Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 203: debated on Tuesday 26 July 1870

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Tuesday, 26th July, 1870.

MINUTES.]—NEW MEMBER SWORN — James Price Gwynne Holford, esquire, for Brecknock.

SELECT COMMITTEE — Report — Army (Colonels) [No. 385].

SUPPLY— considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—R.P.

Resolutions [July 25] reported.

PUBLIC BILLS— Second Reading—Glebe Loans (Ireland) [222].

Committee — Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland)* [223]—R.P.

CommitteeReport—Census [211]; Factories and Workshops ( re-comm.)* [233].

Report—Shannon Navigation* [192–240].

Considered as amended—Pedlars' Certificates* [199]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* [125]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [226].

Third Reading—National Debt* [213]; Forgery* [214]; Statute Law Revision* [216], and passed.

The House met at Two of the clock.

Army—Forage For Aldershot

Question

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a fresh Contract, commencing 21st July, to supply Forage for the Camp at Alder-shot, has been given to the firm who were unable to keep their original Contract from the 1st May to 31st October?

said, in reply, that it was true that a firm which had made a previous contract with the Government, with permission, on giving a month's notice, to give it up, had tendered again, and, as it was the lowest tender, the War Office accepted it.

The New Forest—Question

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, pending the consideration of the course to be pursued with reference to the New Forest and other Forests of the Crown, the Treasury will advise the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to abstain during this season from proceeding with additional planting in the New Forest?

said, in reply, that the Government could not take the course suggested by his hon. Friend, because the powers exercised by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were statutory powers.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the inquiry into the condition of the Crown Lands in the New Forest has been completed, and whether there will be any objection to lay such Report upon the Table of the House?

said, in reply, that he had promised that this Report should be dealt with confidentially, and therefore he could not lay it upon the Table.

Army—Martini Rifles—Question

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War; Whether any Report has been made to the Horse Guards or to the War Department of trials made at Aldershot of the Martini as compared with other rifles; and, if so, whether the Report is favourable to the Martini or to any other rifle; and, whether he will place upon the Table a Copy of such Report?

Sir, I have heard that the general officer commanding at Aldershot instituted a comparative trial between the Henry-Martini rifle and the rifle of a particular inventor, and reported upon it to the Horse Guards; but the trial was not authorized by his Royal Highness, and the Report has not been forwarded to me.

Army Enlistment Act—Question

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to his statement on Army Estimates, that "there will be no claim to re-engagement, but it will not be prohibited," Whether the good conduct and healthy soldier will be allowed to re-engage, if he wishes, under the Army Enlistment Act; and to ask for an explanation of the principle of the qualifying test by which the proposal to increase the Capitation Grant to the Officers and Non-commissioned Officers of the Volunteer Service is to be guided, and of the calculation by which the proposed extra Grant would be equal to an additional 5s. per man over the whole force?

Sir, when a man has engaged to serve six years with the colours and six with the Reserves, he will have no claim to vary the engage ment; but if he desires to serve longer, and the military authorities wish to retain him, the two parties may enter into a new engagement, and the soldier may go on for 12 years, and afterwards to 21 years and pension. With regard to the second part of the Question, I have to say that it is proposed to publish Regulations which shall insure that every officer and non-commissioned officer who draws the £2 10s. shall have a thorough acquaintance with, and be able to give instruction in, the drill of a company in all its branches, and such a knowledge of "musketry instruction" as will enable him to conduct the practice of a squad with safety and regularity. £2 10s. to eight officers is equal to 5s. to 80 individuals, but is more advantageous to the corps, as there is a better prospect of the whole being earned. A field officer will be able to earn the increased grant on obtaining a certificate from the inspecting officer of his competency as a field officer.

United States—The "Alabama" Claims—Question

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is true, as publicly stated, that overtures recently made by the Government of the United States for a resumption of negotiations regarding the Alabama Claims were declined by the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and to inquire when further Papers on the subject, in continuation of those presented by Command of Her Majesty in February last, will be laid upon the Table?

, in reply, said, that as regarded the first branch of the Question, he was not aware that statements had been made of the nature to which his hon. Friend referred, though from the Question of his hon. Friend he presumed they must have been so. But, however that might be, the statement was incorrect. Possibly it might have arisen from this circumstance that Lord Clarendon gave an opinion—in which the Government of the United States, through Mr. Secretary Fish, concurred—that there was no advantage in continuing a controversial correspondence in this case. There was no difference of opinion between the two Governments on that point. The position of the question remained as it was before—the same as it was when the correspondence was last laid before Parliament—namely, that as we had made an offer, and that offer had been declined under the circumstances of which the House was aware some 18 mouths ago, it now rested with the Government of the United States to make a proposition for the resumption of the negotiations. With regard to the second branch of the Question, he might say that there was no intention on the part of Government to lay any Papers on the Table. There were, in fact, no Papers of the character which were usually laid before that House. But if the United States were to forward any Papers they would be submitted to Parliament.

France And Holland—Question

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to the statement made in "The Daily Telegraph" newspaper of Monday, that the Emperor of the French had held a conversation with two Englishmen, which he authorized them to publish, and in which he stated that Count Bismarck had asked him what compensation France would expect if Germany was to annex Holland; and, whether he believes this statement to be authentic?

Sir, I did see in The Daily Telegraph the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I read it in common with many other very startling statements which appeared in the newspapers of yesterday. I am not aware that my opinion as to the authenticity of this document is more valuable than that of any other Member; but if my hon. Friend, is very desirous of hearing it, I hope he will not accuse me of any discourtesy if, under existing circumstances, I abstain from giving it to him.

Heligoland Pilots—Question

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it would be a breach of neutrality and an infringement of the Royal Proclamation if the Heligoland Pilots should conduct French Men of War to German Ports, or if the Pilots of the Channel Islands were to conduct German Men of War to French Ports, and whether in the event of any such men of war endeavouring to retain the services of such pilots measures will be taken by Government to prevent them from being so employed; and, whether the Government are disposed to issue Proclamations to this effect in the above named localities to warn pilots against taking employment on board belligerent men of war, as considerable apprehension exists in Germany on this subject?

said, with regard to the Question whether it would be an infringement of the Royal Proclamation of neutrality if Heligoland Pilots should conduct French Men of War to German Ports, he apprehended that there could be no doubt that such a proceeding would be a breach of neutrality, and a direct violation of the Royal Proclamation. He presumed that the Question was put under the supposition that the Heligoland pilots did not understand English. If that were the case, it would be desirable to have the Proclamation issued in the German language. He would make inquiries, and all necessary stops would be taken to make those pilots acquainted with the nature of the Royal Proclamation.

India—The Late Indian Artillery

Question

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether those recommendations of the "Ordnance Retirement Committee," which may be adopted for the Regiment of Royal Artillery, will be made applicable to those Officers who were transferred from the late Indian Artilleries and amalgamated with the Royal Artillery, the Colonels of the late Indian Artilleries having at present to serve from forty to forty-five years for the pension of £600 per annum, which is obtainable by the Colonels of the Old Royal Artillery after thirty years' service?

Sir, officers formerly of the Indian Artillery and Engineers who were transferred to the Royal Artillery and Engineers in 1861 are allowed the benefit of the Indian rules for pension, whether they serve in or out of India, or they may retire on the full pay of their rank after 22 years' service. There is, therefore, no necessity for applying to them the recommendations of Captain Vivian's Committee, and no intention of doing so.

Fenian Prisoners—Dr Macdonnell—Question

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a Letter which has appeared in the public press from Dr. Robert MacDonnell, in reply to an article in a Dublin newspaper, in which Letter Dr. MacDonnell states that he was invited to act upon the Political Prisoners' Inquiry Commission, but felt it to be his duty to decline in consequence of certain proposed restrictions of the scope of said inquiry; and to ask, is there any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of the Correspondence between the Government and Dr. MacDonnell on this subject?

Sir, I have not seen the letter referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, and have had no official correspondence with Dr. MacDonnell. I wrote privately to ask him whether he would serve on the Commission of Inqiury into the treatment of the Fenian prisoners, and informed him that the inquiry would extend to an investigation of the complaints made in regard to their treatment, their diet, their clothing, the labour they are put to, the punishment inflicted upon some of them, and generally into the question whether, as persons condemned to penal servitude, they are treated with undue harshness. He declined to serve—firstly, on the ground that this statement seemed to decide a question the discussion of which he considered of primary importance — namely, whether the Fenians should be treated as criminals condemned to penal servitude; and, secondly, because during his official connection with the Mountjoy Prison, he had differed in opinion with the authorities of that prison as to the mode in which the political prisoners should be treated. Dr. MacDonnell was asked to serve both on account of his professional eminence and of the independence of character of which he had given conspicuous proof. But while the Government do not deny that the treatment of political prisoners, as distinguished from that of ordinary criminals, is a subject deserving consideration, it did not seem to them one which could properly be committed to the Commission they were about to appoint with a different and narrower object.

France And Prussia—Alleged Draft Treaty—Question

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the reports in the newspapers gave a correct interpretation of the words he had used on the previous day with respect to the Draft Treaty between France and Prussia; and, whether he is prepared to give any further information on the subject?

Sir, as to the first part of the Question which my hon. Friend has put to me, I have to say that when I spoke yesterday I intended to give to the House any information which, in the view of the Government, was available at that moment; and, with regard to the Question itself, I will now state that the Government has received this morning a telegram from Lord Augustus Loftus, dated Berlin, yesterday, according to the purport of which there was to be published this day—and therefore the telegram was entirely erroneous that it had been published by the Berlin papers—the text of a document corresponding to that which appeared in The Times of yestcrday — a document purporting to be without the name of the author, or any date or giving any means of direct evidence on which gentlemen may form their own opinion as to its authenticity. The document consists of five articles. Article 1. That the North German Confederation and all acquisitions made by Prussia be recognized by the Emperor. Article 2. The King of Prussia to consent to the acquisition of Luxemburg by France. Article 3. A more intimate union between the Northern and Southern Governments, even on the basis of a common Parliament to be permitted by the Emperor. Article 4. The incorporation of Belgium by France will not be objected to by the King of Prussia. Article 5. An offensive and defensive alliance, with a guarantee of the integrity of their Dominions. That document, there is every reason to believe, has now been published in Berlin, and it shows that the anticipation of the Government was wellfounded when we stated that the matter would, no doubt, be immediately taken up by both the parties, and full authoritative information be given by them. It is also stated by Lord Augustus Loftus that the original document on which this Treaty is framed is in the handwriting of Count Benedetti; but, of course, I cannot say how far that is the fact. That, however, is the result of the information which was communicated to him, and which is contained in his telegram.

Glebe Loans (Ireland) Bill

( Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

Bill 222 Second Reading

Order for Second Reading read.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, observed that it was inseparably connected with the Irish Church Bill of last year, and might be regarded as nothing but a corollary of that great measure. Although this Bill was separated by a Session from the Irish Church Bill, it had never been separated from it in the intentions of the Government, which were fully declared on the introduction of the Irish Church Bill by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he himself also referred to the subject more at large on the second reading of that measure. The object was to give facilities for the erection of glebe houses to members of other communions than the disestablished Church. Under the existing Public Works Act there was a very large power of lending money to religious denominations in Ireland, partially on personal security; but that power, owing to the conditions imposed, had not been largely accepted, and it was now proposed to improve the terms for the borrower. It was felt that the Irish Church Act would inevitably place other communions at a disadvantage in comparison with the disestablished Church in respect of glebe houses. The disestablished Church was, not indeed universally, but very largely supplied with excellent residences for the clergy, and it would continue on liberal terms to retain those residences with certain moderate portions of land attached. Other denominations were in a different position. The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of many efforts made to improve their condition, often lived in mere cabins by the wayside, and sometimes even lodged in public-houses. That was the case in the comparatively wealthy county with which he was connected, and, there fore, it might readily be imagined that the clergy in the poorer districts were in a much worse position. The Presbyterian ministers in Ireland were also most inadequately provided for in this respect. Efforts had been made, especially by the Presbyterians, to overcome this evil; but what had been done was but partial, and had been accomplished with great difficulty and pain. It was felt that this state of things presented a most disadvantageous comparison, and formed a very serious drawback and hindrance to the starting of the new ecclesiastical system which last year was introduced into Ireland. The Government thought it would be very desirable if some temporary means could be devised by which the different denominations in Ireland would be enabled to put themselves on a better footing in this matter. They felt themselves precluded from proposing either that any portion of the funds now belonging to the Church should be granted to other denominations, or that grants from the Exchequer should be made for this purpose. But an obvious way of meeting the difficulty was to enable the Board of Works, with the consent of the Treasury, to make loans to members of all religious bodies or congregations in Ireland, for the purpose of facilitating the building of residences for their clergy, and of procuring small portions of land attached to those residences. Under an Act long subsisting, the Board of Works had power to make such advances, but upon terms which had proved almost prohibitory, repayment within five years being required. Even under these rigid terms, however, some use had been made of the powers of the Act by Roman Catholic congregations; and what was now proposed by the Bill was to enable the Board of Works to make advances to any religious body upon the same terms on which money was lent by the Board to landlords in Ireland for purposes of improvement or building. Under the Bill any congregation of the now Established Church which did not happen to possess a residence for the clergyman, would be enabled to obtain a loan for the purpose of providing one; but, of course, the bodies which would mainly need this assistance would be the great denominations outside the Established Church—that was to say, the Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian. He had hoped that the proposal would be looked upon as a reasonable, natural, and useful supplement of the Irish Church Bill. But his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), from the Notice which he had given, seemed to fancy that he saw lurking under this Bill the shadow of religious endowment. He begged to assure his hon. Friend and the House that there was no such intention on the part of the Government. It was not proposed to give a single farthing of public money to any person in Ireland. It would merely be lent on the same terms as all other moneys that were advanced in Ireland, and the conditions of repayment would be precisely the same as in all other cases, and every shilling advanced would come back into the Exchequer; and, moreover, the Act was of a temporary character, being limited in its operation to five years. From the many communications which he had received from different parts of Ireland he was well aware that the granting of such facilities as were here proposed would afford satisfaction to great numbers of persons, and, on the other hand, that the refusal to grant them would inflict great disappointment. After all that had passed, after the pledge—for it amounted to a pledge—given by the Government that it would endeavour to meet this case, the House, he ventured to think, would not deprive them of the power of fulfilling their undertaking. The grant of these facilities would much increase the probable success of the first starting of the Irish Church Act, and he believed that hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House might support this Bill without infringing any principle they had hitherto supported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—( Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)

, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months, observed, that the Bill would enable the Government, through the Board of Works, to advance public money to the Archbishop, Bishop, clergyman, priest, curate, or minister of any religious denomination whatever, and one of the first objects of this advance was to pay off any existing debts contracted in the erection of dwelling-houses or the purchase of glebes in connection with them. The second object was to make advances for the erection of new dwelling-houses and the purchase of new glebes. The repayment of the money in each case was to extend over 35 years. The question was, whether these advances could in any respect be considered endowments for the purposes of religion? The money was to come out of the resources of the State for carrying out purposes which could not otherwise be attained, and it was no great stretch of the imagination to say that that was a money endowment. The Bill was really founded upon the principle of endowment. He admitted that it was a mild form of endowment; but the degree in no way affected the principle. If it were an endowment at all, it was a violation of the principle that the State should not endow religion in any way, much less all religions. Such a scheme of concurrent endowment—for it was really that—was in direct contradiction of the principle of the Irish Church Act of 1869. No one had denounced concurrent endowment in stronger or more eloquent terms than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and so hostile was he to that principle that he even risked the loss of that great measure rather than submit to have such a principle forced upon him. But now, in making the proposal contained in the present Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was utterly at variance with himself. What he (Mr. Candlish) complained of was, not that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced this Bill in compliance with the pledge which he made last Session, but that such a pledge should over have been given by the Government at all. He regretted that the Government should have thought it needful to continue the irritation and excitement which always resulted from religious discussions in that House, and of which there had already been more than enough during the present Session. He objected also to the mode and time in which the Bill had been introduced. It was not fair or reasonable that a proposal of this magnitude should have been introduced within the last fortnight of the Session, when it was utterly impossible that the country could pronounce any opinion upon its merits. Such a measure ought to have been introduced in the early weeks of the Session, when the Government could have ascertained the views of the country thereupon. All pledges given by a Government were necessarily governed and controlled by time and circumstances, and there were many of the Governmental pledges which the right hon. Gentleman had been compelled to postpone this Session for want of opportunity to fulfil them. The Pilotage Bill, the Mercantile Marine Bill, the Licensing Bill, the Mines Regulation Bill, and the Parliamentary Elections Bill, embodying the principle of the Ballot—all of them most important measures, for some of which the country was loudly crying out—had been postponed; and, under the circumstances, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to postpone this Bill also, in order to give the country an opportunity of expressing its views upon it. If the Bill were passed now it would be simply evading an expression of national opinion upon the subject.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—( Mr. Candlish.)

In the observations of my hon. Friend who has moved the rejection of this Bill we have, at all events, the advantage of a frank and outspoken opponent, and there can be no doubt as to the nature of his opposition, for he has stated it broadly and clearly. For my own part, I should have been satisfied to have allowed the Bill to stand on the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There was not one word wanted in his speech, nor a word which I should have desired in any degree to qualify; but my hon. Friend has put a question to us in the most pointed manner, and therefore I think it necessary for the convenience of the House, and in order to shorten the discussion, to attempt to meet that question in the most explicit manner. My hon. Friend complains of the lateness of the period at which we have introduced this measure. If we could have dealt with the subject of the Bill last Session we should have been glad to do so, and that would have been the best time to do it. That was what we earnestly desired, and at the time the Irish Church Bill of last Session was introduced we had the hope that we should be able to deal with this measure during that Session. It was drawn up and ready for introduction, and it ought to have been a concurrent measure with the Irish Church Bill; but we were not able to introduce it. So far as this Session is concerned, what have we done? My hon. Friend says we should have introduced the Bill at an earlier period, and no doubt we might easily have done so; but would there have been any advantage in merely bringing it in and then postponing it from month to month, as we should have been obliged to do? That is a course which might be adopted in the case of Bills which do not involve contested principles of much importance; but with a Bill containing such principles as this one there could be no more fatal course than that of throwing it on the Table of the House, and then postponing it from month to month. Could we have brought this Bill in at an earlier period? I fearlessly challenge my hon. Friend to differ from me when I say we could not—we had no time. [Mr. CANDLISH: The purpose of the Government would have been known.] The purpose of the Government would not only have been known, but it would have been discredited, and the Government itself would have been discredited for casting such a measure on the Table, and then not proceeding with it as soon as possible. I affirm, on the ground of general Parliamentary practice and authority, that when a Bill of this kind, containing most important principles which are capable of being contested, is introduced, it should be speedily brought under the practical notice and discussion of the House, Our excuse for not bringing in the Bill at an earlier period is the impossibility of our having done so. My hon. Friend says that the country would have had an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on the subject—and I admit that the country has not had the separate provisions and clauses of the Bill before it; but surely my hon. Friend does not question this—that the country has been made, in every way in which it could be made, aware of the full intention of the Government to bring the subject before the House. It was the constant subject of discussion with deputations last year, and of repeated Parliamentary declarations of the most explicit kind—and I myself during the Recess made communications to those who were most likely to look with jealousy upon the Bill—of our intention to proceed with it, so as to take another and additional security that there should be no possibility of misunderstanding. My hon. Friend also says—"Why not postpone this measure until next year, as you have already postponed many other Bills of great importance?" No doubt we have postponed other Bills of vast importance; but there is a difference between the importance of those Bills and the importance of this one. The importance of those Bills is equal in all years—there is no greater reason for dealing with the subject of licensing this year than there was last year, or than there will be next. The Pilotage Bill also is a Bill of general policy; but in this present Bill the whole importance of it rests upon the moment. If we were to delay it for one or two years the whole importance of the occasion for it would disappear, and its provisions would be inapplicable, and we should then be open to the charge of attempting to introduce a system of re-endowment into Ireland. We are now at a crisis of circumstances which renders this Bill necessary—we are within five months of that time, and it is now or never that the House must consider this measure. Let me put the case as fairly as I can. My hon. Friend says that this Bill is one for the endowment of religion, and he thinks he demonstrates that by the assertion, which we grant, that the Bill will allow the use of public money to several religious denominations in Ireland upon terms on which they could not otherwise get that money. We admit that the Bill will give them an advantage over and above that which they could gain in the open money market; and my hon. Friend then says—"I, therefore, fasten upon you the guilt of proposing a Parliamentary endowment." But is he prepared to say that he will apply such a mathematical rigour of construction to political affairs as to contend that when Parliament allows the advance of public money on easy terms it has endowed the purpose or object for which that money is advanced? Have we endowed the railways of Ireland or the landowners all over the country? Those whom we refused to endow; but allowed them to have advances of public money? Have we endowed emigration to Now Zealand? I will not lengthen the catalogue; but we have engagements of that kind which we have constantly entered into. When such things have been done, it is a mere straining of words to say that they are in the nature of public endowments. My hon. Friend says that this is a proposal of concurrent endowment, and that leads us very nearly up to the main gist of the whole case. It is alleged that it is at variance with the principle of the Irish Church Act, because the purpose of that Act was to get rid of endowments. My hon. Friend has correctly stated that we steadily resisted concurrent endowment, and we are not ashamed of it, but would be content to take the same course if the same circumstances recurred. But he has not taken the whole case in his view. There are two principles in the Irish Church Act, and it is in the conflict or competition of those two principles or aims that the difficulty arises which this Bill is meant to resolve. My hon. Friend says that the object of the Bill was to put an end to religious endowments in Ireland, and so it was; but it had also another object—to apply equality of treatment to all religious bodies in Ireland. I entreat my hon. Friend to look at the whole of the position in which we stand; and I ask him whether it is not necessary in the provisions of a great measure of this kind, which has more than one aspect, to shape your conduct according to the combined effect of its different aspects? It would have been flagrantly at variance with our principles to have refused to introduce this measure, For whose sake is it introduced? No doubt the Roman Catholic Body will obtain some advantage from the disestablishment of the Church; but among the three leading persuasions in Ireland, if I may judge from the vigour and tenacity with which this demand has been pressed on us, it is the Protestant Presbyterians of the North who feel the greatest interest in this measure, and to whom the refusal of this measure would carry the bitterest disappointment. Their position was peculiar. They had the responsibilities of endowment, with but a moderate portion of its sweets; for though the State gave them a pittance, yet it was but a pittance, and I should, be extremely sorry, with respect to them in particular, if we were to appear by an exaggerated construction of terms to drive home abstract ideas to an extent making it necessary for us to disappoint their expectations. I put it to the House and to my hon. Friend that these expectations which are entertained by the different religious bodies in Ireland are expectations which they have been justified in entertaining, and which we have permitted, encouraged, and I would even say compelled them to entertain. From time to time this matter has been announced; but at no period, either last Session or this, has any word of protest or warning gone forth from the numerous vigilant and able advocates of Nonconformity and voluntary principles in this House, to intimate that a plan of this kind would meet with strong resistance. Under these circumstances, we really have given to these bodies in Ireland a right to expect that we shall not recede from the fulfilment of the engagements which the Government had made. This is an arrangement which is of a wholly retrospective character. The principle is already in the statute book; for the principle of State aid already exists, though in severe terms, in the Act of Will. IV. We propose to make these terms easy, and to give them an efficacy which they have not now got; but when this Bill expires, which, as at present drawn up, it will do in five years, we are perfectly willing to meet my hon. Friend, and to cut off the link which the existing law now establishes between the State and the various religious denominations for building houses or churches for the purposes of religion. We are prepared to make this the winding up of the whole matter, and to provide in this Bill that, so far as religious purposes are concerned, the operation of the Act of Will. IV. shall entirely cease. The principle of equality between the different religious bodies is not less sacred than the principle of putting an end to religious endowment in Ireland. By the 27th section of the Irish Church Act, the section relating to ecclesiastical benefices, which gives easy terms with regard to glebe houses, and which was forced by the House on the Government and not by the Government on the House, it is provided that the glebe houses shall be handed over to the Representative Body of the Church on payment of ten times the annual value of the land on which they are built, or, at the option of the Church Body, on payment of the building charge that may exist over them. I may fairly call that a merely nominal payment, and in that case we deliberately adopted terms so easy as to amount to a very large gift of money to the Church. Now, I ask, when our principle was to give all religious bodies a fair start in Ireland, was it possible for us to maintain the principle of equality of treatment for the various religious denominations, by saying to the Presbyterians and Roman Catholics and others—"We will give every facility, and more than facility, to the members of the disestablished Church; but we entirely decline to look at the position in which you stand?" We feel that we are under an honourable obligation to put forth the best efforts in our power—and we are really making them at the earliest moment which was within our reach—to extend for this valuable purpose some amount of public assistance, which, without involving a grant of one shilling of public money, is, notwithstanding, a great help and security to those who receive the benefits of such efforts. It is not in accordance with any secret plan or plot—it is not for any fanciful preference that we have proposed this scheme. It has not sprung out of our brains; but is rooted in a sense of justice and a desire to maintain our promises. Under these circumstances, I cannot help hoping that my hon. Friend will see that we have been acting under the pressure of considerations which it was hardly competent for us to put aside; that there is no wanton or gratuitous intention on our part to run counter to the principles on which he desires to see us act; and that if there is a Division on the second reading, and the House should pronounce by a very decided majority in favour of the Bill, he will feel he has done his duty, and will allow the measure to go forward through its subsequent stages.

The Government having said a year ago, when the Irish Church Bill was before the House, that a measure of the character of the present would, at a subsequent period, be introduced, very naturally conceive that there is some necessary connection between the Irish Church Act and the present Bill. In my judgment, there is no necessary connection between them; and, for my part, I am of opinion that this Bill might have been introduced with the greatest propriety whether you had passed the Church Act or not. Sir, I do not consider this Bill as part of a policy laid down with regard to religious questions; but as one which you have laid down generally in respect to Ireland—namely, that you give assistance towards everything which tends to advance the civilization and general interests of the country. You lend money from the Board of Works to the proprietors of land on the same terms as those embodied in this measure, for the improvement of their estates, for building, for drainage, for fencing, and for other purposes, which, although they may be primarily beneficial to themselves, have been regarded by the Legislature as being of advantage to the community also. What does this Bill do? It does not give one farthing as a direct gift. It makes no endowment. It does not give one single advantage beyond lending money at a low rate of interest, and it does this for a class which has one advantage over almost every other—that its members are coercively resident, and moral in life. The reason for the low rate of interest reserved is obvious. A nation does not go into the market to make money by obtaining a large rate of interest. You give the money at a rate of interest which saves you from loss—and you get back your principal and a small amount over to cover risk. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) seemed quite sensitive, as if this was a great boon, and he characterized it as concurrent endowment. I confess I am amazed how a person so shrewd in relation to money matters could take such a view of a transaction by which the State lends money and gets it back without a particle of loss and also without profit, and gives it on those terms, because the State could not consistently with its character aim at making money by the process. Nothing but an anxiety to assume a belligerent attitude towards all teachers of religion could induce anyone to propose the Motion made by the hon. Member to prevent the progress of the Bill. There is an easy way of getting rid of objections founded on the Bill being brought forward at this period of the Session—to let the Bill pass without discussion, and then the Member for Sunderland will have the time requisite to bring forward any other measures he wishes.

reminded the House that last Session he desisted from moving that some of the money of the Irish Church should be devoted to the purchase of glebe lands for Roman Catholic priests, because the Roman Catholic Members of the House would not listen to it lest they should be suspected of breaking faith with the Scotch Members and the Nonconformists, together with whom they were fighting the battle of religious equality. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fortescue) said a Bill would be brought in to grant glebes to all religious denominations in Ireland, and that would have been the time for hon. Members to protest against it as concurrent endowment.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that there was no pledge given by that House last year directly or indirectly. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Gladstone) stated that, with the exception of the Government, no other parties were pledged. He (Mr. M'Laren) utterly denied that there was any ground for the Bill in consequence of anything that occurred last year. It had been assumed that some great advantage was conferred upon the Church of England last year in Ireland; and that, therefore, a corresponding advantage ought now to be conferred upon the Roman Catholics, and upon the Presbyterians, and upon other denominations. He denied that any advantage whatever was conferred upon the Established Church of Ireland last year, and maintained that what was then done was to take something away from her, still leaving her something, no doubt—perhaps, in his opinion, a good deal too much; but still it was undeniable that no new advantage was given to the Church of England in Ireland, while an advantage was undoubtedly taken from her. He could easily conceive how a good argument might have been adduced for the Bill a few years ago. It might have been pointed out that all the Church of England ministers were in independent circumstances, with large incomes; and that, under those circumstances, they ought to do something for the other sects. But when they pulled down the Church of England in Ireland from its pedestal, and put it on the same platform as the other disestablished Churches, he altogether denied the force of the argument, and maintained that what took place last year rendered it quite inexpedient and impolitic to bring that Bill before the House. It had been stated that they had security for that money, and reference was made to it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball), as if they were grumbling about the small rate of interest charged. He (Mr. M'Laren) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that whenever the Government lent money for important public purposes it should lend it without any view to profit, and if there was a necessity for it, then he thought no fair objection could be taken. But in this case the necessity had not been proved. He did not profess to know the value of land in Ireland, its value must greatly depend on its nearness to, or distance from town; but, take it at any value they pleased, to carry out the objects of the Bill would require a large sum of money. They had about 3,000 ministers of religion of all kinds in Ireland, and each of them was entitled to have a house, and a glebe of 10 acres, and they were bound by the Bill to pay off the debts of all the houses in Ireland now existing. Taking all that into consideration, and remembering that ecclesiastical persons would include Bishops and Archbishops, for whom suitable residences would have to be supplied, £500 would not be too high a figure for the average sum, which would require £1,500,000. That was a large amount. They were going to lend that in a way which filled him with great doubts whether they would ever get it back. It had been said that the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland would be most disappointed if they did not get the promised loans. He could conceive such to be the case, and he could look forward a few years and see, in his mind's eye, a Motion made on the opposite side of the House praying that those payments might be remitted in consideration of some period of distress, and he could equally see the Members on this side seconding that with all their hearts. They had had an example of the wonderful alacrity and unanimity with which money matters were sought by the two parties united when it was wanted in the case of the statue of Lord Gough. He saw little hope of getting that money back. Under the circumstances, he thought the best thing they could do was to postpone the measure till next Session. For himself, he could say that he knew the opinions of the Nonconformists to be opposed to such a course, and to be on that matter entirely different from those of the First Minister of the Crown. For, since the Irish Church Bill passed, he had seen on that subject the greatest distrust in the minds of Nonconformists, as they feared that a Bill of that kind might be brought before Parliament; and he ventured to say that, if the Bill had been brought into Parliament two months ago, they would have had hundreds of Petitions against it from the country with which he was connected. He thought that a Bill of such magnitude and importance ought not to be brought forward at that late period of the Session; and, for his own part, he did not think the arguments adduced were at all satisfactory; and, therefore, he cordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland.

said, as a Catholic Member, he wished to offer a few remarks on that stage of the Bill, and in reply to some of the observations of his hon. Friends at that side of the House. It might be in their memory that, in March, 1868, he brought before the House of Commons what was then known as the Irish Question; and on that occasion, when dealing with one of its divisions—that relating to the Church—he read the declarations made continuously for nearly three-quarters of a century by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, who consistently refused to accept for their Church any portion whatever of the property then in possession of the Anglican Church—refused to accept any benefit or advantage whatever for themselves or their Church, save what would necessarily arise from the abolition of an injurious supremacy, and the removal of a cause of bitterness between the people of the same country. The policy of the Catholic Bishops was adopted by the people and carried out by their representatives. The Catholic Members not only did not encourage any attempt to give their Church a share of the spoil, as it was termed, but they distinctly repudiated every such attempt. They did so on clear and intelligible grounds—they did so to keep faith with the English Members who supported them; but they also acted as they did as matter of pride and principle. They maintained the voluntary principle in their votes, and they showed that their motives were pure, and that they only desired to get rid of a great wrong not in a spirit of hostility, but from a desire to promote amity and good feeling. Therefore, on the question of endowment, they, and those they represented, were above all suspicion. When they were offered concurrent endowment they repudiated it, and would not give it the slightest favour or continance. But they were told that Bill, by which advances were to be made to assist Catholics and others to provide glebes for their clergy, was endowment; and, therefore, that they were wrong in accepting it, and that his hon. Friends were right in rejecting it. But, sincerely speaking, could any man really call that endowment? His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) was a first-rate man of business—a rational, sensible man; and how he could turn a loan into an endowment passed his (Mr. Maguire's) power of comprehension. Let him ask his hon. Friend—did the money-lender, who lent his money on security and at a certain rate of interest, endow his borrower? Did the banker, who lent at a fair rate of interest, or the usurer who lent at exorbitant interest — did either endow the person to whom he lent his money; or was such loan an endowment? And where was the difference between such loans and the proposal in the Bill? The real question was, was it necessary and right that the measure should be brought in? The conduct of the Irish Catholics during the passing of the Church Bill rendered it necessary; for they refused endowment—refused to take share in the spoils. Then there was the want of roper houses or glebes for their clergy. That was notorious. Many lived in miserable houses, many in actual cabins, in a manner in which the clergy of the national faith ought not to be found. Now, as his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said, a great deal was left to the Protestant clergy. He (Mr. Maguire) was himself pleased it was, and he would not personally have objected to their having more, if more could be fairly given; but they had their glebes, their lands and houses, their decent and comfortable mansions, and the Catholic clergy were without them—and this Bill was intended to as sist their parishioners, not the State, to endow them with residences becoming their positions; and that was the entire the Bill did. At present, there was no visible equality, and the Bill sought to bring it about; and if there was not an equality perceptible to a quick and sensitive people, injury to charity and good feeling must be the result. But his hon. Friend departed from his usual good taste in his eagerness to rest a great principle upon a false issue. He hinted that the money was not to be paid back, and suggested that the same unanimity that influenced Irish Members with respect to Lord Gough's statue, would actuate them on a future occasion in reference to those loans. In the instance mentioned—that of paying a tribute of respect to a noble Irish soldier—their action was creditable to their feeling; in the other instance it would be an act of public dishonesty. And as to the paltry eight tons of gun-metal to commemorate the deeds of a gallant soldier, were that soldier a Scotchman, Irish Members would readily have aided Scotch Members to procure it. Indeed, one gallant Scotchman (Colonel Sykes) did, to his credit, insist on this material being given to honour his old comrade. But his hon. Friends were indignant that the Bill was not brought in sooner. He was glad it was not. They could now discuss it in good temper, and with moderation of feeling; but had it lain on their Table since February, what Petitions from Scotland against it! [Mr. M'LAREN: Hear, hear!] Yes; but they knew what a no-Popery feeling might be excited, even amongst Scotch Liberals, at any proposal which would benefit Roman Catholics as well as Presbyterians. Much ill-feeling and much absurd opposition had been spared; and he hoped his hon. Friends would now be able to see this proposal in its true shape—as a means of assisting parishioners to do that for their clergy which they would not allow the State to do for them. But why, they were asked, postpone the Shipping Bill, and the Ballot Bill, and other great measures, to pass this? Why, the Merchant Shipping Bill contained 800 clauses, and this contained eight. The Ballot was a great measure that might well stand for next year, considering that two vast measures, the Irish Land Bill and the Education Bill, had signalized the legislation of this Session. That was a good Bill, but it was the very opposite of endowment. Endowment gave and did not take back—that lent, and insisted on repayment. Considering the position which the Irish people had taken up through their Members on this question of endowment, he really wondered how his hon. Friends could think of raising opposition to that simple, just, and necessary proposal.

said, he would not oppose this mite of justice to the people of Ireland. It was an insult to suppose that the Nonconformists, after receiving a loan under this Bill, would afterwards refuse the repayment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had quite overstated the case with respect to the Presbyterians of Ireland, and it would have been well had he left that body to have pleaded their own case. He did not rise to speak upon the merits of the Bill, but merely to put a question to the Government. Last year, when the Irish Church measure was under discussion, both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to questions that were put to them, distinctly stated that money would be lent to build churches as well as manses. What he wanted now to know was, whether the Government intended to redeem that pledge, and whether they would lend money for the building of churches. If such was their design, a clause to that effect would have to be introduced in Committee.

said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had put the matter in a false light by stating that the Government were about to provide palaces for the Roman Catholic Prelates. Nothing of the kind was intended, nor, indeed, would the priests desire such a thing. Only such houses would be built for them as their state required and their revenue would permit, and they themselves would have ultimately to pay for these dwellings, and advance a considerable proportion of the money that would be requisite. Roman Catholic Bishops were numerous in Ireland whose whole income amounted only to between £300 and £500 a year; and that was in itself a guarantee that extravagant or enormous palaces would not be erected. Such buildings would be entirely unsuited to their means, and would, in fact, be very far from being a boon. Objections had been raised to the Bill; but they were not founded on fact. The real issue raised by the measure was not one of concurrent endowment, but was one for carrying out the principle of equality between all religious denominations in Ireland, as recognized in the Church Bill of last year. He himself had had a conversation with the President of the Board of Trade upon this very subject long before that Bill was introduced. That right hon. Gentleman laid it down as a broad principle that if strict justice and equality were meted out to all denominations, some such thing as that contemplated by the Bill would have to be done. He further maintained that the glebes were part of the assets of the English Church in Ireland, and that they would have to be sold and turned to account by the State like the other assets. Finally he declared that if the glebe-houses were given to the disestablished Church, either gratuitously or at a merely nominal price, the glebes would also have to be given to the other religious denominations in Ireland. He (Mr. O'Reilly) quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that it was neither fair nor just to give glebes at a merely nominal value to one denomination and withhold the power of procuring houses to the other. He attached importance to the present Bill not in the interests of Roman Catholics, but in the interests of the Empire, inasmuch as, if passed, it would show that the Legislature was prepared to carry out fairly, to the fullest extent, and quite irrespective of religious prejudices, the principle of the equal treatment of all religious denominations in Ireland. The Bill was absolutely necessary in order to fulfil the principle of religious equality which was contained in the Irish Church Bill. His belief was that the Bill would do much to promote good feeling in Ireland, and to root in the minds of her people that the House of Commons was prepared to do justice to every one, irrespective of prejudices or of party considerations.

said, it was with regret that he felt himself bound to differ from his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish). If this measure stood alone upon its own merits, he should not hesitate to support him, for he thought it was impossible to deny that this measure, in however attenuated a degree, made provision out of State funds for religious communities; it was, in fact, a part of a system of State endowment. But the measure did not stand alone. The Prime Minister had put it on its just footing when he said that it was part of the scheme of the Irish Church Bill of last Session; and it was because he had a distinct recollection of what passed during the debates upon that Bill with reference to this measure, that he felt bound not to vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Supposing this Bill had been inserted as a clause of the Irish Church Bill, would they have risked the safety of the Bill by opposing the clause? He felt sure that they would not have done so, but would gladly have accepted the clause for the sake of the Church Bill, even although that clause had been at variance with their own principles. That being the case, he maintained that those who accepted the Irish Church Bill were bound also to accept this; for whilst the Church Bill was passing that House the Prime Minister had distinctly stated his intention of bringing forward such a measure this year. If it were admitted that it was desirable to give facilities for the erection of manses, he could conceive of no plan which was easier, more simple, or less at variance with the convictions, or even prejudices of other denominations, than the Bill now before the House. Upon these grounds he would support the second reading of the Bill. It would not be fair, after passing a clause providing glebes for one Church, if no provision were made for the others.

said, he regretted that he would have to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He voted for the Irish Church Bill in the interest of the then Established Church, and he believed that measure had conferred great advantage on that Church by the spirit of zeal and liberality it had evoked. He opposed the present Bill on broad and general grounds, and because he did not believe that the measure had any connection whatever with the Irish Church Bill. Hon. Members might call the Bill by any name they pleased; but, substantially, it was a Bill for endowing certain religious bodies in Ireland, and upon that simple ground alone he would oppose it. He contended that neither the Presbyterians nor the Episcopalians of Ireland had asked for the Bill. He hoped, under these circumstances, that Government would at least postpone the measure. It was all very well talking about loans; but he should like to know how the money which had been advanced for public works in Ireland had been obtained. He himself was of opinion that they had no assurance of the money which might be lent being ever repaid. He believed that in many of the poorer districts the people would be unable to pay the money, and the Government would not, under such circumstances, like to seize the glebes. He regretted having to oppose the Government in this matter. His belief was that the only way of promoting peace in Ireland, and good feeling among the people, would be to let all denominations build their own churches and manses, and give them no State endowment whatsoever.

believed that the Bill would be accepted by the Presbyterians; but it would not redeem the pledge given last year that loans should be made for building churches. On many grounds, which he need not enter into, this would be towards the Presbyterian body an act of justice. He saw no reason, however, why the operations of the Bill should be limited to five years; on the contrary, considering the interests which were at stake, the arrangement ought, in his opinion, to be made in perpetuity.

said, he should not have addressed the House on this question had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur). He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was well aware that this Bill would be acceptable to every denomination of Presbyterians in Ulster. The Moderator of the General Assembly had pressed upon the Government, when the Irish Church Bill was under consideration, the necessity of introducing some measure of the kind now proposed, and the only reason why no further pressure had been put upon the Government this year was, he believed, because reliance was placed upon the promise already given. He was surprised that any doubt should have been cast upon the repayment of the money to be advanced. The hon. Member for Lambeth, although representing an English constituency, was an Irishman, and he should have been the last to join in an attack upon his own countrymen. Public loans in Ireland were repaid as punctually as similar loans in England or Scotland. This had been stated so frequently, and always in general terms, that he should take no notice of any suggestions of this kind in future unless the name of the man who had not paid was mentioned, together with the amount of his debt. As would be seen by a reference to the provisions of the Bill, the Commissioners would not allow money to be advanced without receiving the security of a mortgage, or the security of three solvent persons, and all was to be under the supervision of the Treasury. None of the arguments put forward in favour of the Bill had been answered during the debate.

believed the Government were bound in honour to bring forward this Bill, and if it had formed part of their general measure last year for the final adjustment of the relations between Church and State, most of those even who now opposed this Bill would have acquiesced in the arrangement, and he himself should have given it his support; but, after the interval which had elapsed, it would be difficult for Members to satisfy their consciences, or their constituents, that the two measures really formed part of one and the same adjustment, and therefore he should feel bound to vote with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish). This undoubtedly was something like the establishment of relations between the State and the different religious communities—and if he believed the measure represented a settled policy of the Government, or was intended to be a perpetuity, instead of being merely the fag-end of a measure already passed, he should take much more decided steps in opposition.

said, he should vote in the same way as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham), although he did not accept all the arguments of that hon. Gentleman. He denied that in the Government proposals there was anything in the nature of endowment; for, although it would confer a pecuniary advantage, that accommodation would be accompanied by liability to repayment. Therefore there was no gift in the first place; and next, the transaction would involve no patronage on the part of the State, or subjection on the part of the persons accommo dated. He thought the Nonconformists were overstraining a point in opposing this Bill, which was a measure of equality, justice, and humanity.

regretted the Bill more for the sake of the Catholics than for the Protestants. Last year he was able to boast before his constituents that the Catholics would not have endowments, and he regretted exceedingly that they were now coming forward to borrow money from the State. It was stated by the Prime Minister that more applications for Government loans had been received from the Presbyterians than from the Roman Catholics, and that was because the former body were so accustomed to lean upon the State for support. The members of the various Nonconformist denominations in this country had not asked Parliament for a shilling, and he objected to the Bill as tending to produce further inequalities amongst religious bodies. His confidence in the Prime Minister was not shaken, however, by the circumstance that he had brought in this measure.

said, he did not believe the money would be repaid. He could cite Irish loans which had not been repaid — namely, the loans for Limerick and Galway Harbours. This Bill was neither more nor less than the beginning of concurrent endowment, and he asked where the economists were that they would permit this money to be lent? He had opposed the disestablishment of the Irish Church; but as the measure of last year had been passed he now wished that the Church should stand by itself, and that other religious bodies should be left to take care of themselves. He should therefore oppose the Bill.

also regarded the Bill as the first step towards concurrent endowment, and urged the distinction between this and the Irish Church Bill, that that dealt with ecclesiastical funds and this with the Consolidated Fund. "Money for Ireland!" seemed to be the only cry which would unite Irish Members on both sides of the House.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 58: Majority 103.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

Supply—Report

Resolutions [July 25] reported.

inquired whether it was intended to make any allowance to the Ambassador at Constantinople for a winter residence at Pera, or whether he would reside at the new palace which had been fitted up at Therapia?

said, that owing to the great disaster which had occurred at Constantinople, our Ambassador's house there would hardly be habitable in the coming winter. At the present moment the Ambassador had removed his family to Therapia, and no doubt he would remain there as long as he possibly could. If he were unable to remain at Therapia during the winter it would be necessary to find some temporary accommodation suitable for him until such time as a decision could be taken with regard to rebuilding the Embassy House.

Resolutions agreed to.

Supply

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Harrow And Winchester Schools

Resolution

, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, said, that early in the Session the proposed new statutes for constituting the Governing Bodies of five of our great public schools were laid on the Table of the House, when it was found that in regard to all five of those schools the statutes attached the qualification of membership in the Church of England as a condition to holding a position in the Governing Bodies. An Address to the Crown was adopted on the subject by that House, the result of which was that the Public Schools Commissioners re-considered the matter, and removed that objectionable restriction in regard to three of the schools, but retained it in respect to Winchester and Harrow. In answer to a Question put to him about a fortnight ago, the Solicitor General stated that in the case of Winchester the Commissioners had ascertained that from the passing of the Act of Uniformity to the present day it had always been deemed that a Church of England character was distinctly impressed upon the school. As that school dated from long before the Reformation, and its character must have necessarily been re-moulded at that epoch, it might very well undergo further re-moulding in the present century, to adapt it to the requirements of modern, thought. But if they were indebted for the restriction complained of to the Act of Uniformity, that was only one of the various evil consequences flowing from the passing of that Act. In the case of Harrow, the Commissioners appeared to have made an inquiry to ascertain whether that school came under the terms of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, under which schools Were to be exempted from what he might call the Conscience Clause for all endowed schools under that Bill, provided they were able to show that certain religious doctrines and formularies had been observed in the school down to the passing of that Bill. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote the opinions of Dr. Vaughan and Dr. Butler—the one the former and the other the present Head Master of Harrow — to show that although, in answer to the questions put to them by the Commissioners, those gentlemen had admitted generally that, in point of fact, Harrow had been a Church of England school, yet in their view the adoption of a religious test in regard to members of the Governing Body was impolitic in the present day, and also injurious to the interests of the Established Church itself. Dr. Butler, in a recent letter to The Times, said that no religious test had been imposed on the members of the Governing Body of Harrow, although no doubt, in fact, all the members had belonged to the Established Church; and Dr. Vaughan had avowed his conviction that that Church in the long run was always a gainer by the largest possible comprehension. He did not mean to cast any reflection on the conduct of the Commissioners themselves; but if the Act of Parliament was at fault means should be taken to place these schools on a footing similar to that of the other great public schools. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that the Revised Statutes for the constitution of the new Governing Bodies of Harrow and Winchester Schools should require that any person, in order to be qualified to be elected or nominated a member of the Governing Bodies, must be a member of the Church of England,"—(Mr. Stevenson,)

—instead thereof.

said, that he was sorry that it fell to his lot to address the House, because with the spirit of the Resolution he entirely concurred. If he were asked whether, in his judgment, it was expedient that this restriction should have been placed upon the Governing Body of any school, he should unhesitatingly say that it was inexpedient; and, for his part, he should never concur, as a matter of wisdom and expediency, in the introduction of this restriction upon any Governing Body of any school. But he must point out that this was not the question which they had to consider; they had not to consider what was expedient, but what were the duties that the statute imposed upon those who had to act under it. He had never disguised his own wish upon the subject; but he considered that, as a Commissioner, he had no business to act upon his own opinion, and had simply to ascertain what was the state of the law which he had to put into practice. A Resolution of the House of Commons could not change the law; and if the law were as he should put it, then it followed that the Commissioners could not disregard it. Down to the present time the Governing Body of Harrow had been of an exclusive character, and he maintained that by the present law that exclusive character must be maintained. His contention was this—that the two schools were within the exception in the 19th section of the last Act; and the Uniformity Act further supported the conclusion to which he had arrived. He was personally no party to the arrangement which imposed the restriction upon the two Governing Bodies; he was not present at the meetings of the Commissioners, and had nothing to do with what was determined upon. He must, however, repeat that the Commissioners were bound by the law to act as they had acted, and any Resolution of the House against their determination would not be operative.

admitted, as a matter of course, that if there was a statutory obligation upon the Com missioners then this Motion would be open to the criticism of the Solicitor General; but, with very great and unfeigned respect for his hon. and learned Friend, he must dispute the conclusion which he had arrived at. He (Mr. Winterbotham) contended that there was no statutory obligation upon the Commissioners to do as they had done; but, on the contrary, there was a statutory obligation upon them not to do it. He was quite clear that this was the true construction of the statute, and further, that it was so understood by the Vice President of the Council when the Act was passed. The Commissioners had inserted a clause restricting the Governing Bodies of Winchester and Harrow to members of the Church of England, and he contended that they were not bound to insert any such provision. The 17th clause said that in the case of undenominational schools there should be a positive provision against restriction, and then the 19th clause excepted certain schools. The Commissioners, therefore, were bound, in the case of undenominational schools, to insert a positive provision against restriction; but they were not bound to insert any restriction in the case of any schools whatever. Even if Winchester and Harrow were held to be denominational schools, the introduction of the restrictive provision would be perfectly gratuitous upon the part of the Commissioners, and they would have taken a positive retrograde step which was not countenanced by the Act. But he went further, and argued that neither Winchester nor Harrow was within the exception in the 19th clause. Winchester was a pre-Reformation endowment, and would certainly be a national endowment but for the Act of Uniformity; but his hon. and learned Friend having misread the 19th clause, brought in the Act of Uniformity to help him. The exceptions in the 19th clause referred to schools maintained from the endowments of any cathedral or collegiate church; and, secondly, to schools where the scholars were required by the terms of the original instrument of foundation, or the terms of the statutes—and statutes which had been observed down to the commencement of this Act—to be instructed according to the formularies of any particular Church. He contended that neither of the schools came within either of these exceptions; and therefore he thought that the House should pass this Resolution. If there were a statutory obligation upon the Commissioners, the worst would be that this Resolution would have no effect; but if, on the Other hand, Winchester and Harrow were not within these exceptions, then this Resolution would have the effect of directing the Commissioners to carry it out. As to Winchester, his contention was that it was not a cathedral or collegiate school; and as to Harrow, that had hitherto been administered liberally, and they were now narrowing its action in a way that was not obligatory upon them by any Act.

reminded hon. Members that those statutes had not as yet arrived at a definite form. The process was not yet completed, and it would be very inconvenient for the House to express a judicial opinion, which it was almost impossible to express, upon a matter that was not as vet decided.

But the statutes are on the Table, and, consequently, the House is in a position to express an opinion upon any of the provisions contained therein.

said, he wished to explain how those statutes were laid before the House. Under the Endowed Schools Act schemes had to be framed by the Commissioners, approved by the Government, and laid on the Table for assent or dissent—all the process being complete before the schemes were submitted to the House. The House might then, if inclined, dissent from a scheme which it knew to be approved by all the Executive authorities called in to assist in framing that scheme. But that was not the position in which they were now. Statutes had been drawn up by the Public Schools Commissioners in regard to those schools, which had been laid upon the Table. Objections had been made to those statutes as applying to five schools, and they were referred back to the Commissioners. In consequence of that state of things the House, at the instance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney), assented to an Address, remitting back to the Commissioners those statutes for reconsideration. The Commissioners did reconsider them, and they again framed statutes, which were laid upon the Table of the House. Those statutes, however, had not as yet come before the Privy Council, because the time allowed by the Act before they go before the Privy Council had not yet elapsed. When the statutes did come before the Privy Council it would be their business to thoroughly weigh all that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who had spoken as one of the Commissioners, and by his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham). It was impossible for him to say what would be the decision of the Privy Council when the question came before them. When, after his experience in connection with, the Committee for Public Schools, as a Church of England School Commissioner, and a framer of the Endowed Schools Act, he now declared he could not say which of his hon. Friends was right in respect of this matter, he thought it must be admitted that it would be rather difficult for the House to arrive at a judicial decision upon it. He thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Government to decide upon their responsibility whether they would approve of the statutes or not; and if they were appoved of, and any objection afterwards taken to them, the House might be again appealed to on the subject. The question was of importance chiefly to the two schools of Winchester and Harrow; and he thought that if the proposed Address were agreed to, and the Commissioners were called upon to consider the statutes in reference to the Endowed Schools Act, the result would be to cast upon them the duty of giving an interpretation to the Act. The importance of establishing any precedent in the matter would be keenly felt by the Government in their examination of the question.

said, when the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and the Solicitor General were compelled to resort to such weak arguments he thought their case must be a very weak one, and that of the hon. Member who moved the Address (Mr. Stevenson) a very strong one. In reply to the technical and legal arguments of the Solicitor General, the answer of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) was triumphant and complete; and in reference to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President, he (Mr. Fawcett) would ask whether the placing on the Table of those statutes was to be considered by the House as a mere idle form? Were the Privy Council to consider those statutes without any guidance from the declared opinions of that House? It seemed to him that the reason why those statutes had been placed upon the Table was to afford Parliament the opportunity of expressing an opinion upon any of the provisions contained therein; and if the House should accept the Motion of the hon. Member for South Shields there would be an additional reason why the Privy Council should not allow that restriction in regard to the schools of Harrow and Winchester to continue. He had received letters from some of the masters of Harrow, who, though members of the Church of England, declared unanimously against this restriction, which they said would act injuriously even to the Church of England schools. He (Mr. Fawcett) viewed this restriction as inexpedient, unjust, and unnecessary.

said, he hoped the House would act cautiously before they proceeded in the course recommended by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson). He was quite sure that the House did not wish to proceed in an unconstitutional manner; but he (Mr. Newdegate) had been advised, on authority that no one could overlook, that in the matter of the Address which the House had agreed to, and in accordance with which an alteration had been made in the statute for Rugby School, the House had acted, not only in an unconstitutional manner, but positively illegally. He trusted that the House would not proceed further in so doubtful a course as that with respect to the statutes for the other public schools, until they had the assurance or judicial decision from the Privy Council, or from a Court of Law, or from both, as to the legality of this course. He had termed those proceedings unconstitutional, because he conceived it was the intention of Parliament, when it directed those statutes to be laid before it, that the same course should be adopted in respect to them which was adopted by the House of Lords in respect to Money Bills—namely, that either House of Parliament, or both, should sanction or reject each statute as a whole. What had the House been led into? It had invited the Commissioners to import into the statute for Rugby the principle of a subsequent statute from which, they derived no power whatever. What was more, the very reference he had heard made to the 19th clause of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 showed him that the hon. Member for Stroud was inviting the House to insist, as far as they could, on the Public Schools Commissioners, the whole of whose powers were derived from the statute of 1868, adopting the provisions of the 19th clause of the statute of 1869, although the Public Schools Commissioners had nothing whatever to do with those provisions or with that statute. It appeared to him that this was a most unconstitutional course, and he trusted that the Government would not sanction any further proceedings in that direction. The Motion involved the question, whether that House was to adopt per se, as a single Chamber, a new mode of legislation without reference to the other House of Parliament. He submitted that such a course would, if adopted, be vicious and unconstitutional.

said, that within his recollection the late Lord Aberdeen was a Governor of Harrow School; but the noble Lord, who was a member of the Church of Scotland, could never have become a Governor if the restriction, which was introduced by the Commissioners, had then existed. In his opinion, his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) had entirely disposed of the arguments of the Solicitor General. The Vice President had asked the House not to interfere, because these statutes had not been before the Privy Council; but if the House was not to say whether they thought the restriction inexpedient or otherwise, why had it been enacted that the approval of the Queen to the statutes should not be signified until after they had been on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for 40 days? The object of the framers of the Act he took to be that Parliament should have the power, if they were so minded, of expressing an opinion on the subject for the guidance of Her Majesty in Council. The right hon. Gentleman had said that opinions had been gathered; but he would remind him that spoken opinions were not like Resolutions of the House of Commons. Some such Resolution as that proposed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Steven son) ought to be put on record, and, therefore, he should vote for it.

said, that if a vote were taken on this question he should go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), for, in his opinion, if there was any fault to be found with the Resolution, it was that it did not go far enough, in not including Eton and Westminster. The question before the House was simply whether the restriction as to the Governing Bodies of the two great schools was expedient or not; but the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) was directed to a wholly different issue—namely, whether the Commissioners had correctly interpreted the 19th clause of the Endowed Schools Act, a question which to a great extent depended on the provisions of the will under which Harrow School was endowed. If the hon. Member for Stroud had consulted that document he thought he would have come to a different conclusion. He contended that the Public Schools Commissioners had shown no spirit of illiberality in those matters. They had simply followed the recommendations of the previous School Commissioners, one of which recommendations was that the members of the Governing Body should be members of the Church of England. It was a grave question whether the Commissioners would have been justified in taking any other course than that which they had actually adopted. He was disposed to take an opposite course, and had endeavoured to persuade his brother Commissioners not to introduce this clause into the statutes; but, regarding the instructions that were before them, he did not think they could be blamed for the course they had pursued. Seeing that the Commissioners had been attacked by Members from both sides of the House, he consoled himself with the reflection that that fact was of itself evidence that they had performed their duties with a spirit of impartiality and fairness.

said, that if it was intended to go to a Division upon this subject it was material to examine the words which it was proposed to affirm. They were—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that the Revised Statutes for the constitution of the new Governing Bodies of Harrow and Winchester Schools should require," &c.
Now, he wished to call particular attention to the word "inexpedient." It appeared to him that that was an ambiguous word, and that its effect was to substitute a false issue for the true one. The question of expediency or otherwise was of a general character; it overlooked the existence of certain laws, and referred them to the principle of policy. But if they were simply to determine the question on the principle of policy, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had already intimated his opinion to be in favour of it. But, supposing that the House approved of the Resolution, and that it came under the notice of the Privy Council, it appeared to him that they could take no notice of it, and that it could have no weight with them. Their business at present was to proceed according to certain Acts of Parliament, and not in accordance with their particular notions of policy. The two questions were as distinct as cast and west, or night and day. The proposition of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) was in effect to review the proceedings of the Commissioners, and to submit their opinions for the consideration of the Privy Council. But if they were to do that, they must not declare an Act expedient or otherwise; but declare that the Commissioners had mistaken the instructions under which they were to act, and had consequently arrived at a wrong decision. Whether the House ought to say that what the Commissioners had done was inexpedient was another matter altogether, and he must own that they were placed in a position of very great difficulty. The case of Harrow was this—that the instruction in the statutes was that the scholars should be instructed "in Nowell's Catechism, or such like work." They had not been instructed in Nowell's Catechism, and, therefore, the hon. Member for Stroud argued that they did not come within the meaning of the Act; but the question was, whether they had been instructed in any similar work, and he understood they had been constantly instructed in the Church Catechism, which was clearly a "such-like work." When he was at Eton he could not recollect receiving instruction in Noel's Catechism, nor indeed in any particular catechism. He was bound to say he believed that the Commissioners had proceeded according to the spirit of the Act. It was impossible to doubt that the injunctions of the founder had been obeyed in the case of Harrow. For his own part, he owned he could not see a loop-hole in the argument. There was another point, with respect to the personal qualification of the Governors, and it was said that a new qualification had been introduced by the Commissioners—namely, that the members of the Governing Body must be members of the Church of England. He supposed the Commissioners considered whether Harrow ought to be treated as a Church of England school, and if so, whether the members of the Governing Body should be members of the Church of England. The House were perfectly entitled to give an opinion upon the proceedings of the Commissioners, but not as to the expediency of what the Commissioners had done, for it was quite possible that a thing might be inexpedient in itself, and yet have been the right thing for them to do. The Privy Council, he would suggest, was the best place in which this matter could be raised and decided, for they could consider impartially, and with full information, whether the Commissioners had rightly discharged their duty. For such a function the House of Commons was much less qualified, and in any case they were not called upon to act, for the words of the Resolution were not relevant to the purpose which the Resolution itself had in view.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: — Ayes 85; Noes 73: Majority 12.

Palace Of Westminster—The Central Hall—Question

asked the Chief Commissioner of Works, If he could state the names of the Committee of Artists to whom had been entrusted the decorations of the Central Hall?

replied that the Committee consisted of Mr. Cope, Mr. Ward, Mr. Watt, Mr. Armytage, Mr. Poynter, Mr. Horsley, and Mr. Herbert.

France And Prussia—Alleged Draft Treaty—Question

Before the House separates there is a Question which the Prime Minister has permitted me to ask him, and which I desire to put, as it relates to a question of very great interest. From a statement made in "another place" by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs we are led to understand that a communication was this day received by him from the French Ambassador respecting the alleged projected Treaty between France and Prussia. I beg, therefore, to inquire, Whether my right hon. Friend is able to inform the House of the effect of that communication?

This day M. de Lavalette called upon my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and stated that, now that war had been declared between France and Prussia, there remained for him but two objects in the post that he occupies at this Court. Those were to maintain intimate relations between the two Governments, and to preserve the friendly feeling which has arisen and has been the growth of late years, especially between the two nations. He further stated that the plan contained in the alleged draft Treaty which had been published in The Times newspaper of yesterday was one which had been originated by M. Bismarck, and had been the subject of some conversation with M. Benedetti, but that it never had any serious basis, and was rejected by both parties. The Marquis do Lavalette went on to say that the Government of the Emperor had absolutely respected the neutrality of Belgium, even when there was reason to complain of its conduct. That, I interpolate, has, no doubt, reference to the time when a discussion took place last year with reference to a certain railway. During this month the Emperor had made a declaration of neutrality to the Government of Belgium, which had also been communicated by M. de Gramont to Lord Lyons, and which, M. de Lavalette said, I must know was absolutely binding on the honour of the Emperor of the French, unless, indeed, neutrality was violated by either of the other belligerents. He then referred to the declaration made in answer to a Question with respect to an assurance of neutrality having been received from several Powers. This is the nature of the communication made by the French Ambassador.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Supply—Civil Service Estimates

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £29,615, to complete the sum for Law Charges.

remarked, that although the Government were reducing the Army and Navy Estimates, the law charges were higher than ever, and he thought the Government ought to look closely into this matter. He asked last year what was the cause of the large amount of fees to counsel; and he was told that it was on account of the Fenian prosecutions. This year the charge for prosecutions was as high as ever, and yet the Fenian prosecutions had almost ceased.

said, he would be the last man to wish that the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Queen's Advocate should not be properly remunerated. This year the total law charges included in the Civil Service Estimates amounted to £106,000. He thought it desirable that these Officers should be salaried, and he would not object to their receiving very high salaries; but he would have all the fees carried into the accounts of the State. When the Foreign Office required an opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, all the papers connected with the subject were placed in a sack, and the Law Officers had to wade through this enormous amount of chaff in order to select the small portion of wheat, and then to give their judgment. The whole system connected with these matters was behind the age, and ought to be referred to a departmental committee, with a view of securing efficiency combined with a considerable economy.

remarked that no legal business was so troublesome as Government business, none was so badly paid for, and none so little sought after.

explained that a great part of the charge for law and justice arose under statute; and the in- crease crease was accounted for by a series of fresh, charges, such as the cost of the Courts of Chancery and Bankruptcy. It was quite true that where the Foreign Office submitted cases to the Law Officers of the Government all the papers on the subject were forwarded. Such a course might be attended with inconvenience, and he was not prepared to say that there was not a case for inquiry.

remarked that the Foreign Office was differently situated in this respect from the other Offices. There was a counsel to the Colonial Office, and also to the Home Office; but there was no special counsel for the Foreign Office. In dealing with many delicate questions, such, for instance, as those arising out of naturalization, it was thought better to submit the whole of the papers in the case to the legal adviser instead of drawing up a case. This course, however, did not entail any additional expense.

said, there could be no doubt that the remuneration of the principal Law Officers for business actually done for the Government in cases sent by the Foreign Office was not in proportion to the amount of labour done. He did not, however, mean to say that, upon the whole, the remuneration of those officers was not adequate; nor was he at all opposed to making inquiry into the subject. If the remuneration for what was done for the Government was compared, in detail, with the remuneration arising from what was done for private persons it would be found to be very inadequate. The way in which that inadequacy was made up was by means of patent fees, which did not involve great labour, but which brought in large emolument. With respect to the mode in which the Foreign Office cases were stated, he had never, while he was one of the Law Officers, been dissatisfied with it. He thought that if the Law Officers of the Crown were to have the responsibility of advising the Government in difficult matters, it was convenient that they should have the whole of the papers placed in their hands, so that they might form the best judgment in their own minds, instead of taking the result of the facts as seen through the mind of another man.

agreed with the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) as regarded not only England, but also Ire land. Government business was far worse paid than private business.

complained of the heavy fees charged to poor patentees, and suggested that a professional staff should be appointed to assist the Attorney and Solicitor General to complete patents without cost to poor inventors.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £120,633, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions.

complained of the travelling expenses of Clerks of Assize. These gentlemen were only six or seven in number, and their travelling expenses exceeded £3,000.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £120,331, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery.

(4.) £42,315, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts.

(5.) £52,377, to complete the sum for the Banknrptcy Court.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £353,632, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the County Courts."

expressed his satisfaction that the vesting of Admiralty jurisdiction in the County Courts, in which he had been instrumental, had proved so successful. The amount of new business transacted had been considerable, and the business, upon the whole, had been managed in a satisfactory manner. The provision had proved specially valuable in the case of foreign shipping and of small ship-owners and barge owners and fishermen, who had been enabled to get their claims quickly settled. He having been instrumental in imposing upon these gentlemen extra duty, he had thought it right to bring their case forward. There were only 14 of the Judges who had had any material extra duty cast upon them by their Admiralty jurisdiction; but in the Liverpool district, within the last 11 months, there had been 150 of those causes. He thought, therefore, that the Judges were entitled to some extra remuneration. He would add that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the County Court Judges was exercised mainly for the benefit of the poor.

said, he thought that it I was a very dangerous thing to ask for increased pay for Judges whenever their duties were increased. In Liverpool, with all the increase of business, the County Court Judges had not sat more than six months in the year. There were 59 County Court Judges in England, and they received on the average more than £1,750 a year each, a sum which was amply sufficient. Instead of saving money by not filling up vacancies in the Superior Courts, he thought that they might reduce the number of County Court Judges to 40, and then they would not have to sit as many days in the year as the Superior Judges sat.

observed, that the general subject of County Court Judges was not now under consideration, and therefore it was not an opportune time to discuss it. He considered that the Legislature was entitled to add to the business discharged by all the Judges of the land any other business of a similar nature which these Judges were qualified to perform, and which they had time to perform; and he could not think that whenever it was proposed to give them additional jurisdiction there ought to be a demand for increased remuneration. Besides when equity jurisdiction was conferred upon them, what was then considered a permanent settlement as to the salaries of the County Court Judges was made. If the Legislature threw on the Judges business of a totally different nature from that which they had been in the habit of performing, and involving other qualifications than those which they might be supposed to possess, the case would be different, because that would be asking them to enter into a substantially new contract. He did not think, however, that the Legislature was ever likely to do anything of that kind.

complained that there was £15,000 charged for incidental expenses, and £14,704, or £250 each Judge, for travelling expenses. That was a monstrous sum, and required some explanation. He begged to move the reduction of the item by a sum of £5,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Item of £14,724 for the Travelling Expenses of Judges be reduced by the sum of £5,000."—(Mr. Lusk.)

complained of the number of County Courts in Scotland. There were 80 in that country, while the number in England was only 59. England would have 560 if she had them in the same proportion as Scotland enjoyed them. It was true that the Scotch County Courts possessed a criminal jurisdiction; but this fact was not sufficient to account for the very large number of those Courts.

agreed that salaries should not be increased simply because the work had increased. The County Courts were established as Courts for the poor man; but they had become Courts for giving rich men cheap law. At first their jurisdiction extended only to debts of £20; that had been increased to £50. Since then they had got an equitable jurisdiction, an Admiralty jurisdiction, and a jurisdiction in bankruptcy; so that a totally different class of men were now required for Judges of County Courts from those first appointed, and who, at that time, were equal to the duties which they had to perform.

said, the use of those Courts by rich men was no objection to them, as he thought that they ought to be open to all classes. He hoped that there would be some diminution in the number of public officials, with a view of meeting more satisfactorily the adequate wants of the public. It would be better to pay a small number of men whose time would be fully occupied larger salaries than to have a larger number on smaller salaries whose time was not fully occupied.

denied that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the County Courts was designed for the benefit of rich men. The High Court of Admiralty was one of the most expensive Courts in the kingdom, and it was in the interest of poor men that an Admiralty jurisdiction was given to the County Courts. It was, he thought, the duty of the Government either to relieve those County Court Judges of a portion of their labours, by a re-adjustment of their Circuits, or to increase their salaries.

said, the real question to be considered was this—when they had enormously increased the responsibilities and duties of the County Court Judges, whether the salaries were sufficient to draw from the Bar men of sufficient standing and ability to discharge those duties.

strongly urged upon the Government the justice of the claims of the County Court Judges to an increase of salary, on account of the many onerous duties imposed on them since the first establishment of these Courts. The number of days that a Judge sat was not the criterion, but the duties which he had to perform.

said, he thought that the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. West) appeared to him to be the true principle on which the Committee should proceed with regard to the County Court Judges. If they required more arduous duties to be performed, and a greater amount of ability than those Judges at present possessed, it would be reasonable to increase the salary in proportion to the extra work and acquirements which were expected.

said, that two appeals had been made to him by the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Hull (Mr. Norwood) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), and, though he was not able to accede to either, he thought the appeal made by the latter was the least unreasonable of the two. He believed that no palpable addition to the number of their days of sitting had followed from the imposition of Admiralty jurisdiction upon the County Court Judges. At the same time, he must decline, on the part of the Government, to enter into the question of the amount—whatever it might be—of additional labour and responsibility which might have been thrown on those officers, because judicial officers were retained and paid by the State for the whole of their time, their energies, and their services; and it was scarcely consistent with their independence and the nature of their duties that claims should be put forward for an increase of their remuneration. The opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) would, he was sure, commend itself to the approval of the Committee. He agreed with those who held that such salaries ought to be given as would induce able and experienced men to accept them, and he appealed to the House whether, with the salaries that were given, there had ever been experienced a difficulty in getting competent men to accept them. He was not prepared to say that the amount of the travelling expenses could not be reduced; and that matter might be a fair one for consideration, but they could not be cut down so largely as the hon. Member for Finsbury proposed; and he presumed that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. With regard to the item of £15,000 which had been complained of, no less than £8,000 of it was for postages, and another £5,800 for the conveyance of prisoners to gaol.

regarded these payments for travelling expenses as an injudicious mode of dealing with judicial officers, and referred to the unseemly controversies into which not County Court Judges only, but the Judges who tried election petitions were brought with the Treasury about miserable items of travelling expenses, as illustrating the unsatisfactory character of that arrangement. Where a large trust was reposed an adequate salary should be given, and in fixing its rate they should have regard, not only to the amount of duty to be performed, but to the standard of character and fitness required for its creditable performance. To be allowed to charge for travelling expenses struck at the first principles of judicial independence, and was unworthy of the House of Commons.

expressed himself content for the present with the discussion he had elicited, and withdrew his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) £62,020, to complete the sum for the Probate Courts.

(8.) £9,200, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry.

(9.) £3,570, to complete the sum for the Land Registry Office.

objected to this Office, observing that it was quite useless, and hoped that it would be reduced.

said, that two or three years ago an indirect promise was made that it should be ascertained whether this Office could not be amalgamated with some other. There could, be no doubt that the Office had been a failure, because it was ineffectual for its purpose, and while the profession generally had sot themselves against it, the Office had not been advantageous to the owners of land. The amount of the officers' salaries was fixed by the Act which created the Office, and therefore it was impossible to reduce the Vote; but if the Office could not be amalgamated, it would be more economical to abolish it and give some compensation to the officers for the loss of their posts.

admitted that the Office had not been extensively used. It was not popular among professional gentlemen, because few of them liked to advise their clients to incur the possible risk of discovering, by the investigation which must be made, technical flaws in titles which were substantially good; and such was the extraordinary system of conveyancing under which we lived, that there were very few titles, in which some such difficulties might not arise, or at least be apprehended as capable of arising. But the Committee had not now to consider the repeal of the Act which created this Office. He himself believed that it contained the germs of usefulness, and that it would eventually lead to the simplification of titles; while the opposition to it might, perhaps, not be wholly disinterested. He was told that the Lord Chief Baron had personally, and without the assistance of a solicitor, passed through that Office the title to some land in which he was interested at a very insignificant expense. He (Sir Roundell Palmer) would have been himself very glad to register the title to an estate that he bought, but he felt it necessary to wait until some special conditions had worked themselves out; if he lived long enough he should still be desirous of bringing it under the Act: and other people were, probably, in a like situation. Before many years had elapsed the House would have to take further steps towards the simplification of the law of real property, and then this Office would prove useful.

said, there was much justice in the criticisms which had been passed on this Office; but he hoped that hon. Members would not persevere in their endeavours to break it up. The Office was founded on the Report of a Commission of which Lord Westbury, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole), and himself were members. Their object was to make the title to land as clear as the title to stock. The measure failed because Lord Westbury deviated from their Report, by insisting that the title to land should show all the transactions that had taken place upon it. This was as fatal to simplicity as if it were required that the books of the Bank of England should show all the transactions that had taken place with regard to stock. It was with great sorrow that he found the Office had not been successful; and it was quite right to say that the public did not get value for the money which was expended upon it. A Commission had been appointed to consider the subject, consisting of learned conveyancers, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, and it had come to the conclusion that the deviations from the former system were all wrong, and approving of that which had been adopted by the Government. A Bill had been prepared to give effect to their recommendation; but, owing to the extraordinary pressure of business this Session, they had not had an opportunity of carrying that Bill through the House If hon. Members would be patient, he trusted that another Session would bring the Bill before them.

said, he thought the Office might be constituted on the principle of the Landed Estates Court, in which one-fifth of the land of Ireland had been sold. Perfect security was afforded, and the whole community derived great advantages.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £16,899, to complete the sum for the Police Courts (London and Sheerness).

(11.) £145,803, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.

asked what proportion of the charge for watching and protecting the Houses of Parliament was borne by the metropolitan police rate and what proportion by the State?

said, that the sum of £2,050, voted by the House yesterday, was for the police who watched the two Houses by night. In addition to these there were two inspectors and 39 constables employed about the Houses of Parliament for keeping order and protecting Members, at a cost of £4,319. Of that sum the proportion borne by the Treasury was £428 10s., leaving upon the metropolitan rate the sum of £3,890. He admitted that the subject required reconsideration by the Lords of the Treasury, with a view to there being an increase in the number of the force available for the protection of the metropolis generally.

reminded the Home Secretary that the Houses of Parliament contributed nothing towards the rates, and hoped that the subject would receive consideration.

In reply to Mr. ASSHETON CROSS and Dr. BREWER ,

said, with respect to habitual criminals, the expression, "supervision," was incorrect. The fact was that the Habitual Criminals Act provided not so much for a supervision by the police, as that those who came under the operation of the Act should be deprived of the advantage of the presumption of innocence which was enjoyed by other citizens. He had intended, but for the pressure of Public Business, to introduce a Bill to amend the Act, so as to make the supervision of the police more complete. He was of opinion that, in addition to the security already provided, it should be enacted that persons subject to supervision should report themselves to the police whenever they left or arrived at any district; that they should, in fact, be put in the position of holders of tickets-of-leave. As to the metropolitan police force, arrangements had been made for giving all the members of that force one day's holiday in every month, and the number of the force would be virtually increased by 900 men under that arrangement. The increased rate of 3s. a week to the sergeants would be a great encouragement to the whole force, because a man of good character and proved efficiency would become a sergeant in five years.

approved of the holiday granted to the force, for it was very essential that the duties of the police should not be too heavy for them. With regard to other changes made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the management of the police, he would not quarrel with them, but he would watch their effect with some anxiety. As to the police employed in and about the Houses of Parliament, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that their payment was more an Imperial than a local question. The very best men were picked out for that duty, and the Treasury, instead of contributing only a small sum towards their payment, ought to pay, if not the whole of the amount, at all events a very large share.

said, he had understood that the object of the registration of criminals provided under the Habitual Criminals Act was to render it easier to trace the various crimes committed by any one man for which he had been convicted, and in that way to assist the operations of justice in a more effectual manner. There were two different classes of persons in the country; first, those who had been brought up to a life of crime; and, secondly, those who in a moment of temptation or intemperance committed some offence. With the latter they desired to deal in as reformatory a spirit as possible; but with the former class it would be impossible to be too severe.

said, the object of his hon. Friend would be better obtained by means of photographs.

, believing that the Chief Commissioner of Police had the superintendence of cabs, wished to know whether they might expect any improvement in these vehicles by the time they returned to town? In Leeds, Liverpool, and other provincial towns the cabs were superior to those in London, although the fares were exactly the same.

gave a denial to the last assertion, remarking that the Town Council of Leeds had allowed the fare to be raised from 9d. to 1s. a mile. With regard to Liverpool and Manchester, the fare was 9d. a mile in one of those towns and 1s. in the other. It was true that a new class of vehicles had not yet been produced in the metropolis; but great vigilance had been exercised in rejecting all the inferior cabs. During the inspection last June more than 1,000 cabs were rejected, and the men in charge of the stands reported that there had been a marked improvement both in the vehicles and in the horses. As long, however, as the public would only pay 6d. a mile, they could hardly expect to get a much better class of cabs.

said, that there were 8,883 policemen in London, maintained at a cost of about £800,000 a year. He believed that only 5,900 were available for duty in London, and they were at present completely overpowered by the criminal classes. A much better system might be inaugurated if the men were better paid; if they were engaged for short periods with the option of re-enlisting; and if the length of service to entitle them to a pension were reduced from 30 to 15 years. Having been instituted as a civil body, he complained that they were subjected to too much drill, and this he attributed to the military tendencies of their officers. Good cabmen who had not been convicted of any offence should have some distinguishing mark, as compared with men who had committed any offence which a cabman could commit.

remarked that some absurd misstatements had been made respecting the increase in the military character of the police. In point of fact, the police were not drilled so much now, when they were under the command of a military man, as they were when they were commanded by a civilian. A certain amount of drill was obviously necessary, as the police were often called upon to act in a body against large mobs. In fact, drill only took place during the six summer months and in suitable weather—the men on duty by day being exempted, and the result was that the men were only drilled for about 16 hours in the whole year. He ventured also to say that, judging the police by any possible tests, instead of being overpowered by the criminal classes, their state was never more satisfactory than at the present time.

Vote agreed to.

said, that as the time was now come in which it was stated that the Census Bill would be brought on, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.

said, he never intended it should be understood that the Census Bill was to come on at half-past 11.

declared that Government had, through the medium of their "whip," most distinctly pledged themselves to bring on the Bill at that hour, and he had come down to the House specially to take part in the discussion. The Clerk Assistant, at the Table, informed the House, That Mr. Speaker was prevented by indisposition from resuming the Chair this evening. Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

The Committee report Progress.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Census Bill—Bill 211

( Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)

Committee

Order for Committee read.

commented upon the trouble and inconvenience which arose from having three separate Census Bills for the different parts of the United Kingdom, and urged upon the Government the desirability of accepting as many Amendments as they could, which would have the tendency of simplifying and consolidating the Bills. His object was to pave the way for a single Census Bill for the whole of the United Kingdom—an object which he hoped would be achieved, when the next Census fell to be taken.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

On Motion, That the Preamble be postponed,

observed that the Census as at present taken, although it cost £180,000, was not worth the paper it was written upon. He had it, on good authority, that there was scarcely any return of occupations in the Census which was not as defective as that of landowners which was mentioned the other night. For instance, in the last Census the number of brewers, including their workmen, was given as 20,300; whereas a Revenue Return, for which he moved this year, gave the number of brewers, exclusive of workmen, as upwards of 33,000. He was surprised that the Registrar General could submit such incorrect statements to the public; but he understood that that officer was the real obstructive to the obtaining of full information. Under the Scotch Census the condition of the dwellings of the poorer classes was set forth, and he thought the Secretary of State should have power to direct that valuable information of that character should be obtained. He also thought that the number of persons attending the various religious establishments on the Census day should be given.

said, it was desirable that the House should have before it the forms which the Secretary of State intended to issue. He objected for several reasons to persons being called upon to register their religious persuasion.

Preamble postponed.

Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Householders, schedules to be left at dwelling houses).

, in rising to move, in page 2, line 14, after "condition," insert "religious profession," said, the object of the Amendment was to ascertain tinder the proper authority of the State the relative numbers of the different religious denominations in England. Everyone must admit that the inquiry was one of extreme importance to the State, because its ecclesiastical arrangements could not rest on a secure basis in the absence of such a Census; and to the religious bodies, because it was highly desirable they should know what proportions of the population belonged to their respective denominations. It was by some supposed that to have such a Census was disadvantageous to an Established Church, and in one way perhaps it was so, as recording the number of Dissenters; but the advantages more than counterbalanced the disadvantages, for an Established Church ought to be a national Church, and to fill this character it should be comprehensive, and for that purpose it was of vital consequence to have an accurate knowledge especially of those systems of religion which approximated in numbers to the Established Church—otherwise it could never with safety expand or enlarge its limits. The first attempt to acquire this information for the State was made by William III. In Mr. Buckle's History of Civilization in England mention was made of a fact recorded in the memoirs of that Sovereign — namely, that after William's death there was found in his papers a Return of the number of members of the Established Church and of the number of Dissenters. From that Return it appeared that the Conformists and Nonconformists were in the relative proportions of 22 4–5ths to 1. William III. instituted the inquiry from motives of sound statesmanship; but it was not till 1851 a second attempt was made in the same direction. It was made, however, in quite a different manner, and, as he ventured to think, on an utterly erroneous basis. An inquiry was made not as to how many persons would sign themselves as of this or that religion, but as to the number of persons attending the different places of religious worship on a given Sunday. Now, that was an inquiry with which the State had nothing whatever to do. What the State should really ascertain was the extent of the external allegiance given by individuals to a particular system. It was a matter of indifference to the State whether a particular individual was a regular attendant at any church, or whether he agreed in every particular doctrine or every particular formulary of the Church of which he professed himself a member. What the State wanted to know was whether the individual was prepared to support the national Establishment, and if he were not, how far the Church which he did support approximated to the national Church. The question for the State was—What religion does the individual wish to rank himself under? When the individual answered that question, the State could acquire for itself the information as to the degree of agreement between that religion and the religion of the State. In Ireland the religious Census had been taken under these heads—"Established Church, Presbyterian, Methodist, Independent, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Jews; and, lastly, under the head of 'all other persuasions unspecified.'" In the Census, as finally proposed, there were more minute subdivisions. Under the head "all other persuasions" 14,396 signed themselves as professing various creeds; and under the head "unspecified" the number was 4,163. Were not these statistical facts which the State ought to gather? When such information had been acquired in Ireland, where intense religious controversy prevailed, what difficulty could there be in acquiring it in England also? It had been acquired in America also. And he would ask, why should not such a Census be taken by the English people? It appeared to amuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the course which had been adopted in every civilized country should now be demanded for England. The religious Census had been carried out successfully in Ireland and in America. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would say that the Irish were a people remote from the sun, turbulent and barbarous—he believed that was very much the view of his (Dr. Ball's) countrymen to which the right hon. Gentleman inclined—but still Ireland had carried out the Census successfully, and it was only when they came to cultivated, refined, and perfect England that all these difficulties were raised. He was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should dissent from the proposition to have a religious Census, for if there was any man in the House of whom he (Dr. Ball) would have asserted that he valued science and knowledge of all kinds, pursuing it irrespective of results and consequences, and that he would be disposed to insist upon scientific knowledge as the basis of the process of legislation, it was the right hon. Gentleman himself. If anybody went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with some proposed ecclesiastical arrangement, he would be the very man to say—"Tell me the elements on which your proposal rests; have you got the figures?" The only objection raised by the Home Secretary to the proposal which he now made was the difficulty in making up the Returns. But how could it be more difficult in England than in Ireland or America? An hon. Member said the other day that if the Returns were made up as he proposed "the Established Church would be credited with the occupants of the gaols and the workhouses." Well, if those occupants so returned themselves, why should not the Established Church be credited with them? In the vast majority of cases the occupants of gaols and workhouses in Ireland returned themselves as belonging to the Roman Catholic community, and that community accordingly was credited with them. It was a most natural thing for persons in such conditions to return themselves as of the religion of the State, for one of the objects of an Established Church was that its ministers should go out into the high-ways and byways and invite all to those who could not obtain it for themselves, to seek and to save those who where bereft of every other aid and succour. No doubt, as had been said, voluntaryism was open to every man; but as Horne Tooke wittily re plied— "Yes, in the same way as the London Tavern is open—to every man that pays for it." But an Established Church extended its ministrations to all, however fallen and poor their condition. Supposing that these persons had no feeling of religion at all, it was open to them to answer as 4,000 persons had done in Ireland, who were returned as belonging to "no specified form of belief?" And if there were in England a large number of persons of no specified form of belief was not that a legitimate subject of inquiry? Would England be greater or wiser by shutting her eyes to facts? If there did exist persons who were half-heathen in their knowledge, and half-heathen in their practice, why was not the truth to be ascertained, so that the responsibility for such a state of things might rest in the proper quarter? Of all evils the greatest was to close our eyes to existing facts which were known to us, and the second was wilfully to refuse the means of acquiring knowledge. In the proposal which he now submitted there was neither a party nor a political object; he was perfectly ignorant of which way the inquiry would tell, for he knew nothing whatever of the statistics of England. But in Ireland the information was obtained, and had led to results which, however disapproved, were of great importance. He did not agree with the measure which was founded upon the information so obtained; but he had never denied that the facts did justify the passing of some measure. England, therefore, ought to take warning, lest by steadily and wilfully shutting her eyes to facts, greater calamities even than those which had happened in Ireland might arise, whereas by seeking timely information she might avoid endless controversies and collisions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, after the word "condition," to insert the words "religious profession."—( Dr. Ball.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 77; Noes 90: Majority 13.

moved to insert the words "whether married to a first cousin." It was of great social importance to ascertain the number of consanguineous marriages, and the result on the health of their offspring.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, after the word "condition," to insert the words "including whether married to a first cousin."—( Sir John Lubbock.)

said, it was highly desirable that as much information as possible relating to the health and well-being of the community should be deducible from the Census Returns, especially when the facts could be obtained without much additional expense or inconvenience. The subject of con-sanguineous marriages was one both of physiological and social interest. If they were to reason by analogy from plants and from domesticated animals, it seemed clearly made out that physical deterioration was the result of such alliances. Even when they were not deteriorated in structure, it would appear that there was a decrease in fertility, and a tendency to malformations, resulting from a lowering of vital powers. At all events, the evidence pointed in that way, and made scientific men anxious to have data from which conclusions could be drawn in regard to man. If the results of a Census, in which consanguineous relations were described, proved that the progeny were as numerous, and grew up with an equal persistence and vigour as in the case of cross marriages, then an important step would have been gained in removing a prejudice which now existed, and had at all times existed, both among civilized and uncivilized peoples. If, on the other hand, a discussion of the facts elicited showed that there was a physiological degeneration of the progeny of such marriages, then important results for the guidance of the community would have been attained. But, in either case, the information sought for could be acquired with little trouble, and would prove important in its negative or positive result. He trusted, therefore, that the Home Secretary would consent to ask for the information so much desired by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), whose scientific authority on such subjects was deservedly high.

trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed. He did not see the desirability of holding up families where such mar- riages had taken place to the public, and the children being held up to be anatomised for the benefit of science. He was not satisfied that plants and animals were troubled with the failings which attached to ordinary humanity, and he was averse to the offspring of the marriages in question being held up to the examination of scientific men. Such children would be held up as discreditable.

observed, that this matter had been the subject of very considerable discussion, and there were arguments nearly as strong on one side as on the other. The question appeared to him to be how the proposition would affect the future generation. There was no doubt that if marriages of near relatives were productive of the evil consequences assigned to them such marriages ought to be discouraged. He saw no conclusive objection to the proposed inquiry. The Census would give no names, it would give only results. He had heard that the marriages of near relations had a tendency to increase the number of deaf and dumb children. Then inquire into the truth of the rumour.

invited the Committee to consider what it was really called upon to vote for. Personally he was opposed to the marriage of first cousins, so in what he was saying he had no desire to help such alliances. But the demand for statistics such as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) desired to collect would be overweighted with a prejudice against that class of marriage, and would be felt to be so by those on whom the call was made. On the other hand, there would not be any compulsion to make the return, while, in many instances, the previous relationship of husband and wife might be unknown in their neighbourhood, and the risk of being found out therefore nil. Thus, all the temptation would be in favour of acknowledging the marriage where there was a healthy and sound-minded progeny, and of concealing it where there were unhealthy children or none at all. So, for the very object for which the hon. Baronet desired the return—namely, to test the healthfulness of such alliances—it would be fallacious and worthless.

asked, why the last speaker was averse to these marriages? Why, because he thought they were injurious. A strong opinion prevailed that the marriages of first cousins were injurious. Then let the nation get at the facts. He knew a case of the marriage of first cousins where 12 children resulted, and six of them were in a lunatic asylum. Let then the facts be determined, and let not the subject be got rid of by a sneer.

said, this was a piece of the grossest cruelty ever thought of. He was surprised that his hon. Friend who had just sat down should want this information, because he seemed already to know all about it. On the last vote hon. Gentlemen were so scrupulous as to say that Nonconformists were not to be called upon to say that they were Nonconformists, and now it was proposed to compel first cousins who were married to make a return to that effect. If on this occasion the philosophers were allowed to have their way, he was perfectly satisfied this Census Bill would be one of the greatest misfortunes, for every species of mental torture would, be applied. Did they intend to introduce a Bill to forbid first cousins from marrying? Every year a Bill was brought in to enable a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, and if there were to be legislation about the marriage of first cousins also, the whole time of the House would be taken up in deciding who was to be allowed to marry anybody else.

said, if they were to have this information they must go a good deal further. For the last 25 years the House had discussed the question of the desirability of contracting marriages within certain degrees of affinity. It was now proposed that there should be a Return as to consanguineous marriages. It would be far more valuable for legislative purposes to require that there should be a column for persons who had married their deceased wives' sisters or deceased husbands' brothers. That would be a practical question, whereas this was purely inquisitorial. The only object could be to stigmatize certain marriages to which he personally objected, but upon which he did not think Parliament ought to cast a slur.

said, he thought that it was really important to ascertain whether these marriages were injurious or not.

said, the proposed re turn would be in the highest degree inquisitorial, and, unless pushed further, would be of no advantage whatever. It would be perfectly useless to get an answer as to the number of persons who had married their first cousins, unless it was followed up by further inquiries as to the number, health, and mental condition of their children.

said, that the proposal was defended on physiological grounds; but if that were sufficient ground for inquiry there ought to be another inquiry as to the number of cases in which there were twins. Suppose it was found that there were 10,000 persons who had contracted such marriages, would the public be a bit the wiser on that account?

, though not persuaded that the inquiry would not be advantageous, recommended that the Amendment should not be pressed, as the opinion of the Committee did not appear ripe on the question.

assured the Committee that he had not put the Amendment on the Paper without due consideration, and without consulting persons competent to form an opinion. The statistics alluded to by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) could be obtained from hospitals, lunatic asylums, &c.; but they threw no light on this question, because we did not know the proportion of marriages of first cousins. That proportion was the clue, and would be supplied if the Committee adopted his Amendment. He was glad that almost all who had spoken had expressed an opinion against these marriages. From the expression of feeling on the part of hon. Gentlemen around him he thought it would be better to take the sense of the Committee on the question.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 45; Noes 92: Majority 47.

moved an Amendment, with a view to enable the Home Secretary to reconsider the question of a religious Census, and to ask persons to make a purely voluntary return, if they chose, of their religious persuasion. He sought first to obtain the statistics of the attendance at places of worship on a particular Lord's Day, and next to allow each person who liked to do so to state the denomination to which he belonged.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was substantially the same Amendment that had been already negatived.

said, if it were the same he must support it; but it was so different that he could not do so.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Enumerators to take an account of houses, &c, and to distinguish the boundaries of parishes, boroughs, &c").

Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 17, after the word "division," to insert the words "stating the number of rooms (including the kitchen, if any, as a room) having a window or windows, not being windows with a borrowed light, in each dwelling-house where occupied as a whole, or where let in different stories or apartments, and occupied distinctly by different persons or families."—(Mr. Miller.)

opposed the Amendment, believing that the provision was unnecessary, and that it would add enormously to the expense of this inquiry.

supported the Amendment, which required a Return that was already made in Scotland, and was found to give very useful information.

urged the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, or the Mover to divide the Committee, on the ground that the information sought would be most valuable in a sanitary point of view.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 57: Majority 1.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

Sunday Trading Bill—(Lords)

Bill 68 Committee

Adjourned Debate

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [19th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Henry Hoare,)

—instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—( Mr. Macfie.)

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 15: Majority 7.

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 9: Majority 13.

House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.