Sitting of 21 May 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 273.]
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 261.]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
QUESTIONS.

  OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR NORTH WALES AND CHESTER.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of times the Official Receiver for North Wales and Chester has attended personally at the Bangor Bankruptcy Court and the Portmadoc and Festiniog Bankruptcy Court respectively, on public examinations of bankrupts, examinations under Section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, and on Motions by, or against, the Official Receiver during the three years ended the 31st December 1894; and what is the number of similar attendances by the Deputy Official Receiver; and whether he approves of the Official
  1706
  Receiver discharging his duties at these Courts and their districts by deputy while he devotes his time to private practice as a solicitor at Wrexham?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,): Attendances in Court in the district of North Wales, which embraces five separate Courts, are divided between the Official Receiver and the Assistant Official Receiver, with regard to the place of residence of each officer. The Official Receiver, who resides at Wrexham, and personally conducts the business at the Wrexham Court, has attended nine times during the period referred to at the Bangor Court, and twice at the Portmadoc Court; while the Assistant Official Receiver, who resides at Rhyl, has attended 65 times at the Bangor Court, and 55 times at the Portmadoc and Festiniog Courts. The Official Receiver was informed some months ago that a larger amount of his personal attention must be given to the proceedings in the various Courts throughout his widely scattered district, and he has assured the Department that this would be done. But where the duties are satisfactorily performed I am not prepared to lay down as an inflexible rule that an Official Receiver shall personally conduct every application to and proceeding in Court.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that the Receiver should farm out a portion of his work to a deputy?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think that what has happened can quite properly be described by the expression used by my hon. Friend. It is an important question, and one which I can assure my hon. Friend is receiving my very anxious attention.

  RATE DEMAND-NOTES.
  MR. T. SNAPE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the demand-notes issued for rates in the parish of Liverpool include the item, Voluntary Rate for Church and other purposes; whether the Local Government Board has in any other cases objected to such inclusion, and required an abandonment of the practice; and whether that course will be pursued in the case of Liverpool?
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the demand-note issued for the township of Manchester contains, in addition to the Poor Rate and other rates, the item "Church Ley at 1d. in the pound for the year 1895 (optional);" and whether steps will be taken to prevent ratepayers being misled by the inclusion of a voluntary church rate in a demand for rates the payment of which is compulsory?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I will answer this question, and that of my hon. Friend, the Member for the Mansfield Division together. I have seen the demand-notes referred to, and I find that they include the items mentioned in the question. In the Liverpool case the amounts required for the compulsory rates are totalled, and it is stated on the note that demand is made for payment of this sum. The amount required for the voluntary rate is then added in red ink, but no demand is made for it. In the Manchester case it is stated on the note that the church ley is an optional payment, but the note does not contain any demand for payment of any of the sums to which it refers Where the form of demand-note for any compulsory rate has been prescribed by the Local Government Board, they have objected to reference to a voluntary rate being added to it. At Liverpool and Manchester the forms have not been prescribed by the Board, but I think that in these cases also it would be better that notice of the sums required for these voluntary rates should not be included in a demand-note for any compulsory rate.

  SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will grant a Return showing the amount of sugar produced in and exported from our sugar-producing Colonies for each of the years beginning January 1889 to 1895 inclusive?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): We shall be glad to grant the
  1708
  Return, and I will have it prepared as a Command Paper.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant a Return showing the condition of the sugar-refining industry and the number of refineries working (partially or otherwise) in each of the years 1889 to 1895 inclusive, in London, Liverpool, Bristol, and Greenock?
  MR. BRYCE: The figures contained in the Parliamentary Paper 172, published in 1889, were largely obtained from information of a confidential character, and it is not certain whether those sources of information are now available. A Report, however, supplementing the Report of the above year, will be prepared and made to include, as far as possible, the information desired by the right hon. Gentleman.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will grant a Return specifying the countries which give bounties on the cultivation of beet and also on the manufacture and export of sugar, showing the amounts at present so paid by each of those countries for the purposes named?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): A Circular was sent on the 19th of February last to Her Majesty's Representatives in all Foreign States instructing them to furnish reports which will give the desired information. When these reports have been all received, they will be laid before Parliament in a collective form.

  SWEDEN AND NORWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs if his attention has been called to an article in the May Fortnighly Review on the relations between Sweden and Norway, purporting to be signed by Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Stockholm, containing an attack on the late Norwegian Ministry and on the present Liberal majority in the Norwegian Störthing; whether it is admissible for British Consuls to take part in public controversies affecting the internal politics of the countries to which

  1709
  they are accredited; is there any precedent for a Consul in his position writing such an article; have the Government any information tending to confirm their Consul's allegation that the Norwegian Liberal Party have entered into negotiations with Russia to obtain separation, and offered the Varanger Fjord as the price to be paid for Russain help; is there any foundation for his assertion that Russia has, with the permission of Norway, constructed a railway which connects Russia with the eastern margin of the Fjord, and when this line was made; and is he aware that the organ of the Norwegian Parliamentary majority (the Wardens Gang) in its issue of 4th May complained of such misstatements being circulated in England over the name of a British Consular official.
  SIR E. GREY: I have seen the article in question. The publication of such an article by one of Her Majesty's Consuls on political questions affecting the country in which he resides is unusual and undesirable. Her Majesty's Government have no information to give as to alleged negotiations between the Norwegian Liberal Party and the Russian Government. They have no knowledge of the construction of such a railway as is described. I have seen the statement in the Werdens Gang.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask what notice will be taken of the article in question, and whether the gentleman responsible will be called upon to apologise for his statements or misstatements?
  SIR E. GREY: The Consul will be told that the publication of an article of this kind affecting political questions in the country in which he resides is an indiscretion which must not be repeated.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will he be asked to make an apology to the people he has belied?
  SIR E. GREY: No apology has been asked for.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: May I ask whether inquiry cannot be made of Her Majesty's Representative whether such a railway is being made?
  SIR E. GREY: We have no knowledge of such a railway being made.

  NIGER.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty—(1) whether he can state for what reasons the French gunboat Ardent has been for some months in Niger waters; (2) whether the officers of the Ardent forcibly released a launch from the custody of British Revenue officials belonging to the Niger Company, and carried it off; (3) whether armed launches from the Ardent have been of late patrolling Niger waters in defiance of International Law; (4) when there is any prospect of this French gunboat being withdrawn from these British waters; and (5) what British Naval force is now in Niger waters?
  SIR E. GREY: The Ardent, having entered the river without instructions grounded, and cannot leave till the water rises, when, as we have been assured by the French Government, she will descend the river. We have been informed that an incident of the character referred to in the second paragraph of the question has occurred, but are awaiting despatches with regard to it. We have no information as to the alleged patrolling of the waters of the Niger by armed French launches. The usual British Naval force is on the West African Station, but there are not, so far as we know, any of Her Majesty's ships in the Niger waters at this moment.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: Will the hon. Baronet kindly answer the part of the question as to the withdrawal of the gunboat?
  SIR E. GREY: I have answered that she cannot leave till the water rises, when, we are assured by the French Government she will descend the river.

  FOREIGN GUNS AND THE ENGLISH PROOF MARK.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether gun-barrels, pistols, and actions are sent from the Continent to be proved at the Birmingham Proof House, and are afterwards finished and sold in this country, or sent back to the Continent to be finished and sold as English make; and,

  1711
  if so, whether this proceeding is an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act?
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that gun-barrels, pistols, and actions are sent from the Continent to be proved at the Birmingham Proof House, and that the Guardians of the Proof House are required under the Gun-barrel Proof Act, 1868, to prove and stamp all barrels sent to them regardless of origin. I apprehend, although the point may not be free from doubt, that the application of the English proof mark would not amount to an indication of origin, but if the foreign barrels are subsequently marked with a mark indicating English origin, a false trade description would be applied to the goods within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps that may be necessary to put a stop to a practice which is so detrimental to the country?
  MR. BRYCE: I will consider the matter, but as at present advised, my impression is that nothing can be done without further legislation.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake legislation to prevent a practice which is so injurious to the British gun trade?
  MR. BRYCE: That will be considered.

  EMIGRATION RETURNS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to an article in The Canadian Gazette, of 16th May, in which it is stated that dissatisfaction exists among those concerned in emigration at the inadequacy of the monthly Emigration Returns issued by the Board of Trade; whether he is aware that the increase of 37 per cent., shown by the Returns in the emigration to the United States during the expired four months of the present year, is shown by the steamship companies' records to be largely made up of those who are not emigrants at all, but merely ordinary steerage passengers returning to America after a winter's visit to England; and that a considerable number of emigrants merely pass through United States ports on through tickets to Canadian points, and
  1712
  are not therefore emigrants to the United States, at all; and, whether, in view of the desirability of accuracy in these Returns, he will cause departmental inquiry to be made as to the possibility of recording, as the steamship companies do, the number of bonâ-fide emigrants as opposed to returning steerage passegers, and the real country of destination of those emigrants who hold through tickets to inland points in Canada or the United States?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; I have seen the article referred to. It is perfectly well known that a portion of the steerage, as well as the cabin, passengers to America are passengers returning to that country after a visit to Europe, but the percentage is not known. Some passengers to Canada doubtless go viâ the United States, and a large number to the United States go viâ Canada. I doubt very much whether the steamship companies know, or can correctly ascertain, the ultimate destination as distinguished from the port of debarkation of the irpassengers, but I will cause inquiries to be made whether they can give any definite information on the point. It would be most undesirable to alter the present returns, which are thoroughly trustworthy.

  OFFENCES BY POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he has any objection to furnish a Return (similar to those published in the United States and in Canada) of the number of employés charged with thefts and acts of dishonesty in connection with the Postal and Telegraph Services, and the number convicted, during each of the last five years, specifying the number of offenders in each class concerned, and the nature of the offence?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): I have no objection, and a Return to the effect suggested by the hon. Member shall be furnished.

  GERMANY AND BRITISH CATTLE.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can now state whether the German Government

  1713
  have relaxed their restrictions against the importation of British cattle; and if it is now possible for exporters of British cattle to obtain permission to send breeding stock into Germany?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER,): Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin was instructed, on the 15th March last, to make a representation on the subject to which the hon. Member refers, but no reply has as yet been received from the German Government.

  CATTLE-WEIGHING MACHINES.
  MR. W. JACKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, (1) whether he is aware that, at the general meeting of the Incorporated Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures of Great Britain, held recently in Glasgow, the representative of Messrs. Henry Pooley & Son, weighbridge makers, stated, in the course of a discussion on the merits of dial cattle-weighing machines, that the sole reason why there was trouble with such machines was that auctioneers would not be at the expense of employing mechanics to keep them clean and in proper working order; and (2) whether the Board will take steps to compel all auctioneers who use such dial machines in their auction marts to employ whatever skilled assistance is necessary to keep the machines in an efficient state?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: Yes, I have seen a Report of the speech to which my hon. Friend refers, but there ought not to be any difficulty in securing the maintenance of weighing machines in proper working order. An auctioneer who is required to provide a weighing machine is also required to have its accuracy tested at least twice a year by the local inspector of weights and measures; and the local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, have the same power with regard to the inspection and verification of such machines as they have with regard to all other weights and measures. It would, in my opinion, be very undesirable that I should in any way attempt to relieve the local authorities of their duties in this matter, and I have, in fact, no power to adopt the suggestion made in the second paragraph of the question.

  ROYAL CANAL, IRELAND.
  MR. J. TUITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether he is aware that, in 1881 the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the application of the Midland and Great Western Railway Company, as owners of the Royal Canal, sanctioned a by-law relating to the navigation of the said canal forbidding the floating of any vessel on the canal deeper than four feet six inches; (2) is he aware that the Company claim the right, and have exercised it under this by-law, to compel the by-traders to reduce the draught of their boats to any depth at which they, (the Company) may choose to keep the canal; and that for some years past the Company, as proved by General Hutchinson's report, dated 17th September 1894, have not maintained the canal at a proper navigable depth, as they are bound to do under Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873; (3) whether, under the circumstances, he will recommend the Chief Secretary to advise the Lord Lieutenant to revoke the by-law in question; (4) whether he is also aware that the County Surveyor of Westmeath recently reported to the Mullingar Board of Guardians that the Company, owing to defective lock-gates at Coolinahay and Killucan, are wasting 10,500,000 gallons of water daily from the higher level of the canal; and (5) whether, in view of the contingencies of a dry season, he will compel the Railway Company to conserve at Lough Owel, the storage reservoir, a supply of water sufficient to meet the requirements of the navigation of the canal?
  MR. BRYCE: The reply to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the hon. Member's question is, Yes. The Board of Trade would appear to have power under Section 40 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, to disallow the bye-law, and the Inspector will be desired specially to report on the point after his next inspection. I am informed that the County Surveyor of Westmeath recently made such a report as that referred to, but its accuracy is denied by the Company. I have no such powers of compulsion as my hon. Friend refers to, but I shall continue to press the Company to carry out their obligations under the Act of 1873.

  IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. PATRICK ALOYSIUS M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Sligo Harbour Commissioners at their last meeting, on 16th May, adopted a resolution complaining that the Collooney and Claremorris line of railway had not yet been opened for traffic; that the Sligo Grand Jury gave a guarantee for this line at the Spring Assizes in 1891; that the Order in Council was granted on 3rd December 1890; and that the construction of the line was commenced in January 1891; who is responsible for the delay in opening this line; and can he state definitely when it will be opened?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,): The date fixed by the Order in Council for the completion of the line, namely, the 30th June 1895, has not yet arrived. It is hoped that there will not be any undue delay in opening the line to the public.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to his statement that the only counter guarantee which the Treasury have got in respect to Irish Railways is one of £400 per annum from the Waterford and Limerick Company in the case of the Claremorris and Swinford Railway, whether there is also a counter guarantee from the same Company, amounting to £1,326 per annum from the Tuam and Claremorris Railway; and whether the Treasury have taken any account of these counter-guarantees when they state that the limit of their liability has been reached; and, if not, will the Treasury favourably consider the application for the guarantee of £600 per annum in the case of the Castlerea and Ballaghaderreen Railway, particularly if the promoters of that line are prepared to accept and act upon a similar Order in Council to those under which the Loughrea and Attymore and Ballinrobe and Claremorris lines were constructed and worked, until and unless power be obtained to work it as a heavy line, as was done in the case of those railways?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: The Treasury have no guarantee in the case of the Tuam and Claremorris Railway. The promoters have a covenant from the
  1716
  Waterford and Limerick Railway Company that the latter's contribution to the funds of the former for the term of the agreement shall not be less than £51 a week, and the county guarantee was given on the faith of this arrangement. No such collateral guarantee can be taken into account in calculating the liabilities undertaken by the Treasury under the Tramways Act of 1883.
  MR. J. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the necessity which exists for the further extension of light railways in certain districts of Ireland, notably the proposed line between Buncrana and Carndonagh, he will consider the advisability of applying to Parliament for a further grant to carry out these most necessary projects?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): In a communication which I recently addressed to the hon. Gentleman, I stated that the funds provided by Government for Light Railways in Ireland were exhausted, and that in the event of additional funds being provided for the purpose the case of the proposed line would be considered with that of others. I am afraid I can now only add that the present would not be an opportune time for asking Parliament to make a further grant of money for the purpose indicated.

  GODLEY ESTATE, SOUTH LEITRIM.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission have inquired into the circumstances under which Thomas Fitzpatrick, Druminchin, South Leitrim, a tenant on the Godley Estate, entered into an agreement to purchase his holding in their court; whether he is aware that Fitzpatrick paid the first instalment of the purchase money to the duly accredited representative of the solicitor of the vendor in the presence of the clergyman of the district, and that, as a result of the conduct of this gentleman, Fitzpatrick has been deprived of his right to purchase, and has been recently served with a notice constituting him a caretaker of his holding; and whether he can state what steps the Land Commission will take for the protection of a

  1717
  suitor like Fitzpatrick, who endeavours to purchase his holding in their court.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The Land Commission inform me that no purchase agreement signed by the tenant named in question has been lodged with them, and that no purchase instalment has, or could have, been received by them. Consequently the Land Commission have no jurisdiction in the matter. If, however, as stated, Mr. Fitzpatrick entered into an agreement to purchase, his remedy, if any, would lie against the vendor, but not before the Land Commission.

  BAROTSELAND.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the military expedition about to be despatched to Barotseland has been assented to by Her Majesty's Government?
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have ascertained from the Foreign Office that no military expedition is being despatched to Barotseland as supposed by the right hon. Baronet.
  *SIR C. DILKEasked whether the hon. Member was aware that the Press had contained long accounts by officers of the nature of the expedition.
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he had not seen them, but would be glad to look at them if the right hon. Baronet would send him them.

  SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg
  to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether the Government of South Australia made a request for an early intimation when any fresh viceregal appointment was contemplated in that Colony; and (2) will he explain why this request was not complied with in the recent appointment of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, in view of the fact that the Government of South Australia pays the whole of the salary of the Governor on whose appointment they are in no way consulted? I hope it will be understood that in the asking of this question no exception is taken to the appointment?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As regards the first question, the request referred to was made in January 1894. The request was made in order that the Colonial Government, which was anxious to economise, might have an opportunity of urging that the appointment should be deferred for a time. But as Lord Kintore's term had more than a year unexpired when the request was made, it was unnecessary then to consider the application. The wishes of the Colonial Government have been, however, substantially met, inasmuch as, before the newly-appointed Governor (whose appointment has, we understand, been received with general satisfaction in the Colony) assumes office the Governorship will have been vacant for about six months.

  DELHI SAMARSATA RAILWAY.
  SIR JAMES KITSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has arrived at any decision on the proposals for the construction of the Delhi Samarsata Railway, the tenders for which were submitted last year; and, if not, will he state when a decision will be come to, in order that the existing favourable conditions of finance and favourable markets for materials may be taken advantage of in the interests of India?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. HENRY FOWLER,): Revised tenders for the construction of the Delhi Samarsata Railway are now before the Secretary of State in Council, and I have every reason to think that a decision on them will be arrived at early next week.

  SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEE.
  MR. ANGUS HOLDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the fishermen representatives chosen by the Board of Trade to act on the Sea Fisheries Committees have practically ceased to attend, they having to bear their own expenses in attending the meetings of such Committees, the result of this being that the Sea Fisheries Committees are now deprived of the services of these practical men; and, whether, in view of this fact, he proposes

  1719
  taking steps to effect some alteration in securing a more effective administration of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not aware that the fishery members have practically ceased to attend the meetings of the Committees; on the contrary I understand that many of them do attend. The Sea Fisheries Regulation Acts appear on the whole to be well administered, and I do not consider that any case exists for altering the law.

  LONDON AND CHANNEL PILOTS.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if any request has been made by the London and Channel Pilots to the Board of Trade, asking for an alteration in the constitution, of the pilotage authority by giving to the pilots direct representation thereon; and whether any grievance has been alleged, either by pilots or by others, as to the action or working of the Pilotage Authority for London and the Channel, as now existing; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the propriety of proceeding with the Pilotage Provisional Order Bill (248), which alters the constitution of the pilotage authority?
  MR. BRYCE: The application for the Pilotage Provisional Order of the present Session has come, not from the London and Channel Pilots, but from the General Shipowners Society who desire an alteration in the constitution of the Pilotage Committee of the Pilotage Authority; and the desired alteration cannot be effected without giving to the pilots representation on the Pilotage Committee. The shipowners have alleged grievances, and I think the proper course to adopt is to lot the confirming Bill go, after the Second Reading, to a Committee upstairs, when the matter can be thoroughly examined and decided.

  DERELICT SHIP.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. J. C. MACDONA), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that fishermen at Stornoway on the 20th instant reported seeing a large ship bottom up between the Butt of Lewis and
  1720
  North Rona, very dangerous to navigation; and that Denis Mackenzie, shipowner in Stornoway, has telegraphed for an application to be made to the Admiralty to order the gunboat Renard, now in Stornoway, to proceed to sea at once to destroy or tow ashore this dangerous derelict; and will the Admiralty accede to this request?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): In consequence of a letter from the hon. Member, the attention of the Admiralty was to-day directed to the case of this derelict ship. From other information, her last position appears to be very uncertain, but it is clear that, if she has not sunk already, she is not in any line of heavy trade. To detach one of Her Majesty's ships from other duties to make a search in such a case would be contrary to the practice of the Admiralty. This practice is in accordance with the views expressed by the report of the Committee which recently inquired into the subject of floating derelicts.

  WICKLOW HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. E. P. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state to the House how much money has been lent by the Irish Board of Works to the Harbour Commissioners of Wicklow; what rate of interest has been charged upon the loan or loans; how much interest has already been paid; how much interest is still due; and what is the amount of principal that remains unpaid?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: As the hon. Member only put down his question on to-day's Notices, I have not had time to obtain from Ireland a statement of the figures up to date; but I may tell him that the Harbour Board has received two loans. The first loan, of £6,000, was advanced in 1870 by the Public Works Loan Board, accumulated at five per cent. to £8,996, and was then taken over by the Board of Works under the Public Works Loans Act, 1881, being made repayable in 28 years by annuity at four per cent, interest. Nothing has, however, been received in respect of this loan, and its charge was postponed to the charge of a new loan of £40,000

  1721
  advanced in 1881 and 1885 and repayable by annuity in 50 years at 4¼ per cent, interest. This annuity is guaranteed by the five local baronies, and is punctually paid by them.

  CAVAN UNION.
  DR. J. E. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether the Local Government Board for Ireland received a letter, dated 17th March 1895, from Crosskeys, County Cavan, purporting to be written and signed by Mary Fay, and also a letter, dated 5th March 1895, also from Cross-keys, County Cavan, purporting to be written and signed by Patrick Reilly, both complaining of neglect on the part of Dr. James Mathews, medical officer of the Stradone Dispensary district of the Cavan Union, and, in consequence, ordered a Sworn Inquiry as to the charges alleged to have been made by Fay and Reilly; (2) is he aware that, before the inquiry commenced, Dr. Mathews' solicitor informed Dr. Clibborn that he had ascertained that both Patrick Reilly and Mary Fay denied they had written or signed the letters containing the charges, or in any way authorised or requested the writing or signing of the same; and that, the letters being therefore forgeries, there was nothing to inquire into; (3) will he explain why, notwithstanding this denial, Dr. Clibborn proceeded with the sworn inquiry, and insisted on taking hearsay evidence in spite of the protests of Dr. Mathews' solicitor, whom he informed was there only on sufferance and could ask only such questions as he (Dr. Clibborn) permitted; (4) whether he is aware that, during the inquiry, a witness named John Byrne, relieving officer of the district, admitted on oath that he had written the letter purporting to be signed by Patrick Reilly, and signed his (Reilly's) name thereto without his consent; and that, after this evidence, Dr. Clibborn adjourned the inquiry to the 22nd instant; and (5) whether, if the facts are as stated, he will direct the discontinuance of an inquiry, and direct the prosecution of Relieving Officer Byrne for the conduct of which he has on oath admitted he was guilty?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Dispensary Committee asked for a Sworn Inquiry, which was opened on the 15th instant. The Local Government Board inform me that the Inquiry has been adjourned for the attendance of further witnesses; and, in the absence of the Inspector's report, they are unable to speak as to the accuracy of the statements in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs. The Inquiry has been ordered into the truth of certain charges against the Medical Officer, and not into the authorship of the letters referred to, and the fact that these letters may not have been written by persons whose signatures are appended would not, in the Board's opinion, justify the Inspector in refusing to proceed with the Inquiry if other evidence be forthcoming as to the truth or falsehood of the charges themselves.

  INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists among the officers of the Indian Staff Corps, owing to the fact that the rate of promotion is much more rapid in the British than in the Indian regiments serving in India, the consequence being that officers of more years and experience in the Staff Corps constantly find themselves commanded by British officers of much shorter service; whether the rates of promotion for the Staff Corps were originally fixed with express reference to the British rates of promotion, and have remained so fixed, although the British rates have been accelerated; whether he is aware that the grievances arising from different rates of promotion among officers serving side by side was recognised as long ago as 26th May 1858, when the Court of Directors, writing to Lord Ellenborough, described them as injurious supersessions, and again in 1864, when they were described in G. G. O., No. 632, as extensive supersessions of officers; and whether he will personally examine the question, and endeavour to make such alterations in the rules regarding promotion as will put an end to the grievance complained of?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: On the 2nd May I answered a question of the hon. Member for Hull with respect to the alleged grievances of the Indian Staff Corps. In reply to the present question I can only say that I have considered the matter, and that, having consulted the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief, I am unable, in view of the opinions which they have expressed, to make any change in the present rules for the promotion in the Staff Corps.

  NOSS HEAD.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the proposal of the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners to erect a fog signal on Noss Head has not been carried out; whether the Trinity House Commissioners have sanctioned or opposed the proposed signal; and whether the Board of Trade have given their consent to it?
  MR. BRYCE: The proposal of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses to erect a fog signal on Noss Head was remitted for the statutory sanction of the Trinity House to the work. Since this was done the Board of Trade have received no communication either from the Trinity House or the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses.

  MAILS BETWEEN KINGSTOWN AND HOLYHEAD.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the present position of the negotiations with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of the mails between Kingstown and Holyhead; and, if an arrangement has been come to, what are its terms?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I am now making a definite and final proposal to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company; and it rests with the company to determine whether they will or will not accept it.

  ARMY SUPPLIES IN THE CORK DISTRICT.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he has received a resolution unanimously adopted by the Corporation of the city of Limerick, protesting
  1724
  against the action of the officer commanding the Cork (Military) District, which includes Limerick, in having issued an order the effect of which will seriously injure Limerick traders and the supplies to the canteens obtained for this district from only one house in Cork; and whether he will reconsider the matter and direct the order to be withdrawn?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The resolution referred to was received yesterday. I can give no other answer than that which I gave on the 9th instant to the hon. Member for Kilkenny.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING WIRES.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state why private electric lighting companies are permitted to run their mains over any public street or thorough fare, and are under no obligations either to their own consumers or the public, whilst vestries are bound to lay their mains underground and conform strictly with the rules of the Board of Trade; and whether, having regard to the the fact that Local Authorities consider mains carried across public thoroughfares a source of danger to the public, he will take steps to require private companies to conform with the regulations applicable to vestries?
  MR. BRYCE: My hon. Friend is not correctly informed as to the state of the law. Private electric lighting companies having statutory powers are under obligations similar to those imposed on Local Authorities, and are also prohibited from using overhead wires without the consent of the Board of Trade and the Local Authority. Private electric lighting companies not having statutory powers are subject to regulations for the protection of the public prescribed under the provisions of the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, although the use of overhead conductors is not prohibited by those Acts. Moreover, Urban Authorities, under the Public Health Act of 1890, are empowered to make regulations for the prevention of danger or obstruction to the public from wires stretched over, along, or across any street.

  INFLUENZA.
  MR. PERCY THORNTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, the promised inquiry into the different natures of ordinary cold and the malarial epidemic termed influenza, which has visited England each winter since 1889, and occasionally appeared in the summer also, will include all available data concerning the sequelæ or after effects of the complaint in its later phases?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir WALTER FOSTER,): The object of the inquiry referred to has been to ascertain whether any relation exists between the ordinary cold and epidemic influenza, and it has been found that the acute stages of the two diseases alone afforded opportunity for the necessary bacteriological examination. It is not considered that further study of the sequelæ, or after-effects of the disease is necessary or would be helpful to that end.
  MR. THORNTON: May I ask whether medical men will be encouraged to give their experience to the Local Government Board?
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Medical men require no encouragement to publish for the benefit of the public the results of their studies as to the means of preventing the spread of the disease.

  MAGGANA RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. ARCHIBALD GROVE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the manner in which Mr. Thomas M 'Carthy, engineer, of 133, Leyton Road, Stratford, has been treated by the Maggana Railway Company, Rio de Janeiro; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made by the Diplomatic Representative of that country into the merits of the case?
  SIR E. GREY: The facts of the case as stated by Mr. M 'Carthy are that there has been a breach by a Brazilian Railway Company of the terms of a contract made with him by their agents in this country. His remedy in the first instance is by an action at law against the persons with whom he made the contract. If it should be necessary to take
  1726
  proceedings in a Brazilian Court it would only be in the event of a failure or denial of justice in such court that there would be ground for diplomatic representation to the Government of Brazil.

  CUSTOMS EXAMINING OFFICERS.
  MR. ARCHIBALD GROVE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he state what is the total number of vacancies that have occurred in the rank of second-class examining officer of Customs through death, superannuation, and promotion to higher grades, between 15th August last and the present time; will he explain why it is that, notwithstanding the large number of vacancies that have thus occurred, only five promotions to that class have been made during the period; also why, of the 55 out-door officers who qualified for promotion to the rank of examining officer at an examination held in September last, not one has been appointed, although these men have a service varying from 13 to 20 years; and whether the Board of Customs would consider the advisability of at once filling these vacancies?
  *SIR JOHN HIBBERT: Twenty-one vacancies have occurred since August 15th, six of which have been filled by promoting first-class outdoor officers from the list of those who qualified at an examination in April, 1894, that list not having yet been exhausted. The remaining vacancies having been kept open, as I explained in an answer given on February 15, pending consideration of the effects of the revised system of keeping the warehouse accounts. This consideration has now been completed.

  PROBATE DUTY AND LICENCES.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will nominate the Committee, promised in the Budget Debate of last year, to consider the distribution of the proceeds of the Probate Duty and licences, as between London and the rest of the country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,): This is a very proper subject of inquiry, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend about it in a few days.

  AUTOMATIC MACHINES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, with the view of protecting the public from fraud by the, owners, licensees, or others upon whose premises imperfect penny-in-the-slot automatic machines are placed, he will require all such machines to be fitted with an arrangement which will prevent the admission and retention of the coin when the machine is out of order, and fails to deliver any article?
  MR. BRYCE: I have conferred with my right hon. Friend the Home Secreretary to whose Department rather than to mine the matter seems to belong, and we are both agred in thinking that neither the Home Office nor the Board of Trade has any power to take the action which the question suggests.

  THE AUTUMN MANœUVRES.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUasked the Secretary for War a question of which he said he had given private notice—namely, whether the inhabitants of New Forest had not expressed their willingness to have the autumn manœuvres in their district; also, if it was not the fact that the verderers, acting on behalf of the commoners, had accepted certain terms for compensation in the case of injury to the cattle and ponies, and also for their feed during the disturbance of the district, and made such arrangements as would obviate any damage to the forest; whether also all the land over which it was proposed to exercise the troops was not open health-land.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for having brought the matter to my notice. I will only answer it by saying that substantially the statement he makes it correct—I mean as to the steps taken, indicating not only the general feeling of the locality, but the care that has been exercised by the authorities to prevent any mischief occurring.

  SELBORNE PEERAGE COMMITTEE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbrought up the Report of the Committee on the Earl of Selborne's succession to the Peerage.
  The CLERK (Sir REGINALD PALGRAVE)read the Report as follows:—
  "The Select Committee appointed to inquire and report whether the hon. 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, have agreed to the following report—
  "The Committee, having considered the matters referred to them, and having taken evidence thereon, report—
  "That the hon. 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.'"

  NEW WRIT.
  MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHERsaid, it would be consonant with the feelings of the majority of the House if he took the earliest opportunity of Moving—
  "that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Edinburgh (Western Division) in the plate of William Waldegrave Palmer. commonly called Viscount Wolmer, now Earl of Selborne."
  MR. SPEAKERhaving put the Motion,
  *MR. GEORGE CURZONsaid, that though he recognised as fully as any man in the House that the general opinion of the House of Commons, no less than the decision of the Committee, was hostile to the claim which was made by Lord Selborne, at the same time he trusted the House would allow him to remind it that upon the present occasion it was invited to take a step entirely new in Parliamentary procedure, without any precedent whatever in the history of the House, and a step which, if persisted in, as it was not unlikely to be, might involve the House in Constitutional difficulty and trouble in the future. The House had during the last few days constituted itself into a Court of Inquiry, or rather had appointed a Committee which was acting as a Court of Inquiry into the fact of succession to a peerage. This was the first time in our history that the House of Commons had ever taken upon itself those functions which had hitherto been looked upon as part of the prerogative of the Crown and

  1729
  the House of Lords, and he ventured humbly to submit that in taking this step the House of Commons had usurped functions which did not properly belong to it. The dangers of the position which the House had taken up, and the possibilities which it might involve, had been stated by no one with greater clearness than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he could not help regretting when the right hon. Gentleman was reading out the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, a few days ago, and taunting him with inconsistency, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not proceeded further and read out certain extracts from his own speech delivered on the same occasion. It was useless, and might be considered discourteous if he was to taunt the right hon. Gentleman with inconsistency, because when that was done from the Opposition benches he owned the soft impeachment with an ingenuous naiveté that disarmed criticism. But he would read one short extract from his speech of last year which directly bore on the position, which, under his guidance, the House of Commons had now taken up. In the Debate on the Motion for a writ for the seat vacated by Lord Coleridge he said:—
  ''We should be undertaking, if we issued a writ before a Writ of Summons had been given by the House of Lords, to determine that a man was a Member of the House of peers, and we might on our own authority declare a man to be a peer whom the House of Lords later might declare to be not a peer. All must admit that a conflict of jurisdiction of the kind would be most inexpedient, if not indeed wholly unconstitutional."
  Yet this was the precise position which the right hon. Gentleman now invited the House to take up, and the precise danger which he was not adverse to its incurring. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:—
  "Then you are brought face to face with this point. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham says either we must wait for the Writ of Summons or for some other proof to be given to the House. How is this House to obtain the proof? Are we going to have a Committee of Privileges to inquire whether a man has become a Peer or not? We have never adopted that course before, and it would be a most inexpedient precedent to set up."
  1730
  The inexpedient precedent of 1894 had now become the expedient and necessary precedent of 1895. The terms of the Writ as read out failed to contain the words "in the room of Lord Selborne, called up to the House of Lords." That was to say, the House of Commons was now about to issue a Writ without waiting for a writ of Summons to the House of Lords. This was the third time in our Parliamentary history that such a step had been taken. He would not weary the House by recapitulating the details with which it was perfectly familiar. The two instances to which he alluded were—in the case of the Berkeley Peerage in 1809, in which the Writ was moved without the customary allegation, but was superseded; the second was in the case of Lord Dursley in 1811. But Lord Dursley's claim to the Peerage was disallowed by the Committee of Privileges, and the action of the House of Commons in vacating his seat was, therefore, stultified and found to have been taken in error. These were the only two cases in which the House of Commons had taken upon itself to issue a new Writ to vacate a seat after succession to a Peerage without the allegation that the seat had been vacated by a Writ of Summons from the House of Lords. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his evidence before the Committee on Lord Coleridge's succession, said that any Writ issued without the allegation that a Writ of Summons to the Lords had been issued was bad, and must be superseded. He was utterly unable to reconcile the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his evidence before the Committee last year with his speech two days ago in the House, and with the action he had taken upon it. He submitted to any hon. Member who attended the proceedings of the Committee, or read the minutes of its evidence, whether there was scarcely a single proposition in the speech the right hon. Gentleman made the other day, or whether there was a single step in the course of action he now recommended the House of Commons to take, which was not absolutely contradicted by his evidence before that Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had there said:—
  "The material point to which I desire to call the attention of the Committee is this, that

  1731
  whether Lord Coleridge could sit or vote in the House of Commons his seat could not be vacated upon this ground (i.e., the ground of succession to a Peerage) until the Writ of Summons was issued to him in the House of Lords. That is absolutely determined by a series of precedents and upon the authority of the Speaker."
  On another page the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Therefore I think I am clearly well founded in stating that no Writ vacating a seat in relation to a Peerage can be issued by the House of Commons, except upon the allegation that a Writ of Summons to the House of Lords has been issued."
  On the next page the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  ''There are two views on the matter (i.e. the right of a Peer to sit in the House of Commons), either of which may be taken. But whichever view is taken this is certain, that until the Writ of Summons in the House of Lords issues, a Writ cannot go forth on the ground of Peerage."
  Then, again, two pages later it would be found that the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I do not conceive as regards a Peerage that that (i.e. the custom of requiring the proof of the issue of the Writ) can be altered, unless, of course, the House of Commons chooses to alter the practice of the whole of the century. I maintain that no Writ can be issued upon succession to a Peerage without the material and indispensable allegation that the Writ of Summons had been issued."
  The language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, was so unmistakable that they had a right to ask him how he could reconcile the evidence he had given before the Committee with the position he now assumed. Again, with regard to Speaker Abercromby's dictum that—
  "the only safe and certain evidence on which the House could act was that a Member had received his Writ of Summons and had been called up to the House of Peers. If there were any doubt as to the fact of a Member of this House being entitled to be a Peer, that was a question which the House could not decide, and therefore the safest course was to act only when a Member had received his Writ of Summons.''
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said before the Committee:—
  "That was laid down in 1835, and, so far as I know, has been consistently acted upon since, and as a rule of Parliament, that no Writ can be issued on a Peerage until the Writ of Summons has been issued."
  1732
  He desired to take that opportunity of saying that he and those who acted with him had raised this question on constitutional grounds. Their action was no rash or impulsive step taken by a small knot of individuals actuated by unworthy or selfish motives, but was an attempt to raise a broad constitutional issue on constitutional grounds. In the proceedings which had taken place upstairs it had become clear that there were two possible but virtually contradictory views of the Peerage. One was that succession to a Peerage was a disqualification from sitting in the House of Commons, and that the moment a Peer died, and his heir became his successor, the heir became disqualified from sitting in that House, and, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was so disqualified as being a Lord of Parliament. Then there was the opposite contention, and the one for which, in his view, there was really superior authority—namely, that on the death of a Peer, his heir became indeed a Peer of the Realm, but he did not become a Lord of Parliament until he had taken his seat in the House of Lords, and was therefore not disqualified from sitting in that House. In other words the disqualification was not an inherited but was an acquired disqualification. It arose not from the fact of succession, but from the fact of summons, and was dependent not upon the ennoblement of blood, but upon the assumption of inconsistent service. In the case of Irish Peers there was no such disability. It might be said that they were enabled to sit by statute, but he could assure the House that there were instances from 1620 to 1801, the date of the Act. of Union, of Irish Peers sitting in that House. Why, therefore, should not such a right be extended from Irish Peers to the Peers of the United Kingdom? He and those who had acted with him had not taken these steps without consulting the highest legal authority. In acting as they had done, they intended no disrespect to the House of Commons, and still less to the House of Lords, the responsibilities of accession to which they valued as much as any one of its present Members. In bringing the question before the House of Commons, they had appealed to the decision of the most competent tribunal to which they could submit it.

  1733
  They regretted, indeed, that there was no power of bringing the issue before a Court of Law; but, having the decision of the House of Commons against them, they would, of course, respectfully bow to it. He could not help thinking, however, that this disability, upon which public attention had been fixed, was one which in common equity and fairness could not be allowed to continue. He was aware that their ease had been prejudiced in public opinion by the impression that they were claiming an unfair privilege for Peers and the sons of Peers by giving them the option of sitting as long as they liked in the House of Commons, and then of seeking the secure and tranquil haven of the House of Lords whenever they chose to do so. It might be desirable, if that privilege were ever accorded, to say that the Peer who had elected to remain in the House of Commons should be debarred for the rest of his life from sitting in the House of Peers. But that was not the issue now raised. The decision of the House was manifestly against them, but he ventured to prophesy that the question would not be allowed to slumber, and that in that reform of the House of Lords, which was certain to come about in the near future, this particular change would play a not unimportant part.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,): The hon. Member has thought fit in this matter to make something in the nature of an attack upon me. I will not follow him in that, because I think that there are matters of larger importance before us. I shall therefore, content myself with saying that I adhere to every one of the opinions expressed by me in this House, as well as in my evidence before the Committee upstairs. In my evidence before the Committee, I absolutely and persistently refused to give any opinion on this subject, because I knew that I should have to give my opinion here; and I confessed, I hope courteously, that I treated this claim as I have always treated it, as being an absurd, and I may almost say a childish, claim. Anybody who will take the trouble to read my evidence will find that that is the keynote of the whole of it; and when the hon. Member read out the
  1734
  opinions of Speaker Abercromby, he will find that, in giving evidence upon that point, I was stating to the Committee the practice of the House, and I over and over again stated that, as to my own opinion, I declined to give it. That will dispose of that part of the matter. The hon. Member said that in this House I stated that I regarded the proceeding which we have been obliged to take as an inconvenient proceeding, and an inexpedient one. He says it is a proceeding without a precedent. So it is; but we have been driven to it by the conduct of Lord Selborne, which is also without precedent. There is no man who has ever succeeded to a Peerage who has entered this House and claimed to sit and vote here. All the passages which the hon. Member has read from my evidence and speech referred to a totally different matter; and that was, the condition of a man who had succeeded to a Peerage, and who had not yet got his Writ of Summons. But there was no pretence on the part of Lord Coleridge to come to this House, and to sit and vote here, before the Writ of Summons was obtained; and, having been challenged on my conduct in giving the Chiltern Hundreds to the present Lord Coleridge, I was pointing out the extreme inconvenience there was in waiting the ordinary proceeding—that is, the evidence of the Writ of Summons, and so disfranchising the constituency for a long period. A gentleman whose absence from this House I am sure every man deeply regrets—I mean, Mr. Sidney Herbert, whom his opponents, no less than his political friends, regarded as one of the ornaments of this House, and a personal friend—took the course a day or two ago which the present Lord Coleridge took, in favour of his constituents, and vacated his seat, so that his constituents might elect another member. But Lord Coleridge never pretended for a moment that, having succeeded to the Peerage, he had the right to come and sit in this House and vote; and it is the unprecedented conduct of Lord Selborne which has necessarily compelled the House of Commons to ascertain for itself that which on former occasions, sooner or later, was ascertained by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords when the Writ of Summons was issued.

  1735
  This is the first time that a Member of this House, who has succeeded to a Peerage, has come to the House and set up a claim which is absolutely without foundation. Nothing can be gathered, I am sure, from anything I have said, either in the Committee upstairs or in this House, which would lead to the conclusion that I ever entertained the opinion that a man who had succeeded to a Peerage can sit and vote in this House. The finding of the Committee upstairs on the Vacating of Seats is entirely in accordance with everything that I have said. Their Report says that the Writ of Summons, in cases in which such a Writ can be issued, is the best and safest proof of which the circumstances admit; the rule, in other words, is a rule not of law, but of evidence, and this House, when that evidence was available, has always waited for it. Lord Selborne in this House, however, declared that he would not permit the House to have that evidence, but claimed to sit here; that is, by not applying for the Writ of Summons he prevented the evidence from being available. The Committee found that the Parliamentary law on this subject, which I ventured to bring the other day under the notice of the House, as laid down by Speaker Manners-Sutton in the Beer Alston case, was that, when a Member succeeded to a Peerage entitling him to a seat in the House of Lords, and delayed or refused to apply for a Writ of Summons, the House of Commons was entitled and might, in the interest of the constituency, be bound to ascertain the fact of the succession by such inquiry and upon such evidence as it considered appropriate to the case. The hon. Member referred to what I said as to the possibility that this might lead to a conflict between the House of Commons and the House of Lords; that the House of Commons might find a man to be a Peer whom the House of Lords held not to be a Peer. That might occur, and it would be a very inconvenient thing, but that is not our fault. If any mischief arises from a conflict of jurisdiction of that character, it arises out of the course which Lord Selborne has pursued in coming to this House and depriving it of the natural means of ascertaining his position in the Peerage. The responsibility rests with him and not with us.
  1736
  The House may observe that, in the evidence of Mr. Muir Mackenzie, who is the Clerk of the Crown, he expresses a strong opinion that, if a Peer does not apply himself, the Writ of Summons may be issued without his application; he also says that the information as to the succession, to a Peerage generally comes from a relative, and not from the Peer himself. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, no clearer case was ever brought under the consideration of the House. I did not move the Writ myself because it was so pressed upon me that it should not be moved till the House had time to consider the Report of the Committee; but from the same quarter which impressed upon me the necessity for having a full discussion on the subject, the Writ has been moved this afternoon. Under these circumstances I am absolved from all responsibility in the matter. I understand that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wrest Birmingham nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall oppose the issue of the Writ, which was moved by an hon. Member who is politically acting with both of them. Under these circumstances I do not see that the House can take any other course than to issue the Writ, having ascertained the facts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcommented on the circumstance that the right hon. Member for the Bodmin Division of Corwall, who had recently filled two columns of the Times with reference to this subject, had on the present occasion run away into Cornwall. He himself had signed the minority report of the Committee on the Vacating of Seats, in company with the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member for Southport, though on entirely different grounds from those of the hon Member for Southport. He was surprised to see the Liberal Unionist benches opposite deprived of their chief ornaments, and he felt inclined to re-echo the mourning complaint of the Hebrew patriarch: "Joseph, my son, where artthou?" He thought, when Lord Selborne this day week appeared in his place, that he inflicted a greater blow upon the hereditary principle than had been inflicted on it since the Reform Act of 1832. Lord Selborne stated that he was a Peer of

  1737
  the Realm, but that he was not a Lord of Parliament. That distinction was well and properly marked. There were many Lords of Parliament who were not Peers of the Realm. The Bishops were Lords of Parliament, but there were not Peers of the Realm. On the other hand, minor Peers were Peers of the Realm, but they were not Lords of Parliament; Peeresses in their own right were Peeresses of the Realm, but they were not Lords or Ladies of Parliament. Irish Peers were Peers of the Realm, but they were not Lords of Parliament. There could be no question of a conflict of jurisdiction between the two Houses in a case of this kind. The Lord Chancellor, and he alone, was the person through whom Writs of Summons from the Crown came. He was not, in issuing these Writs, an officer of the House of Lords, but the servant of the Crown. It was the prerogative of the Crown to give or withhold Writs of Summons—a prerogative which had existed in ancient times and had never been abrogated. Such a prerogative could not become obsolete. Prerogatives that had not been exercised for 400 years were still in full force to-day. The only change that had taken place was, that the exercise of these prerogatives, instead of being the personal act of the Crown, was the act of Ministers responsible to the House of Commons, and through it to the people. It was because he was persuaded that the Lord Chancellor might either give Lord Selborne his Writ of Summons or withhold it that he considered that until the Writ of Summons was given he had a right to sit in the House of Commons. It was as a high prerogative lawyer that he signed the Minority Report. This was not the first time in modern history that the old prerogatives of the Crown had been wrested from privilege and used in the service of the people.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELmoved: "That the Debate, be now adjourned." They were all agreed, he said, that a question of great constitutional importance had been raised, which ought not to be settled after a few minutes' consideration. This Writ, he thought, had been moved very hurriedly. He could not believe, for a moment, that had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or the right
  1738
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, known that this question, in which they had hitherto taken a very keen interest, was to be decided now they would have been in their places. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a practical pledge that this question would stand over until the Select Committee on the Vacating of Seats had reported to the House. The Report of that Committee was circulated that morning. The Report of the Committee on the Earldom of Selborne had just been, read out at the Table, and he thought the House was entitled to see that Report in print. They had had the Report of the Select Committee, but that was only a Majority Report. Surely, it was only reasonable to ask, before the House came to a decision, that they should have the views of the minority with regard to the question. Then he understood that the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate had this afternoon presented a memorandum of very considerable importance, with regard to the historical aspect of the case. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask that the House should know the contents of that memorandum.
  MR. CYRIL DODDseconded the Motion.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERsaid, that if it was intended to press the Motion to a Division, it might be necessary to give some reason, for proceeding forthwith with the issue of the Writ.
  [The hon. Member was met with cries of "Divide!" and did not proceed with his remarks.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the case that he gave a pledge on this matter, at the request of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Member for Bodmin. He certainly understood at that time that the Report would be presented, and that the House would have time to consider it; and he stated that he did not regard this as an ordinary case of moving the issue of a Writ. It raised a disputed question of constitutional law, and, in order to give time for its consideration he had intended to move the Writ upon Thursday. He was entirely taken by surprise when the Writ was moved this afternoon. He had no notice from the hon. Member who made the

  1739
  Motion of his intention to take that course. He did not know for what reason it was taken. However, as he had said, he considered himself absolved from all responsibility. This Motion had come from that Party who insisted on full time being given for the consideration of what they regarded as a profound constitutional question. For himself, he had never entertained any doubt on the matter. He had never contemplated the possibility of applying the principle of local and personal option to the House of Lords. They had heard of various plans for the reform of the House of Lords, but local and personal option as to the Peerage was a new Constitutional doctrine. Therefore, if the House were prepared to entertain a Motion for the issue of the Writ he certainly should be prepared to support such a Motion.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 343.—(Division List No. 93.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid that while he did not intend to resist the issue of the Writ, he wished to say a few words on this subject, first because he belonged to that unfortunate class of individuals who might expect at some time or other to be disabled from discharging the functions of a Member of that House, and, secondly, because no one in that House would suffer more than himself from the absence of Lord Selborne, with whom he was so closely associated politically and personally. For his part he did not believe that the existence of the House of Commons could ever be affected by such a trifling circumstance as the elevation now and then of an elder son to the House of Peers. If he was inclined on the whole not to rank himself among the supporters of the hon. Member for Guildford and the hon. Member for Southport, the reason must be that he did not estimate the power of the House of Commons as against the House of Lords as highly as they did. In fact, it appeared to him that the House of Commons was going down every day and that the the House of Lords was going up. In his judgment those who were called under the Constitution to perform certain duties in the Upper House ought to accept the situation. Whilst he held that view, he thought it
  1740
  in the highest degree absurd to charge Lord Selborne with pursuing a childish or preposterous course in the action which he had taken. He regretted very much the strong expressions that had been used, both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and some of his hon. friends near him with whom he generally acted. His noble Friend, whose good work for the Unionist Party could not be gainsaid, might well have been spared some of the expressions that had been applied to him by hon. Members who used to sit and act with him. Nothing could be more untenable than the allegation that his noble Friend's action was childish and preposterous. Why, only last Session the House had itself appointed a Committee which had had to consider in connection with Lord Coleridge's case a precisely similar issue. He submitted that even an eldest son whose father died had a right to ascertain what his political position really was, and his noble Friend not being able to appeal to a Court of Law had asked that House as the highest Court of the realm to decide the question. His noble Friend had asked for the decision of that House upon a great constitutional point, and in such conduct there was nothing absurd, or disrespectful, or childish, or preposterous. If anybody was to blame it was the Vacation of Seats Committee, that sat for 11 months without coming to a decision upon the point. But a decision had now been come to by a Committee, and as a consequence of that decision, the Writ had been moved, and he should not oppose it. His noble Friend who had raised this question deserved the gratitude not only of eldest sons, who had seats in that House, but also of the House itself.
  Mr. GROVEclaimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERwished to explain briefly the opinion which he had formed after hearing the arguments adduced by those who opposed the issue of the Writ. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week contained what he believed to be the true view of the law upon the subject. He did not, however, wish for a moment to belittle the case put forward by the hon. Members for Southport and

  1741
  Guildford, and he imagined that they would all regret the enforced absence from that House of Lord Selborne. But they must consider what this claim was. It rested upon the proposition, or rather assertion, that a Peer of the Realm need not be summoned to the House of Lords unless he wished; that if he chose to abstain for any length of time from asking for a Writ of Summons, such Writ could not be issued to him. That proposition he believed to be legally erroneous and historically incorrect.
  MR. CURZON: I am unwilling to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, but our contention is that, until the Writ of Summons is issued a Peer may sit in this House.
  *SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that was only another way of stating the same view, either that the Writ of Summons could not be issued until the Peer desired it, or that the Crown could, at its own option, postpone the issue of the Writ. A more dangerous doctrine than that the Crown can abstain from issuing a Writ could not be conceived. In the reign of Charles II., the Crown attempted to summon a certain number only of Peers to Parliament, but the attempt was resisted, and it had been recognised for two centuries as the constitutional right of every Peer of the realm to be summoned to Parliament. If his hon. Friend declined to depend, as he believed he must, on the doctrine that the Crown could postpone the issue of the Writ, he could only fall back on the other alternative, namely, the doctrine that a Peer could apply for a Writ or not as he chose. The reason why the House had always acted on the Writ of Summons was that in almost every case a Peer had applied for it, and, therefore, the House had the evidence ready to hand. He ventured to endorse what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the law was correctly laid down by the Speaker 50 years ago in the Beer Alston case, that the House could examine for itself, upon evidence satisfactory to itself, the question whether an individual Member had succeeded to a Peerage of the realm. He believed the position was this, that every Peer of the realm had a right to be summoned, and that with that right there existed a corresponding obligation to obey the Writ. That view was shared
  1742
  by great authorities such as Lord Penzance, Sir W. Anson, Professor Dicey, and others. His hon. Friend had failed to appreciate this position, that if the view he (Sir R. Webster) had expressed was not the right one, a man might be a Lord of Parliament, and disqualified to sit in the House of Commons in one Parliament, and yet become qualified in another. The hon. Member seemed to forget that a Writ of Summons was issued for every Parliament. No fresh application was made at the beginning of every Parliament. The Lord Chancellor, acting for the Crown, at the beginning of each Parliament issued the Writ ex mero motu. It did not depend on the Act of the Crown, for the Crown had not the option to say whether a Writ should be issued or not; and if it depended on the choice of the Peer, he would be able to say at the beginning of a Parliament, "I am not a Lord of Parliament for this Parliament." If the House would allow him, he would read the words which occurred in every patent of Peerage. This case had been argued as if, a man having been created a Peer of the realm, it was optional to the Crown whether he should be summoned as a Lord of Parliament or not. But the position of Lord of Parliament was given to him by the patent of his Peerage. After granting the Peerage to the man by name, and the heirs of his body begotten, the patent went on:—
  "They and every of them, successively and respectively, may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
  Thus the Peerage was created by the patent, and the privilege of being a Lord of Parliament was conferred at the same time, a privilege which, he contended, carried with it a corresponding obligation to obey a Summons by the Crown. Although in old times a Writ of Summons was often the foundation of Peerages; of late years, in the case of Peerages created by letters patent, it had become only an incident to the Peerage. If he was right in his view that, once a man was created a Peer by letters patent, he was given the right to sit in the House of Lords and the Public Assemblies and Councils of the Queen, he was under an

  1743
  obligation to obey the Summons of the Crown. It could not rest with the Crown to say whether this or that Peer should be summoned, or with a new Peer to say whether he would be summoned or not. He doubted whether the cases of Lord Tenterden and Lord Iddesleigh had any bearing on the case. At any rate, the question was entirely different, and the circumstances of the office held by those Peers would require to be carefully investigated. It had been said that there were no precedents of the Writ of Summons being issued when it had not been applied for. He believed that if the records were searched, cases of that kind might be found. It was obvious that the cases were so rare in which a Peer abstained from applying for a Writ of Summons, that the cases in which it would be issued without application must be very exceptional. This was an occasion on which, for the first time, the Constitutional question had been prominently raised in the House, and he thought it was of importance that everything which anyone could say to assist the House should be said on the floor of the House. It was in order that his opinion, for what it was worth, might be placed on record in these Debates that he had offered these few remarks.
  Motion agreed to.

  TIED (TENANTS) HOUSES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Henry Broadhurst, Bill to amend the Licensing Laws relating to Tied Houses presented and read 1°, to be read a second time upon Wednesday 12th June, and to be printed. [Bill 270.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3:—

  TRANSFER AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.
  (3) "On the date of Disestablishment there shall, save as by this Act provided, be transferred
  1744
  to the Welsh Commissioners hereinafter mentioned: (a) All property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty, which is ascertained as hereinafter mentioned to be Welsh Ecclesiastical property; and (b) all property not so vested which, at the passing of this Act, belongs to, or is appropriated to, the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in or connected with the Church in Wales or the holder of any such office; subject, in the case of all such property, to all charges and incumbrances affecting the property, and in the case of all such property, except tithe rent-charge, to the existing interests of all persons who at the passing of this Act hold such offices as aforesaid, and in the case of tithe rent-charge, to the obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of their existing interests."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he had two Amendments on the Paper intended to limit the operation of Sub-section (b). He proposed to strike out the words "or connected with," because they might apply to property in the Archbishopric of Canterbury or the Bishopric of Chester. The full intention of the Bill would be carried out by leaving in the words "belongs to or is appropriated to."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,)said, the words had been transferred to this clause to make it read with the first clause, which adopted the same phraseology; but in this case the words might be dispensed with.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR J. GORSTmoved to omit the words "or the holder of any such office."
  MR. R. W. HANBURYsuggested the addition of the words "as such."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HANBURYmoved the addition of the words "as such," and the
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONmoved the following Amendment:—Clause 3, page 2, line 14, after "office," insert—
  "except organs, bells, fonts, communion tables, and other fixed or movable furniture, plate, books, or other chattels belonging to any cathedral or other church, chapel, or building

  1745
  affected by this Act or used in connection with the Divine worship of the Church, which said excepted property shall remain and be the property of the ecclesiastical corporations or persons or other officers to whom they shall belong at the date of Disestablishment, and of the corporations, persons, or officers on whom such of the duties of such ecclesiastical or other persons or corporations as shall subsist after Disestablishment shall devolve, or by whom they shall be duly and legally performed."
  He said that the clause as it stood swept all these articles into the maw of the Commissioners.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the clause began with the words "save as by this Act provided," and by Clause 8 these chattels did not go to the Welsh Commissioners, but they were vested in the representative body.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the representative body would not be formed at once and so these things must go into the hands of the Welsh Commissioners on the dissolution of the existing corporations. These goods and chattels were provided for, and belonged to, each individual Church, and there was not the slightest reason for dispossessing the parishioners of them. His contention was, that the representative body should have nothing to do with them, as they were the property of each individual Church.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the clause precluded these articles being vested in the Commissioners, but there might be a lucana between the dissolution of the corporations and the incorporation of the representative body. Perhaps Clause 8 ought to be amended so as to provide in the interval that the property should be held in trust for the purposes for which it was used; and it would be convenient to defer the matter till they came to Clause 8. He did not understand that anyone wished that these chattels should go into the hands of the Commissioners, and as the Bill stood they would not do so. The further question was raised whether, in the future, they should be vested in the representative body or in some ecclesiastical corporation in lieu of those which it had been agreed should be dissolved. That was a matter on which he should be disposed to consult the opinions of Churchmen. The Bill followed the Irish precedent in vesting this local property in the representative body, which might be trusted to see that it
  1746
  was used for the benefit of the localities to which it was attached; and he should not have thought there could have been any apprehension that it would be diverted from any of the objects to which it was devoted. If he found that it ought to to be attached to localities in some more definite way, and if convenient machinery could be provided for the custody of the property, he should be happy to consult with Churchmen as to the manner of effecting these objects. In the interval the Amendment was not necessary, because the Commissioners would not have to deal with the property.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERcould not help thinking that what the Home Secretary had said would lead him to consider, with reference to the ultimate form of the Bill, whether it was necessary that the local corporations should disappear. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it might be desirable that there should be some permanent representative body in connection with each Church; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider whether it was of the essence of this scheme that the existing corporations should be destroyed. He agreed with the Home Secretary that it would be well to defer the matter until they came to Clause 8; and he hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with having called attention to it.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLargued that by Clause 30 of the Irish Church Act the Incumbent was to have a life interest as long he remained Incumbent.
  MR. ASQUITHdissented.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHthought that the representative church body might be trusted to do its duty, but it should be made clear that it held this property in trust for the several parishes, so as to show what the intention of Parliament was.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that was an admirable suggestion, which he would adopt.
  *MR. TOMLINSONwithdrew his Amendment.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYmoved to add at the end of line 14 the following:—
  "Provided always that in the case of any rural parish the parish council, or, where there is no parish council, the parish meeting, and

  1747
  in any other case the council of any county borough or urban district composing the parish, may determine that the property appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office in the parish shall not be so transferred, and such a decision shall not be reversed during the occupancy of the holder of the office at the time of such decision."
  The hon. Member said that according to the scope of the Bill the whole of the property of every parish was to be handed over for certain purposes specially to the parish in which the endowments existed. This Amendment simply meant that if in any parish or district the wish was expressed through the representative body that ecclesiastical property in the parish should continue to be applied to its present purposes and instead of being used for the secular purposes of providing museums, etc., should be retained for the services of the Church to which it had been devoted so long, the parish council should have the right to leave it as it was. It was a "local option" amendment which one might fairly think would be accepted by the Government. It could inflict no hardship on anybody. It presupposed that in a village or parish where the Bill would come into force, if a reasonable majority of the district wished that instead of appropriating ecclesiastical endowments for other purposes, they should be kept for the services of the Church, they should have the power of carrying that out. The Government said the Bill was to carry out the wishes of the Welsh people. Then if a parish, by a strictly representative body—which did not represent class distinction, but represented the whole parish, in which everybody had an equal voice—decided that the money now appropriated for Church purposes should continue to be devoted to them, they should have the the right to say so and leave the property as it was, as long as the person lived in whom they were vested. The Government boasted that they were always anxious to let the people settle everything; they said they had absolute "trust in the people." Then let them trust the people in this matter. Where property belonged to a particular parish, and did not concern any other parish, and it was desired that it should continue to be applied to its present purposes, would the Government allow the people to have their way? The Government were prepared to give the
  1748
  people "Local Option" as to the drink traffic, and if a district was to have a right to say whether or not it should have public-houses, surely it was reasonable that the same district should have the right to say that money, which had been appropriated to teach a particular religion for 1,500 years, should not be altered in its application. If the Government really desired that the Welsh people should have what they wished, here was an opportunity. If the Welsh people were desirous of getting rid of the Established Church and, as far as they could, any endowments of the Church, and applying them to other purposes, this Clause would not act, and the parish council would oppose it and not allow it to be adopted. The Government could not logically oppose it or the "Local Optioners," and it seemed to be one in which he hoped they would all be able to agree.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,),intimated that the Government could not accept the Amendment. No one appreciated parish councils more than himself, nor had a keener sense of the value of their functions. Yet he could hardly conceive that the parish councils, in the eyes of the most devoted believer in their merits, would be regarded as the best authority to decide the great question of ecclesiastical endowment. Local option as to the drink traffic might be very well, but the question of Disendowment was a different matter, and too important to depend upon casual majorities in parish councils.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, that the Government had selected an integral portion of the Church of England for Disestablishment and Disendowment on the ground that the majority of the people in that part of the United Kingdom desired that that course should be adopted, and yet they now refused to allow the majority of the inhabitants of any particular parish to say whether that principle should be carried out in their locality or not. The hon. Member who had spoken on behalf of the Government had said that he could not consent to leave a matter of this importance to be determined by what might, after all, be merely a small, miserable, and dwindling majority.
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, that he was unwilling that a small majority of a parish council elected for one year should be able to decide such a question for a period of perhaps 40 years.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, that the hon. Gentleman appeared to have no objection to such a majority in that House deciding such a question, not for 40 years, but for ever. After the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite he should have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONpointed out that, in many parts of Wales, the Members of the Church of England numbered more than all those of the other denominations put together, and yet the Government refused to allow them to have a voice in deciding whether Disestablishment and Disendowment should be carried out in their districts or not. All that the hon. Mover of the Amendment asked for was—that it should be left to the Churchmen and the Nonconformists of any particular district, together to determine whether this Bill should at once take effect in their localities, or whether its operation should be postponed for a time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not been in his place when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department had, in the most emphatic manner, objected to allowing what he termed a small and casual majority to decide a question in such a way that the effect of that decision might long outlive the body giving the decision. He had no wish to go into that most interesting topic, which had been raised by the line of defence which the hon. Member had adopted; but he wished to point out that all that the Amendment proposed, was to allow the locality to determine whether the existing religious ministrations in a parish should be allowed to continue for some few years longer in cases where those ministrations were altogether in harmony with the general views of the parishioners. Inasmuch as the Bill proceeded upon the assumption that the endowments in a particular parish were the property of that parish, was it not reasonable that the inhabitants of that parish should have a voice in determining
  1750
  whether that property should be expended in providing museums and washhouses for the locality, or whether it should be retained—not for ever, but for a time—for the uses for which it was originally designed? He had no desire to recapitulate the arguments that had been repeatedly brought forward in the course of these Debates, to the effect that the funds at present used for the purposes of the Church in a particular parish should not be taken away unless it could be shown that some other religious services were administered in that parish; but it had been shown in the clearest manner that there were a large number of parishes in Wales in which there would be no religious services whatever if those of the Church were withdrawn. In such cases why were not the inhabitants of such parishes to have the right of deferring for a certain time the diversion of their Church funds from religious to secular purposes? Such a course would be in perfect harmony with the principles put forward by hon. Members from Wales, below the Gangway. He hoped that, in the circumstances the Government would give their assent to this Amendment, which, if accepted, would greatly improve the working of the Bill, and would have the collateral advantage of diminishing the feeling of hostility to the measure that was now entertained by a large number of Her Majesty's subjects.
  *MR. R.L. EVERETTsaid, that he could not help having some sympathy with the Amendment, as he desired to keep the tithes for use in the parishes where they originated, but he thought that the question would be more appropriately raised on some of the subsequent clauses of the Bill.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that this was the clause which collected all the spoil into the robbers' cave, and therefore it was fitting that the question raised by the Amendment should be dealt with whilst that clause was under discussion. A stamp duty had to be paid on each of these transfers also. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member who had just spoken would support those Members who were in favour of preserving to the parishes parochial rights.
  Mr. WHARTONsaid, that such an important question as this was one not

  1751
  for the decision of the Parish Council, but of the parish meeting. That meeting would represent the views of every parishioner, and he could not imagine a better way of obtaining the feeling of the parish than by calling a parish meeting.
  *Mr. GEORGE RUSSELLsubmitted that he had not said that the parish council was not an adequate representation of the sentiment of the parish, but he did not think that a council which was elected annually should continue ecclesiastical endowment for 40 years.
  Mr. WHARTONsaid, that was the reason why he contended that these matters should be submitted to the parish meeting.
  Mr. BARTLEYsaid, he only wanted by this Amendment to make it clear that the parish wanted the transfer of property.
  Mr. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, the discussion illustrated the absurd position of the Government. The Bill was brought in because the Government said they had a local majority for Wales; if they were to act up to their principles they should apply the same argument to the parish. They were told that they must appeal to the people; he would urge the Government to appeal to the representatives of the whole Church in England and Wales, and then they would find an enormous majority against this Bill.
  Mr. T.W. RUSSELLsaid, he was totally at a loss to see why either the Welsh Members or the Government opposed this Amendment. In the case of the Irish Church the whole of the funds were lumped for national purposes, but he understood the Government followed exactly the opposite course in regard to the Welsh Bill. If they were going to give these funds to localities, why should they decide for the localities and deny them the right of deciding for themselves? They were prepared to trust the people with public houses, and so forth, and their action, therefore, was not consistent. He should give a vote in favour of trusting the people to do what they liked with their own money.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 244.—(Division List, No. 94.)
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH*SIR M. HICKS-BEACH moved an Amendment providing that the property transferred to the Commissioners should be subject to—
  "the obligation to pay to the holder of any office in the Church in Wales at the passing of this Act, so long as he lives and continues to discharge such duties in respect of his office as he was accustomed to discharge, or would, if this Act had not passed, been liable to discharge, or any other duties in Wales or Monmouthshire which may be substituted for them, with his own consent and with the consent of the representative body of the Church in Wales hereinafter mentioned, or if not discharging such duties shall be disabled from so doing by age, sickness, or permanent infirmity, or by any other cause other than his own wilful default, an annuity equal to the annual value of the emoluments of such office, after deducting rates, taxes, and other outgoings to which the holder is liable by law."
  The Amendment, he explained, dealt with an important part of the machinery of the Bill. While the Bill laid down that the property of the Church was to vest in the Commissioners, they were only to act as a sort of conduit in the matter, and the property was to be transferred as speedily as possible to the several parties who were ultimately to hold it. That was absolutely contrary to the scheme of the Irish Act, which provided that the Commissioners were to hold the property and to apply it first in meeting all necessary calls upon it, and were ultimately to convert it into personalty with a view to its future application by Parliament. The intention of this Amendment was to suggest to the Government that it would be better in the interests of their own scheme to adopt something like the Irish machinery rather than the machinery proposed in the Bill. There was in the Bill no definition of "existing interests" with which the property was to remain charged, and it did not lay down what deduction was to be allowed in estimating the nett amount of them from their gross amount, or whether the performance of any duties by the persons holding these existing interests should be essential to their receipt of any income whatever. The scheme of the Government left the matter in this position—the property was to be handed over to the parish council in the case of glebes, or to the County Council in the case of tithes, charged with certain indefinite existing interests

  1753
  which were to be met in some way or other pending their duration. Take the glebes, for instance. The Incumbent would, under the Bill, retain a life interest, but the reversion would be in the hands of the parish council, and there would be continual disputes between them as to the manner in which the glebe should be dealt with. The tithes, again, were to be charged with a, life interest, to be paid to the incumbent by the Commissioners; but it was nowhere laid down precisely what the amount of that life interest was to be, and there was room for considerable friction. The Welsh Commissioners would have to get the tithe from the County Council, and possibly would have to sue the County Council for payment out of the rates if the tithe was not collected. Now the Irish scheme obviated all these disadvantages. It vested permanently the property in the Commissioners. It entrusted them with the collection of the tithe and with the management of the land, and the whole matter was completely in their power. That, certainly, removed all causes of friction which were obvious in the present scheme. Again, he did not see how it would be possible for the Commissioners, who would not retain possession of this property, to raise money on the property in the way proposed by the Bill for their expenses or the payments which they might have to make. If they adopted the Irish scheme, it would enable the Commissioners to make arrangements with the persons holding life interests for the commutation of those interests on whatever terms might seem to be fair. As it is, it would be absolutely impossible for life interests to be commuted. And, finally, he did not understand how, under the scheme of the Government, it would be possible for the Church body to provide for anything like a transfer of incumbents from one living to another, or for an exchange of livings, or for promotion in the Church without considerable apparent injustice
  1754
  to individual parishes. Under the provisions of the Irish Church Act that was a very easy matter. There was no provision in this Bill by which it was rendered essential that an incumbent having a life interest should discharge any duties at all. He was absolutely entitled under Clause 17 to draw a certain pension out of a living, to take it away to the other end of the world, and cease to have any connection with the Welsh Church at all, if only he could get the consent of the representative body to his absence. The subject he felt was a technical one, but it was one of considerable importance to the working of the scheme of the Government. He had raised the question mainly with these objects—first, that they might have some kind of definition of what existing interests were, which was precisely and admirably afforded by the words of the Irish Church Act which he had quoted in his amendment; secondly, that there should be some practicable means of securing promotion in the Welsh Church after disestablishment; and thirdly, that the Government might consider whether, by some such scheme as he suggested, they might not really carry out their own objects more to the advantage of the people of Wales as a whole, than by the plan provided in the Bill. He begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, this was a matter which had seriously engaged the attention of the Government and upon which their opinion was matured and deliberate, because they felt that by departing from the precedent of the Irish Act, in so important a matter, they would be subjected to strong criticism, which, if possible, they would gladly avoid. The grounds on which they resolved to deal with the matter on a different system from that adopted in the case of the Irish Church were briefly summarised there: They thought that with the growth and development of opinion during 25 years it had come more and more to be recognised that ecclesiastical

  1755
  property of this kind was property in which primarily the locality was interested and from which, therefore, in the event of Disendowment, the locality ought to derive benefit; and that, as a matter of administration, the fact that we had in this country what in those days did not exist in England at all—namely, a well-organised system of representative local government—provided the machinery by which these funds might be administered on principles laid down by Parliament. This, the Government thought, would prove a less wasteful method of administration than that adopted in the case of the Irish Church, and would rescue a comparatively small fund from the demands which had pressed so constantly upon the Irish Church surplus. These considerations, however, must be subordinate to the rules of justice. He had always laid it down as a fundamental principle that no person should be placed in a worse pecuniary position by reasons of the provisions of this Bill; that principle had been recognised and would have effect given to it by this clause and subsequent clauses. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman in his Amendment transformed the Government's scheme by imposing on the Commissioners the obligation to pay to the various persons who have existing interests their existing emoluments. That was not the scheme of the Bill. Under the scheme of the Bill the only payment which would be made by the Commissioners to existing incumbents would be the payment in lieu of and as tae equivalent of that from which the main part of their income was derived—the tithe rent-charge. Quoad tithe rent-charge the existing incumbent would remain exactly as now. As regarded the glebe, the existing incumbent would remain a life tenant. The right hon. Gentleman had raised a question, the importance of which he quite recognized—namely, whether it was desirable to make the Parish Council the immediate reversioner.
  1756
  Without pronouncing any final opinion upon the point, he admitted that the question of the time when the glebes should be vested in the parish councils was one well worthy of consideration. As regarded tithes, which were the main source of the incomes of Welsh clergymen, the interests of the Clergy would not be prejudiced by this Bill. At present the tithe-owner had to collect the tithe, and this had been found to be a somewhat thankless and difficult task. Under this Bill—and he believed this to be one of its most valuable provisions—the duty of collecting the tithe would be transferred to the county council, and it would not matter to the incumbent whether the county council performed that duty or neglected it, because if it did not collect the tithe the Commissioners would have the right to resort to the county fund, and to compel the levying of a rate for the purposes to which the tithe should be devoted. In his opinion the incumbent was abundantly protected by the interposition of the Commissioners between himself and the county council and by the provision which placed the whole county fund at the Commissioners' disposal in case of default. Therefore, in respect of the glebe the incumbent would remain in the same position as he was now in, and in respect of the collection of tithe he would be in a more favourable position. The right hon. Gentleman had criticised the expression "existing interests," and he admitted that it was important that they should realise clearly what were existing interests. There could be no doubt as to the interpretation that a court of law would put upon the expression. A year ago he had quoted the definition of the expression given by the right hon. Member for Midlothian, when he introduced the Irish Church Act in 1869, and as he considered that definition the best that could be given, he would venture to quote it again:—
  "The vested interest of the incumbent is quite distinct from his expectation of promotion. It

  1757
  is a title to receive a certain net income from the property of the Church. The vested interest with which we have to deal is the right of the incumbent to be secured in the receipt of a certain annual income from the property of the Church in consideration of the discharge of certain duties which he is bound to perform, as the equivalent which he gives for that income, and subject to the laws, by which he is bound, of the religious body to which he belongs."
  He believed that to be a perfectly accurate definition of the interests of every incumbent. An incumbent was a freeholder who was entitled to receive the emoluments of his office as long as he continued to perform its duties. In providing for the transference of this property to the Welsh Commissioners, subject to the existing interests of all persons who held ecclesiastical offices, the Government believed that they had chosen apt words and had clearly safeguarded the interests of incumbents. But the right hon. Gentleman wished to go further by preserving to the holders of existing interests the right to receive their present emoluments, even though they should cease to hold their present offices and were removed to other positions with their own consent. The words in the Irish Church Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention, were not in the original Bill, but were introduced in the course of the discussions on the measure at the suggestion of the late Lord Selborne. They were inserted to meet the difficulty that in the absence of such a provision promotion would be penalised. It was argued that if a clergyman could only continue to receive his emoluments on the condition that he remained in his existing office, he might either be tied down to an incumbency for which he was no longer fitted, or be prevented from going to a parish where greater advantage would accrue from his work. But although the Irish Church Act allowed a clergyman to remove to another parish, he could not admit that the clergyman had any vested legal right to receive compensation in such a case. His only legal interest was the
  1758
  right to receive his existing emoluments as long as he continued to discharge the duties of his existing office. The Government thought that they had met the difficulty which was present to the right hon. Gentleman's mind by providing, in the 17th Clause, that any person who held an ecelesiastical office might, if he could obtain the consent of the representative body, arrange with the Commissioners to change his existing interest for an annuity on a lower scale. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the interests of the Church might suffer if clergymen were permitted to do this, because they might be encouraged to leave their incumbencies, and the Church in Wales might thus lose their services. He thought, however, that the Bill guarded against that by requiring the consent of the representative body. That body might be trusted to take precautions to prevent any abuse of the right conferred. He hoped that the Committee would consider the scheme adopted in the Bill preferable to that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, that they all recognised on his side of the House the very fair and conciliatory spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not wish to see any person placed in a worse pecuniary position by this Bill than he was in now. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, but wished he would go a little further. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, speaking on the Irish Church Bill, declared that that Church ought not to start in its new course with imperfect or damaged machinery. The right hon. Gentleman meant that provisions ought to be inserted in the Bill which would enable a clergyman to move from one parish to another with the consent of the representative body without prejudice to his interests Section 14 of the Irish Act did three

  1759
  things—first of all, it safeguarded the vested interests of existing clergymen; secondly, it specified that a clergyman was only to receive his emolument so long as he performed the duties of his office; and thirdly, it gave him an absolute right to move from one parish to another and to draw his annuity all the time, provided that what he did had the consent of the representative body. These three conditions ought to find a place in the present Bill unless it was intended to start the Church in Wales after Disestablishment with damaged and insufficient machinery. As to the vested interests of the Clergy, he believed they were sufficiently guarded, but he could not find words in the Bill that said that as long as a clergyman received his compensation annuity he must discharge the duties of his office.
  MR. ASQUITHexplained that the words "existing interests" implied that. A clergyman's only interest now was that he was entitled to his emolument as long as he continued to discharge the duties of his office.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENthought that it ought to be stated specifically that a clergyman was only to receive his compensation annuity as long as he did the work. There remained the third point. Under the Irish Act a clergyman could move from parish to parish without losing his annuity, but there was no similar provision in that Bill. It would be very unfair to the Church if a rising man, who was the incumbent of a small living when the Bill became law, could not be transferred to a more important living unless he was willing to forfeit his annuity. The Home Secretary said that the clause in the Irish Church Act was not in the original Bill. It was perfectly true that the words were introduced into the Irish Bill on the motion of the late Lord Selborne (then Mr. Roundell Palmer), but they were accepted by the then Attorney General for Ireland, who said that the Government agreed that the income of a clergyman should not be forfeited in the event of a change of living. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had followed the Irish Act very carefully in many things, he might have also followed
  1760
  it in this matter, which would secure that a clergyman should not suffer in his pocket by his promotion, and at the same time would mean the loss of only a small amount of money. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 17 to show that he did not wish to penalise promotion. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he did not really penalise promotion by Clause 17. And why? Because, if a clergyman were promoted, he must commute his annuity, and if he commuted it, say at the age of 45, he would lose at least 39 per cent, of the existing capitalised value of the annuity. Therefore, the terms of the Schedule were so severe that the Government had really penalised promotion. He thought that a clergyman should be allowed to go from parish to parish without losing his annuity, and if he himself desired to commute it, he should be able to get its full value. It had been said, on the First Reading of the Bill last year, that difficulties might arise if a clergyman lived long in a parish enjoying glebe and enjoying tithe, and standing in the way of the application of the money to the various parochial purposes to which it was proposed to apply it after his death. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had said:—
  "If the Bill were to pass in its present shape, instead of removing the causes of disturbance, it would increase and intensify them, because the people would have an inducement to create disturbance in order to get rid of the clergyman."
  But if the Amendment were adopted, that difficulty would not arise. For, instead of the clergyman holding property which the people desired to get possession of, he would have an annuity guaranteed by the Commissioners, and this apprehended trouble would be avoided. The Amendment did not strike at the root of the Bill. Indeed, it would greatly improve the Bill if carried. He, therefore, hoped the Home Secretary would reconsider it, and adopt it at least in some modified form.
  *MR. TOMLINSONregarded the Amendment as one of the most important that had been moved since the Bill got into Committee. Under the Bill, as framed, any clergyman promoted to another living or benefice, would be deprived of not less than one-third, and, in some cases, of one-half of his income.

  1761
  Therefore, they made it beneficial for the Church to delay the promotion of deserving clergymen in Wales. He would point out, also, that the Irish Church Act was so framed as to encourage a system of commutation which contributed to the rapid reconstruction of the Disestablished Church on a sound financial basis. Under this Bill, no commutation could take place except at a serious loss of income to the clergyman. The only fair mode of dealing with compensation and commutation was that proposed by the Amendment. Anything short of that must be detrimental to the Church, and must lead, in many cases, to undue suffering for the clergyman.
  Committee divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 164.—(Division List No. 95.)
  *SIR F. S. POWELLmoved to omit the words "except tithe rent-charge," which occurred in line 17. He congratulated the Welsh Members upon the failure of their action some years ago to destroy tithe rent-charge in Wales. The result of that action had been to improve the collection of Welsh tithe rent-charge, and make the property safer and sounder than before. He believed it would be very much better that the tithe rent-charge should be kept in the same hands as glebe, but by Clause 3 of the Bill tithe rent-charge was vested in the Commissioners. By Clause 6 it was transferred from the Welsh Commissioners to the County Council, while by Clause 16 it passed from the County Council to the Welsh Commissioners. The County Council were to pay to the Welsh Commissioners the annual amount after deducting the sum allowed for the cost of collection, rates, and other outgoings other than Income Tax. Under the second sub-section of Clause 16 it was to be paid over to the incumbent for the time being, and eventually it was to be made the subject of a scheme under the Act, and the scheme could not take effect without the approval of Parliament. Such a process was not only cumbrous but very wasteful. He believed much of the tithe rent-charge would be whittled away. The persons who claimed interest from it would not be administrators, and there would be a great reduction in the amount received. There was a great contrast between the
  1762
  words of this Bill and those of the Irish Act. Clause 14 of the Irish Act enacted that payments were to be made "after deducting all rates and taxes, and other outgoings to which the holder is liable in law," but the proposal in this Bill was for more tax, for the words were:—
  "The annual amount, after deducting the sum allowed by the Commissioners for cost of collection, rates, and other outgoings other than Income Tax."
  He could not see in that provision sufficient security that the tithe rent-charge would be duly and fully collected. He did not think the County Council had any motive which would induce them to make, the collection complete. The collection would be imperfect, the charges and costs of collection would be unnecessarily large, and the incumbents would suffer. It might be the interest of the County Council to maintain tithe rent-charge for the good of Wales eventually, but there might be great laxity of administration meanwhile, and the reductions in their incomes would press most severely and hardly upon the incumbents. He knew it was the opinion of many hon. Members that this should be a local rather than a national fund. The Irish system of appropriation had not been wasteful. One million of the money went to intermediate collection, and £600,000 was devoted to the Royal University of Ireland; indeed the appropriations were for the benefit of Ireland, and far more likely to be advantageous than the proposals now made by the Government. There was a great contrast between the policy of the Government in 1869 and that adopted now. In 1869, there was a general enactment that the proceeds were to be appropriated mainly for the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering, yet so as not to ignore the obligations now attached to property under the Act for the relief of the poor. Then came the words—"Such proceeds shall be applied accordingly in the manner Parliament shall hereafter direct." That left the whole management and disposition of the fund in the hands of Parliament. But in the Welsh scheme the purposes to which the fund was to be devoted were given in general form, and then came the remarkable words—"the purposes are to be purposes of general utility not sanctioned

  1763
  by Parliament." He thought the Irish system was much more calculated to produce a valuable result, and he therefore greatly regretted that the Government had departed from it. It would be much wiser to keep the money together. He believed the system he suggested would greatly favour computation on one system or another, and he believed also that commutation would be greatly to the advantage of the Church in Wales. He had great doubt as to the real intention and aim of the Government. Sometimes they heard Gentlemen sitting on the Front Government Bench say they desired the restoration of the Church in Wales, that they desired she might in the course of a few years, by the liberality of her friends and the wise arrangements made by the Bill, improve upon her present position. On the other hand, he found many desired to humiliate and degrade the Church of Wales, and therefore do, he was quite sure, injury to the people. By this Amendment he gave those who desired to see the survival and increasing efficiency of the Church in Wales an opportunity of giving expression to their desires.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that the words in the clause could not be understood without reference to the provisions of Clause 16, which regulated the collection of the tithe. The County Council would be charged with the collection of tithe, and would thus interfere between the incumbent and the tithepayer; and they paid the amount collected to the Welsh Commissioners, who thus came between the County Council and the incumbents. The County Council had the strongest possible interest in maintaining the corpus of the tithe, because it had the whole of the reversionary interest; and the Government had endeavoured to supply a strong inducement to the prompt collection of the tithe during the period in which the vested interest had to be satisfied by providing that any deficiency should be made good out of the county funds. A deficiency would accordingly fall on all the ratepayers of the county. The Government believed that no machinery could be better calculated to preserve the tithe rent-charge and to protect existing interests.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that under the provisions of the Bill the glebe would remain absolutely with its present owner, and would not be affected during the term of his life. He stated then, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that he thought the same provision ought to apply to the tithe rent-charge; and that he could not see any reason for establishing this cumbrous process of at once vesting the tithe rent-charge in the County Council, then making the County Council pay the Welsh Commissioners, and then making the Commissioners pay the holder of the office. The natural course of proceeding would be to leave the tithe rent-charge in the holder of the ecclesiastical office undisturbed during the currency of his life, and to allow him to collect the funds. He appreciated the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, which was one of kindliness to the owner of the office. This elaborate and artificial machinery was set up because there might be difficulty in the way of the incumbent obtaining payment of the tithe rent-charge, judging from what had already occurred in many parts of Wales, particularly in Cardiganshire and Glamorganshire. The idea was that the holder of the office would be in a much better position because ho would get an annual payment from the Welsh Commissioners, while the Commissioners would draw an annual sum from the County Council, and the County Council would be held to their duty of collecting the tithe by the prospect of having to face difficult and costly law suits with the Commissioners. If that procedure really had the effect which was intended, those who were interested in the welfare of the Church would be glad to accept it. But he doubted whether the position of the holders of ecclesiastical office would be improved. The insertion of tithe rent-charge in Clause 3 was very curious. It was said that all ecclesiastical property was to be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners, subject, in the case of all such property, except tithe rent-charge, to the existing interests of the persons at present holding office. That was rather a serious matter. Why should tithe rent-charge be excepted in

  1765
  this clause, if the Government wished to retain and satisfy existing interests?
  MR. ASQUITH: The words are explained by what follows.
  SIR E. CLARKEsaid, that the words of the clause would be correct without that exception. In Clause 16 there was a very serious ambiguity. The County Council was to have the tithe rent-charge vested in it, and was to pay to the Welsh Commissioners an annual amount, according to the septennial average, after deducting the sum allowed by the Commissioners for the cost of collection, rates, and other outgoings. This deduction must be fixed from time to time, so that the patriotic persons who now registered the collection of tithe and made the collection very expensive, would have the satisfaction of knowing that in future all the expenses to which the County Council was put in collecting the charge would fall upon the unhappy incumbent and not upon the County Council at all. In a case where the incumbent was particularly objectionable to the people, either through his own fault, or, as was more likely, through theirs, they would only have to make the collection of tithe extremely costly in order to actually eat up the tithe.
  MR. ASQUITH: The County Council will only be able to deduct the sum allowed by the Commissioners.
  SIR E. CLARKEsaid, that the County Council could fairly urge that it was not their fault if the cost of collection had been 30 or 40 per cent.
  MR. ASQUITH: The incumbent has now to pay the cost of collection himself.
  SIR E. CLARKEsaid, that that was true; but the incumbent had a personal control over the collection, and he had the right to appeal to the assistance of the law. The incumbents in these disturbed parishes in Wales would much rather be left to collect the tithe themselves, so long as they held office, than stand aside and allow it to be collected by the County Councils in face of all the difficulty and disturbance which might be thereby occasioned. There would be much greater popular feeling aroused by the discussion in the County Council on the collection of the tithe, than by the proceedings which now took place between the incumbent and the persons who had to pay the charge. It was the
  1766
  most dangerous thing in the world to make the County Councils collectors of tithe rent-charge in view of what had occurred in Wales. At every election of the County Council the question would come up of what was called "this obnoxious and hateful tax." Clause 16 contained words which required some explanation. The County Councils were to pay an annual amount as tithe rent-charge, or "such less amount as may be required by the Welsh Commissioners for the payments to be made by them." As long as the incumbent lived he was entitled to the total tithe rent-charge. What would be the smaller amount which might have to be paid by the Welsh Commissioners?
  MR. ASQUITH: The County Council collects the total amount, and, so long as every incumbency in the county is filled by existing incumbents, the County Council will have to pay over the whole to the Commissioners of Distribution. But suppose that half-a-dozen incumbencies fall in. Then the County Council will no longer have to pay over the whole amount, but only the amount necessary to satisfy the still remaining interests. Therefore we have provided that they will pay such less amount as may be required by the Welsh Commissioners for the payments to be made by them to the incumbents.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that clearly explained the point, but it seemed to him to open up a matter of some difficulty for the County Council. They would have a large amount of tithe rent-charge in the county to collect, not specifically located to particular incumbents. The general amount, however, would have to be collected, and they would have to pay it. If they were to treat the collection of the whole of the tithe rent-charge as being a matter with respect to which the Commissioners were to make an allowance for collection, an incumbent who might be in the position of collecting the tithe rent-charge, from its peculiar character and situation, with ease, and without any cost for collection, would be affected by the general allowance made by the County Council for the cost of collection, which might include many places where there was a large cost. Words might be inserted in the clause to carry that intention out.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that till the Home Secretary had explained his views he did not think hon. Members were quite in a position to understand the reasons which had influenced him in inserting these words. It would appear, from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that evening, that he had partly in view the object of easing the incumbent from what would be, under some circumstances, a disagreeable position, and that he sought to simplify the general administration in Wales by placing the tithe rent-charge in the hands of the County Council. Something might be said for this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman if the whole of the tithe rent-charge in Wales could be disposed of in the way proposed in this clause. But that was not the case; it did not apply to appropriated tithes, and to put the collection in the hands of the County Council would not solve the difficulties in that class of tithe rent-charge. A more important point still was, that the proposed system of dealing with tithe rent-charge did nothing with that portion of it which belonged to private benefactions. It might be that the Home Secretary had not realised the large amount of property consisting of tithes, and property in other shapes, that would have to be dealt with under Clause 5. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, had been misled by the Return which was issued from the Home Office in July 1894, which treated almost the whole of the tithe rent-charge as ancient endowment. But, as showing the amount of accretion which had taken place, he might mention that he had figures before him showing that, in the cases of 23 benefices in Wales, the agregate incomes had increased from £91 16s. 8d. in 1703, to £3,162 at the present time. A great proportion of this property really properly came from sources which were strictly within the very limited terms of Clause 5, and he desired that the fact should be noted that, in many instances, private benefactors found that tithe was the most convenient form of property to be given to the Church. In the case of Bonvilstone, in the county of Glamorgan, for instance, in 1764, the
  1768
  Rev. Miles Basset (Patron and Impropriator) gave a benefaction of tithes amounting to £12 per year and a rent-charge of £3 per annum. And there was a very remarkable instance mentioned by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol in the Second Reading of the Bill, which, however, occurred before 1703. He had, he thought, said enough to show that, if this Bill were passed, there would be a considerable portion of the tithes which ought not to be handed over to the County Councils, but which would belong to the Church as private benefactions and would be handed over to the representative Church body. The benefits which were supposed to be secured to the Church, by separating tithe rent-charge from other property were of a very shadowy character, and he would rather let all the property go to the Commissioners to be dealt with together. It seemed to him that that would be a better system as a whole; and, therefore, he thought the Amendment now before the Committee ought to be supported.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, that the effect of the arguments used concerning the various holders of benefices in Wales came to this, that those holders of benefices were to be secured in their private benefactions. How were they to be secured? They were not to collect and receive their tithes as they did now, but they were to depend for them on the county councils. Why should not they be left in the position they were now in, to collect their tithes and receive them as they had done heretofore? That was apparently what they themselves would desire; but instead of that they were in future to receive them from the county councils. Suppose the holders of these benefices preferred to collect their tithes themselves. Suppose they said:—
  "We are on good terms with our parishioners and we have no trouble in collecting our tithes."
  Why should they not be allowed to do so? In many instances in Wales the county councils were elected by ratepayers who were adverse to the whole system of tithes, and were great opponents of the Church, and if the collection of tithes was left in their hands the case of the

  1769
  holders of benefices would be a very hard one. Suppose the latter were to say:—
  "We would rather bear those ills we have, Than fly to others that we know not of."
  Why, in the name of common sense, should they not be left to collect their tithes? The idea of the Bill seemed to be, instead of allowing people to go on in the old way as much as possible, to enforce on them a system of general alterations. The Government must not be surprised if those on his side of the House regarded this change with great apprehension and fear. They believed that the county councils would not be a satisfactory body for the purpose of collecting tithes or distributing the receipt thereof. Therefore, he was one of those who considered that good service had been done in putting this matter prominently before the House. They ought to guard with the greatest care everything connected with tithe rent-charge, and, therefore, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, his main reason for objecting to the retention of the words was—that it would prejudice the consideration of the question which would arise later on as to the purposes to which tithe rent-charge should be devoted. If these words were left in the Bill, that would practically pledge them to the view that tithe rent-charge was to go to the County Councils. He for one would much rather that it went to the parish; he did not want to see all this parish property leaving the parish; he wanted to keep it there rather than allow it to go to some central fund. If it were not to go to the County Councils there was no reason why the clause should contain this exception; and it would be much better not to tie their hands at all, but to leave the matter open for future discussion. After the death of an existing incumbent the tithe ought to pass into the hands of the Parish Council. He claimed for the Amendment the support of some hon. Members on the other side, including the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk, who was strongly in favour of keeping this property for the parish.
  *MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, this was a most difficult clause to understand. Tithe rent-charge was simply
  1770
  property, like any other kind of property, belonging in some cases to the Church, in some cases to the Nonconformists, in some cases to individuals and in some cases to lay corporations; it had nothing to do with anything ecclesiastical; and he, therefore, asked why it should be dealt with differently from other property. It would be a disappointment to the constituents of many Welsh Members if this money were devoted to purposes of public utility instead of going into their own pockets. Why should other property be made subject to existing interests and tithe rent-charge be made subject "to the obligation to make provision in lieu of existing interests"? If there were no difference in the nature of the property, or in the charges which were to be placed upon it, why in the name of common sense should these different forms be used? He was certain there was some mischief lurking in this difference of phraseology. He suggested that, instead of saying "all such property except tithe rent-charge," they should merely say "all property." That would get rid of a large part of the clause which did not affect the position of the Government in regard to the Bill, which was to sweep into their hands all the property they could which formed the endowment of the Church. They would do that equally well by taking out this particular portion of the clause. To hand over to the County Councils tithe rent-charge would be to put a stopper on the commutation or redemption of tithe rent-charge.
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he gathered there was nothing in the present Amendment which really touched the question, who were to be owners of the tithe rent-charge. That was a matter which would have to be discussed later. But he would wish to make a few observations on the clause from an entirely different point of view to that taken by his hon. Friends behind. He understood that the objection taken by his hon. Friends was this—they objected to the insertion in the clause of two different modes of dealing with the property of the Church, one mode of dealing with the glebe and another of dealing with the tithe. He entirely agreed in this. But he did not agree in the reason for their objection as he gathered it from the Debate. He

  1771
  gathered from the Debate that his hon. Friends objected to the proposals of the Government in a later clause of the Bill by which the collection of tithe would be entrusted to a public body instead of being left, as at present, to the tithe, owner. He thought the Home Secretary made a fair case upon that point. He must confess he believed—assuming this Bill to become law—that it would be a great boon to a clergyman to be relieved of the duty of collecting his tithe and have it collected for him by a public body. And, looking to the names of the Commissioners who had been selected, he believed they would fairly and impartially do their duty and take care that the County Councils collected as much tithe as they could, and honourably hand over the tithe so collected to those whose life interests were concerned. He thought the Government would be well advised to meet the objections raised as to the possibility of too large an allowance for the costs of collection by putting into the clause a maximum allowance which should not be exceeded by the Commissioners. He did not himself believe that the Commissioners would be likely to exceed a reasonable allowance. But it must be remembered that incumbents would be absolutely dependent on the Commissioners, and it would not be unreasonable to insert in the clause that the allowance should not exceed five per cent. Then it would be clear what the intention of the Government was, and it would be incumbent on the Commissioners to carry it out. But that did not affect the proposal of the Government as to the collection of tithe. They desired to improve the present position of the incumbents by imposing a difficult and unpleasant duty on a public body instead of leaving it where it was now. That was a valuable proposal. But would not the Home Secretary consider whether it would not be better for all parties to extend this proposal to the whole property of the incumbents. Why should they be left to collect the rents of and manage their glebes—which, in the case of large glebes, they were utterly unable to do—when they were relieved of this burden with regard to tithe. He had previously endeavoured to explain the difficulty in which, after the passing of the Bill, incumbents would be placed who had a life
  1772
  interest in the glebe, the reversion of which would vest in the Parish Council. The Home Secretary admitted the force of his objection, and promised he would endeavour to meet it at a later stage of the Bill, by allowing the freehold of the glebe to remain in the incumbent during his life, and only transferring it on his death to the Parish Council. He was afraid the Home Secretary would find great difficulty in doing this consistently with proper security for the interests of the reversioner, because only recently a case had come under his personal notice in which the incumbent and the patron of the living, being members of the same family, had conspired—he did not think the word was too strong—to sell the glebe of the living to a member of the family for a price which certainly did not appear to be adequate in value. The transaction was carried out in spite of the check which the Legislature had imposed on such transactions of requiring the assent of the Board of Agriculture. This showed the temptation that existed even under the present law, where one took care to guard the reversion to the living. There was a strong reason why the Home Secretary should extend—what he himself considered—the boon given to the owners of tithe to the owner of glebe, and treat the two in the same way. He could not impose, by any proposal he could conceive, proper restriction upon improper dealing by incumbents with their glebes, unless there was some reversioner whose interest it was to look after the reversion. Therefore he would suggest that the Home Secretary should give up the idea of treating tithe and glebe in a different way; allow glebe as well as tithe to be vested in the Commissioners, to be utilised as well as possible by them—at any rate, during the life interest of the incumbent; that they should pay to the incumbent the proceeds of the glebe, precisely as he proposed they should pay the proceeds of the tithe, and that then, anything necessary either for the protection of the reversioner in the glebe or its proper management during the life of the incumbent, should be carried out by the Commissioners rather than left with the incumbent. He agreed with the hon. Mover of the Amendment that it was necessary that the words in question should be omitted, as otherwise a difference would be made

  1773
  between the treatment of the glebe and that of the tithe. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, would be able to see his way to the Amendment of the clause in this respect.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that he entirely sympathised with the object which the right hon. Baronet (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH, Bristol) had in view, and he thought that the case might be fairly met without his giving any express pledge on the subject. He was quite ready, if a sufficient case were made out to consider whether it might not be desirable to postpone the vesting of the glebe in the Parish Council until the present interest fell in. When Clause 6 was reached he would see whether it might be possible to carry out the intention of the right hon. Baronet, so as to secure the incumbents the enjoyment of the profits of their interests, whatever they might be, and to prevent them from being harassed by the Parish Council.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEdesired to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the concession which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made in reference to this matter. He was glad to hear that a certain uniformity was to be secured in the treatment of both the glebe and the tithe in the scheme of the Bill. He could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to assure the Committee that a limit would be placed upon the cost of the collection of the tithe.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that his own opinion was that the cost of collection would be less when the tithe rent-charge was vested in the County Councils than it was under existing circumstances, and he would see if it were possible to deal with the question later on, if necessary, on the Report.
  *MR. TOMLINSONdesired to repeat that no inconsiderable part of the benefactions in Wales had taken the form of tithe rent-charge, and that under that head they would be handed back to the representative body.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid that it would simplify the matter if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHwas afraid that he could not consent to the right hon.
  1774
  Gentleman's proposal. As he had said, if necessary, the clause could be remodelled on the Report.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERwished to point out that, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not exactly appreciated the contention of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, with reference to the effect these words would have if they were left in the clause. The object of his right hon. Friend was that both the glebe and the tithe rent-charge should be placed upon precisely the same footing. As the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary had expressed his concurrence in the view of the matter which was taken by his right hon. Friend, doubtless the whole difficulty in their way was simply one of drafting. The suggestion that had been made by his right hon. Friend certainly had not been put forward with the view of embarrassing the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. If the words in question were left in it would then appear on the face of the clause that a difference was drawn between the tithe and the other class of property. It was exceedingly difficult for them to say whether, if these words were left in, the Committee would be entitled to deal with the question on any subsequent clause and then to provide schemes to enable the glebe and the tithe rent-charge to be dealt with in the same way. If the words were retained therefore the Committee would be practically committed to dealing with these different classes of property in different ways. As, however, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did intend to deal with this question at a subsequent period in accordance with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, he earnestly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would consent to accept the Amendment and would agree to omit the words referred to. They had heard from hon. Members below the Gangway the customary chorus of disapproval of any suggestion coming from the Opposition side of the House, but he desired to point out to those hon. Members, many of whom had only lately returned to the House, and who consequently had not heard the greater part of the Debate or the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that it was the opinion of those who

  1775
  were in charge of the Bill that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol was really one of substance. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would consent to the omission of these words, which if retained might be found to be embarrassing to both the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Committee when they came to discuss the question again on subsequent clauses.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that he was rather sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Webster, Isle of Wight) should have adopted the tone he had in the remarks he had just made. He must ask the Committee to assent to the clause as it stood, and to except tithe rent-charge, as to which he thought they were really now all agreed. He thought the collection of the tithe rent-charge should be vested in the hands of some other authority, be it County Council or Commissioners. The only point outstanding between them was, whether that condition ought not to be further extended; the other question could be raised on Clause 6.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he felt bound to divide on the Amendment, as he wished to take the sense of the Committee on the inconvenience of separating tithe rent-charge from the other property.
  The Committee divided:—Noes, 141; Ayes, 174.—(Division List, No. 96.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE VISCOUNT CRANBORNE moved an Amendment with the object of defining "existing interests." According to the Home Secretary's view, the existing interests of an Incumbent depended upon the performance by him of certain duties. But what duties? And who was to decide whether the Incumbent performed his duties, and upon what principles would that decision be given? After the date of Disestablishment, the Ecclesiastical Courts would come to an end, and the only method of enforcing the law would be by the Temporal Courts. How were the temporal Courts going to interpret Ecclesiastical Law? It was very complicated, and very often out of sympathy with the methods of the Temporal Courts. For instance, under the Clergy Discipline Act, an Incumbent was subject to its provisions, not only if he had
  1776
  committed an offence, but if there was grave scandal or grave suspicion that he had committed an offence. How was a Temporal Court, which only acted upon definite proof, to interpret that Statute? Then there were a number of minor provisions, which were entirely out of date nowadays, and which, by a long succession of decisions and by the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts were not put in operation now. If these provisions were put in the hands of the Temporal Courts, and were interpreted according to the ideas of jurisdiction and procedure which prevailed under the ordinary Common Law of the country, a most extraordinary result would be produced.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERwould like to endorse what had been said by the noble Lord. He had himself intended, on the first fitting opportunity, following the announcement made earlier in the evening by the Home Secretary, to have raised this matter with the view of obtaining a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman. He had told them that he considered the existing interests carried with them the existing obligations to perform duties. At the present time a certain number of small duties had to be performed on Sunday by Incumbents. Suppose after the date of Disestablishment some question should arise as to a different standard of the duties which should be established by the representative body, were the "existing interests" of the Clergy of the Disestablished Church, who were holding their livings and receiving their emoluments as possessors of vested interests, to have put upon them a new standard of ecclesiastical duties? He desired to know whether existing duties were to be interpreted by the Temporal Courts according to the same rules of construction and definition of those duties previously laid down by the Ecclesiastical Courts? The moment he heard the pronouncement of the right hon. Gentleman—though he was sure he spoke advisedly—it at once occurred to his mind that a difficult question was opened to them, and that they must put down some Amendments to have the matter clearly and definitely defined. If the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to consider the matter, and insert a definition of existing interests or duties, which should solve the difficulty for

  1777
  them, they should be perfectly satisfied, but it was absolutely impossible to leave it at large if all he was giving them by the definition "existing" meant existing at the passing of this Act. He thought it meant that a man who had a freehold interest should continue to have a freehold interest. So far as this clause was concerned, speaking of it in the true and strict sense, as to what duties were to be performed, he never imagined the right hon. Gentleman could have intended that the only guide that should be given was under these words. He thought, as soon as the right hon. Gentleman's announcement was made, that it was their duty to raise this question because otherwise they must have put down a definition of what the words carried with them. They would see what definition the right hon. Gentleman intended to insert, and if not satisfactory, it would be the duty of hon. Members on that side of the House to put down some Amendments.
  MR. ASQUITHconsidered this was not a matter which ought to occasion much controversy. The "existing interests" referred to were defined in the Interpretation Clause to be those existing at the date of the passing of this Act. The only question that would arise was, what was the interest of a clergyman in his benefice, having regard to the statutes and the law which regulated such matters, at the date of the passing of this Act? In his view it was quite true that, primâ facie, a clergyman appointed to a living had a life interest in that living, but it was qualified by, and subject to, some service and conditions, some of them imposed by statute and some of them by ecclesiastical law and the Courts, the neglect or violation of which would expose him to deprivation of his benefice. The Temporal Courts were capable of ascertaining what those conditions were, and whether or not a particular person had violated them, just as they were, in cases which concerned public companies, competent to decide whether a director had violated the conditions relating to his tenure of office. Supposing they were dissolving a purely trading corporation, and provided in an Act of Parliament that all the existing interests of the directors should be safeguarded, and the question
  1778
  subsequently arose as to whether a particular person had such interest or had forfeited it. No one knew better than his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight that a court of law would look to the constitution of the company, its memorandum of association, would take evidence, if there were other stipulations not embodied in this document, as to them, and, having ascertained what were the conditions of office, would proceed to consider whether or not a particular person had violated them. The question presented in this case was no more difficult. Everything that would now be considered upon the question raised there as to whether A B had or had not forfeited his ecclesiastical office—everything now relevant to the consideration of that question would be relevant when the question arose before a Temporal Court after the passing of this Act. The noble Lord said, Temporal Courts knew very little about ecclesiastical law, and were not, therefore, very good judges of such matters. But the question was one of ascertaining what was the ecclesiastical law at the time of the passing of this Act, and having ascertained it they could apply it to a particular case and say whether the conditions of the law had or had not been complied with. The documents and facts material to the matter being laid before them, he did not think there was any more difficulty in the Judges of the land deciding what were the conditions upon which ecclesiastical benefices were held at the present moment, than in the same question being decided by the Ecclesiastical Courts. It was not a matter of importance one way or the other. While he should rather deprecate the insertion in the Definition Clause of an exhaustive definition of "existing interests," he would point out that the noble Lord's Amendment would be more appropriately moved on the Definition Clause. If necessary, such a definition could be inserted in that clause, without the need of any alteration in the clause now before the Committee.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSasked whether or not the right hon. Gentleman included in the words "ecclesiastical office," the lay holder of a rectory?
  MR. ASQUITH: No.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, that the obligations of the holders of such office

  1779
  were serious and important, and it seemed to him that if the Bill were passed in its present form they would be able to get rid of those obligations.
  MR. ASQUITH: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is not an "existing interest." It is an "existing liability." When we come to Clause 5, which deals with the transference of the churches, the hon. Gentleman will find that the transference is subject to all existing public and private rights.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLthought that the obligation of office-bearers to faithfully discharge the duties of their offices should be clearly laid down, and not left a matter of inference from the doubtful words of the Bill. Section 14 of the Irish Church Act made it clear that clergymen were liable, after the passing of the Act, to the same obligations and the same penalties in regard to the discharge of their duties as before the passing of the Act. That was an example from the Irish Act which ought to be followed.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDsaid, that the question as to how far "existing interests" might be affected by breaches of discipline was not a matter that should be dealt with in the perfunctory manner in which the Home Secretary had thought fit to deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Temporal Courts were perfectly competent, and as competent as the Ecclesiastical Courts, to deal with the matter. He thought that Temporal Courts in dealing with those cases would be in the same position as Temporal Courts in deciding cases of foreign law. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that, in trial of those cases, foreign law experts were often called to give evidence as to what the foreign law on the subject might be. Was it, then, the view of the right hon. Gentleman that in the hearing of those ecclesiastical cases by the Temporal Courts experts on ecclesiastical law were to give evidence as to whether there had been a breach of the ecclesiastical law, and whether existing rights had been forfeited? He ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman had not given sufficient thought to this question, which affected the whole future of the discipline of the Welsh Church.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had raised the point as to "existing interests"
  1780
  in moving an Amendment earlier in the evening. The Home Secretary then quoted the definition of "existing interests" given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in the debates on the Irish Church Act, which was that the "existing interests" of an incumbent were dependent on the due performance by him of the duties of his office. But the Home Secretary had forgotten that, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had given that definition, with which everyone would agree, the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to insert in the Irish Church Act the Section to which the hon. Member for Wigan had alluded, making it clear that a clergyman was liable to be deprived of his "existing interests" in the event of his failure to perform the duties of his office. He thought it would be necessary to insert some such words in the Bill when they came to the Definition Clause. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn until the Definition Clause was reached.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE,in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, expressed the hope that before the Definition Clause was reached, the Home Secretary would have learned a little ecclesiastical law, because at present the right hon. Gentleman could not appreciate the point raised in the Amendment.
  MR. BARTLEYhoped that some means would be provided in the Bill by which the due performance of their duties by the various officers of a church would be secured in the interest of the parishioners.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSproposed to insert after "aforesaid," in line 18, the words "and of all cathedral corporations as aforesaid." The Bill as it stood transferred the property of persons who held ecclesiastical offices subject to existing interests. He desired to extend the protection to members of corporations. He could not understand on what principle canons, for instance, should be protected and cathedral corporations should not.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he had stated several times that the intention of the Government was that no individual

  1781
  should suffer pecuniarily by the passing of the Act, and he confessed he did not quite comprehend what was the case the hon. Gentleman had in mind. A cathedral corporation consisted of a Dean, a certain number of Canons, minor Canons, and subordinate officers, and every one of those individuals would, under the words of the clause as it stood, continue, as long as he lived and performed the duties of his office, to receive exactly the same emoluments as now. What was there left to compensate? He agreed they were taking away from the Church the ultimate revenues of every one of these corporations, but they were taking away those revenues on the terms that no individual who had any beneficial right should suffer by the change. What additional interest was there, consistent with the provisions of the Bill, that they had not provided for?
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, that suppose they took the corporation of any cathedral they liked, and suppose that that corporation owned land which it did not appropriate to the use of any single ecclesiastical office, but collected the revenues and divided them amongst its members. The right hon. Gentleman, desired that those members should not suffer, but it seemed to him that as the Bill now stood they would suffer, because those revenues were not appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office at all.
  MR. ASQUITHassured the hon. Gentleman that the only difference between them was as to the effect of the clause as it stood. Every member of a corporation would be, for the purposes of the clause, deemed to be the holder of an office, and in that capacity would be entitled to receive exactly the same revenue after the Act passed as he now received.
  MR. ARTHUR J. BALFOURsaid that his hon. Friend seemed to think there might be cases in which the property of a corporation should be analogous to that held by colleges at Oxford or Cambridge, in which, in addition to the money given to the Master and Dean, and so forth, there was a certain amount of money derived from the estates of the college divided amongst the Fellows as dividends. That money was clearly not in payment for any office. The amount of salary depended upon the accidental
  1782
  amount, the casual amount, brought in by the estates of the college. The dividend might be £300 one year, but the next year, owing to agricultural depression, it might be £250 or £200. His hon. Friend desired to secure that if there be such divisible money apart from the definite salaries of the offices, those who had hitherto obtained it should not be debarred from receiving it. The question was whether the words of the clause carried out that object.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he could speak with some experience, because he was a Fellow of his college for many years, and he received very variable dividends owing to the varying conditions of agriculture. He would have been much surprised if he had been told he did not hold an office. What they proposed by the clause was that, whatever might be ascertained to be the interest at the time of the passing of the Act of any member of an ecclesiastical corporation—say of a cathedral chapter—that interest should be secured to him.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEpointed out that there was a distinction made by Sub-section (b) between the property which was appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office and the property which was appropriated to a cathedral corporation. The only thing which was protected was the interest of the persons holding office. Therefore, they were only protected with respect to one part of the property which was the subject of the clause; and there was another part, belonging to the cathedral corporation, in which their interests would not be protected. If the right hon. Gentleman made a distinction between one class of property and another in line 12, he must also make the distinction in line 16.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he did not think there would be any ambiguity; but there was some point in the noble Lord's criticism, and to make the matter perfectly clear, he would propose to insert, after the words "holding such offices," the words "or are members of such corporations."
  The Amendment proposed by Mr. VICARY GIBBS was, by leave, withdrawn, and the insertion of the words proposed by Mr. ASQUITH agreed to.
  On the question that Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENmoved the rejection of the clause. He said that the Committee had reached the stage when they could consider Disendowment apart from Disestablishment. On going into Committee he moved an Instruction that the Bill should be divided into two parts, to be discussed separately. The House did not consent to the Instruction, but the Government being determined that Disendowment must go with Disestablishment, tore from them the mask that what they were seeking was religious equality. It had been made clear that the real object was to get hold of the revenues of the Church and apply them to secular purposes. Whatever case there might be for Disestablishment, Disendowment stood upon a different footing. The fact was that hon. Members from Wales did not really care for Disestablishment except as a means to Disendowment; and the Government were not really the authors of this Bill. The authors were the extreme party in Wales who wished, not religious equality, but the chance to strike a fatal blow at the Church in Wales, now that she was advancing, and before she became too strong. He would quote the words used by the hon. Member for Carnarvon when the Bill was introduced by the Home Secretary last year. Referring to a statement of his that a large number of Nonconformists had applied to ministers of the Church of England, the hon. Member said—
  "This proselytism in Wales was the strongest possible argument for Disestablishment and Disendowment.''
  In other words, because the Church was making converts and doing her work well, a fatal blow must be struck before she became too powerful, and Disestablishment became impossible. Was that a reasonable ground for the House of Commons to act upon? What would be the result if Disendowment were coupled with Disestablishment? In the first place, a new and monstrous inequality would be created. The question of Nonconformist endowments had been ruled outside the Bill, and so they could not be referred to. But the Government was proposing to take away from the Church every single penny of her endowments, except those granted since 1703, and not a single penny of the
  1784
  Nonconformist endowments was touched. Yet the property of the Church was given by pious Churchmen for the use of the Church just as much as the Nonconformist endowments were given by Nonconformists for the use of the Nonconformist bodies. As a proof of this, what happened last night? A proposal was made to limit the Bill only to grants.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and must take the clause as it is.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, that the Bill took away all the property of the Church, whether given by individuals or the State; and if the Amendment to which he was about to refer had been carried there would have been the simple declaration that only the property given by the State could be taken away by the State. This was a case of gross inequality. He was glad to know that the Nonconformists had endowments, and no one wished to take them away; but he denied the right of the Government, of the Welsh Members, or of the Nonconformists to take away the endowments of the Church in the name of religious equality. Another result of this endowment clause, as had been shown by those who knew the Church in Wales, was that there were parishes where it would be impossible to maintain a resident clergy. The other day, when that question was being discussed, the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan made a statement to the effect that there was not, to his knowledge, a single parish in the whole of Wales which had not a regular minister, a chapel, and regular services. The South Wales Daily Star, which was published in Newport, commented on this statement, and gave a list of 60 parishes in Monmouthshire where there was no minister, chapel, or place of worship which was not in connection with the Church. He submitted that this was a very serious matter. In Monmouthshire alone there were 60 parishes, on the evidence of this newspaper, in which there was a regular service given by the Nonconformists. In a great many of those parishes it would be impossible through poverty to maintain a resident clergy. All hon. members were aware of the appeals that were being made at this time in London and elsewhere for more money to aid religious

  1785
  effort, to spread the light of the Gospel among the poor in the East End of London and in the coal-fields of South Wales; and yet now was the moment chosen by the Government, at the bidding of their Welsh masters, to bring a proposal forward to take away from the Church in Wales the miserable pittance it possessed and devote it to secular purposes. Who could pretend to say that, opposed to the case of the Irish Church, there was a Surplus fund? The funds of the Church were £4,000,000 less than the Irish Church after Disendownment; the number of clergy had doubled in Wales and their incomes had been decreased. The average stipend was under £200 a year. The Home Secretary had said that strong language had been used about this Bill, and especially about the disendowment part of of it. He admitted that strong language had been used; but at the same time it should be remembered that their feelings with regard to the subject were strong. The Government by this Bill were striking, for merely party purposes, at the tenderest part of poor Churchmen, and of those who knew and loved Wales. Churchmen had however established in the country a very strong organisation in defence of the Church, which was working in every parish, and which was spreading the truth about the iniquity of this Bill—an organisation which had been already brought into play, and which had done notable work at several recent by-elections. Whatever might happen in that House or elsewhere he would continue to call this portion of the Bill plunder and sacrilege.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEESthought that this clause was so important that it ought to be considered apart from the question of Disestablishment. Was there any man who hoped to benefit the Church by Disendowment? The Nonconformist bodies claimed that they were more fitted to exercise their spiritual functions because they were not connected with the State; but was there a representative of any Nonconformist body who would dare to get up to say that the body he represented would have been more potent and more spiritually efficient if it had been deprived of its funds? Was the property the property of the Church or of the State? It would be contended, of course, that it was the
  1786
  joint property of Church and State, and that when the partnership was dissolved, the State had a right to take the money which was given to the Church when Church and State were one. But could that argument hold good for one moment? When this money was given, it was not contemplated that Church and State would be divided, and it would be as reasonable to contend that money settled by a father upon the marriage of his daughter should become the property of the husband on the dissolution of the marriage without issue, as to suggest that this money should revert to the State when the union between Church and State should be dissolved. Many of them felt very strongly that these properties ought not to be devoted to secular uses. Whose image and superscription did these coins bear? They were quite ready to hand over to Cæsar's the things that were Cæsar's; but they thought that these coins were stamped with a far higher and nobler superscription. The whole force and power of this cry for Disestablishment came from a few earnest, sincere, religious men, who really believed that by dissolving the union between Church and State, they were benefiting the cause of religion. It was, of course, no use appealing to the enemies of the Church, but he did appeal to those men to vote against this clause, and he would ask them to pause and consider the grave and terrible responsibility that would lie upon them if they transferred ecclesiastical property to secular uses.
  *MR. KENYONsaid, that in his experience there were two classes of people who could not be converted—the one, ladies; the other, Welsh Radicals. The latter appeared to him to be in the position of the young man who, when his banns were being called at the parish church had to answer to the question whether there were, any just cause or impediment, "What else am I here for?'' That was what hon. Gentlemen from Wales, who sat opposite, were there for. They were compelled by their constituents to support the Disendowment of the Welsh Church. He, therefore, had no cause to complain of them. But he protested, as a Welshman who knew Wales and who loved her even better than he knew her, that this measure was not one which

  1787
  commended itself to the people of Wales. In saying this, he made all possible allowances to hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House. But, to show what he meant, he ventured to remind hon. Members that he had presented against this Bill that day two Petitions which were fairly typical. Both those places, one of which was a manufacturing town, and the other a portion of a rural district, were in his own constituency, which contained many Welsh-speaking Welshmen. The signatures attached to these Petitions amounted to upwards of 3,500, and the largest poll in the constituency was when he polled 1760 votes, and was returned by a majority of 360, so that showed that in that constituency there was a very strong feeling against the Bill, and that the people of Wales were not so entirely on one side upon this question as hon. Gentlemen opposite represented. For himself he would say that he believed Disestablishment to be the greater evil of the two that were to be inflicted on Wales by the Bill. For Disendowment, comparatively speaking, he cared little, because he knew there were plenty of good Churchmen in Wales who would be ready to come forward, if necessary, as their ancestors had done before them, to fill up the gap in the interests of the Church they loved and honoured. As he had said, he personally looked at Disestablishment as the greater evil, but if he were asked his opinion about Disendowment he must conscientiously say that if there was one species of property which ought to have been secure among the law-abiding people of Wales, whose virtues he knew and whose consistency he honoured, it should have been the property of the Church, because he was free to acknowledge that in no other part of the United Kingdom had religion so deep a seat as it had among Welshmen. He would only say further that even if the Bill was carried Welsh Churchmen and Welsh Conservatives would not despair of the future.
  MR. C. E. TRITTONsaid, that in the arrangement of the clauses of the Bill on the first page the clause under discussion was entitled "Transfer of Property." Some of them on that side of the House thought that another and a more
  1788
  expressive title might have been given to the clause. He ventured to think that the transfer was of the wrong kind, that it was in a down-grade direction. It was a transfer of property from religious to secular objects, but what was wanted in the conditions of the present day, with all its sins and its sorrows, was rather a transfer of property from secular to religious uses. Personally he would prefer to see the endowments of every Nonconformist body considerably augmented rather than that the endowments of the Church of England, or of any other religious body, should be decreased by a single shilling. He was convinced that there was hardly a parish in any of our great towns in which the lives of the people would not be made much happier, and their prospects rendered brighter, if only more funds were forthcoming for the enlargement of Church organisation in the parish, and for the increase of every kind of religious agency, lay and otherwise. There was no greater problem among the social problems with which we had to deal than the fact of the ever-increasing masses of people in our great cities, and never was there a time when a greater demand was made on the resources of the Church for its work among the people than at present. Yet this was the time, of all times, when the Government had thought fit to bring in a Bill to hinder and cripple the good work the Church was doing in one of the weakest parts of the United Kingdom. His reasons for supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division to omit Clause 3 were first, because he could not see, in spite of what the legal luminaries had said, that Parliament had any moral right whatever to alienate for secular purposes money which had been given in bygone ages for the service of the Church and the glory of God. Secondly, he supported the Amendment because he was perfectly certain that if they could take the view of the country upon this clause alone there would be a very large majority in favour of omitting it from the Bill. He had the honour and acquaintance of a very large number of Nonconformists of one denomination or another who wished to see the Church what they called separated from the trammels of the State, but he believed there were only a very small proportion

  1789
  who wished to see the Church Disendowed as well. They admired the work she was doing; they knew what her missions of mercy were; they recognised that she and they were comrades in one common good work; and they did not want to see her crippled or hindered in that work. He was talking to the wife of an ex-Radical Member, a most intelligent lady, as he was sure the wife of an ex-Radical Member must necessarily be. Poor thing; she had suffered from a transfer of property which was not altogether agreeable to her; in other words, on her way home in the omnibus she had had her pocket picked and her purse removed. In order to turn her mind from her sad plight, he asked her what she thought of the Bill for the Disendowment of the Church in Wales. She spoke in the most fervid way, with a torrent of words, and finished by saying that this House of Parliament had no more right to take away the property of the Church than the expert had to relieve her of her property on her way home in the omnibus. He ventured to think there were a large number of earnest, pious Nonconformists who agreed entirely with the views of the wife of the ex-Radical Member of Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This clause isolates in a convenient manner one of the most important aspects of the Bill which we have now been discussing for four or five nights. I confess that the practical aspects of Disendowment have always impressed me even more powerfully than the practical aspects of Disestablishment. In that impression I believe I differ from many gentlemen who agree with me upon the general views I hold with regard to this Bill, but the view I take upon that subject is so strong that I should not be candid if I did not give it on this occasion full expression. We have suffered in all the previous discussions we have had upon this measure from the fact that the question of Disendowment has been mixed up with every kind of historical and antiquarian investigation. We have been asked by one speaker after another to look into the origin of tithes and into the precise effect which the changes which took place at the Reformation have upon the tenure of ecclesiastical property, and upon the
  1790
  title by which the Church holds the property which she does hold. It is a consolation to me to reflect that all these questions may be dismissed in discussing this clause, Nor is it necessary or relevant, or even in order, to discuss what is the precise character of the advantages which the State derives from its connection with the Church, or which the Church derives from its connection with the State. The simple and solitary question which we have to determine to-night is, whether it is consistent with our public duty to deprive a Christian denomination of four millions of money. I do not think I lack sympathy for opinions that differ from mine. I think I am able in most cases to put myself in the position of those who differ from me, even when the differences that divide us are very great; but I have never been able, and I cannot now put myself in the position of either a Churchman or a Nonconformist who believes that the truths which the Church teaches are great truths, necessary truths, truths which it is of the utmost importance to teach—I cannot, I say, put myself in the position of a man who holds those views and, at the same time, holds the opinion that the great body on which the duty of impressing those doctrines on the people rests ought to be deprived of the funds by which, among other secular instruments, it carries on the great work which has been confided to it. The men who with good, though mistaken, motives are attempting to carry this out are men who believe as strongly as I do that the Christianity which the Church teaches is a Christianity which ought to be taught. They are men who must hold as strongly as I do that you cannot carry on any work, religious or secular, in these days without that necessary machinery which Nonconformists themselves are as much obliged to employ as Churchmen are, How, in these circumstances, Nonconformists can reconcile it to their consciences to deprive the Church of its funds I have never been able to understand. The Member for the Denbigh Boroughs has told us that the money which this Bill will take away from the Church will be replaced by the loyalty and public spirit of Churchmen. I hope it may be as he says; but it is not easy, as those who have been engaged in charitable work

  1791
  know full well, to find four millions. Wales is not a rich country. How are you going to find that sum there? You will have to go far beyond the borders of Wales if you are going to obtain anything like the sum required, and the money which, from the loyalty of Churchmen outside Wales, you may be able to get to carry on the work of the Church must, necessarily, will almost certainly, be withdrawn from other works almost as necessary, almost as desirable, and having almost as great claims upon the attention of Christian men. Let any Nonconformist put to his conscience this question. If he admits, as I think he will, that the work done by the Church in Wales is Christian work, if he will put out of his mind all this controversy about the origin of tithes, all the metaphysics of Disestablishment, and if he will ask himself the simple question whether he would like to deprive a Christian body of the means of carrying out its Christian work, means which, by the admission of every human being, are being used for the best purposes, then I think he will realise exactly what it is he is voting for when he goes into the Lobby in support of the clause we are now discussing. For that is the plain and simple issue before us. My own mind is so clear upon the subject that I find it difficult to persuade, myself that there can be any Nonconformist, whatever may be his views on Disestablishment, which is a far more difficult question, admitting of far greater differences of opinion—I find it difficult to understand how, holding the views which he does about religion and about the religious work done at this moment by the Church in Wales, he can reconcile it to his conscience to vote for this clause. To all those who are now determining deliberately—I will not say to commit sacrilege, I will not say to rob the Church, I will use no word implying criminality in the slightest degree—but who, I will say, are determining to deprive the Church of means which she is using well for an avowedly great object—an object which the great mass of Members in this House believe to be an object that ought to be effected—to all those I leave it to reconcile it to their consciences how they can vote with the "Ayes" when you, Sir, put this question from the Chair.
  1792
  I, for my part, have never given a vote in this House with more absolute confidence that I was speaking in favour of the right, that I was speaking in favour of the highest public morality and of the cause of the public good—I have never given a vote with more confidence than I shall give my vote to-night to preserve to the Church that 4,000,000 of money which she has used well, which she is using well, and which I am confident she will every day use for better and for higher purposes.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,)said, it would be hardly respectful to the right hon. Gentleman if what he had said was allowed to pass without a few words from his side of the House, though he thought that a very few words might be enough. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had refrained from any reflection on the motives of those who were going to vote for this clause. He would admit for a moment that the historical question was an indifferent question, and he would not tread again the well-worn path they trod on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was quite impossible for those on his side of the House, holding the views they did as to the origin of these Endowments, to deal with them on the same footing as they were prepared to deal with private benefactions given to the Church; but he wished rather to say a word on the more general question. The right hon. Gentleman asked them why they deprived the Church of these endowments. They could not consistently with the principles they held continue to leave the Church of England in the possession of endowments which they believed were property originally given by and still and always under the control of the nation. But he would meet the right hon. Gentleman on the ground he had taken up. He had put it to the House that it was an injury to the religious work the Church of England was doing to deprive her of these endowments, and he put it as if Churches could not live without such endowments. Surely there must be many within whose knowledge it was that many of the most successful and most useful Churches, in which there beat the strongest pulse of living spiritual life, had no endowments whatever.
  MR. BALFOUR: I did not say that the Church could not live without these endowments. I said that this Bill deprives the Church of £4,000,000 which was being well spent on the purposes of religion.
  MR. BRYCE: Yes; but surely part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that the Church would be less strong when she was deprived of these endowments. He entirely dissented from this proposition. There was some great misconception on this point. Many of the largest and most successful Churches did not possess anything at all in the way of parochial endowments. He could speak for one of the most successful Dissenting communities in this country, the Congregationalists, and he could say that they had very little in the way of parochial endowments. He could say the same of one of the greatest and most efficient and vigorous Churches, the Unestablished Church of Scotland, and he knew that that was true of the voluntary Churches of the United States and the British Colonies. What endowments they had were almost entirely endowments for the education of clergymen; but no endowments directed to parochial purposes had superseded the duty discharged by the members of those denominations of contributing out of their weekly, monthly, or yearly incomes to the support of the ordinances of religion, and he was prepared to say that a Church was not the less likely to be energetic and active and useful in her spiritual work when she existed on the free-will offerings given by her worshippers. He was inclined to believe that that was the most healthy condition for a Church, that she succeeded more fully when her life depended on the contributions of her worshippers than when she was living on gifts and benefactions. Whether he looked at the principle or at the experience of the unendowed Churches of this and other countries in which religion flourished, he came to the conclusion that no such bad results as the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members on the other side of the House, he had no doubt with perfect sincerity, anticipated would follow from taking these endowments from the Church of England. And he was confirmed in that opinion by what had happened in the case of
  1794
  the Disestablished Church in Ireland. He believed that the stimulus given to spiritual life in the Protestant Episcopalian Church of Ireland had more than compensated for anything it had lost by Disestablishment and Disendowment; and he should be much deceived if the anticipations which were now formed as to the Church in Wales were not realised, and if it did not turn out that its life and energy was greater in the future than they had ever been in the past, and that she would have no cause to regret the vote the House was about to give.
  MR. SAMUEL HOAREsaid, he had not spoken on this Bill, as he had been engaged on other important duties, but he desired at this moment to say a few words on this, which was one of the most serious questions raised by the Bill. They were going to decide perhaps the most important point in the Bill; and he desired to speak, not simply as a member of the Opposition, not simply as a Churchman, but as one who earnestly desired to see Christianity flourishing in this country. He had heard no argument adduced which could satisfy the conscience that they were right in voting away money which had been given for the service of the Church and of God to other purposes than those for which it had been given. He implored the House to hesitate before it transferred money given for a specific object, and that the greatest object to which money could be given, and handed it over to any other object that could be devised by man. Last Sunday they were asked in the churches to contribute to support the work of the Church in the vast diocese of London. What would they think if it were proposed that the money collected last Sunday should be devoted to baths and washhouses, or handed over to the tender mercies of the London County Council? And why should they treat money given by those who had gone before with more indifference than they would treat that given last Sunday? They must have regard not only to the work which as Churchmen they were endeavouring to do in this country, but also to the great tide of evil and wickedness which rested with us as in all other countries. How would the common work against that

  1795
  evil be strengthened if this money were taken away from that portion of the Church which existed in Wales? It was like removing the best equipped ship from a fleet in the face of a common enemy. Why was this attack directed against the Church in Wales? Was it because it was the weakest part of the Church of England? If the attack was to be made at all, it should have been made against the Church in England, whose members resented an attack upon the the weakest portion in Wales. Churchmen earnestly desired to work in harmony with Nonconformists, whom they met, sometimes as opponents, but more often as friends in efforts to spread the influences of Christianity. He would ask hon. Members opposite, some members of the Church and some not, did they think they would be promoting the cause they had at heart if by their vote they weakened the greatest power for good which we had in this country? This was a serious night for the House, because we in this country professed an earnest desire to do all we could to promote the good of the people and to elevate the social condition of the working classes. It was acknowledged that, although the Church might have its shortcomings, yet it had been a great power for good. The House were asked at a critical, anxious time for all who loved their country, and were anxious for the welfare of their poor, to deprive one of their strongest and greatest powers of a vast amount of that influence which it might have for good. The Church would be a vast influence for good whatever might be done, but for the House to deprive such a power of any influence or strength it might have must be, indeed, a serious matter for the House, for the State, and for the country. Before they went into the Division Lobby he asked hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether they were Churchmen or not, to hesitate before they became parties to voting away money given for the use of the Church and no other purposes whatever. Let the House take as its motto, when dealing with money given to religious bodies for the good of religion, for the highest interests of the people, what occurred in
  1796
  the Lesson for the Day last Sunday and—
  "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 174.—(Division List, No. 97.)
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  COURT OF SESSION CONSIGNATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to make provision in regard to the Consignation of money in the Court of Session in Scotland; and for other purposes, presented and read 1°; to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 271.]

  THE SCOTCH GRAND COMMITTEE.
  On the Motion that the House do adjourn,
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIERasked at what hour on Thursday the Motion for the Scotch Grand Committee would be brought on.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. THOMAS ELLIS,)said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement as to Public Business on Thursday, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able then to say that proceedings in the Budget Bill would be stopped at half-past Ten, in order to proceed with the Scotch Grand Committee.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o' cock.

LORDS JUSTICES FOR IRELAND:
Return respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 6th instant), and to be printed. (No. 119.)
ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
Thirteenth Annual Report, for the year 1894. Presented (by command), and Ordered to lie on the Table.
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT, 1880, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—NOW
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 120.)
  COURTS OF LAW FEES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment. Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
  NATURALISATION (RESIDENCE ABROAD) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment; the Report thereof to be received on Friday next.
  LOCAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRATICES) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2.) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).
  THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSEBERY): I beg to give notice that on Friday I shall call attention to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and introduce a Bill dealing with the subject.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
  The House went into Committee on this Bill.
  On Clause 1 (Transfer and Transmission of Rights of Patronage),
  LORD COLERIDGE LORD COLERIDGE moved an Amendment to strike out the words "by public auction," the clause as it stood stating that, subject to the savings in this Act mentioned, it should not be lawful (a) "To sell or offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage." The noble Lord explained that his object was to prohibit the sale altogether of the right of patronage to livings. The Bill interfered, to a certain extent, with the free right of sale because it sought to prohibit by public auction any sale which should take place by that means, and he asked their Lordships to go a step further. He ventured to think that no one in that House would get up and support the sale of livings in the Church. There was no one who, if he was reconstituting the Church, would for a moment dream of introducing any such scheme of presentation as was exemplified daily in their midst by this public sale. The right of patronage had been by a great authority described as the right to present to an office of a peculiarly sacred trust, and in the year 1874 a Committee of their Lordships' House reported as follows:—
  "We are of opinion that all legislation affecting Church patronage should proceed upon the principle that such patronage partakes of the nature of a trust to be exercised for the spiritual benefit of the parishioners, and wherever the rights of property originally attached, or in process of time attach patronage, those rights of property must always be regarded with reference to the application of this principle."
  He thought he had the sanction, in principle at any rate, of the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, because in 1886 His Grace, speaking in that House, said:—
  "It is surely a repulsive thing that a man who had a great and public and spiritual trust, should allow it to be exercised for a sum of money."
  If that were so, surely the logical result was to strike at the sale of these offices. The result of the Bill would be to strike a blow at the notoriety attaching to the

  1687
  scandal; but if it were a scandal surely the right way to take was not to attack the notoriety attaching to it, but to attack the scandal itself. If the Bill passed unamended, although public auction would be prohibited, there would be nothing to prevent the scandal of advertisements appearing daily as to the sale of livings, which attracted the attention of the people, gave rise to a great deal of scoffing, and which it would be most desirable, in the interest of the Church and of religion, to prevent. Patronage would still remain in the hands of clerical agents, and, if no Amendments were introduced, the presentations to the right of livings would be bought and sold in the future as freely as they had been in the past. If it were a scandal surely it was better the free healthy air of public opinion should be let forth to blow upon it, rather than that the evidence of the scandal, which was public auction, should be prohibited by law. He knew it might be said that this proposition would interfere with the rights of property, and that, too, without compensation. But that argument did not come logically from the mouths of the introducers of this Bill, because the measure itself did interfere with the rights of property, and that, too, without compensation. It was part of the rights of the possessor that he should get as high a price in the mode in which he desired to get it as he possibly could, and if they prohibited sale by public auction they prohibited the possessor of something valuable getting the best price in the best attainable way. Moreover, they were prohibiting altogether the sale of next presentations, and saying to persons that they must not part with the sale of next presentations without parting with the advowson itself; therefore they were limiting and circumscribing the value a man might get for his property by law, and they were doing that without compensation. That being so, the argument about compensation did not come logically from those who approved of the principles of this Bill. He felt he had the secret sympathy of the right rev. Bench, and he trusted also he should receive their support. He begged to move the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF CRANBROOKhoped he might interpose here without laying himself open to the objection that he was advocating the sale of patronage. But he looked upon this question as one affecting very deep interests indeed, and the Amendment of the noble lord would, he was perfectly certain, be fatal to this Bill. Attempts had been made to pass a Bill of this kind for many years, and if they came to the extreme ideal set up by the noble lord, he was quite sure they should not succeed. This Bill, as it stood, was in conformity with the last Royal Commission on this subject. These Commissioners, who were appointed in 1879, reported:—
  "We find that while the sale of the right of patronage has been from ancient times allowed with a greater or less degree of freedom by the Legislature; yet that, on the other hand, the Legislature has from time to time interfered to regulate the conditions of such sale on the ground of public policy."
  The Commissioners went on to say:—
  "It appears to us that the varied system of patronage, public and private, which now prevails, has the advantage of interesting in it all classes of the community, and of ensuring within reasonable limits the due representation of corresponding varieties of thought and opinion in the ministry of our National Church."
  On the question of property in private patronage, the Commissioners reported:—
  "Nor should it be forgotten that a large amount of property has been invested under existing laws in private patronage, and that the total value of livings in the control of private patrons exceeds that of livings in public patronage."
  And they go on to say:—
  "These considerations have determined us not to recommend alterations of the present law which would strike at the root of private patronage, such, for instance, as the prohibition of the sale of an advowson or perpetual right of presentation; although the prohibition of such sale has been suggested to us by witnesses whose evidence was valuable in other respects. We are of opinion that adequate remedies may be found for existing abuses without so wide a departure from the established practice in this country."
  That was to say that advantage should be taken of every chance of putting an end to the abuses that were no doubt associated with sales of private patronage. But he could not help feeling,

  1689
  when he thought of the great interests that were awakened by even, the very smallest encroachment upon private presentations, and by every proposal to put limitations upon them, that although the noble lord believed his amendment, if carried, would set up a high ideal—as he conceived it—of what was right and correct in the Church, its real effect would be to put an end to a Bill which contained extremely useful provisions enabling the legal advisers to the Bishops to put down the worst forms of corruption, in regard to presentations to livings, which had hitherto prevailed.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he quite felt the force of what had been said by the noble Lord who had just sat down. He did not think that at the present time public opinion would be shocked if the proposal of his noble Friend, Lord Coleridge, were carried; or that it would generally be thought to be an undue interference with the rights of property. Of course, the Bill did interfere; and it was only a question of degree as to how far such interference was justifiable. He did not think there would be anything unjustifiable in preventing, in future, the sales of livings altogether. But the Amendment, if carried, would excite such extreme hostility, that he doubted whether it would be possible to carry the Bill. What he was afraid of was that if the provision, as it stood in the Bill, were carried it would seem to give a fresh sanction to the sale of patronage otherwise than by public auction; for it would seem to say that the only thing wrong about the sale of livings was to sell them by public auction. The number of sales by auction was comparatively limited, of course; but he was not sure that there was anything more scandalous in selling livings by public auction than in selling them by private contract, which would still go on.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid that until Nine o'clock that morning nobody knew that this Amendment was going to be proposed. So far as this part of the Bill was concerned, it had been passed by the House a great many times since 1886. The proposal, so far as it was contained in the Bill, was founded upon the Report of the Commission of 1878, in which many distinguished persons took part. A very remarkable thing happened in
  1690
  relation to that Commission. The late Lord Justice James, who was a distinguished member of it, told him, and the same was afterwards published, that he went into the Commission with a very strong impression against the sale of patronage, but that he had been entirely converted. Everyone who had known Lord Justice James, knew that he was not a man to be easily converted, and certainly not against any of his prejudices without very good evidence. He also observed, on looking through the papers, that a good deal of the proceedings before that Commission consisted of a discussion between a well-known seller of livings by auction and otherwise, Mr. Emery Stark, and a much more distinguished person, the late Archbishop Magee; and it was a very remarkable fact that, contrary to what might have been expected, Mr. Stark had decidedly the best of it. When they found such distinguished persons as the members of that Commission in agreement with the proposal of the Bill, he could not help thinking that this attempt to destroy a great deal of private patronage in England without a day's notice was what is called rather a strong order. He could not help remarking on the neglect of the clergy interested in this matter, in making known their views and opinions on the subject. They went to their Church Conferences, and seeing that the Bill, in a certain way, agreed with their prejudices, they voted for the Bill and the whole Bill, and they expected him and others to attend there to fight their battles in regard to details of the utmost importance. As to the Amendment, it might be right, or it might be wrong; but, at any rate, there should have been ample time given for its consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONdid not like it to be supposed that there were no Bishops with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment in desiring to get rid of the sale of patronage. He did wish that they could stop the sale of patronage in every form; but he could not help feeling that, after having fought this battle a very long time, to introduce this Amendment into the Bill would be almost certain to destroy its chance of becoming law; and, therefore, although it would be a very good thing if they were to get rid of the sale of patronage

  1691
  altogether, it would be much better to have this Bill than nothing at all. He thought that, as practical men, the wisest thing for them to do was to try what the remedy proposed in the Bill would effect. It certainly would create a very different state of things from that which now existed. At any rate, the proposal in the Bill was as far as they dare go at present. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment, because it would be a very great danger to the passing of the Bill into law, and they should, therefore, lose a great deal and gain nothing at all.
  *LORD COLCHESTERsaid, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had not faced the question whether it would not be well that they should have some way for the transfer of the right of patronage. If the Amendment were passed, patronage would be tied for ever to the descendants of the present patrons. They might leave the country, or cease to have any connection with the parishes in which they had the right of patronage; or, through stress of poverty, they might be strongly tempted to make unworthy use of it; and yet they would have no means of disposing of their right of patronage. He thought it was extremely desirable that, not only private patronage, but public patronage—as in that of Colleges and Universities, now that they no longer were so clearly connected with the Church—in many cases, should be alienated; and, therefore, except some method could be found for the transference of patronage from hand to hand when necessary, the Amendment would be extremely mischievous.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that, while he desired there should be no sale of livings at all, he could not be a party to a wholesale annulling of property which had been recognised by law ever since there was any law of real property in England, without some provision for compensation, and he had not heard any suggestion of compensation that would be accepted. But to carry this Amendment would be not only to destroy the chance of the Bill passing, but literally to destroy the Bill. The Bill might as well be cancelled for any little use it would be. They would be in a most useless and immovable position. It would be impossible, under the Amendment, to make any
  1692
  advance in the sweeping away of great abuses. The object of the Bill was to stop evasions of the law. He hoped their Lordships would not drop out the prohibition against public auction, because, if only one instance of such auction could be given, the power ought to be abolished on the ground of scandal. Instances of public auction, however, were not few; indeed, a Curates' League had actually been formed, with the view of sending representatives to disturb or prevent auctions. He did not think the Lord Chancellor had quite stated the whole case in respect to public auction. There was this further most grave objection—that the person who put up his living to public auction exercised no sort of control or choice as to the person who bought it. The possibility of only one instance of public auction was a very great scandal, and a thing which by itself, apart from all other considerations, ought to be made illegal.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he had no wish to imperil the passing of the Bill, and therefore would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  In Clause 3,
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEproposed to insert after "transfer," in line 29, "or devise."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved to insert "being incorporated," after "patron," in line 30. He thought the Amendment was desirable, because the license in mortmain only applied to corporations, and there were other trusts to which it was not intended to give any special privilege by the Bill. He thought that, as licence in mortmain referred only to corporations, and it was not intended to give any special privilege to other trusts, it was right to make the Amendment he proposed. The object had been simply to save them from injury.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he would like to be sure that if this Amendment passed it would be possible to devise an advowson to any of these trusts to persons not incorporated in the legal sense. He could not understand why they should be precluded from receiving an advowson by devise. They were not precluded from purchasing. Why might they not have land left to them by devise just as well as money with which they might buy it?
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: They might have it by licence in mortmain.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, it seemed to him devise might be made to all sorts of people except these trust bodies.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is made to a trust which would not come within the Mortmain Acts at all.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Under the last Mortmain Act would they not be obliged to sell it—the very thing this Bill is intended to guard against?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That might be so.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: That is just what was in my mind.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that originally the Bill only referred to transfer, but the introduction of devise would bring them under the last Mortmain Act.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, they could protect themselves by licence in mortmain. There was no desire to injure them, neither was there a desire to place them in a perfectly new position, as an unincorporated body, able to receive devise without licence in mortmain.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEasked why the trusts were to be put to the trouble and expense of getting a licence in mortmain, even if they were sure to get it, which they were not?
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn for further consideration.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Withdrawn altogether.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made, Clause 3, line 32, after "transferred" insert "or devised."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEasked, if there was any reason for the last line of the clause, "and a right of patronage so transferred shall be held and enjoyed accordingly"?
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it was intended that the right of patronage might be held and enjoyed, and not necessarily sold. If an advowson were left to a charity, say the Sons of the Clergy, they would be obliged to sell it within a year. The last line of the clause was to enable them to hold it and enjoy it.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, it was to enable them to do what he wanted other trusts to do. He was much obliged for the explanation, which confirmed the necessity for protecting trustees.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEproposed to insert the following new clause:—
  "If the Bishop receives any objection he shall send a copy of it to the presentee, and shall require an answer in writing, and if the Bishop thinks that not sufficient he shall appoint a time and place for hearing the presentee in answer thereto, and also the objector if he thinks fit to attend, with such witnesses as either party may desire to call, and they may all be examined on oath, but such hearing is not to be public except to persons whose presence is needful. If the Bishop, after healing evidence for the objection, if any, and himself asking any lawful question of the presentee, shall not think any further answer necessary, he shall so declare, and institute the presentee as soon as convenient. Otherwise, he shall call on the presentee for his further answer to the objection as he thinks fit to give by evidence and argument."
  The new clause was intended to secure to the Clergy the means of being tried as privately as they liked and with as little expense as they liked. If, however, they wished to have a public inquiry they could have it He proposed that if the Bishop received an objection, he should send a copy of it to the presentee. As the Bill stood, there was nothing to prevent the Bishop from acting upon an entirely anonymous objection. He had some doubts about leaving the presence of the objector at the inquiry optional with the Bishop. Perhaps his presence ought to be required in any case. The proceedings would not

  1695
  be too public, as the objector and witnesses would be heard privately. No one could urge that this procedure would not save expenses, or that either the Bishop or the presentee had not a fair chance. All through this Bill, his Amendments had been drawn with a view to keeping down the costs, and he should be delighted to attend to any suggestions in that direction.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that there were ambiguities in the Amendment which would lead to great complication. Who was to decide which person's presence was "needful" and what were "lawful questions" for the Bishop to ask the presentee? The inquiry of the Bishop was intended to be purely administrative, and that of the Archbishop was intended to be judicial, as between the parties. The Bishop's inquiry was simply to satisfy the Bishop himself whether he should institute the presentee or not; and to prescribe any procedure would be quite out of place. If the objector were, by his objection, made a party to a suit, in 99 cases out of a 100 he would not object at all. The objector merely put the Bishop on his guard; and the Bishop having made up his mind not to institute, immediately became himself a party to a suit before the Archbishop to make good his refusal. This was not altogether a matter of theory; for he was able to quote the experience of a Bishop who for nine years past had always caused to be posted on the church doors the name and previous employment of a clergyman presented for institution, with a notification that any objection was to be communicated within three weeks. In nine years this Bishop had between 300 and 350 cases, and it had been found that the mere fact that objections could be made had acted as a complete deterrent. Only seven of the 350 cases had been withdrawn, and only one after the name had been posted on the church doors. The seven cases were withdrawn after private communication only between the Bishop and the presentee or the patron. During the whole of the nine years there had not been one case of malicious accusation; there had been no scandal, and no injury to the presentee. It was perfectly evident that prescribed
  1696
  procedure would have spoilt this successful practice. Cases were not all alike, and some discretion must be left to the Bishop.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that not a single word of the most rev. Prelate's speech was an answer to his proposal. The Amendment did not interfere with the Bishop acting as in the manner just described.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he sympathised with Lord Grimthorpe's object. Securities ought to be taken that no man should be excluded from a living without the most ample opportunity of a thorough investigation. But the noble and learned Lord's proposal would in some cases lead to two litigated proceedings where one would be enough, because the presentee was given an appeal from the Bishop's decision. The less formal the Bishop's inquiry could be made the better it would be. He noticed that his noble and learned Friend proposed that the inquiry should not be more public than was necessary. But however much that publicity may be guarded against, by such a provision, there would remain the danger of the proceedings being talked about and bruited abroad. If the decision were ultimately in favour of the presentee, the less any one knew about the charges ever having been made the better. Otherwise the presentee would begin his work in the new living with that sort of slur which attached to a man who was supposed to have something doubtful about his antecedents which had made an inquiry necessary. If the matter were dealt with by the Bishop informally hearing what the presentee had to say, it seemed to him that in many cases the Bishop would give his decision and the presentee would be none the worse for the decision having been made where the decision was made in his favour. The Bishop had every motive, if they allowed an appeal, for him to make his inquiry as satisfactory as he could, so that he should not act rashly or hastily. It would be a serious thing for him to refuse to institute a presentee and on appeal to have his decision reversed by the Bishop and be compelled to institute him after all. The existence of an appeal was a great safeguard in itself for the purpose of securing careful action and thorough inquiry of a formal

  1697
  nature by the Bishop. When they came to the next stage they should make it a litigated stage, at which every security should be taken for the purpose of seeing that the presentee was not unjustly treated. If the ultimate decision were against him it meant, of course, ruin.
  VISCOUNT CROSSagreed with the Lord Chancellor, and pointed out that there were three words in the Bill which seemed to him to give every security desired on the part of the presentee. The Bishop might refuse to institute "after having given to such presentee a reasonable opportunity of being heard." The Bill insisted that the presentee should have a right to be heard by the Bishop in private.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the proposal of his noble and learned Friend in this clause really came to this—that there should be a private inquiry as well as an opportunity, if a man desired it, for a public trial. But in the Bill the public trial would be before the Archbishop and the private inquiry before the Bishop. He thought it would be far better for the presentee to have that private inquiry before the Bishop, and if he wished to have a public trial he should have it before a different judge.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Clause 7 (Grounds of Bishop's Refusal to institute),—
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE*LORD GRIMTHORPE moved an Amendment to the effect that a Bishop may refuse to institute if he be satisfied, among other things, that the presentee is unfitted for the discharge of pastoral duty by reason of existing pecuniary embarrassment, "which in the opinion of the Bishop is not likely to be removed," and of "such" misconduct ''as would have justified proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act 1892." He argued that "pecuniary embarrassment" was a very wide term indeed, and he thought it afforded opportunity for a great deal of discussion which it was not wise to leave. What they wanted to do was to prevent a man from being instituted who was in a state of serious pecuniary embarrassment not likely to cease. But "pecuniary embarrassment" was not to be measured or defined by anyone; the phrase left too much to the discretion of
  1698
  the Bishop to say whether he would have a man or not. Therefore the phrase needed some such definition as "such as is not likely to cease."
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the cases would be examined properly. If a man could show that his pecuniary embarrassment was sure to be removed, then it was not pecuniary embarrassment; but if a man said that it was likely to be removed, then he thought that plea ought not to be accepted. There was a gentleman in his own diocese who had been for two years proclaiming day after day and month after month that all his pecuniary embarrassments were coming to an end at the end of the following month, and he had persuaded various persons to lend him money and to give him credit. He had, moreover, been through the Courts.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, the Bishop was to be the judge of that point. The presentee might tell the Bishop and make him believe the story if he could.
  Amendment negatived.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEthen moved an Amendment in the same clause, giving the Bishop power to refuse to institute if the presentee were unfitted, by reason of "such misconduct as would have justified proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act 1892." Was a man to be kept out of an incumbency at the beginning of his career when he would never have been turned out if he had gone in under the Clergy Discipline Act?
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that misconduct which would have justified proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act—the right name, by the way—was nothing but such offences under the ecclesiastical law as were offences against morality. And there was power already to refuse to institute for such cause. Institution could be refused for any grounds for which deprivation could be inflicted. It was not certain that "notorious fraud" came within the Clergy Discipline Act as an offence against morality. That had not been settled; but it would be immensely important that "notorious fraud" should prevent a man from being instituted.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he should like to know what "notorious fraud"

  1699
  meant. Surely it meant that if a man were convicted he would come under the Clergy Discipline Act; or did it mean that the Bishops were to study Mr. Labouchere's newspaper, as the noble Duke (of Rutland) had just now suggested, and when the name of a clergyman was found in the "Pillory" proceedings were to be taken against him under this Bill?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE*LORD GRIMTHORPE moved an Amendment that the "grave scandal, or evil report, concerning the presentee's moral conduct" should be "then existing," but otherwise requiring the Bishop, after hearing the presentee, to institute the presentee, "and no objection shall be considered which relates to any act or neglect more than five years before the hearing." He asked whether the existence of a scandal many years before was to be a reason against instituting a man in a living? Was it seriously intended to allow objections to be made to a man on the ground that he was alleged to have done something many years ago? The Act of 1840 limited the time to two years; that period was considered to be inadequate and the time was now extended to five years. Was it now to be extended to the whole of a man's life?
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the point was to find out whether the presentee was unfitted for pastoral duty by reason of the scandal. If an old scandal existed which now unfitted the man, he ought not to be presented. Take the case of a person with an illegitimate child, of some years old, whose existence was known. It would be impossible for such a man to officiate in the parish where the fact was known. Another reason which might hinder institution would be some impediment, or defect in the title of a patron, which had to be investigated, but according to the Amendment as it stood the Bishop was to institute if the objection were over-ruled whatever other impediment might exist.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved:—In line 9, after "and the" to insert "patron or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in line 10, to leave out from ("signification") to the end of line 20, and insert—
  ("demand a trial in the same way [as nearly as circumstances admit] as if the objection were a charge under the last-mentioned Act, and such trial shall take place accordingly in the prescribed mode, unless the objection is either withdrawn or admitted; and the Bishop shall either institute or not institute the presentee according to the result of the trial").
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdid not think that the Archbishop ought to be got rid of. It was much fairer to the presentee that he should go into a fresh Court.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that he wished to go into a fresh Court, but not, with all respect, the Archbishop's Court. He agreed that if the earlier proposal were to be rejected the appeal to the Archbishop was to go on. He drew the Amendment in order to substitute for an irregular Court a regular tribunal.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought, that in 1893 the noble Lord had presented a similar clause and withdrawn it. He thought that the noble Lord was convinced on that occasion.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: Was I?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORasked whether it was proposed to assimilate the procedure or to prescribe it as that of an appeal by a curate on the revocation of his licence. It limited the power of prescribing the procedure only within those limits, and he doubted whether that was sufficient.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that it was a simple and known procedure. The Archbishop sat with his Vicar General, and the cases had always been heard in open Court. He desired that the appeal should be as regular and perfect a trial as could be.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he entertained doubt, as the procedure was to be prescribed by the Rule Committee, two members of which must be the Lord Chancellor and one of the judges—probably the Lord Chief Justice, whether it would not be better to leave the procedure to be altogether prescribed by them. He thought it tolerably certain that the Rule Committee, as constituted

  1701
  under this Bill, would see that the procedure should give satisfaction.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid that on a appeal by a curate there were no such proceedings as had now been referred to. The paper he read on the Second Reading Debate showed that the Court of Queen's Bench had decided years ago that a curate was not entitled to any kind of hearing beyond what the Archbishop chooses and he could answer for it that in the last 18 years there had been no hearing before the Vicar General of York. There may, however, have been no curate rash enough to waste his time and money on trying that always ineffective remedy.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that he had inherited the practice.
  In the result, the Committee agreed to leave out all the words after "appeal" in line 12, down to the word "licence" in subsection (2), and to insert, in place of the words omitted, "in accordance with subsequent procedure."
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved, after line 15, to add:—
  "On any such appeal the Archbishop shall have power to require in the prescribed manner the attendance of such witnesses, and the production of such documents, evidences, and writings as may be necessary on either side; such witnesses shall give their evidence upon oath, or upon solemn affirmation where an affirmation is allowed by law instead of an oath, which oath or affirmation shall be administered in the prescribed manner."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in line 24, to substitute "diocese" for "Archbishop."
  Amendment negatived.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved, in line 24, after the words "institute him" to add "if there be no other impediment."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to without Amendment.
  On Clause 10,
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in line 27, after "false," to insert "in any material respect.''
  Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEproposed, in line 29 to add—
  "But any proceeding to have it so declared must be taken by prosecution for a misdemeanour in making it within a year, and with the written consent of the Bishop."
  He did not know how it was to be proved that a declaration was false except by means of a trial.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYintimated that he was willing to accept the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: Is not "a year" a short time to take? I think "two years" would be better.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then let it be "two years" in the Amendment instead of "a year."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill, as also Clauses 11 and 12.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in Clause 13, after "land" to insert "fifty houses." He said a man might have houses of a greater value than a hundred acres.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in Clause 14, before "collated" to insert "proposed to be," observing that the Amendment was meant to correct what was probably a slip in drafting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, remarking that it was of a non-contentious character, and was approved on both sides of the House.
  Bill read 2a.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On the Order for the adjourned Debate on Amendment moved after Third Reading of this Bill,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had a clause, or proviso, to submit to the House which he had not been able to place on the Paper before. He had submitted the proviso to high authorities, by whom it had been approved. He would read the proviso which he wished to be inserted in place of the Amendment standing in the name of the Marquess of Huntly; it was as follows:—
  "Provided that any area of sea within the said limit of 13 miles shall be deemed to be under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty for the purposes of this section, if the powers conferred thereby shall have been accepted as binding upon their own subjects, with respect to such area, by all the States signatories of the North Sea Convention, 1882."
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord
  TWEEDMOUTH)said, he thought the words proposed by the noble Marquess were very well adapted to carry out his intentions, and of course he would raise no objection to their introduction into the Bill. The noble Marquess would not expect him to be very effusive in his expression of gratitude, because he had treated this clause very cruelly indeed, and it seemed to him that the proviso was intended as a soothing salve to mitigate the sore he had created It did so mitigate that sore to a certain extent, because at any rate it acknowledged the justice of the policy which was intended to be effected by the clause. The effect of the clause as it now stood with the Amendment would be that, while the justice of the policy originally proposed by the clause was adnitted, yet the adoption of that policy was postponed to an indefinite period—say, to the Greek Kalends. To get a Convention
  1704
  to accept an arrangement would be a very difficult matter, and it would take a long time. Still, he was glad the noble Marquess did admit by his Amendment that the hardship imposed on the British trawler by being precluded from trawling along this stretch of water off the Scottish coast was not a very real one. To that extent he thanked the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that never was the point he took. He did not venture to enter upon such difficult matters as the regulation of fisheries. It might well be that such regulations were necessary for the purpose of distinguishing the area in which line men, herring men, and trawlers could fish. He did not express any opinion upon that, but he did take a strong objection that any bit of sea should be set aside in which foreigners might fish and Englishmen might not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDmoved the Second Reading of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Channel Islands Children) Bill, which, he explained had passed through all its stages in the other House, and the object of which was to enable children to be brought from the Channel Islands, where there were no such schools, to England, where there were such institutions.
  Bill read 2a.

  INEBRIATES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Inebriates Acts, 1879 and 1885, and the law with respect to drunkenness, was presented by the Lord Chancellor. Read la, and to be printed.—[No. 122.]
  House adjourned at Fifteen minutes after Seven o'clock.