. The Home Office were so impressed last year with the importance of this branch of the subject that they sent a communication to the General Medical Council calling their attention to a letter from the Borough Coroner of Bridgwater in which that gentleman said that at an inquest held by him the jury appended the following rider to their verdict:—
"The jury desire strongly to censure Jane Rugg for not calling in medical assistance upon difficulties arising in the deceased giving birth to a child, and are of opinion that the Legislature should interfere to prevent women acting as midwives unless trained and certificated for such purpose."
One more piece of evidence would be found in a recent charge of the Recorder to the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey. The Recorder said:—
"He regretted very much that the registration of midwives was not compulsory. To his mind registration was of the utmost importance, and he hoped that a Bill dealing with this subject, which had for some time been before Parliament, would eventually become law. Such a law was necessary in the interests of the poor, who might then look forward to the fact that if registration of a midwife; was compulsory, there would be some guarantee that she was able to perform her duties. Anyone at present could call herself a midwife, however ignorant she might be of the very first principles of her duties."
The Parliamentary history of the matter was not less striking or important. In 1878 a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond, then President of the Council, but the part dealing with the Registratration of Midwives did not ultimately receive the Assent of the Legislature. In 1890 another Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and proceeded as far as the Second Reading, but then fell a victim to a not uncommon practice; and those who opposed it, being unable to defeat it on its merit, had recourse to the device of talking it out. In 1892 and 1893 the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to consider the question, which sat during two years. In 1892, the Committee reported as follows:—
"This evidence has shown that there is at present serious and unnecessary loss of life and
1134
health, and permanent injury to both mother, and child in the treatment of childbirth, and that some legislative provision for improvement and regulation is desirable."
The Report of 1893 stated:—
"Your Committee are of opinion that a large number of maternal and particularly infant deaths, as well as a serious amount of suffering and permanent injury to women and children, is caused from the inefficiency and want of skill of many of the women practising as midwives, without proper training and qualification."
Nothing, however, had been done, and no one with a candid mind could read the Report of the Committee without seeing that the following points were established beyond all possibility of doubt:—(1) That midwives did attend the women of the humbler classes in great numbers, and without the supervision of qualified medical men; (2) That midwives were a necessary class; (3) That in very large proportion they were quite untrained and uneducated, and therefore not fit for the important duties which they undertook to discharge; (4) That the mortality amongst the women whom they attended was greater than it ought to be, and that other injuries and evils followed from their want of skill; (5) That education and supervision would do much to reduce these evils, although they might not do away with them altogether. At present there was no proper authority exercised, and no proper standard of teaching. Before these could be secured, the Legislature must give the necessary statutory powers. He would quote the testimony of a man, whose name would be received with respect and attention, as one of the highest authorities in the country—Sir John Williams. Writing a few days ago, he said:—
"64, Brook Street, Grosvenor Square,
"May 11.
"Dear Lord Balfour,—In common with a very large number of medical men, I am grateful to you for introducing into the House of Lords a, Bill for the Registration of Midwives. The large number of births attended by midwives alone, and the frequency of serious, and even fatal, results arising from ignorance on the part of midwives of the process of natural labour, make it most desirable that the poorer women of the country, who are unable to obtain the services of a medical man, should be able to secure the help of a midwife who has an elementary knowledge of midwifery. The mortality after childbirth is considerably greater than is generally supposed. This mortality is

1135
due to two classes of cases, one being preventable and the other not preventable. That due to preventable causes forms the larger section, and amounts to two-thirds or three-fourths of the whole. The preventable causes consist of infection and some forms of abnormal development and departure from the natural mechanism; and upon a knowledge of the means for preventing infection and an ability to distinguish abnormality at an early period depends success in preventing or reducing mortality. It cannot be doubted that the mortality of childbed among the poorer classes would be greatly reduced if the women attending them possessed the elementary knowledge to which I have referred. I am, my Lord, yours truly,—JOHN WILLIAMS."
Could anything be more striking? According to this high authority, there was a large mortality due to preventable causes. It meant that this preventable loss of life might fall in the most tragic manner on otherwise happy homes. Let noble Lords think of the labouring man, in the prime of life, with steady and fairly paid work, and healthy children; and imagine the sudden loss, by preventable causes, of a useful life—a loss turning all the happiness and prosperity into misery and despair. He would next turn to the second part of the question—Were the proposals contained in the Bill a well-considered and wise measure of reform? The provisions were short and simple. First, they provided for the registration of midwives, and prohibited those who were not registered from using the title of "Midwife." The Bill did not prohibit unregistered women from practising as midwives; that could not be done. Common humanity would permit anyone to go to the assistance of a fellow-creature in pain or misery, and it was impossible to forbid that assistance being accepted. The Bill in this respect followed the precedent of former legislation. The Medical Act of 1858 prohibited any person from wilfully and falsely pretending to be or take or use the name of a physician, doctor of medicine, &c. The Dentists Act of 1878 provided that a person shall not be entitled to take or use the name or title of "Dentist," &c. Then, there was the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1881, which provided that no person "other than a person who for the time being is on the register of veterinary surgeons," should "take or use the title of veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner." Parliament had actually taken more care of the animals under
1136
human charge than of women who were attended by midwives. Finally, there was the precedent of the Pharmaceutical Society. The right to use the title "Pharmaceutical Chemist" was restricted to certain persons by the provisions of the Pharmacy Act 1852, and the right to use the title "Chemist and Druggist" was restricted to certain persons by the provisions of the Pharmacy Act 1861. Therefore the Bill proceeded on the sound and well-considered lines of measures already accepted by Parliament. Next, the Bill formed a Board which would keep the register and admit midwives to registration after proper examination. The Board would also make rules for examinations and for the guidance and control of midwives in their calling. In all these matters, the Board would be subject to the control of the General Medical Council, and the Bill in this part differed a little from the original draft published in some of the medical papers, one reason for this was that it had been altered to meet the wishes of the President of the Medical Council himself. Then certain privileges were given to those on the register—such as the use of the title of "Midwife," the right to recover fees by law; and it imposed penalties for fraud and for disobedience of the rules. All those specialists on the diseases of women whom he had consulted, approved of the form in which the Bill was drafted. Some objections had been urged against the Bill, and one very prominently. It was that the Bill introduced a new class of medical practitioners—that it was going to put women on a different footing from men in this matter, because no man was a qualified practitioner until he had qualified in each of the three branches—medicine, surgery, and midwifery. But this was an objection that could not be sustained. The Bill did not turn these women loose without control. It simply provided that they should be so far qualified as to be able to recognise the limits of what they ought to attempt, and to recognise them early enough to call in a qualified medical man. It was impossible to prevent the women from practising, and was it better do what was possible in the way of improving their position, increasing their education, developing their facilities

1137
of training, and putting them under a certain control and supervision? If this Bill did nothing else, it would for the first time give the means and power to the people who employed the midwives of discriminating between those who were qualified to a certain extent and those who were not. There was no means of giving effect to the registration of midwives at present except by the action of a voluntary body, which had not been altogether popular. Another highly technical objection was that it used the expression "natural labour," which could not be defined in an Act of Parliament. The point he wished to impress on these objectors was that while, at the present time, midwives often did not know when labour was going on naturally and when it was not, the amount of attention and training to be given to them would enable them to know when the services of a medical man were necessary. He could fortify himself by an authority which he thought their Lordships would accept on this point. Two years ago, after the Report of the Select Committee was issued, The Lancet had a leading article on the subject. It cast a great amount of ridicule on those who took the objection to which he was referring. These were the words of the article:—
"We have not much sympathy with the remark that it is impossible to define 'natural labour.' We live in a practical world, and it is not impossible to lay down rules of conduct intelligible to women of any training that will enable them to know when to send for medical assistance, and enable those who supervise them to know when they have been culpable in not so sending."
That was the answer which they gave to the objection, and they hoped that it would be regarded as a satisfactory one. There was, however, one objection which had not been raised which he felt bound to refer to for fear of misconstruction. It had not been actually suggested, but it was impossible to be blind to the fact, that it had been hinted that one effect of the Bill would be to take away business from medical men. Their Lordships knew the medical profession well enough, however, to believe that such an objection would not be raised by any large body of it. But if it were raised, it was an objection which Parliament would not listen to for a moment. He thought that their Lordships held the medical
1138
profession in far too high esteem to believe that any large body of doctors would raise a narrow-class interest of that kind against what he believed to be a great reform. So far from the Bill having this effect, however, he believed that the effect of this legislation would be to teach women when to send for medical advice, and the essence of the whole question was prompt and early attendance. This was no question of Party conflict; it was one of domestic reform. He believed it to be one of the greatest importance to a large class who were little able to help themselves. Some measure of this kind was a clamant necessity in the interests of public health, as well as in the interests of common humanity. The Bill would afford at least a chance to those most interested to know whether those they employed were possessed of reasonable knowledge and skill, or whether they were dangerously, and, he might add, criminally ignorant. There were the three proverbial courses before Parliament in this matter. To let the matter alone, a course which he thought no one would be found to defend; to prevent midwives altogether from exercising their calling, which he thought was not possible; or to accept some wise and well-considered reform, such as that which he had endeavoured to explain to their Lordships, and to the Bill enacting which he hoped most earnestly their Lordships would give a Second Reading.
LORD THRINGsaid he took a great interest in this subject. They were all agreed as to the necessity for educating midwives, but there remained behind one consideration to which their Lordships ought to give attention. They ought to do justice to the 8,000 or 10,000 women who were at present engaged in this occupation—admitted to be a necessary one. The women, under this Bill, would not be able to obtain any education at all, be cause the Bill placed education almost out of their way. It raised the standard too much, and no doubt it was a measure which pleased the doctors very well. He did not blame the doctors; naturally they wished to exalt their art to the utmost; but the effect of the Bill would be to refer everything to a Council on which there were no lady doctors or laymen. A strictly professional Council

1139
would make regulations for the midwives. There was not a hint in the Bill of the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons that there should be local examinations, and that the local infirmary and local hospital should be utilised for the purpose of educating those women. Then, again, the Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended that the County Councils should have a controlling power; and they ought to have. It was, indeed, a local question. The whole Bill, however, was a centralised system of education in London of a most expensive character, quite unattainable by those poor women. He could not imagine anything wilder than the way in which that Bill was drawn. The Bill depended on the definition of midwife—
"a woman who undertakes to attend cases of natural labour with the direction and supervision of a medical practitioner."
No such thing; a midwife never "undertakes." in a legal sense, or in any way, with the direction and supervision of a medical practitioner. This was a specimen of the little consideration which had been given to the details of the Bill. He thought that the object of the Bill was most excellent; but he trusted that it would be referred to a Select Committee, and that due care would be taken to see that midwives were properly represented on the Council. Above all, the examinations of midwives should be local, and the expense ought to be reduced to the lowest possible point.
*LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the Government had no objection to the general principle involved in the Bill, though they considered that, probably, several Amendments might be necessary. If the noble Lord would put himself in communication with the Privy Council he thought that the suggested Amendments would commend themselves to him, as he hoped they would be found useful to the general public. There was certainly a large amount of ignorance among the midwives engaged in cases of natural labour throughout the kingdom; and there wag, undoubtedly, also a great deal of preventible illness which would not occur if more competent midwives were engaged. At the same time, the Government had always found it extremely difficult to
1140
deal with the question on account of the interests involved. This was not the first or the tenth time that this subject had been before Government. It was considered two centuries ago very seriously by the Governments of the day; and during the time that the medical Acts were passing through Parliament in 1878 the Government prepared clauses which were objected to by the Medical Council on the ground that they thought the subject should not be mixed up with medical reform; therefore, the clauses for the protection of women from unskilled midwives fell to the ground. The noble Lord said that he was justified in trying to define what "natural labour" was which midwives, qualified or not, might attend. That was one of the points of weakness in the Bill. He admitted that it was extremely difficult to define. The Bill mentioned that they might attend cases of natural labour, but if it was unnatural that then the medical man should be sent for. He thought that there must be some definition of this kind, but cases of unnatural labour were not frequent. Out of 15,000 cases analysed 983 in the thousand were cases of natural labour, and only for the balance were midwives obliged to send for the medical man. Still it might cause a considerable amount of litigation, and persons would not know their powers under the Bill if it was left as vague as at present. Then there arose a serious question. The Bill provided that no one should call herself a midwife alone or with an adjective unless she had been examined, certified, and registered. Now midwife was one of the oldest words in the English language, and it would be extremely difficult for any Bill to create a monopoly in the use of the word, and to say that persons who were not registered should not call themselves midwives. It was an old Saxon word, which arose from the woman getting mede, a guerdon, or a reward for her services. Their Lordships could not, therefore, monopolise it for one class of persons—an educated class, who were to exercise an art with skill. They might say "registered midwives" or "qualified midwives," but to take the name of midwife, which was the common property of all women, engaged now or in the future in this work, would be exceedingly difficult without some restriction. He called

1141
attention to Clauses 8 to 12 simply because he feared that they enjoined so much and were so elaborate that in practice they would defeat the Bill and prevent its success. They would prove to be so costly in their administration that it would be exceedingly difficult to make the Bill work. He thought that the fee of two guineas for examination and registration was too high for persons of this class. He believed that more money would be obtained if a lower fee was taken and if the examinations were local as well as central. He assured the noble Lord that personally, as well as officially representing the Privy Council, he had much sympathy with the Bill; but he would ask the noble Lord to postpone its further consideration for a little while, so as to enable the Government to consider what Amendments they should put down before the Committee Stage.
*LORD BALFOURsaid, that he cheerfully accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord who had just spoken, not only to confer with the Privy Council as to the details of the Bill, but also to consult him and other noble Lords before putting down the Bill for Committee.
Bill read 2a.

NATURALISATION (RESIDENCE ABROAD) BILL.
Passed through Committee and reported without Amendment.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, said: I desire to express, in the first instance, the great sorrow that I feel on account of the death of Lord Selborne, who took the greatest interest in former Bills of this kind. His vast knowledge and labour, the minute diligence with which he investigated matters, and his zeal for the Church's good, make the best friends of the Church feel that the Church has lost in him her very best friend. His last letter to me, written only a few weeks ago, expressed approval of the principles of the present Bill, and his opinion that those principles are well carried out in the various clauses. This
1142
Bill resembles that which was before the House of Commons last year, and also that which was before your Lordships the year before, in this important respect, that it aims, not at being a complete scheme of Church patronage, but simply at meeting some of the worst abuses. It aims at stopping, if possible, and, at any rate, making so difficult as to be almost impossible, those sales of what is considered property in Church patronage—those sales which are incompatible with the highest aspects of a trust, for our law has always considered that the principal aspect of an advowson is that it is a trust of the highest and most sacred character. This Bill is very like those which I have mentioned, but criticism, which has been invited and carefully used has improved it in some important particulars. I need not argue the evil in process amongst us. The evil lies in the ignoring of the trust. The purchase of the right to present to a benefice is one thing; but the purchase of the right to decide as to the purchaser's own fitness, then to present himself, and to take Church and people and Sacraments and sick and dying in hand next week, is a very different thing. The purchase of the next presentation is very different from acquiring property in the advowson. It is so felt, and it contradicts the best religious instincts of the poorest and least educated of our people. It is quite true that good men have purchased livings and presented themselves to them, but even a good man does not get over the taint in the mind of his parishioners, and this feeling is a serious matter, they are apt and sure to say if anything goes wrong—
"What else can you expert, when you know he bought himself into the cure of our souls?"
The evil, whatever it is, is distinctly on the increase, though its area is limited, for it is a singular fact how the same livings get sold over and over again. From want of attention to the evil as it is now, and from want of provisions on the subject, the evil is increasing, and there is a practical reason why it should increase. The value of benefices is going down, and is, in fact, so far reduced that the purchase of an advowson or next presentation is the very best investment that a clergyman can make, as he can obtain a rate of interest immeasurably beyond

1143
what he can get in any other way; and if he can leave it behind him as property it is property which yields an immense rate of interest. As the value of livings goes down, the sales of livings increase. This is a matter of fact. For instance, there were 83 advertisements of advowsons in the advertising columns of The Times during the months of January and February 1895, against 37 in the two corresponding months of 1894. Again one single firm in its list offered 82 livings in the single month of January, 1895, with immediate possession. I have before now quoted to your Lordships shameless advertisements, but I should like to read two or three selected from advertisements actually in circulation now, simply to show the House that, while the language has become rather less barefaced, their description and character show that they are intended for a class of persons very unlike that spiritual pastor whom your Lordships would most wish to see in livings of your own, in love with his work and with his people. The advertisements run in this strain:—
"This preferment is only suited to a clergyman who is prepared to give a, fair price for a really desirable county benefice." "This is an unusually desirable gentleman's property."
Then comes a description of a house and grounds, concluding:—
"This is a very compact gentleman's property, in perfect repair."
The descriptions are interlarded with announcements that the benefices are near good towns or convenient railway stations, that yachts or fishing are to be had, and, what speaks for itself, "first-class society." There are also even more serious defects appearing in the advertisements. One is, that "there are no schools." This would attract the kind of man who wants no trouble with the children of his parish. Another is, that the income of the benefice is derived from tithe rent-charge and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That means actually that where a living with very poor means has been lately augmented by this body and brought up to, say, £300, this is used, as an instrument to make a large sum out of the sale of the benefice. The amount even of charities bestowed on a parish is held out as showing that there will be no
1144
demands made on the pastor. These descriptions are also, in some cases, coloured with such nauseous statements as that an "Evangelical" or a "Catholic" clergyman is required by such salesmen. The list of advertisements put out by some advertising firms is very large, and one of the leading agents told the Royal Commission who examined him on the subject that three-quarters of his transactions were illegal. But there are many people who never come near an agent at all, so that this by no means reveals the amount of the evil that is going on. A firm of agents sent me a circular the other day stating that—
"owing to their being University men, their relations with their clients had always been pleasant;"
and no wonder, when they add that as they commanded the assistance of a firm of lawyers, they could "assure the patron of every safeguard with regard to simony." Violation of the law was never asserted in a more determined way than this. But what is the kind of men who are being introduced into the Church in the meantime, and what is the kind of training which all this exercises upon the men? A clergyman the other day was offered a preferment of large value, and he was prepared to give between £10,000 and £20,000 for it. While the transaction was being completed the incumbent died. The patrons, however, proceeded, and thought the purchaser would in honour complete the bargain; but as soon as he was placed in possession he turned round and declined to give the original sum, because, whereas when he entered on the purchase there was an aged incumbent in the living, now there was a young incumbent, himself, and therefore the living was of much less value, and he declined to pay. Is such a man as that the kind of pastor the English Church creates? Is it decent that a system which encourages and makes possible such a class of men, and such a state of morals should continue? It is exercising a pernicious effect upon the Church. The aim of this Bill then is simply to make the present law effective. We have no desire to alter the law. We have no wish to interfere with any person's rights, but those rights must be regarded in view of the law as it exists, and all we

1145
aim at is to make the law a reality. The law has always spoken most decidedly against the sale of vacant livings; but the practice which has arisen now is the effort to evade the law and to make easy the sale of practically vacant livings. What we desire to interfere with is the evasion of the law, these tricks against the law, not to alter the spirit of the law. There is a new form of advertisement, offering immediate "legal" possession. "Legal" possession! That is done by actually turning the law as to resignation itself into a instrument of fraud. All these elusions are calculated to introduce into the Church a class of men whom good Churchmen, I am sure, do not desire to have ministering to them. For the existing state of things is a scandal and stumbling-block to the very best of our people. I cannot help saying that it is like the buying and selling in the Temple, and while I hold that private patronage is most serviceable both to the nation and to the Church, I am quite sure that if these abuses are not corrected private patronage will be abolished with them. But I am persuaded that these abuses can be prevented, and that private patronage can be protected; and it is with the view of making the law effective for this purpose that the Bill has been introduced. I might be asked what the great body of the clergy think of the Bill, and whether they are prepared to accept it. I can only say that it has been subjected to their criticism, has been improved by that criticism, and that it is now acceptable to the great mass of the clergy. The Bill has been approved by the clergy in Convocation and by the Houses of Laymen in both Provinces. Sion College, a vigilant guardian of their interests, the London Diocesan Conference, and the Church Congress have approved the Bill. Certain objections which were at first entertained by those whom I may term honest purchasers of advowsons—who are as anxious as any people to see the law made real—have been met, as well as those of others, by omitting the clauses as to compulsory resignation and sequestrations. Efforts have also been successfully made to meet the objections of certain bodies of trustees, whom we have bought under the list of public patrons—bodies of trustees without powers of sale—and their rights
1146
are safeguarded by the Bill. There is a class of objectors whom we have not tried to meet. An association largely composed of those who have bought their livings, and are still in the interest of the agents. You send to the chambers which are called their office, and you are referred for their papers to a notorious firm of agents. How is the Bill to act? The main idea of this Bill is to provide efficient means to render illegal purchases unsafe without trenching on recognised rights of property. It is proposed to effect this by enacting that whenever a benefice is transferred from patron to patron, or transmitted, except by devise, death, or action of law, the transferee shall not present to any vacancy occurring within a year. The principle is the same as it is in the case of a gift of real property; a man making a gift to a charity must by law, in order as far as possible to prevent heirs from being defrauded, live a year afterwards, or his transfer of property takes no effect. In bankruptcy, to prevent fraud, an assignment of property must be made, I think, ten years before the bankruptcy. So here the hope is to prevent simony by providing that when a living is purchased the new owner shall not present to it within 12 months. A longer period has been proposed, but I believe one year would be quite sufficient, simply because these people do not trust one another; a common practice is to deposit the money in the hands of a third person, simply because there is no trust. They know the transaction in which they are engaged is illegal, and that if a man takes advantage of the law in one respect they will in another. I am assured by those who have had a great deal to do with transactions of this kind that one year is quite sufficient to discourage simoniacal transactions. I will now return to the question of the protection of the honest person. By the Bill of last year a vacancy which occurred within two years was not to be filled up by the new owner, and the presentation to the living was to go to the Bishop. Difficulties were felt in regard to that, and it is now provided in this Bill that the lapse shall be to the Crown, with this provision—that the Crown is not to take advantage of the lapse if it receives a certificate from

1147
proper persons who investigate the matter, armed with powers to investigate, that the transaction was honestly meant and accomplished. A man who has just bought a large property may wish to buy the advowson of the neighbouring church, because it is to him a matter of the highest interest that there should always be a fit person presented to the living, and it would be very hard on such a man if, after having bought the advowson, the clergyman should die, or be promoted, within 12 months, so that he would not again have an opportunity of presenting to the Church for perhaps 40 years. The right person to inquire whether the advowson has been bought honestly is the Bishop—the Bishop and his officers, who are in the habit of considering the propriety of institution. The new arrangement relieves the Bishop also of the possible odium of the living lapsing to him; he can have no kind of interest in it. I believe that the people will trust the Bishops to act in the most thorough spirit of investigation. It has been said that the Bishops were hungry for Church patronage; but from my experience, and from that of all other Bishops, I can say that of all duties they have to perform, the patronage of the livings is one of the most difficult and delicate; it is open to perpetual criticism. Their object is not to possess themselves of livings, but to find the right man to fill them. I believe then that this interposition of a year will prevent subterfuge, and will make the spirit and letter of the law agree, and by this simple method we hope to alter this great scandal and make it thoroughly unsafe to purchase livings with dishonest intent. The Bill deals with other matters which can be more fully explained in Committee. One of them is, that it gives the power of remonstrance, or representation, to the parish before appointment. I believe there is a great deal of feeling on this subject, and also that strength will be given to a new incoming incumbent through his name having been submitted to the parish in that way. Then, again, the Bill proposes to strengthen the administrative right of the Bishop to refuse vicious and incapable men; it is not left entirely in the hands of the Bishop, as judicial proceedings are also provided afterwards, and the Bishop may be called upon to justify
1148
his refusal. Proper power is therefore given to investigate the case. At present the Bishop may be put to great expense, even if he succeed in proving his point. The Bill also proposes to abolish donatives, which are really the most potent instrument that these simoniacal dealers have at present. Finally, the Bill will prevent clergymen henceforth from presenting themselves, which I believe to have been always the intention of our Statutes. The cap. 11 of the Act passed in the 13th year of Queen Anne begins:—
"Whereas some of the clergy have procured preferments for themselves by buying ecclesiastical livings, and others have thereby been discouraged:"
and it then proceeds to forbid the sale of next presentations. I cannot interpret that in any other way than that at that time the sale of advowsons was very rare, and that the only sale of livings was by purchase of next presentations. I repeat then that the aim of this Bill is not to construct an ideal system of patronage; it recognises the present state of things, but attempts to remove the evils. The construction of a complete system of patronage is too great an undertaking to be done at once, and for the present I am content if I can, as I hope by this Bill to do, effectually remove the shameful scandals by which patronage is defiled.
*LORD GRIMTHORPEacknowledged willingly that this was the best Bill on this subject which he had seen. Some of the objections he had made to former Bills of the kind, though they were rather sneered at then, have been gradually admitted. The first, of 1887, was entirely remodelled, both in form and substance. The proposal of 1893 not to allow a resale of patronage for the monstrous period of 21 years had been reduced to one, and that with a qualification to protect the owner from suffering by a purely accidental cause, which was probably sufficient. He believed that a Bill removing some of the most objectionable features of the exercise of Church patronage might have been passed many a time, and certainly in 1887, without the slightest difficulty; but people had been allowed to ride their hobbies too hard, with the result that the Bills introduced had always been injudiciously encumbered. He thought that in one or two points

1149
this Bill went rather too far, and in one it did not so far enough. He thought the right to devise, as well as to transfer, advowsons to public bodies ought to be allowed. Indeed, it seemed to have been omitted by mistake, as the 1893 Bill contained it, and nobody objected. The most serious defect still was the mode of dealing with objections to institution or collation. Sub-section 4 of Clause 6 provided that a month's notice was to be given to the parishioners before a clergyman was instituted to a benefice, and that representations in writing objecting to the institution might be lodged by any parishioner. He agreed with the expediency of giving notice to the parishioners before any presentation was made. But there, was no limit of time in regard to the misconduct that might be alleged against the clergyman. Was a clergyman to be called upon to face charges of this kind ranging over all his life? Something done in his college days, for instance, might be raked up against him. Under the old Clergy Discipline Act two years was the limit. He had thought the period too short, and in 1892 it was extended to five years. But under this Bill there was no limit whatever. Any old story of a clergyman's life might be sent to the Bishop by any person, and the clergyman would be obliged to meet it. To fix no limit to the period was against the principle of English law, except in the case of actual crime; and even in the case of actual crime no such indefinite time was allowed in the Clergy Discipline Act. Moreover, the less the time was limited, the greater facility and temptation were offered to blackmailers as well as informers for mere spite, especially with such a mode of trial was was now proposed. For the clergyman, was to be tried for any alleged misconduct by his Bishop in camera. There was nothing to show how the trial was to be conducted; there were no prescribed rules of evidence. To deal with cases of that kind they should have competent judges, free from all suspicion of prejudice. Did anybody imagine that a Bishop, who had offered to collate a man to a living or a canonry, would be regarded as standing in the same relation to him as to one presented by a stranger, and both of them perhaps notoriously differing from the theological views of the Bishop? In 1873, during
1150
the progress of the Judicature Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury moved that all appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts (including ecclesiastical appeals) should be heard by a lay judge. Bishop Wilberforce supported the Amendment and said—
"I do not think that judgments in ecclesiastical cases by Bishops are likely to be as just, or if they were, to appear as just, as judgments pronounced by judges who are not ecclesiastics."
That, too, was the ultimate opinion of Parliament. Indeed, if he were a Bishop he would say that he could not properly try those charges, unless both parties consented. One thing he was quite certain of, and that was—that the first time a clergyman was kept out of a benefice under this Bill, by a Bishop who was opposed to him in ecclesiastical views, there would be a strong feeling that he had not got justice. The Bishop was, of course, bound to assign reasons for rejecting the clergyman; but these might be excuses and not reasons. He must be a poor Bishop indeed, who could not make reasons that would hold water. At least he could, and many of the Bishops were as clever as he was in that way. That was a position in which the Bishops would not like to find themselves, but they were put into it by the Bill. It was a matter that would require more careful and quiet consideration than it had received yet. They were told there was an appeal to the Archbishop, and that the Archbishops always sat with an assessor in hearing similar appeals now. But that was not a real trial. He would not "assess" an Archbishop on those terms He would say: No; if you mean me to act as a judge, either with or without what may be called a jury, I will do so; but if you mean that I am to sit merely to keep you straight on legal matters, I will not. But, further than that, there was no obligation in the Bill that the Archbishop, or a Bishop, should sit with an assessor. In a paper which had been circulated regarding the Bill it was said:—
"The secretary of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Lee, a lawyer of long experience, testified in the Poole case what the Archbishop's 'hearing' under 1 and 2 Viet. c. 106, customarily was. In his affidavits he said: His Grace did not at such hearing sit as a Court, but as the Archbishop in person, in camerâ suâ. That there

1151
were no minutes, pleadings, or acts in court made, entered, or brought in previous to the hearing of the appeal. That there were no witnesses examined on the hearing of the appeal with reference thereto, or the acts which formed the subject-matter thereof or otherwise. That His Grace, under the advice of his assessor had refused the evidence of witnesses tendered at the appeal on behalf of the appellant, and excepting the statement of the appellant himself, and of three persons, not purporting to be taken on oath, there were not any documents in the nature of depositions or affidavits read or used. That during the time the deponent had been secretary of the Archbishop all appeals had, under the provisions of the Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, been made in writing, pursuant to the 111th section of the Act, and decided by His Grace upon such written documents; and that no appellant or respondent had eves been heard virâ voce, or by oral testimony of the witnesses, or by counsel or agent.'"
He was quite willing to believe that the present Archbishop of Canterbury did always sit with an assessor; whether the other Archbishop did he did not know, but he concluded not, as he had never been asked to sit with him. It was further said in the paper—
"So much for the 'historic continuity' of the practice actually adopted. The Queen's Bench, indeed, held that the Archbishop, though bound to 'hear' the accused, was left perfectly free as to the details of the 'hearing.' Lord Campbell said: 'As to the mode of hearing we give no opinion.' Lord Justice Compton said: 'Whether it would be a hearing to say "you shall put all in writing" would be another question; it is not necessary for us to give an opinion on that. He must hear. And if, in the course of the argument, counsel or parties wish to introduce important matter, that is a question for the Judge presiding over the argument, whether he does or does not want to hear such matters as may be inconvenient for him to hear.' "
He rather gathered that was in 1873— [The Archbishop of CANTERBURY: "I think it was 50 years ago."] The Poole case? ["Yes."] That may have been so, but there was no evidence of any change of practice, and certainly there was no legal obligation. Even if it were provided by the Bill, that the Archbishop should always sit with an assessor, he did not think that was the way a clergyman ought to be tried. The question of expense was, of course, given as a reason for such a summary and injudicial way of ruining a clergyman who was prepared to face the cost rather than lose everything. And if the expense to the Bishop was a serious thing what was it to a poor clergyman? It was a monstrous thing
1152
that at this time of day in England, a clergyman should be told:—
"You shall not have a trial by any kind of jury; you shall only go before the Bishop and his assessor, and if you can satisfy them well and good, but if not you will be condemned for life."
Some of their Lordships would remember the care that was taken, both at the Lambeth meeting, which the most rev. Prelate fully described in 1890, and in that House afterwards, which agreed with it, to secure a full trial of charges under the Clergy Discipline Act; and he could not conceive why Incumbents were less entitled to it at the beginning of their career than at any other time. He could not help thinking a great deal of good might be done by cutting down this Bill, he did not mean permanently, but by having some further consideration about matters of that kind. He thought a great improvement might take place if this part of the Bill were postponed, especially when they remembered how matters had progressed in consequence of the delays which had taken place hitherto.
*THE BISHOP OF LONDON: was very glad the noble Lord who had just addressed them had come to the position of being favourable on the whole to this Bill. He had on previous occasions, been rather hostile—[Lord GRIMTHORPE: "To other Bills."]—to other Bills of a similar character. He was glad they had succeded in satisfying his Lordship so far, and with regard to the particular provisions on which he had spent his time, that he only implied that the Bill ought not to pass as long as Clauses 6 and 7 were in it. There was a good deal to be said in answer, but anyhow this was a kind of objection which could be more properly dealt with in Committee than upon the Second Reading, because it did not really touch the principle of the Bill at all. The analogy followed in the Bill was that of the ordinary dealing with a licensed curate. A licensed curate, as everyone knew was liable to have his licence revoked by the Bishop of the diocese on such grounds as satisfied the Bishop that it was no longer proper he should continue to hold his licence. This was the sort of judicial duty which no Bishop could escape from discharging. He supposed every Bishop who had been on the

1153
Bench for more than six months must have, in some way or other, some experience of the working of that procedure. What happened was, that the Bishop sent for the Curate to appear before him and to show cause "why his licence should not be revoked." He did not know of any Bishop who would call upon a man to answer a charge and at the same time not take care to produce the evidence upon which the proposal to revoke was grounded. He had revoked licences, but the Curate had always had the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and of putting forward his defence. He had never known a Bishop refuse to allow a Curate to bring witnesses on his own side. It might be said:—
"Why not have a regular open court for the judging of such questions? Why leave it in the Bishop's hands at all?"
His experience was, that, as a general rule, the person to be tried proposed that nothing should be said about the matter, that it should be kept as private as possible, because, in the view of some people, it was a slur to be tried at all. If the decision were contested, an appeal was made to the Archbishop, and he always heard the cases in open court. It was a very long time indeed since any Archbishop had heard a case of this kind without some legal assessor with him. In three cases there had been appeals against his (the Bishop of London's) decisions. The Vicar General had always been there as the Archbishop's assessor, and the Vicar General had taken the position which a lawyer in such cases invariably took. In theory, when the Archbishop or Bishop called in an assessor, he was supposed to decide the question himself, and the assessor simply stood by and took care the Bishop or Archbishop did not make any legal mistake; but he did not think it was ever so in practice. When Bishop of Exeter, he, in the case of Philpotts v. Boyd, asked an assessor to sit with him. It never occurred to him he should sit there and conduct the trial, and let his assessor simply advise him here and there where he thought a blunder was being made. He asked the assessor to conduct the trial for him. As
1154
a matter of fact, the matter was entirely in the hands of Mr. Justice Keating, for it was he who was good enough to come down an act as assessor. If it were desirable to make things more clear and definite, in the direction which the noble Lord had indicated, he did not see any reason why they should not consider the matter in Committee. But he deprecated a postponement of the Bill altogether simply because the noble Lord was not prepared with any Amendments which he thought were necessary. Reference had been made to previous Bills. Those Bills had passed through their Lordships' House, and they had not been rejected in the Lower House. They had not been passed in the House of Commons for lack of time to consider them. It certainly could not be said that the objections had been pushed to such a length as to interfere with the acceptance of the Bills. He therefore, hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a Second Reading, and if there were Amendments which it was right to introduce, he should be very ready to take his part in considering them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he entirely sympathised with the most reverend Prelate's desire to put an end to the scandals to which he had referred. His only complaint against the Bill was that it did not go nearly far enough. It prevented the sale of livings or any right of patronage by public auction; but he should like to see a measure which would prevent the sale of livings at all. The notion that a living or a presentation to a living was a thing to be bought and sold was descended from evil times, when men did not realise their duties, but regarded as a right of property what they should have regarded as a sacred trust. The idea of a man selling the presentation to a living would never be countenanced nowadays. It had come down by tradition, and he admitted the difficulty of getting rid of it altogether; but to prevent, the sale by public auction merely would not get rid of much of the scandal to which reference had been made. Many of the advertisements which had been quoted had no reference to sale by public auction; and they would continue

1155
to appear if sale by private contract were allowed. Public opinion of late years had been very much changing in the direction which he had indicated; and nowadays it would not be felt to be an unjustifiable attack on property, as would have been the case many years ago, if the right of buying and selling livings were much more limited than the Bill proposed. He recognised the difficulty of dealing with the question, and that if too much were attempted the attempt might fail altogether, but he doubted whether much was done by forbidding sale by public auction. Perhaps such sale was more scandalous than sale by private contract, but the result of this prohibition was to appear to give a fresh sanction to all those sales which were not conducted by public auction. He thought it would be better to omit that provision altogether, and simply deal with the question of presentations. No one could deny that Lord Grimthorpe had touched upon a very serious question. Everyone would agree that it was desirable to extend the power of the Bishop to deal with the cases of presentees whose past conduct had been such as to make their occupation of the new living, however much to their own advantage, a great detriment to the parishioners. But, of course, it was a very serious matter to refuse on such grounds the institution of a man who had been presented. It must ruin him for the rest of his life. In the first instance, of course, every presentee would desire that the inquiry by the Bishop should be private, for, however much the inquiry might result in his favour, a public inquiry often led to some dirt sticking, and that would be bad for the presentee when instituted. It would be worth considering whether, when the decision was against the presentee, it would not be well to give assurance that the appeal would be a real and substantial appeal, in which the case would be satisfactorily reconsidered.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid that, in view of the enormous difficulty in the way of Bishops getting rid of men who were disgracing the livings which they held, and the very serious questions involved in the removal of an incumbent, proper inquiry before institution ought to be facilitated.
Bill read 2a

THE LORD'S DAY ACT.
On the Motion of VISCOUNT CROSS, the Select Committee on the Lord's Day Act was nominated as follows:—The Archbishop of Canterbury, Earl Cowper, Viscount Cross, the Bishop of Rochester, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, Lord Kinnaird, Lord Halsbury, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Thring, Lord Ashcombe, and Lord Farrer.
House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Seven o'clock.