, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was in substance the same as that which he had the honour of laying on the table of the House last year, with one addition, which perhaps would make it more acceptable to those who had offered opposition to it upon that occasion—namely, that he proposed to provide that the measure should not operate in the case of presentations which had already become the subject of purchase or sale, or which had been contracted to be so made. The measure which he had brought in last year had met with an untimely end, owing to an unfortunate accident, which he would not trouble the House by dwelling on, but in consequence of which his noble Friend (Lord Goderich), of whose assistance he was glad to say he had the benefit again to-day, declined to go to a division, and the measure was therefore withdrawn. Although he had not been present upon that occasion, he had heard and read what had passed, and he must say that the misstatements and misconstructions were of that extraordinary character that he felt that he should not discharge his duty, nor properly execute the task which he had undertaken, unless he stated as concisely as he could what the present state of the law was, what were the evils resulting from that state of the law, and what was the remedy which he proposed. The objections which were made to the measure last year were of themselves of the most inconsistent character. From his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. G. M. Butt) it received an unqualified and unhesitating opposition, upon the intelligible, but as he believed untenable, ground, that it was an invasion of the rights of property; but from the right hon. Baronet behind him, the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), whose opinion, on account of his great eminence and of the high position which he held in that House and in the country, necessarily carried with it very great weight, it met with an opposition of a totally different character. The right hon. Baronet's objection was not that it invaded property, but that it did not go far enough; that the change which it proposed was of so trifling and insignificant a character as to be utterly unworthy the serious consideration of the House. The task which he had undertaken to discharge today, and which with the kind indulgence of the House he hoped to be able to fulfil, was to demonstrate in the first instance that the present state of the law was highly objectionable; and next that the remedy which he proposed had received the highest sanction which any measure could desire—the sanction of the assembled Judges of the land advising the House of Lords in a most important case to which he would by and by refer. With respect to the early history of the law, it was not his intention to trouble the House with any narrative. He had nothing to do with the provisions of any foreign jurisprudence in reference to this subject. He was content to take it up at the time of the Reformation, and to show that the evil of which he now complained was one which the Legislature had sought, ever since that period, if possible, to find a remedy for. Now, in the reign of King Edward VI., whose reforming principles he thought no Member of that House could deny, and who could not be charged with a leaning to any foreign prince or prelate, certain injunctions were issued, which were originally published, with the sanction of that King, in the year 1547, and were afterwards approved by Queen Elizabeth in the year 1559. In these injunctions he found, among others, the following important provision:—

"To avoid the detestable sin of simony, because the buying and selling of benefices is execrable before God, therefore all such persons as buy any benefices, or come to them by fraud or deceit, shall be deprived thereof and made incapable at any time after to receive any spiritual preferment; and such as sell them, or by any colour bestow them for their own gain, shall lose their right and title to the patronage."

These injunctions were followed up by the Statute 31 Eliz. chap. 6, which for the first time brought in the sanction of the temporal to aid the ecclesiastical law, by punishing lay patrons as well as extending its provisions to those of a clerical character. By the 5th section of that Statute, it was enacted that—

"If any person for any sum of money, or reward, shall present, or collate, admit, institute, induct, or instal any other person to any ecclesiastical benefice, or dignity, both the giver and the taker shall forfeit two years' value of the benefice, the presentation shall be void, the presentee shall be rendered incapable of ever enjoying the same benefice, and the Crown shall present to it for that term."

Then came a canon, which was passed in the time of James I., and which contained pretty much the same language as these injunctions, and as the Statute of Elizabeth. But the oath which every clergyman was obliged to take, and which was appended to this canon, was well worthy of the consideration of the House; for one of his great objections to the present state of the law was that it led in a great many cases indirectly, and in some he was afraid directly, to hypocrisy, and even to perjury. [The hon. and learned Gentleman here read the oath and proceeded.] This oath, solemn as it was in its terms, had, nevertheless, been found, as the House would see, insufficient for its purpose. He need scarcely trouble the House with any allusion to the 1 Will. & Mary, chap. 16, which merely provided that the simoniacal presentation of one person should not prejudice any other; but he must pray their attention to the 2nd Statute of the 12 Anne, chap. 12, because it had a direct bearing upon the measure which was now before the House, and appeared to him to furnish a direct precedent for it. By that Statute it was enacted—

"That if any person shall or do, for any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or advantage, directly or indirectly, or for or by reason of any promise, agreement, grant, bond, covenant, or other assurance, of or for any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in his own name, or in the name of any other person or persons, take, procure, or accept the next avoidance of, or presentation to any benefice with the cure of souls, dignity, prebend, or living ecclesiastical, and shall be presented or collated thereupon, that then every such presentation or collation, and every admission, institution, investiture, and induction upon the same, shall be utterly void, frustrate, and of no effect in law, and such agreement shall be deemed and taken to be a simoniacal contract; and that it shall and may be lawful to and for the Queen's Majesty, Her Heirs, and Successors, to present or collate unto, or give or bestow every such benefice, dignity, prebend, and living ecclesiastical, for that one time or turn only; and the person so corruptly taking, procuring, or accepting any such benefice, dignity, prebend, or living shall thereupon, and from thenceforth, be adjudged a disabled person in law to have and enjoy the same benefice, dignity, prebend, or living ecclesiastical, and shall also be subject to any punishment, pain, or penalty limited, prescribed, or inflicted by the laws ecclesiastical, in like manner as if such corrupt agreement had been made after such benefice, dignity, prebend, or living ecclesiastical had become vacant."

Now, the interpretation put by the courts of law upon this Statute—he did not stop to ask with what justice—had been that it affected only clergymen. Therefore, the existing state of the law was this—that it was competent for a layman to purchase the next presentation to a living—that it was wholly incompetent to a clergyman to do any such thing—that it was wholly incompetent for either clergyman or layman to purchase a void living, which the common law of England declared to be "execrable before God, and a sin;" but that both clergymen and laymen were at liberty to purchase advowsons. That appeared to him to be the existing state of the law. Now, it was very important that the House should see what was the principle and the policy of the common law of England. And he would beg the attention of his hon. and learned Friend opposite to the fact that he was speaking of the common law of England, and not of the canon law. What was the principle and the policy of the common law in reference to these simoniacal transactions, which it had thus prohibited? In a case, "The Bishop of Lincoln v. Wolferston," which had come before Lord Mansfield and Mr. Justice Wilmot, both these eminent Judges had explained that principle and that policy as follows:—

"The true reason why a grant of a fallen presentation, or of an advowson after avoidance, is not good, quoad the fallen vacancy, is the public utility, and the better to guard against simony—not the fictitious reason of its being then become a chose in action."

He did not think that anybody would be found who would be hardy enough to controvert the statement of these high judicial authorities, or to contend, in opposition to that statement, that the existing prohibitions rested not upon grounds of public utility or public policy, but upon purely technical grounds. But this was not merely a question for the lawyer; it was a question also for the jurist and the statesman; and he thought that if he referred to the authority upon this subject, he should not be charged with making reference to one who could be accused of any leaning towards what were called High Church principles, or of whom it could be said that he did not deal with every question that came before him with the greatest possible fairness and candour. He (Mr. Phillimore) did not subscribe implicitly to his moral or his philosophical doctrines, but he admired the acuteness and the common sense which he brought to bear upon any subject that he discussed. Archdeacon Paley, in his Moral and Political Philosophy, then, in reference to this subject, had the following passage:—

"The sale of advowsons is inseparable from the right of private patronage, as patronage would otherwise devolve to the most indigent, and for that reason the most improper hands it could be placed in; nor did the law ever intend to prevent the passing of advowsons from one patron to another, but to restrain the patron who possesses the right of presenting, at the vacancy, from being influenced in the choice of his presentee by a bribe or benefit to himself. It is the same distinction which obtains in a freeholder's vote for his representative in Parliament. The right of voting—that is, the freehold to which the right appertains—may be bought and sold as freely as any other property; but the exercise of that right, the vote itself; may not be purchased or influenced by money.…. Where advowsons are held along with manors, or other principal estates, it would be an easy regulation to forbid that they should ever hereafter be separated, and would at least keep church preferment out of the hands of brokers."

There was one other reference upon this important subject, which he had no doubt the House would be glad to hear. It was the authority of Professor Whewell, whose work was probably known to most of them, and who said—

"That the condemnation of simony has been continued to modern times, and adopted in our own laws, and it is plain that not merely the sacredness of spiritual things, but justice and decency, are violated by the sale of spiritual offices. The sale of advowsons may appear, but it is not at variance with the laws against simony. The right of private patronage implies rather a sacred aspect in property than a secular aspect in the ministry. The principal lord in the land had originally a religious as well as a civil duty to his tenants; and when the advowson is separated from the local property it still implies a religious duty in those who hold it."

These, then, were the opinions of very eminent Judges, of very eminent writers, and, if he might use the expression, of very eminent political philosophers, upon this subject. It was important to show the House how this law, anomalous as it was, had been evaded to the injury of public morals. He had already pointed out that the sale of a void living was illegal; but, as long as the incumbent was alive—as long as the breath was in his nostrils, and physical existence remained—however evidently he might be approaching the close of his earthly career—although consciousness, and sense, and reason might have departed—although he might be in articulo mortis—then, he was ashamed to say, the law at present was, that—although if the breath were gone, the sale would be illegal, and criminal, and void, contrary to public morals, and to public utility, or, in the words of King Edward's injunctions, "execrable before God, and a sin"—yet if the incumbent had any breath in his body—if he had even five minutes of life, the conveyance would be perfectly valid and the transaction perfectly legal. Upon this point he would call the attention of the House to a case well known to lawyers, Fox v. the Bishop of Chester, which came before Lord Tenterden, in the Court of King's Bench, in the year 1824. Lord Tenterden, in dealing with that case, made use of expressions which I will now take the liberty of reading:—

"Can it, then, be said that an agreement for the sale of a next presentation, at a moment when the incumbent is, and is also known to be, afflicted with a mortal disease, and in extreme danger of life—that is, at the point of death—followed by a deed, purporting to be a conveyance, not of the next presentation, according to the agreement, but of a term which may happen to include two or more presentations, but intended only to convey the next presentation, is not a manifest evasion of the provisions of the Statute, and an indirect presentation of the clerk, Mr. Fox, the buyer, by Mr. Trafford, the seller?… In our opinion, however, the presentation made under such circumstances is an indirect presentation made by Trafford, the seller."

The decision, therefore, was in favour of the bishop who refused his presentee; but the case was subsequently carried to the House of Lords, and the Judges were called in to advise their Lordships in their arduous duty of deciding upon that occasion. He would not trouble the House with any lengthened extract from the judgment which they then gave; but he would shortly state the grounds upon which they reversed the decision which had been pronounced in the Court of Queen's Bench, and would also pray the House to recollect not only the caution with which they had guarded their opinions, but also the recommendation which they had then given to the Legislature in favour of a change of the law—a recommendation which it was his object, and with the kind assistance of the House, he trusted he might add his hope, to become the humble instrument of carrying into effect. Lord Chief Justice Best, speaking in the name of all the Judges, said:—

"If the advowson be sold when the church is void, the next presentation will not pass; and if the next avoidance only be sold after the death of the incumbent, the sale is altogether void. It may be wise to carry the restraint of the sale of this species of property still further, and to say that the next avoidance shall in no case be sold. Undoubtedly much simony is indirectly committed by the sale of the next presentation. If it be proper to prevent the giving of money for presentations, it seems equally proper to prevent the sale of that which gives the immediate right to present; but the courts of law have never felt that they were authorised to go that length."

Here then were judgments directly pointing out the evil which existed in consequence of the evasion of the law as it now exists by the sale of next presentations. Another equally high authority—Lord Eldon—in the case of Barrett v. Glubb, in which the Court of Chancery had compelled the execution by actual conveyance of a contract for the sale of an advowson two days before the death of the incumbent, carrying with it the assignment of the next presentation—thus expressed himself:—

"Now, my Lords, regarding the effect of this decision on human transactions, seeing that in all probability many transactions have taken place upon the footing of it, it does appear to me to be very undesirable that that decision should be shaken by the courts of law. I confess that I would rather see an Act of Parliament than any further extension of the arguments at the bar."

He thought, therefore, he was perfectly justified, in the position which he sought to occupy, in saying that the measure which he proposed for the consideration of the House was not to be charged with any invasion of the law of property, or justly open to the objections which had been urged against it. He had shown that it was a measure which had the sanction of the highest judicial authorities in this land, because, they said, in the present state of the law that was indirectly permitted which was directly forbidden; and, because, they said also, that the proper remedy for the existing evil was an Act of Parliament. He presumed that hardly any hon. Member would rise in his place and say that the present state of the law with respect to simony was satisfactory, and was susceptible of no improvement. That being so, two modes had been suggested of amending it—one of which was to annihilate the very notion of simony, and to adopt the practice which Shakspeare ascribes to Cardinal Wolsey, of whom he says, "With him simony was fair play"—a suggestion with which, while he gave its advocates the credit of consistency, he confessed it was impossible for him to agree. The courts of this country had always been most strict in guarding all the avenues of justice. The sale of judicial offices had always been forbidden by Act of Parliment, and had been always contrary to the law of the land. If a Minister were to sell a common clerkship he would be liable to be visited with condign punishment. If a Member of Parliament were to sell his influence to obtain the smallest or the pettiest place, he would be visited—as they had lately had an opportunity of seeing—with the heaviest censure of that House. If an East India Director sold the smallest portion of his patronage, he was liable to be indicted. If he were told that this Bill was a wholesale invasion of property, he would beg hon. Members who used this argument to reflect that in the first place it was used in vain when Gatton and Old Sarum were destroyed, although it was believed that Mr. Pitt, in a Bill which he intended to bring in, had proposed to give some compensation to the owners of such boroughs. This argument of compensation had been been well met by Sir James Mackintosh, who had drawn a distinction between a property and a trust, and who showed that property had never been so much endangered as when a trust was confounded with it. It would be difficult also for hon. Gentlemen to answer this objection—if it were a hard measure to take from lay patrons without compensation the power of selling next presentations, was it not equally hard to take the same right from clerical patrons under the same circumstances, by the Act of Anne? He wished to know upon what ground a layman clothed with a spiritual trust was to claim compensation for the loss of that which clergymen clothed with a spiritual trust had already been deprived of without any compensation at all. And there was another reason much stronger than that. He did not know whether the House was aware of it, but until recently a right prevailed, under which the archbishop had a power, whenever a bishop was created or translated, to compel him to execute a conveyance to him of the next presentation of the best benefice in his gift; and so absolute was the right which this conveyance conferred that it became a part of the personal chattels of the archbishop, and in the memorable case of the archdeaconry of Rochester was actually put up to sale at Garraway's by the archbishop's executors and sold to an accidental passer-by. Benefices were thus made the archbishop's property, and they were property of a most valuable description; but how did the House deal with it? By the 3 & 4 Vict. chap. 113—in the middle of a Statute passed with no such object—they, without the slightest notice or compensation to the persons whose valuable property was taken away, passed a section enacting—

"That it shall not be lawful for any spiritual person to sell or assign any patronage or presentation belonging to him by virtue of any dignity or spiritual office held by him, and that every such sale or assignment shall be null and void to all intents and purposes."

So little was the Archbishop aware of the change that had been made, that when the present Bishop of Oxford suc- ceeded to that see, the conveyance was sent to him to be executed in the usual way. The Bishop, however, objected to execute it, on the ground that the provision in the Statute of Victoria had deprived the Archbishop of his right, and the law officers of the Crown, on being appealed to, were of opinion that the objection was valid. And thus a most important property belonging not only to the see, but to the present Archbishop, had been taken away without any compensation. They had therefore, already applied the rule to the clergy which he now asked them, for the sake of public morality and public decency, to apply to laymen also. When he said for the sake of public morality, he did not think any hon. Member could turn over the pages of certain newspapers, and see the cure of souls offered for sale in ordinary advertising language—such as would be used in reference to the disposal of an estate, or of the cattle and horses upon it—without feeling emotions of the deepest regret. He had a selection of such advertisements, with which he would not trouble the House, but in which the inducements held out were all of the most secular character. They read of "a comfortable family house," "a four-stalled stable," "a good trout stream," and other matters of the same kind, but they looked in vain for any announcement of the spiritual interests of the parishioners, or the important nature of the charge to be undertaken. In a recent sale of this description at Garraway's the auctioneer had declined to say whether the incumbent was a good or a bad life, but had stated that if he were to die that night, the purchaser would have the presentation, and after detailing all the secular advantages, put up the living for 7,000l.; a brisk competition ensued, it was soon run up to 8,000l., and was ultimately knocked down for 8,400l. [Sir G. GREY asked whether that did not refer to the sale of an advowson?] Yes, that was an advowson, no doubt; and those who thought the Bill ought to go much further would be entitled to avail themselves of that fact, and to found an argument upon it. He had only alluded to the subject for the purpose of showing how these solemn trusts were overruled by worldly interest. We had had a searching inquiry into our ecclesiastical arrangements and we could hardly complain of that, because, unquestionably, there were grievances which required to be redressed; but he had never yet heard that it was an effectual argument in the case of an ecclesiastic that his trust was a property which ought not to be interfered with; and he hoped, for the sake of the honour of the country and their personal credit, that they were not going to apply a different rule in the case of laymen from that which they had enforced in the case of ecclesiastics. If he had succeeded in showing that the right of presentation was, in its essence, a public trust, and only in its accident a private property, it would be urged in vain in this case, as it had been in others, that they must not interpose to cause that trust to be properly administered, because, by so doing, they would interfere with the property of a person who himself ought to have administered in the right way. He thought they would set an example little creditable to the country if they flinched in this instance from the application of those principles which, in the abstract, they so much admired, and which they had applied so unsparingly in other cases. He must be excused for saying that he had heard no argument as yet which satisfied him that the recommendation of the Judges in the case to which he had alluded should not be carried into effect. If Lord Tenterden was right in saying that simony was indirectly committed in the sale of next presentations—and if simony was an offence injurious to public morality and public decency—if these two premises were granted, why should they not interfere in the case of laymen, as they had already in the case of the clergymen unhesitatingly done.

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down that this was a question of considerable importance, and he was not disposed to treat it in any way except calmly and with a view to ascertain, first of all, what the mischief was which it was proposed to remedy, and then to consider whether the present measure was calculated to effect that object. His hon. and learned Friend had stated that upon a former occasion certain arguments had been used which were not consistent. He (Mr. G. Butt) was not going to refer to those which he had had the honour of submitting to the House; he readily admitted that the arguments addressed to the House by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) were much better than his, and if that right hon. Baro- net would restate them now, they would no doubt be sufficient to dispose of the measure before them. Nor would he reply to the observation about the inconsistency of his former remarks, but would address himself to the question before the House. He did not differ much from his hon. and learned Friend as to what the present state of the law really was, although he thought he had a little mistaken the case of "Fox v. the Bishop of Chester." That was a question as to whether a presentation where the incumbent was in extremis was void or not, and the court of law decided there were such circumstances in the case as brought it within the "in extremis" rule; when the case went to the House of Lords, the Judges were called upon to give their opinion, and that opinion was, that there was not sufficient evidence to bear out the proposition. With respect to the law, it might be stated shortly, for he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it was not desirable to go back to the conflict between the common law of this country in Roman Catholic times and the canon law, which conflict was a very angry one, as was too frequently the case where ecclesiastical matters were in question. As he understood the law, then, it was this:—They might sell an advowson, which was a freehold interest, and they might sever from it the next presentation, which was a chattel interest; but, before he more particularly referred to the present measure, he would endeavour to remove a fallacy which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced into his speech. His hon. and learned Friend had said that this property was of a peculiar kind, and had attached to it certain obligations. No doubt of it; all property had obligations attached to it—some were legal, and others less perfect obligations, but obligations which were not the less binding upon good men. Now, what were the obligations which were attached to this particular property?— and the House would see there was no distinction between an advowson the possessor of which had a right to present every next turn, and the next presentation, which was severed from the advowson,—what then were the obligations? Why, that the person having the right should present a proper man, one who was morally and in other respects qualified to be instituted, to the bishop. That was the obligation, and the law had taken good care it should not be avoided; for when the patron, the owner of the advowson or next presenta- tion, presented the clerk to the bishop, it was the sacred duty of the prelate to inquire into the fitness of the person thus presented. If he found him incompetent on account of age, or on account of defects in his character or in his attainments, the bishop's duty was to reject him. How, then, could they say that, with regard to this particular property, the law had not hedged around it a strong security for the performance of a sacred trust? His hon. and learned Friend had not referred to the power so vested in the bishop, and which was an answer to all the arguments about the sacredness of the obligation and the necessity of taking care that good men were introduced into the Church. He had the same desire as his hon. and learned Friend to see the patronage of the Church rightly applied; they differed only as to the means by which that object was to be attained. It was, he believed, considered by those who in the Church were more inclined towards Rome than others that the present Bill did not go far enough; and they argued in their writings that, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman included advowsons in his Bill, he would do nothing. Some argument had been attempted to be raised with respect to the claim for compensation in this case, which was said to be analogous to that set up on the part of patrons of boroughs disfranchised under the Reform Bill, and the cases of Old Sarum and Gatton were alluded to. Surely they would see that that was a perfect fallacy, and he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend, with all his acuteness and discrimination, should have been led into it. The right of property in the next presentation to a living was secured by the same law that protected a man's property in a lease of land for years. The owners of estates in Gatton and Old Sarum had no property in the franchise of the voters who resided there. With respect to the Statute of Anne, it was said Parliament interfered in the reign of Queen Anne to prevent clergymen purchasing next presentations; they might take them by will or by gift; they might acquire them by any means except that of purchase; and the hon. and learned Gentleman said, because in the reign of Queen Anne it was thought expedient to provide that persons in a certain position should not acquire particular property by particular means, that that was an argument in favour of preventing everybody from acquiring that property. His hon. and learned Friend had asked him if he concurred in the Statute of Anne. If it were now proposed for the first time, he should say, no; but the law of property was the subject they were now considering, and it was quite clear that both laymen and clergymen might purchase advowsons, and laymen might purchase next presentations; and although by the Statute of Anne clergymen were prevented from purchasing them, they were yet allowed to acquire them by will, gift, or otherwise. But the hon. and learned Gentleman in his Bill had got a second clause, which was not in his Bill of last year, and he asked him what was the meaning of it? He provided, by the first clause, that no layman should hereafter acquire by purchase the next presentation to himself to any living: and, by the second, if he understood it, he said:—

"That nothing herein contained shall effect any procurement or purchase of, or any agreement to procure or purchase, any such next presentation as aforesaid, or any presentation made in virtue thereof, in any case in which such procurement, purchase, agreement, or presentation, shall have been made, or contracted to be made, for valuable consideration paid or given, or contracted to be paid or given, before the passing of this Act,"

Was that, he asked, meant to take out of the operation of the Act all cases where the right to the presentation, severed from the advowson, was now in the hands of laymen? He presumed it was meant that, if a person had already purchased a next presentation, he might sell it. [Mr. R. PHILLIMORE: No, no.] The hon. and learned Gentleman, said, no; he asked, then, what was the effect of the clause? But, passing on, he would observe that this had always been established and recognised property, and how would he deal with it? As the law at present stood, next presentations were the subject of settlement and mortgage. He would not enter into the abstract question of whether, if they were now establishing what should be property, how they should deal with this particular matter; but if it was now the subject of settlement and mortgage, and the hon. and learned Gentleman destroyed the property, the creditors would lose their security, and the House would remember it was a security established under the sanction of the law. It might be very well to refer to those advertisements, but it was not the way to argue a question of this kind to import into the consideration of it the mode in which they were bought and sold. They were bought and sold under the law of England, under the same law which enabled persons to buy or sell any other description of property; and whether the auctioneer in putting forth such property for sale used particular terms could not possibly affect the question. He asked the House seriously to consider the proposition, it being clearly an infringement, as his hon. and learned Friend admitted, of the property affected; and he had put the case of creditors who had lent their money upon the security in question. Surely, with respect to them it would be no answer to say it was a pity the law was such as to make that property a security. He would put another case: supposing the owner of a next presentation to become bankrupt or insolvent, by the law of England his assignee was bound to sell the next presentation, and divide the proceeds among his creditors; but what did his hon. and learned Friend do with respect to them? If this measure were to become law, the assignees could do nothing with it; they would be unable to make money of it; and when the church became void, all the right they could exercise was to give away the presentation. He did not think that would be a very desirable state of things, nor did he think it would be very just with reference to those who were actually interested in the proceeds of the property. Again, his hon. and learned Friend had made no provision for the case of executors and administrators, who, by law, took the next presentation, while the heir would take the advowson. The executors and administrators would be bound to sell the next presentation, and the proceeds would go to creditors, legatees, next of kin, &c. But his hon. and learned Friend, by one sweeping measure, disposed of all those rights, and said it was a legitimate thing to ask Parliament so to deal with what had existed as property at all times in this country. His hon. and learned Friend said he was not doing much, he did not deal with advowsons. In the first place, he did deal with them; and in the second, if he did not, on his own principle he ought to do so. All the argument went to show that the evil could not be remedied unless the advowsons were dealt with; and supposing the present Bill should pass, preventing the sale of next presentations, while advowsons could be sold, the supposed mischief would not be guarded against. Now, advowsons contained the right to presentation as it arose, and, of course, if this Bill passed, instead of purchasing the next presentation, the advowson would be purchased; and, after the lapse of some time, the same number of sales would take place, and precisely the same mischief, if mischief it were, would be occasioned as at the present time; and he, therefore, asked whether it was desirable to deal with the matter by a Bill like the present? His hon. and learned Friend made a great many observations upon the enormous sin of simony; but he forgot one thing, and that was, that he assumed the purchases in question were simony, and then he denounced it. The title of the Bill brought in last Session, and introduced again this Session, was "to amend the laws relating to simony"—that was, to facilitate, one would think, the procedure in courts of justice, and to enable them to apply the laws with reference to the offence of simony. But the effect of the present Bill was to create a new offence, making that simony which was not simony before; and if the object of the measure were what it was represented to be by some publications which were understood to be the organs of that section of the Church to which he had referred, then it was idle to say it could be effected by dealing with next presentations alone; they must deal with advowsons also. [Mr. R. PHILLIMORE intimated dissent.] The hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head when he heard that. Perhaps, to use a common phrase, the present measure was considered merely a step in the right direction; but he was inclined to think that what were called steps in the right direction frequently turned out retrograde movements. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman desire to do? If the Bill had any effect at all, it must be to destroy pro tanto or entirely lay patronage. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he left property where it was. He (Mr. G. Butt) thought he had shown that he neither left property nor advowsons where they were, and if he did, he did not act upon the principle upon which the Bill was supposed to be framed. He said it was a scandalous thing that next presentations should be sold; but that observation applied equally to the sale of advowsons, and if it were desirable to prevent the sale of next presentations, why was it not so to prevent the sale of advowsons? The advertisements with respect to advowsons would give rise to just as much complaint and just as much eloquent denunciation against the sin of simony as those relating to the sale of next presentations. But why not, if they desired to prevent laymen from acquiring next presentations, try to pass a Bill which had reference to the advowsons? He supposed his hon. and learned Friend thought it was as well to get the narrow end of the wedge in first, and that he intended, on a future occasion, to bring in a Bill to prevent the sale of advowsons. On the same principle, why did he not bring in a Bill, headed, "To Amend the Laws with respect to Tithes," and provide for taking from lay impropriators the tithes now vested in them? As he said before, there was no difference between tithes, advowsons, and next presentations, considered as property. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not like to take what was once Church land generally, he might select some old estates taken from the Church, and now held by noblemen and gentlemen on the same title as the property affected by his present Bill. But, speaking seriously, it was an important question to attempt to deal with property of this kind, and if they began, they must go on; indeed he did not doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well what would be the effect of his own measure, and was perfectly prepared, if this Bill should receive the sanction of Parliament, to bring in a Bill on another occasion which would affect the advowsons, and it was for that reason that they ought to look at the question rather more largely than the hon. and learned Gentleman had done in bringing it before the House. Now, he came to another objection to the Bill, namely, its interference with lay patronage—and he put it to the House whether that patronage was not well administered—better, indeed, than any other Church patronage? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to see it in the Crown? [Mr. R. PHILLIMORE: No, no!] Would he wish to see it in the bishops? His hon. and learned Friend, when the question was asked whether he would wish to see the lay patronage vested in the Crown, said, "No, no!" but he did not say "No, no!" when he inquired whether he wished to see it vested in the bishops!

I assure you I have not the slightest wish to see the lay patronage vested either in the Crown or in the bishops.

Then the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the very best reason why the Bill should be thrown out; for it did affect the lay patronage in the only manner in which that patronage could be affected. If he (Mr. G. Butt) could have thought as the hon. and learned Gen- tleman did, he would have said that he did object to lay patronage altogether; that it ought to be in those hands directed by the doctrine of the Roman Catholics, the doctrine of the canonists, and which appeared to be the doctrine of that section of the Church with which the hon. and learned Member most sympathised. The hon. and learned Gentleman should say at once what the canonists said in Roman Catholic times, that it was his opinion that laymen ought not to have the patronage of the Church, but that it should be vested in the bishops. The Roman Catholics had tried before to get all this question of presentations left to the Church, but even in Roman Catholic times the people of England did not submit to that domination; they tried by every possible means to get the patronage of livings out of lay hands, and failed; and therefore he asked, was it at the present time desirable to change the law, or was there any reason why they should affect the interests or the feelings of laymen? At present there were nearly two-thirds of the patronage of the livings in England vested in private families, and he asked whether that patronage was not honestly administered? It was for the bishop to take care that the men presented were fit and proper persons, and was not the patronage under such a safeguard likely to be far better exercised than if it were vested in the Crown, to be given as the reward of political partisanship, or as the result of Ministerial favour? He could assure his hon. and learned Friend he had no interest in this matter further than that interest which became him, namely, to watch and see in cases of this kind that the rights of property were not affected by a measure by which no object could be obtained, for he could see nothing in this Bill which could effect any good purpose, and it pointed at changes which it would be most undesirable to make unless a very clear case had been made out calling for interference. One of the gravest of all things they could do was to tamper with well established rights, and they ought to be exceedingly careful not, on purely speculative reasons, to introduce changes affecting property. With respect to the present Bill, then, he was of opinion there was no case made out for the interference sought, or for any interference of a different nature, which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not dare to trust his hand with at present. On these grounds he asked the House to adopt his Amendment, and to reject the measure.

said, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment, had used arguments which were likely to destroy altogether the right to advowsons and to lay patronage. That hon. and learned Gentleman seemed hardly to be aware that any other question was involved in the measure before the House but a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Now, when public trusts were vested in individuals, not in right of an office, but as attached to property which they held—when the right of exercising that trust was a matter of property—no doubt many of the incidents of property must attach to that right, and amongst them the right of alienation. But the question of the actual exercise of the trust stood upon an entirely different footing; the right to exercise being one thing—the actual exercise being another. The purchase of an advowson was as legitimate a transaction as was the purchase of a freehold, conferring the right to vote; but in the case of an actual vacancy, the law, as it at present stood, would not allow such vacancy to be filled up for money any more than it would allow a vote to be given under the like inducement. Between these two extremes there were different steps, and the question was, when they were approaching that position in the arrangement where the filling up of a vacancy would be part of a corrupt transaction. In the case of a clergyman the law prohibited the purchase of the next presentation, and he could see no reason for applying a different rule to the case of a layman. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Weymouth (Mr. G. Butt) stated that the passing of the present measure would tend to the overthrow of the rights of lay patrons; now he (Sir W. Heathcote) was not greatly interested in that subject, though he happened to be an owner to a small extent of such patronage; but in that position he must confess he could not thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his interposition, because he would regard that kind of property as much less secure if it could be protected only by the maintenance of an abuse. And on that account it struck him forcibly that the reference made by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Phillimore) to the case of the boroughs suppressed by the Reform Act, was perfectly appropriate. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. G. Butt) professed not to understand the second clause of the Bill; now, it only provided that bargains or arrangements with respect to any next presentation already effected should be good, but that for the future no such bargains would be sustainable in law. With regard to fire question of lay patronage, he believed it exercised a wholesome influence on the Church, in introducing into it the lay element, which was very requisite. And it was, therefore, not with a view of overthrowing that lay element that he supported the Bill, but with a view of making that element felt in a manner less subject to abuse. Much had been said about the power of a bishop to refuse institution to any presentee, as being a check on improper presentations; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must know very well that no bishop would be sustained by a court of law in rejecting a clerk because he merely happened not to be as good and proper appointment as might easily have been made. The negative power resting with a bishop could not prevent the sale of presentation to men all but on their death-bed, in order that another sale might be shortly effected. He hoped that the House would take a wider view of this question than that put forth by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that, as the guardian of our institutions, by consenting to the second reading of this Bill, it would show itself desirous of making lay proprietors act solely in the capacity of trustees, and not as persons seeking to render the offices of the Church a source of revenue to themselves.

said, that although this Bill differed in two material particulars from the Bill proposed on the same subject in the last Session, he could see no ground to induce the House to assent to it. The Bill of last year was retrospective as well as prospective, while the Bill now before the House was only prospective. The Bill of last year was more limited in its operation, because, if he remembered rightly, it did not propose to deprive laymen generally of the power of purchasing next presentations, but only with the intention of subsequently taking holy orders, and of presenting themselves, while the Bill now under discussion proposed to take away from all laymen the right of purchasing next presentations to livings with the view of presenting other persons as incumbents. He fully agreed with the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote) that this question should not be considered as one of mere pounds, shillings, and pence. There was an important and sacred trust connected with the administration of property of this kind; and persons who possessed such property ought to feel the serious responsibility which attached to them with regard to its disposition. He (Sir G. Grey) thought that some of the scandals which had been referred to, such as the presentation of aged and absolutely incompetent incumbents, might be checked by a proper exercise of authority on the part of the bishops. He could not conceive that a bishop could be compellable by law to present to an incumbency with cure of souls a man to whom he was bound to give leave of non-residence on the next day because he was absolutely incompetent to discharge his duties. Although, however, this question must not be looked at merely as a question of property, it must be remembered that the law of England had, for a great number of years, recognised property of this nature; and he did not think the Legislature should interfere to depreciate such property materially without the certainty of obtaining some decided benefit. Now, his objection to this Bill was, that while it interfered seriously with that property, it would produce no benefit, or, at all events, very slight benefit. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Phillimore) did not propose to deal at all with the sale of advowsons, but, if he correctly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, the sale of the advowson would hereafter, as now, carry with it the right to the next presentation. He (Sir G. Grey) hoped the House might be informed whether that supposition was correct or not. He fully concurred with his hon. and learned Friend as to the scandals produced by the advertisements which they too often saw in the public papers, describing the age and infirmities of incumbents as enhancing the value of next presentations or advowsons. Such cases, however, would be left absolutely untouched by this Bill, for the only effect of the measure would be that, if a man in possession of the advowson could not sell the next presentation alone, he would probably be driven to sell the advowson itself. All the scandal would remain, and the only effect would be to depreciate the value of this kind of property. For these reasons, he (Sir G. Grey) considered that the House ought not to assent to this Bill. If the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) thought his arguments ought to prevail, he should certainly go much further, and prohibit the sale of advowsons, including the next presentations, as well as the sale of next presentations by themselves. He (Sir G. Grey) must say that he did not see the evil of the sale of next presentations. For instance, a man might have a relative or friend who was perfectly competent to discharge the spiritual duties which attached to the possession of a living. He might buy a next presentation, acting under a sense of the most solemn responsibility, with the view of presenting that individual; and he (Sir G. Grey) could not conceive why such a transaction should be denounced as simony. He felt strong objections to the Bill, because he thought it would not prevent the sale of next presentations, but would only render such sales rather more difficult, and would thereby depreciate materially the value of property of that description, without any sufficient reason having been shown for adopting such a measure.

said, he considered that the law with regard to this subject was in a most unsatisfactory and inconsistent state. Two schemes had been proposed with the view of remedying the existing anomalies. The first was contained in the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) now before the House. The second was a scheme by which it was proposed to remove all restrictions, and to render legal in all cases the sale of presentations. He admitted that this second proposition would remove the inconsistencies of the existing law, and would extend the proprietary rights of the owners of advowsons, but at the same time it would legalise proceedings which appeared to him most objectionable, and calculated to bring scandal and discredit upon the Church of England. The hon. and learned Member for Weymouth (Mr. G. Butt) had passed over this view of the question, but he (Visc. Goderich) was anxious that the House should direct their attention to it, because he believed that the moral and social considerations which it involved were at least as important as the legal considerations, of which so much had been said. The hon. and learned Member for Weymouth appeared unable to understand the feelings of those who supported the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend, and he (Visc. Goderich) was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should treat this part of the subject lightly, when he found that he was reported to have said on a former occasion, with reference to a Bill similar to the present, that "A man who purchased five years ago the next presentation to a living held it as a chattel interest going to his executors, which they were bound to sell to pay off the debts on the estate, but this Bill would prevent the sale." Now he (Visc. Goderich) would ask the House to consider what it was that the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth described as a chattel interest. It was the right to appoint to a parish a minister of the Church of England, who in that capacity was to take upon himself the important and sacred trust of the care of the spiritual interests of the parishioners. He (Visc. Goderich) wondered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would be consistent in his theory, and would support the application to his own profession of the principles which he advocated with regard to the Church of England. Mr. Bentham recommended that, under certain conditions, judgeships should be put up for sale. Now, if the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth desired to be consistent, let him recommend the Home Secretary to sell to the highest bidder the right to present to the judgeship which was now so unhappily vacant. It was perfectly well known that in the case of the sales of ecclesiastical presentations no regard whatever was had to the fitness of the purchaser to exercise the trust he bought. The way in which livings were sold was notoriously one injurious to the Church, and offensive to the parishioners. The patron of a living wanted money; he wrote to his solicitor in London directing him to sell the next presentation, and there were brokers in this city whose chief business it was to conduct such sales. The solicitor and the broker met and discussed the age of the incumbent; they counted up his infirmities; they considered his diseases; and they described the pleasant situation of the parsonage house, and the little there was to do. In short, they carefully went into every question except the fitness of the person to be presented for the sacred trust about to be sold. The purchaser made the best bargain he could, and the seller got all the money that it was possible for him to obtain. It seemed to him (Visc. Goderich) that the rights of the parishioners were deeply concerned in these transactions, and that their spiritual interests were in fact the subject of the sale. In cases where the owner of an advowson resided in the parish or its immediate neighbourhood, if he presented to the living an unfit person, the parishioners could bring to bear upon him the direct influence of public opinion; but, if the advowson were purchased by a stranger, living at a distance, the parishioners must be content with such an incumbent as this new patron chose to send, provided he did not appoint a man grossly immoral, palpably incapable, or grievously ignorant. The hon. and learned Member for Weymouth had spoken of the control that could be exercised by the bishop in such cases; but the bishop could only refuse to institute for causes which would empower him to deprive. The purchaser of a presentation or advowson might know nothing, often could know nothing, of the wants or requirements of the parish to which he thus acquired the right to present a clerk; and this part of the question seemed to him (Visc. Goderich) deserving of serious consideration, because the parishioners had no effectual means of preventing the appointment of an unfit person in such cases. He confessed, therefore, that he could not support that method of removing the existing anomalies, which would permit, without restraint, the sale of ecclesiastical patronage, and that he preferred the scheme of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Tavistock. The Bill had been represented as an indirect attack upon the rights of laymen. In supporting the Bill he had no desire to advocate the views of any party in the Church. His simple object was to remove a scandal which affected the Church of England, and the Church of England alone. He trusted that the House would consider that moral and social considerations were entitled to as much weight as the legal questions, on which so much stress had been laid, and he concurred with the hon. Member for the University of Oxford in thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth had done much more to strike at the root of lay patronage than the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Bill. If the clauses of the Bill were not perfectly intelligible, let the hon. and learned Member propose to amend them in Committee, and there could be no doubt that every attention would be paid to his suggestions. Be- lieving the Bill to be consistent with the spirit of our laws—believing that it would help to remove great scandals from the Church which now brought discredit on her, and from which other Churches were free—scandals which tended to bring into disrepute the common Christian faith, he would appeal to all those hon. Members who were sincerely interested in the welfare of the Church to support the efforts of the hon. and learned Gentleman in his endeavour to purify her from this grievous stain. He hoped, therefore, that the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.

said, that, having given the Bill the most mature consideration, he had come to the conclusion of supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth. He thought that the best way to view the question was, to consider that it was connected with the most important public trusts in connection with the Church. If he were satisfied that the remedy proposed by this Bill would secure a better exercise of those trusts, he should have been prepared to support it, because property of all kinds ought to be made to answer its true and proper purposes. But he thought that the speech of the noble Lord who had just spoken, and the arguments used by the advocates of the present measure, went directly to show that their great object was to take away all lay patronage. The truth he believed to be this—that, while admitting the existence of great evils in connection with this subject, those who were in favour of a change of the law were endeavouring, by Act of Parliament, and by this Bill, to do that which ought to be accomplished by the system of education in the Universities and the supervision of the bishops themselves. He had remarked more than once in that House that moral evils must be met by moral remedies. The noble Lord said that the bishops had a very limited jurisdiction as regarded this matter. He (Mr. Napier) confessed he was surprised to hear this observation, when it was recollected that the bishops were obliged to make their return as to the competency of persons to be appointed in the Church. They were bound to state whether certain individuals were fit or not for those appointments; but they were not compelled to state their reasons for the opinions they so expressed. Surely, then, it was the bishop's duty to make the necessary inquiries as to the character and fitness of the individual who was seeking to enter into the charge of a cure of souls. Why was the party sent to the bishop at all? Because the bishop was bound to examine into the moral character of the man, and was more or less responsible for his conduct, if he reported favourably of him. In his humble judgment the true remedy for the evils complained of lay in this examination. How were the interests of the bishop or parishioners to be taken care of, if, in place of leaving the appointments dependent upon the examination he had alluded to, they passed a measure of this kind, which would, perhaps, leave the right of presentation in the hands of a needy man, whose only consideration was to obtain as much money as he could by the sale of such presentation? He did not think the Bill would effect the object for which it had been introduced; in fact, he thought it would tend only to multiply the evils that already exist. He would ask the House whether, in the event of this Bill passing, they did not think that there would be many cases of secret bargains which the law would not be able to reach? Were they prepared to void a presentation by force of this Bill, though the man was not a party concerned in the purchase of it? He thought the whole case Came to this—that the arguments used in favour of this Bill must apply equally to advowsons. Why did they seek to secure the better exercise of the trust without regarding the spiritual interests of the parishioners? The object which they had in view could only be obtained by a more careful education of young men who were intended for the clerical profession, and by the Crown giving to the country good and godly bishops. He would give his support to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth.

said, he fully appreciated the motives which had induced his hon. and learned Friend to bring forward this Bill, and he certainly would not join in any attack upon him with reference to motives which he did not believe he entertained. On the other hand, he felt himself bound to give his most cordial support to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth. He fully admitted that the law respecting simony was in an anomalous condition, but it was so because they had sought to reconcile the ecclesiastical doctrine with regard to simony with the recognised right of property in the lay patronage of the Church, And do what they would the law would still, as long as they sought to reconcile those two inconsistent principles, necessarily be in an anomalous state. If it was proposed to do something towards removing a portion of that anomaly, and they could not remove the whole and reconcile things necessarily inconsistent, before the House was asked to take a step towards altering the existing state of the law, and interfering with the existing rights of property, it ought to be shown that there was some great and glaring evil which called for such intervention. He had heard nothing advanced which to his mind at all made out any such existing evils. It was true they had been told of certain scandals which were occasionally brought upon the Church and the present system of patronage by means of advertisements, but it was quite clear that the scandal would not be in the least removed by the proposed measure. The same advertisements would exist with regard to advowsons as now existed with regard to presentations. The Bill did not propose to get rid of presentations generally; all that it dealt with was next presentations. This would not get rid of the scandal, but would seriously interfere with the rights of property. What was the necessity for so doing? He saw none. The existing state of the law, though anomalous, was by no means mischievous or prejudicial. The right of selling next presentations introduced into the Church a body of useful men, who would not otherwise find their way into it. If the law were altered as proposed, it would restrict the right of patronage to the landed aristocracy of the country; and though he meant not to say that they did not exercise that patronage in a very exemplary manner, they ought not to exclude the mercantile, professional, and commercial portions of the community from introducing their sons into the Church, if they thought proper to do so. By that means a great accession was obtained to the numbers of the working clergy, and these classes ought not to be excluded. The noble Lord (Viscount Goderich) had very strongly urged the rights of parishioners, which he said were interfered with by these simoniacal transactions. But how would they be protected by the Bill? He would be the last man not to give the most anxious and attentive consideration to the interests and feelings of parishioners; but there was no such provision, and it was putting the question on a false and illusory ground to argue it with the view of protect- ing the rights of parishioners. It was vain to say that the rights or wishes of parishioners were now cared for. On the contrary, had they not seen the most glaring instances in which the rights and feelings, the interests and wishes, of the parishioners, had been most singularly set at nought? Had any of them forgotten an instance in which, when the Bishop of London had thought it necessary to remove a clergyman from his ministry on account of his strange and heteredox doctrines, the same clergyman was forced upon the parishioners of Frome, in spite of their remonstrances, entreaties, and objections? The very effect of this Bill would be to leave the matter in the hands of the would be vendor—the man who was ready to sell his next presentation to any one who was willing to become a party to a simoniacal contract, who thus showed that he cared nothing for the interests of the parishioners; the Bill would leave it to such a man to appoint whom he liked. Such a Bill would place the law in a still more anomalous position. For what would be the effect? They could not sell the next presentation, but they might sell the next but one; and the result would be that the next presentation would be given by an arrangement between the seller and the purchaser, to some one whose years and infirmities had been most carefully ascertained and weighed, and the following presentation would be sold to the purchaser. That would not be a fraudulent contract under the terms of the Bill. Without in any way removing the scandals that now existed, or the anomalies necessarily inherent in the condition of the law, it would only introduce a mischievous principle by excluding that which was very advantageous, the lay element of the Church, and leading to more dangerous changes and infinite mischief. Therefore the Bill had his most cordial and hearty dissent.

said, that he would not trouble the House with any observations upon the subject, but he was anxious to mention a case that came under his own knowledge, and which was highly creditable to all the parties concerned. The case was one in which the right of presentation to an advowson belonged to a Roman Catholic family. The representatives of that family, not thinking it right to make an appointment in the Church of England, had been in the habit of selling the presentations as they occurred, and in the case to which he now referred, it had been purchased by a gentleman of high honour and character for the sum of 4,000l., for the purpose of presenting it to his son, who had been educated for the Church, and who was a man of equal attainments and character. Where, he would ask, was the mischief of such a transaction as that? Now, in the event of this gentleman's death occurring before the death of the present incumbent, his widow and family would be subjected to much injury if the present measure passed into a law, inasmuch as it would not be in the power of the executors to dispose of the living a second time, even to meet the testamentary dispositions of the deceased, or the wants of his widow and surviving family. This would be a gross act of injustice, which the House ought not to consent to inflict upon a humble individual. He trusted that the Amendment would be agreed to.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock whether his Bill would apply to this case:—Supposing that a father, after the passing of the Act, had purchased the presentation to a living for his son without the knowledge or assent of the latter; and that the son was not only presented, but instituted and inducted into the living, after several years had elapsed: if this case became publicly known, would the present Bill enable the law to turn this clergyman out of the living acquired under such circumstances?

said, he was most warmly attached to the Church, and he should sincerely oppose the Bill before the House. So long as the patronage remained as it was, the Church would never acquire an exclusive character. He believed the interests of the parishioners would be best consulted by throwing out this Bill. Parishioners were most interested in having able men appointed to minister to them; and no one bought a presentation to give it to an old man. This Bill would exclude from the service of the Church a large class who could only get into it by purchase. It was a marked feature of the middle classes in this country, that they allowed their children to choose their own profession; many chose the Church, and they could only obtain a presentation by purchase. Allusion had been made to the sacred character of the trust; but it should be borne in mind that the party presented must be one who had already been admitted to the Church, and who must be approved by the bishop. It had been said that this question had been treated as one of pounds, shillings, and pence; but how could a question of the sanctity of private property be otherwise? He cautioned the House against doing anything which might tend to weaken that right.

said, he must deny that what was called the sanctity of private property ought to be carried into the affairs of religion. It might be a good principle that the wishes of the parishioners should be consulted; but this Bill did not at all carry out that principle. He knew a case which had occurred in his own parish, where the incumbent, having the next presentation, sold it for the benefit of his family; it was purchased by the father of a young clergyman, who was now most industriously and ably fulfilling the duties of his office. Unless these arrangements were permitted, such persons would never obtain access to the Church.

said, that the second clause, on which some observations had been made by the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), was not intended to apply in the manner suggested, and that if it was liable to be so construed he was quite prepared to alter the manner in which it was worded. With reference to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), he would state that the Bill would not introduce any new principle on that point. He trusted the House would give a second reading to the Bill, for no answer had been given to the fact that the assembled Judges of the land had pronounced that great simony was committed by the sale of next presentations, and that it was desirable that the evil should be remedied by Parliament. He had no sinister object in introducing the Bill, and belonged to no section or party in the Church, but to the Church of England itself.

having presented some petitions in favour of this Bill, said, that it was founded upon the common law of the country, and was merely a declaratory measure. The principle for which he contended was, that by the common law the inhabitants of towns had a right to adopt such measures as would tend to secure the common good of the district. Proofs of the right for which he contended were many and various. One of these was mentioned in Coke's "Reports." It was the case of the Chamberlain of London, in the reign of Elizabeth; and according to the judgment in that case the inhabitants of a town might make ordinances and by-laws for the reparation of the church or the highways, or for any such things as were for the good of the public. This right had, however, like many others, been overruled by the construction of various Statutes; and it was the object of the present Bill to enable parishes and towns to exercise the right without let or hindrance. Every part of the machinery of the Bill was consistent with constitutional and statutory precedent. The first clause provided that a vestry, summoned according to law, might appoint a committee for any special object—a practice which had been recognised by Acts of Parliament in the case of the highway board, the inspectors appointed under the Lighting and Watching Act of William IV., and the appointments made for the purposes of the Burial Act of 1852. The Bill further provided that such Committee should be held to be a body corporate for carrying out the special objects of their appointment, to which special objects their functions would be limited. It also secured their responsibility to the vestry, and required them to keep strict accounts, and produce the same to the vestry annually. It would empower the inhabitants of a parish to create for themselves a permanent local committee; and if the measure passed into a law, he believed it would effectually supply a want that was very much felt at the present moment by the towns and parishes generally throughout the country. With regard to the metropolitan parishes he also believed it would effect a great deal of good for them. But on this head he spoke less decidedly. He knew that the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers was independent of the parishes, that it exercised irresponsible power, and had a right to tax the parishes without the authorities of the latter having any control whatever. So, too, in the country towns of England, the Board of Health had power, not only of taxing the inhabitants, but of mortgaging the rates and taxing posterity as well. That Board had been most disastrous in all its undertakings, among which were the drainage and water supply of the metropolis, and the subject of intramural interments. On the latter point an Act was passed in 1850, which had to be repealed in 1852, and it was left for the Government of Lord Derby to settle the questions, both of the water supply of the metropolis and of intramural interments, on sound principles, which had been adopted by the present Government. He protested against the renewal of the Board of Health as a board of works, for in every town in which it had interfered in that capacity its proceedings had been characterised by arbitrary and oppressive conduct. All classes of persons combined in wishing to have more control of their affairs than they at present enjoyed, and this Bill would enable parishes to perform for themselves all such works as were now performed by the Board of Health, except such as required the mortgaging of the rates. He hoped, then, the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. He had received letters from all parts of the country in its favour. It was founded on the principle of reposing confidence in the good sense and intelligence of Englishmen, and of admitting their competency to manage their own affairs. True, it did not contain any compulsory powers, though he had nothing to urge against such powers. His only Object was to prevent an arbitrary and oppressive interference on the part of unconstitutional authorities; and with these views he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.

said, he had hoped that at least the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat would have made out some case for departing so much from the usual practice, and for giving such large and responsible powers to irresponsible bodies as was proposed by the Bill he held in his hand. The hon. Member, however, had made out no case at all for this measure. So far as he (Mr. Fitzroy) could gather from the observations of the hon. Gentleman, his principal reasons for introducing this Bill were that the Commission of Sewers and the Board of Health were likely soon to close their existence. If that were so, it might or might not be a reason for the adoption of this measure; but he could inform the hon. Gentleman that both these bodies were likely to be renewed. Whether they would be renewed in their present form was another question, but there was no intention that the functions of either of them should expire at the close of the present Session. He (Mr. Fitzroy) should not object to this Bill, as had been anticipated by the hon. Gentleman, that it contained no compulsory powers; but he thought that the circumstances of its introduction showed the inconvenience of introducing Bills involving great interests and important questions such as were dealt with in this measure, without the proposed powers of the Bill being more clearly defined than they had been. Now, what were the provisions of the Bill? The first clause proposed to give to the parish vestry power to appoint a committee, without any qualification whatever—they need not be even a committee of ratepayers—a committee who should be a body corporate (which the vestry that constituted them was not), for the purpose of carrying out any objects confided to it by the vestry, or any purposes which were judged by the vestry to be for the common good of the parish; and, for the purpose of carrying out these objects, this committee was to have the power—though, be it remembered, they themselves were not necessarily ratepayers—of levying a rate on the inhabitants of the said parish, "or of some specified part thereof." Thus, the committee might exempt from the rate any part of the parish they chose, and might levy upon the rest of the parish such rates as they might think fit for the purpose of carrying out the objects of their appointment. These were powers so arbitrary, so extensive, and, as far as he was aware, so unknown to legislation, that he felt convinced the House would not entrust them to the vestry of any parish. With respect to the expense to be incurred in carrying out this Bill, he saw that provision had been made for the auditing of accounts, but no provision had been made for disallowing or disapproving any of those accounts; so that the only advantage gained by auditing them would be the expense of the auditors. A still more extraordinary provision was that these accounts, thus audited, without any power of disallowance, should be printed and distributed through the parish, so that the ratepayers were not to have more control over the matter than the inhabitants of the parish generally. The expense of auditing, printing, and distributing the accounts was to be paid "out of any parish moneys or rate which the vestry may think fit to charge with the same." Thus, having first allowed this irresponsible committee to levy a rate, they were then to have the power of laying this additional expense upon any rate they might think fit for the purpose of carrying out these propositions. But the Bill of the hon. Member went further than this. Under the fifth section it gave to this irresponsible committee—a committee not necessarily of ratepayers—all the judicial powers which were given to justices of the peace under the Removal of Nuisances Act and under the Public Health Act. Consequently, this irresponsible body might summon the owner or occupier of premises to appear before them, might order the removal of the nuisance, and, in default, inflict a fine of 10s. for every day such nuisance continued; and the expenses attending the cleansing of such premises might be recovered by this committee from the owner or occupier. At present, again, two justices might certify for the payment from the public rates of the expenses of the officers employed in the execution of this act, and he supposed two members of this irresponsible committee would have the same power. One justice—and therefore one committee-man—might inflict a fine of 5l. upon any individual who should violate the general orders of the Board of Health; and the occupier of any premises who should refuse to allow the carrying out of these orders might also be fined 5l. a day during his refusal, and in default of payment might be imprisoned for three months. Were these powers which the House of Commons would be prepared to give to a body of gentlemen with no qualification, and with no cause shown whatever? The second clause of the Bill required the churchwardens, upon the requisition of any five inhabitants where the population of the parish was less than 1,000, and of ten inhabitants where the population exceeded 1,000, to summon a vestry, however often, the effect of which could only be to keep up an incessant system of agitation in every parish. He could not believe that the House of Commons would seriously entertain such a Bill as this for one moment, and he should accordingly move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

said, he had seen many attempts at experimental legislation, but he must confess he never had seen any- thing to compare with this. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] Of course, if the hon. Member were prepared to withdraw the Bill, it would be unnecessary for him to occupy the time of the House in commenting upon it.

said, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fitzroy) might think he had made out a very conclusive case, but, if he yielded to numbers in withdrawing this Bill, he was not at all convinced by any argument which the hon. Gentleman had adduced. He (Mr. Evelyn) was convinced that the principle upon which the Bill was based was a sound one, and while withdrawing it, he must be allowed to say that be was quite certain that, at some future day, another Bill, drawn up by abler hands, but founded on the same principle of local self-government, would meet with the assent of the House.

, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, the subject was not new to the House, but he thought he was not open to any reproach of undue pertinacity in returning to it. The present Bill was free from the chief objections which were made to that introduced last year, and he thought, moreover, he should be inexcusable were he not to refer again to this subject in consideration of the vote of the House last week, which sanctioned the law for the prohibition of the payment of wages in goods. The object of that Bill was to put a stop to the truck system by more effectual penalties, and his object in bringing forward the present measure was to bring within the operation of the same law other malpractices which also affected the payment of wages, and which were, unfortunately, now beyond the operation of the law, in consequence of a defect in the construction of existing Acts of Parliament. He stood here as the humble advocate of the framework knitters of the Midland counties—a numerous class of men, whose distress might be said to have been proverbial—a distress long continued, and which was not to be referred to any inevitable causes, but such as were assuredly, as he thought, within the reach of legislation. Their state could not be considered as a transition state, or as one which had been produced by circumstances likely to pass away. It had, in fact, been a transition from bad to worse for a period of between thirty and forty years; and now, he thought, it was high time the evil complained of should be corrected. The nature of the manufacture was such that it was carried on to a very considerable extent in the houses of the workmen and in the shops of contractors. It required the use of a frame, which was a handloom—a machine of no great value, and which might be purchased, for the most part, for from 3l. to 4l.; such a sum, in fact, as might be supposed to place it within the reach of the workman himself. This machine, nevertheless, was never the property of the workman, but was the property of his employers or their agents, by whom it was the practice to charge a profit rent for its hire, which was deducted from the wages of the workmen—a rent of an excessive amount, and varying in different districts. Some years ago there had been a Commission appointed by that House to inquire into the condition of these workmen, and the result of that inquiry showed that this practice of paying wages by the hire of a machine at an excessive charge was characterised by all the evils of the truck system; that is to say, that the price charged was arbitrary and excessive. The Report of the Commissioners stated as follows:—

"The evidence both of masters and men is perfectly conclusive and coincident on one point, namely, that the amount of this deduction is regulated by no fixed rule or principle whatever; that it is not dependent on the value of the frame—upon the amount of money earned in it, or on the extent of the work made; that it has differed in amount at different times, and now does so in different places."

The charge made for the rent of the frame was, indeed, exorbitant. It was stated in the evidence to average, along with other charges, 30 or 40 per cent on the earnings of the workmen, while in many instances it vastly exceeded even that amount. He had in his possession a number of cases showing the rent of the frame, which had been forwarded to him lately. He would not weary the House with more than one of them, which might indeed be an extreme case, but from which the House would understand the nature of the exaction. The letter he was about to read was from a poor man whose name he would not mention. The writer said:—

"I hold five frames, for which I pay weekly 7s. 6d. If the frames were sold by auction at the present time, they would not realise more than 18l. or 20l. at the furthest, and yet I have the sum of 19l. 10s. a year forcibly taken from my earnings in the shape of frame rent. On the 8th of this month I took in work to the gross amount of 1l. 14s., from which 15s. was deducted for rent, 6s. of which was taken for two frames which were standing still. One of the two is worn down and wants repairing."

This impost was not only levied when work was plentiful, but when it was scanty; rent was charged for the frames while they were standing idle, as well as for those which were at work, and whether the workman was sick or whether he was well, he had a rent to pay for his frames. The whole grievance appeared so striking an one to the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the condition of the framework knitters, and so closely analogous to the truck system, not only within the spirit, but within the letter of the law, that, at his suggestion, steps were taken to bring the matter before a legal tribunal. The case came ultimately before Lord Denman and the Court of Queen's Bench. Unfortunately, upon a technical construction of the law, the practice was justified, and in consequence of this decision it had gone on in an aggravated form ever since. Although, however, the judgment of Lord Denman was conclusive with regard to the letter, it was not so as to the spirit of the law. There could be no question whatever but that the practice was entirely in contravention of the spirit of the existing law. It presented all the evils of the truck system—not only cases of individual oppression and injustice as regarded the workmen, but it was productive of a constant depression of wages, because it must be evident that, where these practices prevailed, those who were the parties to such practices were enabled to undersell the fair manufacturer, who, at first, perhaps, hardly aware why he was undersold, was compelled at last, if he wished to keep his place in the market, to reduce his own wages. This was the cause of the great depression and misery which had attended the workmen engaged in this manufacture. But, besides the evils which it possessed in common with the truck system, this practice was attended by other evils peculiarly its own. It became the interest of those who had frames, to spread the work over as large a number of workmen as possible. On this subject he had received a letter—and he was proud of his correspondent—from a working man of no ordinarily cultivated mind. The writer, who was the author of some literary productions which had obtained great praise from better qualified judges than he (Sir H. Halford), said:—

"Under the old system it is the interest of the middleman to employ as many frames as possible on a given quantity of work. He holds, say twelve frames belonging to the manufacturer, for which he pays from 1s. 3d. to 2s. rent, according to their width. For these he gets full work from the warehouse, charging the workmen from 3s. 6d. to 5s. weekly, according to width. That is heavy enough; but we should not grumble, could we have the full allowance of work given out from the warehouse. This, however, is far from being the case. Besides his own frames he rents independents,' at 9d. or 1s. a week, making together an addition of nine or ten frames, all put on the work which the twelve warehouse frames ought to have to do, thus reducing the workmen to little more than half employment, still taking full charges, the amount stated above. Hence, the slowest hands, the idlest, and the most profligate are employed by the middlemen in preference to the steady and industrious, the latter being the more troublesome from the dissatisfaction they show on account of the injustice of the system and the poverty and hardship it entails upon themselves and their families. Out of many other modes of exaction I will only name one, which, in addition to the above heavy charges, is very cruel; though, to do them justice, it is not practised by all. It is simply stinting the quickest workmen to six or eight shillings' worth of work a week less than they can do, unless they agree to pay twopence out of every shilling they earn above the 'stint.'"

Now, what was the remedy for these evils? He had on a former occasion understood the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) to say, that the remedy was to be obtained by combinations or strikes on the part of the workmen; but that was an opinion which could hardly be confirmed, for it was generally admitted that the practice of assembling, among workpeople, had not proved desirable or advantageous. A far better remedy would be found in the rearrangement and improvement of the law. A most important witness on this subject stated, in his examination before the Commissioner, that—

"Just in proportion as I feel confident that strikes do harm and secret combinations are wicked, do I feel the importance of giving timely heed to the representations of bodies of men who think themselves injured or feel themselves miserable and depressed."

The object of the Bill which he now asked the House to read a second time was to give that heed, timely he could not call it, but most requisite. There was no new principle in the Bill, and he believed that it would be beneficial in various ways. It would enable workmen to possess their own frames, which would be a great step towards independence, and where such was not the case the market would be opened, and the workman would be enabled to hire his frame at the cheapest rate, subject to the natural law of supply and demand. He would venture to say, that the Bill was universally desired by the workmen, and in support of that opinion he could refer to the number of petitions presented during the last and the present Session of Parliament in its favour. Last year petitions in its favour were presented, signed by upwards of 30,000 persons; and the number of those who had signed petitions presented this Session amounted to 7,000. It was also a measure desired by many of the manufacturers themselves. Some of the manufacturers of Leicester who had last year entertained objections to such a proposal, now, he understood, had waved those objections. From Nottingham there had indeed been repeated the same objections as before; and in the first place the Bill had been deprecated as an interference with the freedom of trade. This seemed to him a very extraordinary view of freedom of trade. He had heard of a citizen of one of the Slave States of America, who made it his boast that he lived in a land of liberty, where every man might thrash his own nigger! Very similar to this appeared the notion these Nottingham gentlemen entertained of freedom of trade. For his own part, he could not understand that species of freedom which restricted the workman from going where he pleased, either to purchase his food or to hire his machine. He would not enter into the other objections, further than to say that they were founded upon what appeared to him to be gratuitous assertions, He thought that from the evidence of the Commissioner, and from the notorious facts of the case, the prices charged for the hire of frames were arbitrary and capricious to the last degree. An objection has been urged against the present proposal in that House, that it would be found impossible to prevent the practice of frame-hiring, but there was abundant evidence that no such impossibility existed. The truck system in provisions, which was entirely analogous, had been materially checked, although, indeed, it was remarked that a still more efficient law on that subject was required. He was no scorner of what was called the science of political economy, but if he understood that science aright, it rested for its foundation on the necessity of leaving the natural laws which regulated matters of trade, and which could not be interfered with without mischief, to their free operation. But it was a mistake, he thought, to suppose these laws were only capable of being interfered with by legislation. They were liable to be disturbed and impeded by vicious customs and practices; and when this was the case, it became the proper duty and office of legislation to correct and abate those customs and practices by positive law; and for such law he believed there was an imperative necessity in the present instance. He should be sorry that any one should understand him to reflect in any way upon the conduct of the manufacturers as a general body, for he believed that very many of them were just and honourable men; but even on their behalf it was necessary to put a stop to the rapacity of some, to prevent the whole body incurring undue reproach. He asked the House to allow of the second reading of this Bill for the sake of promoting equal justice between man and man, and also upon broad principles of general policy, which in fact were no other than those of justice, as applied to large classes of the community.

said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. So far from its being productive of any benefit to those for whose advantage it professed to be designed, it would, on the contrary, be injurious in its effect, by raising in their minds expectations which could never be realised. The Bill was one to interfere between the master and the workman in the hosiery trade, to prevent their entering into engagements which they themselves considered mutually convenient or advantageous. The policy embodied in the Bill was essentially retrograde. It partook of the spirit of an age in which the Statute-book was encumbered with numberless contrivances for regulating the proceedings of individuals between each other, although experience had proved that every successive abrogation of such Statutes had been accompanied by an advance of civilisation and by an increase of national prosperity. He had thought that by this time the legitimate province of legislation was understood—that it was agreed on all hands what were the cases in which it was useful for the Legislature to interfere in the proceedings of individuals. The law had power to enforce a contract when made, but it could not decide what were the best contracts for a man to enter into. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman was in direct opposition to that principle, for it proposed to prevent certain compacts or agreements being entered into between workmen and their employers. The system at present in operation in the district to which the Bill applied was in accordance with the principles of political economy, for it was agreeable to those principles that the capital and machinery should be provided by the employer of labour, rather than by the labourer. But, if that were so, what was the difference between machinery collected in one building or scattered through several dwellings? The hon. Baronet had said, however, that although the system was not wrong in theory, it was made injurious by the method in which it was worked; but surely that was a very superficial way of looking at the subject. The only circumstance which could give a master power over his workmen so as to compel them to accept terms disadvantageous to themselves would be when the labour-market was overstocked with hands. When the supply of labour exceeded the demand, of course the workman did not command such good wages as he would if the contrary were the case, and no law could be passed which could alter that state of things. At the present moment, a proposal like the present was peculiarly unnecessary, because the labour-market was lightening itself by emigration, and in a short time all the workmen would be well able to take care of themselves. He thought also that the machinery of the Bill was as objectionable as the principle of it, and that if it passed into law it would become a mere dead letter. The first clause of this Bill provided that—

"From and after the passing of this Act, all contracts for labour in the said hosiery manufacture shall be made at neat rates for wages for labour to be performed, free from any deduction or stoppage on account of the use of any frame or machine, its standing, or any charges on any pretext whatever, and the said wages so contracted for shall be paid in full, in the current coin of the realm, and not otherwise."

Such a provision as that was easily evaded; for a master might pay his workmen the full amount of his wages in coin, and require the workmen immediately to go into an adjoining room, and pay a certain amount for the rent of a frame, so that the wording of the Act would be complied with, but the intention of it entirely frustrated. With regard to the second clause in the Bill, the effect of it would be to inflict a penalty upon men of mature age for entering into a contract which they considered mutually advantageous. He considered that the Bill, both in its principle and in its machinery, was one of the most objectionable measures which he had ever seen introduced into that House. He understood that the Government intended to permit the Bill to be read a second time, that it might afterwards be sent before a Select Committee; but he did not see any necessity for further inquiry. He hoped that the House would not sanction a measure so vicious in its principle, and which must prove so inefficient in its operation.

seconded the Amendment. He said, he had the same view as the hon. Baronet—the improvement of the working classes; but most sincerely, on the part of those classes, he objected to this Bill. His object was to raise the wages of labour; that was the Object of all political economists; and it was for the purpose of raising the standard of comfort of the labouring classes that he should give the Bill his strenuous opposition. It was diametrically opposed to the sound principles of political economy, as enunciated by M'Culloch, Ricardo, and others. It was impossible to raise the rate of wages by legislation, and the Bill would divert the attention of the working classes from the real remedy of the evil under which they laboured, that remedy being a better knowledge of their own position, and the practice of abstinence, prudence, and forethought. It was said that the stocking knitters were the slaves of their masters, but there was nothing to prevent them from going where they could obtain higher wages, and the only law to which they were subject was the law of their circumstances, which it would be only deluding them to tell them could be altered by legislation.

said, he supported the Bill with the view of sending it before a Select Committee; and after the statements made by the hon. Baronet who introduced it, he thought it was absolutely necessary for eliciting the truth, and removing, if they existed, the abuses which had been set forth. In fact, no one had attempted to deny them. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) who had moved the Amendment to put an end to all inquiry, had simply intimated that it was adverse to political economy, and inconsistent with free trade. He (Sir J. Walmsley) was sorry to learn that inquiry into the complaints of the industrial classes could be so construed. The hon. Member had, however, shown that he did not understand the question at issue, and he (Sir J. Walmsley) hoped the House, instead of rejecting the measure, would send it to a Committee, as they did the Anti-Truck Bill last week. This measure was in fact part and parcel of the truck question, but it was truck in its most obnoxious form. In other trades to which truck was said specially to apply, the money did find its way into the hands of the men, and they had the "seeming" opportunity to disburse it as they pleased; not so with this; the men had no such opportunity. The money never found its way into their hands, nor had they what they thought a fair opportunity of obtaining value for their money. In many cases the interest demanded and obtained on frame-rents amounted to as much as 20 to 40 per cent per annum. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had said it was an attempt on the part of the men to dictate to the masters. The men totally disclaimed any such intention. The hon. Member might with equal correctness have said, it was an attempt to dictate to the men on the part of the masters. The hon. Member said it was opposed to the principles of free trade and political economy, and was supported in that view by the hon. Member who seconded his Amendment. He (Sir J. Walmsley) was as decided a supporter of those principles as either of the hon. Gentlemen, but he desired to apply them generally, and to all cases, not to such particular and special cases as might suit individual views. It unfortunately happened when the interests of the workman were concerned, or when injurious customs were shown and admitted, we were not to inquire into them because it was said to be adverse to the abstract principles of political economy. Such views were calculated to bring political economy to a discount amongst the producing classes, nor were they correct in the present case. There was no free trade as respects frame-rents; the men must take them from those who can give the work, and upon their own terms. The landed gentlemen had been twitted with having formerly kept a great truck shop, in the shape of a monopoly on corn, but they had to their credit abandoned it, and were now endeavouring to carry out that which had been promised, years gone by, that when the "Great Truck" was abolished, all the "little trucks" would follow, and the producing classes were anxiously looking for the realisation of that promise. He had received numerous letters from both the operatives and the employers with respect to this Bill, and both appeared to desire that the question should be permanently settled. Both admitted the evils of the custom which had grown up, but he was bound to say they did not equally agree as to the remedy; for his own part he did not take up the question in the spirit of a partisan, but with a sincere desire to produce a better state of things than he believed now existed. It was due to the operatives to state, that so far from desiring to dictate, they approached the subject with much hesitation, but were compelled by what they believed to be the justice of their case, and their absolute necessities. They disclaimed now, as they had done previously, any intention to interfere with the rates of wages, further than their own rights justified. They were willing to submit even to lower wages if needs be; but they desired those wages, whatever the rate might be, should be paid in full, and in the coin of the realm without stoppages. He would not trouble the House with the communications to which he referred from the operatives, but it would be desirable that he should read one or two letters from masters. Some of them had long worked at net wages, and others were now desirous of doing so, but they thought it desirable all should be placed on the same equality. Many of the masters were most anxious to relieve themselves and their men from the alienation which was unfortunately too rife in this trade, and he felt persuaded that it was for the permanent interests of all that this question should be set at rest. The first letter he would read was from Messrs. Preston and Co., a firm of great respectability, who had given to the new system a fair trial and had found it to answer the most sanguine expectations:—

"Humberstone Road, Leicester,

"March 20, 1854.

"To Sir J. Walmsley, M.P.

"Dear Sir,—In looking over the Bill now before Parliament, 'To Restrain Stoppages from Payment of Wages in the Hosiery Manufacture,' I am much pleased with its simplicity, and think it quite an improvement on the Bill of last year; and it is my earnest wish that you will be able to bring it to a successful issue.

"In my humble opinion, the provisions of the Bill may be carried out to the satisfaction of all parties; and as far as my knowledge extends, it will not be detrimental to any one. I have nothing new to add about the working of a system of paying wages without stoppages (a system which we have adopted now for eight years), excepting that, through the severe winter that we have just passed through, several of our workpeople have been short of work; but we have no complaining or disputes at the pay table about how much rent shall be paid for a small amount of work, every man knowing that if he earns but one shilling, he will receive it in full in the current coin of the realm.

"Wishing you success in this and every other attempt to improve the condition of the working classes,—I remain, dear Sir, yours obediently,

"SAMUEL BROWN,

"Superintendent of

"Messrs. W. Preston and Co's. factory."

The next and only other letter with which he would trouble the house, although he had many, was from an eminent manufacturer in the borough he had the honour to represent; and as this gentleman had proved both plans—the stoppages and net wages system—his opinions would be useful in arriving at a correct conclusion:—

"Leicester, March 14, 1854.

"My dear Sir,—There can be little doubt of the assent of the House to the proposal of referring the present Bill to a Committee; and although, as a principle, I deprecate legislation for trade, yet as I feel certain the system of net contracts will never be voluntarily entered into by the manufacturers, and as I believe that the adoption of net contracts between employers and employed, will remove at once the fertile source of that feeling of alienation which has so long existed between masters and men, I shall be glad to see a Statute preventing abuses from being perpetrated which are at war with justice and equity.

"The Bill of last year was a complicated affair: it affected every trade in the country, and would have been inoperative against the evil it was intended to remove. This Bill is clear, simple, and comprehensive, and will be an effectual and practical remedy. Should the Bill be referred to Committee, I shall be happy to afford any information in my power.—I am, &c.

Hon. Members required the name, he had no objection to give it, in fact, he thanked the House for demanding it. It was from the brother of the hon. Member for Newport, John Biggs, and he knew no man more capable of forming a sound judgment upon this much-vexed question. As this Bill was likely to be sent to a Select Committee, and as the interests of all would be there fairly considered, he would not detain the House by further statements, but merely content himself with expressing the belief that such a course was due to all parties concerned, and likely to lead to a permanent settlement of the question.

said, that he had opposed those who pushed to an undue extent the general principle that Parliament should not interfere with the concerns of the employer and the employed in the case of women and children engaged in factories, because these persons, from their helpless position, were unable to make a contract upon equal terms with their masters, and ought to be treated in an analogous manner to, minors and wards of the Court of Chancery, who could not protect themselves. The present case, however, was a totally different one, and one in which the general principle of non-interference with the operations of trade and employment ought to be allowed to take its effect, because the stocking workers were full-grown men and adults, who perfectly understood their own interests and their own business, and were quite capable of protecting themselves against the masters. He, therefore, thought that the Bill, although introduced from a humane motive, would only inflict injury upon those whom it was designed to serve.

said, that with respect to the case now brought under the notice of the House, there did not exist an equality of agreement between the masters and the workmen; for the latter, according to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, were completely tied down, and were unable to make a free bargain with the masters. The fact was, that the workmen were obliged to pay whatever frame-rent was fixed on, however exorbitant, or they would get no work at all, and must starve. It was known that these frames were, in many instances, not the property of the masters, but of persons in no way connected with the trade, such as butchers and gentlemen's servants, who let them to the hosiers; the latter let them to middlemen, and the workmen, after paying enormous frame-rents, did not get more than 5s. or 6s. a week. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) said he should like to see the workmen get higher wages; then he should support the present Bill, which would accomplish that object, by enabling the men to have frames of their own. The hon. Member for Preston (Sir G. Strickland) should also, in accordance with his own argument, support the Bill, as these workmen, though grown up, were not in a condition to make bargains. They must either submit to the existing practice or starve. It was for these reasons that he should vote for the second reading.

said, he wished to know whether, as had been hinted, the Government were in favour of referring the present Bill to a Committee? If such an inclination were announced by the Government, the time of the House might, perhaps, be spared in respect to the discussion of the question. If ever there was a matter requiring to be sent before a Select Committee it was the present, particularly after the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay), who, however good might be his political economy, had shown that his practical knowledge of the present question was very bad. The hon. Member talked as if all the knitting frames belonged to the masters, but the fact was, only about one-fifth belonged to the persons who employed the knitters, and in many cases they belonged to middlemen, to gentlemen's servants, and to different persons who speculated in them, and frequently almost the whole earnings of the workpeople were swallowed up by those persons. He conceived that the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Halford) deserved the thanks of the House for exposing a system fraught with fraud and oppression to the framework knitter, and he was glad to hear that the Government intended to support the second reading, and to let the Bill go to a Committee.

said, he had stated on a former occasion, when the present Bill was introduced, that it was the intention of the noble Lord the Home Secretary to permit the Bill to be read a second time, with a view to its being referred to the Committee on the Truck System. Without entering into the merits of the Bill, he thought he should not do right if he left the House to imagine that this course was adopted on account of any notion on the noble Lord's part that the Bill would be beneficial in its results, or on account of any inclination to interfere between labourers and their employers. But, as a Committee had been appointed on an analogous subject—the truck system—the noble Lord thought it desirable, in deference to the large number of Gentlemen who last year advocated the introduction of such a measure (there having been 125 Members of the House in favour of the second reading), and partly, perhaps, to disabuse the minds of the workpeople themselves with reference to the effect of any legislation in these matters, and, also, to put the House in possession of as much information as possible on the subject, to support the second reading in order to send the Bill to the Committee upstairs. He regretted to say that his noble Friend the Home Secretary was unable to attend in consequence of indisposition, otherwise he would have made the above statement himself.

said, he felt competed by a sense of duty to express his regret at the course which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitzroy) had announced on the part of the Government. If he could believe that that course would have the effect of disabusing the minds of the persons most interested in this measure—the working people—of any false hopes that the Legislature could do anything to benefit them in this matter, he should entirely agree in the propriety of sending the Bill to a Committee; but he was afraid that the effect of doing so would only be to excite expectations which must be disappointed. He had listened attentively to the debate, and was entirely at a loss to discover any reason which should induce the House to take a different course with respect to this Bill from that which it pursued last year, and to sanction the principle of the present measure, as it did when it gave to it a second reading. Any attempt on the part of that House to interfere between the employer and the employed was, in his mind, fraught with delusion. He was ready to do justice to the motives and intentions of the supporters of the present measure, and he was sorry to hear from the hon. Baronet who introduced it that this particular class of operatives were now in a state of peculiar distress. He remembered, a year or two ago, during discussions on agricultural subjects, hearing from the hon. Baronet a frank admission, which he thought did that hon. Gentleman, as a Protectionist, great credit, that this class of operatives had never been, to his knowledge, in so good a condition as since the Corn Laws were repealed, and therefore he would be no party to the reimposition of those laws. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped, then, that he laboured under some misconception when he imagined that the hon. Baronet now said that an alteration had taken place in the condition of those persons, whom he believed to be deserving of the sympathy of that House and of the country. After listening to the debate, he was more and more satisfied that legislation of this description could never answer any useful purpose. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had said that it was a mistake to suppose that, in the majority of instances, it was the master hosier who made this demand on account of frame-rent; that demand was made by other persons not connected with him. If that were so, of what possible use could be the present Bill, the object of which was to prohibit the master hosier from making the deduction? On the other hand, if it was the master hosier who made the demand, he could always defeat such legislation as that now recommended by simply paying his men their full wages with one hand, and receiving a deduction with the other in an adjoining room. The truth was, that, let the House do what it would, if the workmen were in such a state of thraldom as to be entirely in the hands of their employers, they must submit to unjust restrictions. His desire was to see the workmen of this country, as a body, in a condition to be able to receive good wages for their work, not as a matter of kindness or favour, but because their labour was worth the money in the market; and when such was the case, the labouring classes of this country were in a proper condition. That result, however, could not be attained by minute legislation entering into the details of every trade, which would only raise hopes never to be satisfied. If the House divided, he should certainly give his vote against the second reading of the Bill. As to referring the Bill to a Select Committee, that appeared to him a most extraordinary course. There was really nothing in the Bill to refer, and, if the principle were sanctioned, there was no reason why the Bill should not be discussed in a Committee of the House. The whole matter had already been thoroughly inquired into; and the House never had sanctioned, and he hoped, for the sake of the working classes, never would sanction, the principle of such a measure. He should rejoice if the House rejected the second reading.

said, he certainly had anticipated last year that the trade was in some degree reviving, but he was afraid he could not say the same thing now. He did not mean to say that the workmen at this moment were in a state of peculiar distress, but he was afraid they were not so well off as they had been, and that trade was again relapsing into its former state, and he thought the best way of supporting it was by passing this Bill, therefore he believed the opposition to the Bill arose from a misconception of the nature of the practice. It was said, that the depression amongst the workmen was caused by the relative state of the supply and demand for labour, but the extra supply of labour was caused by this practice, because it was the interest of the letters out of frames to spread the work over as large a number of workmen as they possibly could. That was acknowledged at the conclusion of the Commissioners' Report, whose observation was to the effect that labour was powerfully influenced by the exorbitant rent demanded for these frames, because it gave to those who had the letting out of them an inducement to spread them over the greatest number of workmen possible.

said, it had been distinctly stated by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Packe), that the object of the Bill was to establish a higher rate of wages, and it certainly was the first time that the Government of the country was found lending its aid to the delusion that Parliament, by any Bill it could pass, could raise the rate of wages. The fact was, that that class of persons was allowed a nominal rate of wages greatly higher than the wages they were actually receiving. What was called their wages was not their real wages, but their wages less the payment for the tools, which belonged to some other person. It was just as reasonable to argue that they must hold their houses rent free, because they were not earning wages. Whether they were earning wages or not they must pay their rent; and how could it be argued that, because they were not always earning the same wages, they were not to give a remuneration to the owners of those machines that they hired? It was alleged that those machines were the property of the masters, and that they used them to grind down the labourer; but it appeared that in the majority of cases the owners of those machines were independent persons, and if the House should deprive them of the remuneration they claimed, they would take care those workmen should have no machines at all. This Bill and the Bill in reference to the truck system were totally distinct. The law said that wages must be paid in money, and that no evasion of the law should be permitted; but here they were proposing to say, not that wages should be paid in money, but that men should receive more wages than they really earned; and on that ground he should oppose the Bill.

said, he must beg to explain the observation from which it was inferred by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that the Bill was supported because it would establish a higher rate of wages. What was said was, that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson), having stated that he had always been trying to establish a higher rate of wages, should vote for the Bill.

said, he fully concurred in all that had been said by the hon. Baronet who had brought this question forward, whom he thanked for the endeavours he had made to benefit the working classes; he was fully persuaded that the Bill ought to be sent before a Committee. The Report of the Commission of 1844 showed that the question demanded the serious attention of the Legislature, and bore out the statements of the hon. Baronet with regard to the manner in which these people were deprived of their earnings, to which circumstance the Commissioner attributed the deplorable condition in which they were placed. It was shown that they could not send their children to school, and that they were ashamed to appear in church, because they did not possess sufficient clothing. He did not say that the Bill would do all that was required, but he did not think it would raise false hopes in the minds of the men, because he knew from some of their own statements that they only hoped it might lead to some alteration in the mode of carrying on the trade. He had been furnished with several instances which showed that the present condition of the men was quite as bad as it was at the time the Report of the Commission was issued; but he would only mention one case, in which the rent and other expenses of a man upon an average of nine weeks amounted to 2s. 4d. per week, while his average net wages during the same period amounted only to 2s. 5d.

said, he thought such abuses as these could not be remedied by Acts of Parliament; but if they legislated at all, they ought to enact that there should be an increase in the demand for hosiery and a decrease in the number of people who were competing for employment. He should not, however, in consideration of the opinions entertained by many of his constituents, resist the proposition of the Government.

said, he was opposed to the Bill, because he thought it would materially injure the parties interested. He believed that all legislation between employers and employed, where the employer as well as the employed were of sound mind and of adult age, was mischievous.

said, he had been well acquainted with these people for thirty-five years, and they had been in a state of distress during the whole of that time, because, in fact, there were more of them than there was employment for. The best thing they could do would be to change their occupation.