said, that he rose to move as an Amendment, that the following words added in the Lords' Committee at the end of Clause 3, be disagreed from:

" And thereupon the said sum of £43,923 5s. 8d. shall be considered to have been duly divided among all classes of shareholders of the company."

After detailing the circumstances connected with the Redpath frauds, which had led to the introduction of the present Bill into Parliament, he observed that to the Bill, as it had been introduced, no objection was taken by the shareholders, and that the words to which they were now opposed had been inserted in the Committee of the House of Lords after the preamble had been agreed to, and during that confusion which always took place among the parties when the clauses were being settled. He contended that the terms upon which the preference shareholders held their shares were, that they should receive a dividend of five per cent in perpetuity, to be paid annually, and that they were entitled to take out of the profits of the year five per cent per annum, upon the capital which they had invested, before any one else could receive anything. The effect of the words which he proposed to leave out would be to throw the preference shareholders on a half-yearly division of dividend instead of upon a yearly division, and to hold them as having received, although in fact they had not received it, £2 10s. per cent out of the half-year's revenue up to December last, thus cutting down their claims against the revenue of the whole year from June to June, to £2 10s. per cent. He had no doubt they would be told that the Attorney General had sanctioned the proposed arrangement, but he (Mr. Spooner) looked upon the opinion of the Attorney General as being very much qualified by the expression in it, that the arrangement was to be carried out according to the existing rules which determined the mutual relations between the parties. Every one knew that a legal opinion depended very much upon the nature of the case submitted, and he should like to know whether the attention of the Attorney General had been drawn to the fact that the holders of these shares were to be entitled to 5 per cent "per annum "interest, or preference dividend in perpetuity. It was to those words "per annum" that he wished more particularly to call the attention of the House, and he maintained that if the directors chose, for the sake of convenience, to make up their accounts and to pay dividends half-yearly, that could in no away affect the rights of the preference shareholders to their 5 per cent per annum out of the profits of the year. At all events, if there were any doubts as to the rights of the preference shareholders, he urged that those doubts should be decided by a court of law, and that it was not for the House to interfere to settle the rights of contending parties, when the ordinary tribunals of the country were open to them, and were infinitely better calculated for the purpose than that House could by possibility be.

said, that he would second the Amendment considering that a principle of commercial honesty was involed in the question, which the House was bound to maintain, and if the words inserted by the House of Lords were allowed to remain, the honour of this country, with respect to fulfilling its engagements, would be at an end. When a railway company was not able out of the funds subscribed by the shareholders to complete its undertaking, the directors either borrowed money on debentures, or raised it in the shape of preference shares, as had been done in this case. The persons who lent their money upon that understanding were content with a beneficial interest of 5 per cent, although the ordinary shareholders might receive a much larger amount of interest. In the first instance the debenture holders received the amount which they were entitled to upon what they had lent on a mortgage of the line, and the preference shareholders came after them with an equitable claim to receive the amount which had been guaranteed to them in the event of there being property to that amount. This was not the first time that a railway company had attempted to carry a measure of this kind, but he thought that it was the duty of the House to oppose a system which he believed to be antagonistic to the principles of commercial honour.

said, the question was whether there was any profit to which the preference shareholders were entitled; if he voted for the Amendment it would be because he thought the point was one of law, which the Courts ought to decide, but he thought the House ought not to sanction any principle which would increase the power of the preference shareholders. The officer through whose misconduct this loss occurred, was their officer as much as that of the ordinary shareholders, and they had the same voice in the appointment. It was rather the ordinary shareholders who required protection.

said, that as Chairman of the Committee to which the petition of the preference shareholders had been referred, he wished to state that the case submitted to them was this,—whether the sum of money required to make up the deficiencies occasioned by Redpath's frauds should be paid out of the capital or out of the dividends that were then due, those dividends being sufficient at the time to pay the whole sum. The Committee decided that, the frauds being in the nature of a great calamity which had occurred to the company, it was fair, as the company was in some respects responsible for the misfortune which had occurred, that the loss ought to have been paid out of the dividends then due. Since that period a difference had arisen with respect to a second half-year's dividend which had come into hand. The company had thus a whole year's dividend available, so that the case was somewhat altered from what it had been two months ago, when the Committee had decided that the sum should be paid out of the dividend then in hand. It was under these circumstances that the words which it was now proposed to strike out, had been added to the Bill in the Committee of the other House. If the second dividend had not come in, he believed the Bill would have remained as it was sent up from the House, and that in that state it would have effected the object and purpose which both Committees had in view; but he believed he might state that both the Committee of that House as well as of the House of Lords, had been unanimous on the subject of the equal liability of the preference shareholders with the ordinary shareholders in reference to the losses occasioned by the recent frauds. A new question had now arisen—whether the preference shareholders had a right to consider, that as the company had now a sufficient sum in hand to pay this expense, and also to pay them their preference sum, they were entitled to receive that sum. The practice of the company was to pay the preference dividends half-yearly. If it could be shown that the preference shareholders were paid once every year, there would not be any doubt that they were entitled to what they now claimed. But the question now was, whether that sum should be paid, as the Committee had intended, out of the first half-year's dividend, or whether the altered state of circumstances should compel the directors to pay it out of the whole of the previous year. He thought the strongest argument against that course was that the preference shareholders would then escape being subject to the payment of any of the loss which their directors had incurred—those directors having been elected in a great measure by preference shareholders. Though the case had somewhat altered since it left the Committee, he should concur in the alteration made by their Lordships, because he believed it carried out what was the original intention of both Committees.

inquired whether the preference shareholders had been heard by counsel before the Committee?

stated, in reply, that they had been heard by their counsel before both Committees.

said, he entirely concurred in what appeared to be the general opinion of the House. There was not one word in the preamble of the Bill to justify the House interfering in any manner between different classes of shareholder. The objects of the Bill were first to authorise the directors to recognise the fietitious shares created by Redpath; secondly, to empower them to buy these up; and thirdly, to do so out of the sum then in hand. It did not attempt to decide anything as to the rights of the different shareholders to that sum. Suppose that a great calamity had occurred, such as the fall of a tunnel, would the ordinary shareholders have a right to come to the House to force the preference shareholders to contribute? Whatever were the rights of the preference shareholders, Parliament should not interfere to alter them. When the Bill first came before the House, only a half-year's dividend was in hand, but the preference shareholders maintained that they had a right to take the income of the whole year, and that they should be applied, first, in payment of the losses incurred in the year; secondly, in payment of the dividends on the preference shares; and, thirdly, in payment of the dividends of the ordinary shareholders. If they were wrong in that conclusion, the clause was unnecessary; and if they were right, he did not think the House ought to interfere to diminish the value of their property, and of preference shares in general.

thought that the Lords' Amendment, if carried, would inflict a serious blow on the commercial honour of the country. It had always been considered that the preference shareholders were not liable to any losses occasioned by frauds committed on the company with which they were connected, and the proposed legislation was calculated to depreciate the value of all preference shares.

said, that preference shares had generally been created when railway companies were in difficulties, and it was only equity and justice, when persons had lent their money to a company in order to enable the ordinary shareholders to carry out the scheme and save the property, perhaps, under a compact that they should receive a certain amount of interest, that that compact should be fulfilled. It would be a great blow to commercial honour to attempt to do anything against the rights of the preference shareholders.

said, being Chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company, he desired to say a few words. The question for consideration was whether the Amendment of the Lords ought to stand part of the Bill. The Committee of the Lords had inserted the words in question for the purpose, but only for the purpose, of making clear an opinion previously expressed by the Common's Committee, but which might have given rise to much litigation, if allowed to remain in the state in which it stood when the Bill went to the other House. The case of the preference shareholders was fully discussed before the Common's Committee, and they were unanimously of opinion that the preference shareholders had no claim for exemption from their share of the loss occasioned by Redpath's frauds. These shareholders petitioned the other House, and were there represented by able counsel, but after hearing both sides, the Lords came to the conclusion that the decision of the Commons ought to be affirmed. The words under discussion were proposed for the purpose of settling the whole question at once and for ever, and in order to prevent litigation. They were opposed by counsel on the part of the preference shareholders, but the Committee agreed to them with the object which he had stated. During the progress of the Bill through the House of Lords, Lord St. Leonards and Lord Wensleydale took the side of the preference shareholders. Lord St. Leonards did not express any strong opinion that the preference shareholders had a clear right to the advantage claimed for them; but his object was to leave out of the Bill the very words which were at that moment under the consideration of the House of Commons, so that the rights of the parties might be tried in a court of law. Two noble Lords, who had been members of the Lord's Committee, had upon the same occasion addressed the House, and stated that their object in supporting that clause, with the additions, was to prevent future litigation. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had expressly declared that he thought that was the most judicious course which could be pursued. The intention originally entertained by the Directors was, that the amount of the frauds should be capitalized, as it was called, and that the loss should be borne by the unprotected shareholders; but the noble Lord the Chairman of the Lords' Committees said that he would not consent to any arrangement of the sort, and that he would insist on the money being at once paid out of the profits of the company. The consequence was, that under the advice of the Attorney General, a Bill was brought forward and passed through both Houses, under which it was enacted that the amount of the frauds should be paid out of the earnings of the half-year, and that whatever was left of those earnings should be distributed among the proprietors, according to the priority of their claims. That was the purport of the Bill which had been passed by the House of Commons. When the Bill went before the House of Lords, doubts were expressed as to whether it would ensure the attainment of the object for which it had been framed, and prevent litigation. The consequence was, that the words at present in dispute were added by the House of Lords to the Bill; and on a division in the Lords, that Amendment was carried by 43 votes against 7. The question at present before the House of Commons was nothing more or less than a provision which should make that clear respecting which some doubts had been expressed, but would not in any way alter the character of the Bill. That was the state of the case between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It appeared to him that a misunderstanding prevailed with respect to the rights of the preference shareholders. It was admitted that those parties were not in the same position as guaranteed shareholders. The meaning of the right which they enjoyed was that if there was a profit beyond all the expenses incurred in the management of the railroad, they should be paid the amount of their interest before the general shareholders. He was glad to find that that statement was generally admitted; that it was, in fact, admitted that the preference shareholders were not guaranteed shareholders. The simple question the House had to consider was, whether the preference shareholders were in such a position that they could not only claim their portion of the balance for one half-year after the charge on account of the frauds had been met, but as much of the profits of the succeeding half-year as would be required for the full payment of their demands. A good deal had been said about their being entitled to payment from June to June; but all railway companies began their year's accounts in January, and ended them in December. The legal question raised is, whether the preference shareholders could put their hands on any portion of the earnings of the year 1857, and claim out of those earnings the sum which was not paid to them out of the profits of the last half-year of the year 1856. He submitted to the House with some confidence that if the preference shareholders were invested with such a right, they would clearly be, for all practical purposes, guaranteed shareholders. Nobody denied, that they were partners in the concern. They assisted at the meetings of the company; they had the same rights at those meetings as the other shareholders; and they took away a large portion of the profits. There could be no doubt but they were shareholders, and the question the House had to decide was whether, because they were preference shareholders, they could claim out of the earnings of the first half-year of 1857 the sum which they did not receive out of the earnings of the last half-year of 1856. The Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and the Attorney General, said that they were not entitled to make up a deficiency in their receipts during one year by laying hold of the earnings of the year following. The object of those who represented the preference shareholders upon that occasion was to let the question go before a court of law. But if the present clause were rejected, and the matter was to be left to the decision of a court of law, his hands as chairman of the company would be tied until the court should have pronounced its judgment, and in the meantime he could not distribute any portion of the earnings of the company. The amount in dispute was between £80,000 and £90,000, and until a court of law should have pronounced their decision how that money was to be paid—a decision which might not be given before Christmas next—the distribution of the profits of the company must be suspended. There were widows and orphans who depended for their livelihood on the regular payment of the dividends of the company, and it would be a great hardship on them if they could not be paid at once. He hoped the House would not subject the shareholders to so great an inconvenience; and he respectfully submitted that the best course they could then adopt would be to agree to the words added to the Bill by the Lords.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the preference shareholders had not a contract by which they were entitled to the payment of dividend from the month of June in one year to the same month in the year following, so that they ought to receive out of the profits of the first half of this year the annual per centage they had not received out of the profits of the second half of last year?

said, that was precisely the question which would have to be tried by a court of law, and his opinion could be worth nothing upon such a point. He could state, however, that there was no contract, as far as he was aware, specifying that the interest on the money lent by the preference shareholders should be paid between the month of June in one year and the same month in the year following.

said, he had given this question, as it was his duty to have done, a consideration commensurate, he hoped, with its importance, and he would briefly state to the House the conclusion at which he had arrived. The Bill which had been introduced into that House was obviously a necessity. It was necessary for the purpose of giving validity to the spurious stock, and enabling the company, by giving them power to purchase and extinguish it at the same time, to keep their stock within the limits assigned by their Act of Parliament. But the Committees of the two Houses of Parliament, to which the measure had been referred, had assumed powers beyond those original objects—and because they had become, as lawyers called it, seised of the subject, had undertaken to determine by whom the loss in that case should be borne, whether by the ordinary shareholders exclusively, or by the preference as well as by the ordinary shareholders. They had decided the Question in favour of the ordinary shareholders, and against the preference shareholders. The question was whether they had been right in so deciding, or whether, even supposing their decision might be thought an erroneous one, the House ought to overrule that decision which had been given after a full consideration of the case. He humbly thought, after having bestowed upon the matter all the attention in his power, that the House was not bound by the decision of either of those Committees, and that it was competent for them to entertain the question. If that were a subject which had been legitimately brought before the Committees of the two Houses, he would not be so rash as to impugn their decisions upon a point which they must have had a much better opportunity than the House of duly considering. But if a Committee went rather beyond their jurisdiction, as it seemed to him that each of those Committees had done in that instance, he believed it was competent for the House to enter into the question whether the Committee had been right; and if it should be held that the Committee had done wrong, to undo that wrong. How did the matter at present stand? It was not denied that there had been no difference of opinion between the Committee of the House of Lords and the Committee of the House of Commons in that case, and that all that the Committee of the House of Lords had done by the Amendment was to give effect, by more explicit language, to the decision of the Committee of the House of Commons. But he confessed that after the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, it appeared to him that the Committees of the two Houses had fallen into an error in entering at all into that matter, and that they ought not to have undertaken to decide who were the parties, whether the ordinary shareholders, or the preference shareholders, by whom that loss should be borne, but ought to have left that point to the decision of a court of law. The question at issue was, whether the preferred shareholders had a right to be the first parties paid out of the whole sum to be applied for dividend during a period of twelve months; or whether they had that priority of right with respect to that sum only which was to be applied for dividend during a period of six months. That was a question, he apprehended, which should be determined not by the practice of any railway company, but by the legal instruments under which the two classes of shareholders held their rights. It was properly and strictly a question for a court of law, and he hoped that the House would not deprive any individuals of their right to appeal on a question of law to the constituted tribunals of the country. By disagreeing to the Amendment of the Lords, the House would not in any way be prejudging the point in dispute in favour of either class of shareholders; but would leave them to fight the matter out before the legitimate tribunals, and that, he apprehended, was the proper course for the House to pursue. He should humbly submit to the House that the two Committees were in error in supposing that they had a right to exercise a jurisdiction over the property of the shareholders of the company. It was said, however, that no dividend could be paid during the whole of this year, if the Bill were not passed. He thought that was exceedingly probable, because, until it should be known who were the parties entitled to the money, it was impossible that, as far at feast as regarded the sum in dispute, it could be paid away. But if the view he had submitted to the House was a just one, and if by the passing of the Bill those preference shareholders would be deprived of what they believed to be their rights, without being allowed to have recourse to those courts of law which ought to be free to all her Majesty's subjects, he submitted that it was not for the House to allow the inconvenience to which he alluded to stand in the way of the attainment of justice. But he had further humbly to express his belief that if the House should dissent from that Amendment, it would be competent to the House of Lords, if they should think fit, to introduce into the Bill any clause they might consider necessary for the purpose of obviating any such inconvenience as that pointed out by the hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the company. Under these circumstances he thought the House would act wisely in rejecting this Amendment of the Lords.

said, he could not quite agree with the arguments put forward by his right hon. Friend who had just addressed the House. It appeared to him that the issue then before them was one of the narrowest description. The question they had to consider was whether the Amendment of the Lords so altered the scope and purport of the Bill that the House would be justified in withholding from it their assent. Now, it appeared to him that their Amendment would lead to no such result. If the Amendment had a tendency to throw on the preference shareholders, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire assumed that it would do, a liability to which they had not previously been subjected, the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, would not have allowed such an Amendment to appear on the notice paper; because it was one of the best established rules of the House that the Lords should not be allowed to extend the liability which a measure sent up from the Commons would impose. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire said that the preference shareholders had acquiesced in the Bill which had passed through the House, and only objected to the Amendment introduced into the measure in the House of Lords; and he (Mr. FitzRoy) believed that statement was perfectly correct, for a petition from the preference shareholders, which he held in his hand, showed that they perfectly understood the liability to which the Bill subjected them. Moreover, the same objection as was now raised to the Amendment of the Lords was discussed before the Committee of the Commons, as the Attorney General and another learned counsel bad expressed their opinion that it was just and right that the losses occasioned to the company by the frauds and forgeries of Leopold Redpath should be borne by all classes and ranks of the shareholders. But his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade said that the Committees of the two Houses, in deciding on the rights of the preference shareholders, had exercised an authority which they were not entitled to assume. The preference shareholders, however, had acquiesced in the Bill as sanctioned by the two Committees, and had been perfectly content to abide by its provisions; and that Bill would throw upon them precisely the same liability as the Amendment of the Lords to which they at present objected. If the Committee of the House had gone, as staled by his right hon. Friend, beyond the limits of its legitimate jurisdiction in preparing such a measure, the proper time for objecting to the course it had pursued was during the progress of the Bill through the House. It was not for them to attempt to determine at that moment whether the decision of the Committees of both Houses had been right or wrong. He would not give any opinion on the merits of the question, but all he said was that a similar provision to that contained in the Amendment had been inserted, or had been meant to be inserted, in the Bill which had passed through the House of Commons; and that being the case, he did not think the House could then reject the clause.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that he had stated that the preference shareholders had not objected to the Bill which had been sanctioned by the Committees of the two Houses. All he had said, or at least all he had meant to say was, that, as he had been advised those shareholders objected to the Amendment in the Bill, because they had been informed that without it their rights would remain unaffected by the measure, am could only be decided by a court of law.

said, he thought the House and the preference shareholders in the Great Northern Railway Company were much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) for his clear statement, which would enable hon. Members to arrive at a wise and just conclusion on this subject The question was one of great importance and they should be careful not to establish a precedent which might shake the confidence of the public in the value of guaranteed and preference shares. That House was not committed to the clause in the form in which it had been sent down from the House of Lords, and he hoped the House of Commons would not consent to become the mere registrars of the opinions of the other House. He would therefore give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

was understood to say that the question raised during this debate had not been discussed by the Committee of that House, who were of opinion that the matter did not come within their jurisdiction. He had wished to put some questions to the witnesses on the subject, but was not permitted to do so. The question was then put by Mr. SPEAKER, that the House should disagree to the Lords' Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman declared that he thought the "ayes" had it.

said, he perceived that there would be no use in putting the House to the trouble of dividing. The general sense of the House was evidently opposed to the clause, and he felt bound to bow to their decision, however much he might regret it.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill said, its principal object was to diminish the expense of appointing new trustees for charities which derived their revenues from land, and also to afford trustees of such charities a cheap mode of obtaining incorporation. It appeared from the Report of the Charity Commissioners that at the time their inquiries were instituted there were between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 invested for charitable purposes in public stocks: upwards of £1,000,000 was invested in different forms of mortgage; revenues amounting to £80,000 a year were derived from rent-charges; and there were about 440,000 acres of land belonging to these charities, producing at the time the Report was presented an annual rental of £900,000 but which now probably yielded more than £1,000,000 a year. This large quantity of land was, however, divided into almost infinitesimal fragments, and was distributed among from 25,000 to 30,000 charities, whose average rental did not amount to more than £40, the revenue of many hundreds not exceeding 40s.New trustees could only be appointed by deed, which involved a cost of about £10, and the consequence was that when such appointments took place these minute charities were subjected to great loss. As a necessary result of this state of things, trustees were appointed very irregularly, and sometimes not at all, and consequently in many cases the charities lapsed. Any one who looked over the list of charities would see that a great number had lapsed; but besides those charities which were known to have lapsed, there were many which were never heard of at all. There were many charities the donors of which were never known, and this was the first step to the lapse of a charity. The Bill he was submitting to the House had been framed with a view of remedying these evils. It proposed the appointment of a Registrar General of public Charities with an office in London, which it might probably be convenient to attach to the existing registrarship of births, deaths, and marriages. It also proposed that the existing trustees of public charities should have the opportunity of depositing their deeds with such registrar upon payment of a small fee, not exceeding £3, and that by registration and the payment of the fee, the trustees should be incorporated, thus securing the benefits of perpetual succession. It was further proposed that the fee for the registration of any new trustee should be 10s. The Bill might be objected to on the ground that it would involve a demand upon the public purse, but from calculations which had been made, he was satisfied that the registration office would be self-supporting. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had reminded him that, by creating numerous groups of petty corporations they would destroy the individual responsibility of trustees. He acknowledged that the Bill as it stood was open to that objection, but if the House allowed it to go into Committee, he would propose a clause with the view of continuing the individual responsibility of trustees after incorporation. With these few remarks, be begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

seconded the Motion. There were a great many of these small charities in the county in which he resided, and he could speak from experience of the necessity of some such measure as that which had been moved by his hon. Friend.

said, he objected to the Bill on the ground that it would create a new Government Board under the control of the Treasury, observing that such a proposal ought, in his opinion, to emanate directly from the Government. The hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading had asked the House to allow the Bill to go into Committee, in order that any objections might be considered at that stage, but he (Sir John Trollope) thought the sense of the House ought to be taken upon the second reading of a measure which involved a principle of so much importance. This Bill, he must observe, entirely ignored the existence of a large and expensive administrative department—the Charity Commissioners, who cost the country something like £16,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman, however, proposed to incorporate the trustees of these charities, and to establish a new and most expensive Board, consisting of a Registrar General, a Deputy Registrar, and a staff of clerks who must, of course, be provided with the necessary offices and fire-proof buildings. He (Sir John Trollope) thought the establishment of such a department was most objectionable. He thought very little credit could be taken for saving in respect of this measure, for it appeared to him that as fees would still be payable under the Bill, it was a mere question of balance. The constant enrolment of trustees would often give rise to ill-will, while the fees paid on the enrolment would be too small to have any great influence on the working of the Bill. The promoters of the Bill seemed to have overlooked the fact, that when trustees became incapacitated for acting, the representative of the survivor had the opportunity of creating a new body of trustees by feoffment and enrolment in the Court of Chancery at a very trifling expense. He thought that Her Majesty's Government ought to say whether they approved of the creation of a new Board, though, as he considered, the number of Boards already in existence a great evil, and was, moreover, opposed to the patronage which would be created by the Bill: he should move that it be read a second time that day three months.

said, he thought the objection urged against this measure to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardcastle) who moved it, had referred, was one of great weight,—namely, that by incorporating these small trusts they would go far to destroy the responsibility of individual trustees, and to diminish their interest in the proper administration of the funds under their control. The hon. Gentleman proposed to bring forward in Committee an Amendment to meet this objection; but the principle of the Bill was the incorporation of trustees, and if the hon. Gentleman abandoned that principle he must be prepared to give up the whole Bill. He (Mr. Massey) thought that at this period of the Session, and considering the importance of the subjects yet to be discussed, the House ought not to be called upon to waste its time by considering the minutiœ of this Bill, in Committee. But passing over this objection he could see no necessity for the incorporation of these small trusts. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hard-castle) said his object was to prevent these trusts from expiring, and fancied he achieved that object by converting the trustees into corporations. The hon. Gentleman had, he supposed, heard the legal maxim that a corporation never died. That was true enough in theory, but there must be some practical provision for keeping up its perpetual succession. Now he (Mr. Massey) saw no provision in the Bill which would secure to the newly-constituted corporations that vitality which the hon. Gentleman wished to attach to them. Then again, the hon. Gentleman proposed, by the payment of a small fee of 10s. on the appointment of each new trustee, to raise a fund which he hoped would defray the cost of the machinery necessary for carrying out the objects of his Bill; but he (Mr. Massey) contended that such a system of petty fees would be altogether inadequate for that purpose, and that the result would be that the Consolidated Fund, already over burdened, would have eventually to bear the cost. He denied, too, that Parliament had been negligent of the interests of those charitable bodies. A few years ago this subject was deliberately discussed in I all its parts in that House, and the result was an Act of Parliament embodying the Charitable Trusts Commission. That Act had only been in operation a few years, but he was not aware that the expectations of those who framed it had been disappointed. The application of that Act was especially directed to those obscure and small trusts which had escaped public observation and run a risk of falling into desuetude, and very minute provisions were made for their government while it provided a very summary process by which a trustee might be discharged of his office. He would therefore ask if it was reasonable to substitute for the action of so simple, easy, and intelligible a system as that, a Government Board with such complicated machinery? He might also mention that a Bill had passed this House and had been referred to a Committee in another place, which partly dealt with the alleged grievance, and they might well wait till that Bill was disposed of. For the reasons he had stated he would support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Trollope).

said, he rose to move that the order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged, and in doing so he thought it only just to say that an hon. Friend of his, no longer a Member of that House, but who recently sat for the county of Mayo, had done everything in his power to bring forward this question at an early period of the Session in order to have it considered by the House, but that he had been unsuccessful in the ballot. He (Mr. Maguire) himself and many other Irish Members with whom he acted were deeply interested in the success of the Bill, but they thought that there was no advantage to be gained by a protracted discussion at the present moment. A deputation had waited on the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord's reply, though not so satisfactory to his hon. Friends as they might have hoped, was yet such that they felt they should best serve the interests of the cause by withdrawing the Bill. He firmly believed that this question could only be settled by the Government, and that no private Member, whatever his influence or his following might be, could deal with it so as to bring it to a final and successful issue. He contended that it was the duty of the Government to bring a question of this great importance forward, and not allow the hopes of the Irish people to be tantalized and disappointed year after year. He would respectfully appeal to the Secretary for Ireland to take up the subject. That right hon. Gentleman had a prosperous and happy tenantry, and from what he (Mr. Maguire) knew of him, he could say that his dealings with them were fair and equitable; but, the right hon. Gentleman knew, that there were many landlords in Ireland who did not act with equal fairness towards their tenants, and who were animated, besides, with the insane desire of taking the lands out of their hands and sending them abroad in the world. That was a course of dealing fatal to the prospects of Ireland, and detrimental to the stability of the whole empire. According to the census of 1851, there were 6,552,000 human beings in Ireland; now there were not 6,000,000, and in two or three years hence they might be further reduced by another million. That did not augur well for the strength of the country. In 1854 the Government were driven to such straits to get recruits that they sought them among the people of a friendly State, and were involved in some altercations (not to our credit) with America, for the sake of a miserable squad of thirty Germans. Now, from Ireland, our army could always be recruited, for the martial spirit of the Irish eminently fitted them for soldiers. Was it wise, then, looking to the present state of India, and the constant drain of troops, by an act of impolicy to drive the people from the country, and so wither the right arm which was ready to save her in the hour of danger. He would earnestly call on the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, to take this matter into his serious consideration during the recess, and to place a Bill on the table next Session, which, after full discussion by the House, might be passed for the great benefit of the people of Ireland.

said, that having, with many other hon. Members for Ireland, been returned upon the express understanding that he would support this much-required measure, it was necessary that he should state that he concurred in the reasons given as to why it would be useless to attempt to carry it this Session. At the same time he said it was more called for at the present moment than at any other time. It was a truism that the great strength of England lay in her manufactures, but those manufactures could not be carried on in the face of a competition with the whole world without cheap labour, and if the supply of labour went on decreasing as it had done for some years past in Ireland, our manufacturers would find themselves driven out of more markets than they had already been by the competition with which they had to contend. The population of Ireland according to the census of 1851, was 6,552,285, and down to the present year it had been reduced by 754,334. If that had been the case in the years immediately preceding 1851 his argument would have gone for nothing, but the decrease had taken place in years of undoubted prosperity in Ireland, and especially agricultural prosperity; and what were they to expect if the present system of emigration from Ireland was allowed to go on? It was true that of late there had been a general decrease of crime among the Irish people, and in some districts it had disappeared altogether; but if a question of this kind was allowed to remain from year to year unsettled, the bad feelings of the people, which were sleeping but not dead, might be roused at any moment under a bad harvest or the pressure of some other form of distress. A large majority of the Irish Members had been returned on the solemn pledge to their constituents that they would support a measure of this kind, and he called upon the Government to give them, at the beginning of the next Session, a practical opportunity of fulfilling that pledge.

said, that nothing would have induced him to consent to the withdrawal of this Bill but the absolute certainty that it could not pass in the present state of public business. So urgently was the measure required that he sincerely hoped the Government would take it up next Session, and that hon. Members on all sides would agree to pass a measure which might well be termed one of justice to Ireland, for until this grievance was removed he did not think the people of that country could go forward in the cause of prosperity now opening to them. Large and valuable properties were now held on the mere sufference of the landlord, and the interest of parties was absolutely sacrificed. He said this in relation to reclaimed land, which had been put, as it were, out of the pale of the law. It was desirable that the question should be settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and, when the matter was brought forward again, he hoped the Government would defer considerably to the feelings and wishes of the Irish people and of their representatives in that House.

said, the character of the deputation, which recently waited upon the First Lord of the Treasury on this subject, was such that it could no longer be said that among the advocates of tenant right there were to be found few persons possessing a large stake in Ireland. He hoped the Secretary for Ireland would find it convenient to make some statement as to the future intentions of the Government in reference to this matter. He would say, but in no threatening spirit, that so long as this question remained unsettled, so long would it be a source of agitation in Ireland; and the Irish Members had the example of the House of Commons to justify them in resorting to agitation in carrying such a measure.

said, he could confirm the opinion which prevailed in Ireland that the only way of bringing this question to a satisfactory conclusion was by its being taken up and dealt with by the Government of the day, and that it would never be advanced one step so long as it was pressed upon the House by any private Member, whatever might be his weight or the number of his followers. When the deputation waited upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government there was no dissenting voice among the hon. Gentlemen composing it with respect to the principle of the Bill brought in by Mr. Moore; and, though there were some observations made at the interview in which he (Mr. Hatchell) could not concur, the principle of affording some certainty of tenure to the occupier of the soil, and some security with regard to improvements, was recognised and adopted by every one present. When that was the state of feeling on the subject among the Irish Members, and when the large number of petitions on the table of the House showed that, they were supported by the nation, he could not understand why the government should hesitate to bring forward a measure based on that principle.

said, he must decline to give any distinct pledge on the part of the Government. The former discussion on this subject showed how difficult it was of settlement. He would recommend Irish Members to be moderate in their demands on behalf of the tenants, and if any Bill were brought forward next Session, he could assure them that the Government would give that serious consideration to the subject which its importance required.

said, this was the only subject which the Government had not promised to consider during the recess, and upon which the Government had not promised to bring forward a Bill next Session. He inferred that they had no intention to bring forward any measure at all, and it was admitted that it was impossible for a private Member to introduce a measure with any chance of success. He hoped Irish Members, in the present prosperous and tranquil state of that country, would seriously consider whether they might not be mistaken in some of the principles upon which they had attempted to legislate, and abandon a cause which, by the concurrent testimony of the Government and of those who advocated it, was utterly hopeless.

proposed a Clause to prevent removal of bodies from burialgrounds, save under faculty, without the order of the Secretary of State.

said, he rose to propose a clause to settle the difficulties which had arisen as to the consecration of burial-grounds, with reference to the separation of consecrated from unconsecrated ground. In most cases the matter had been amicably settled, but in two or three instances bishops had exacted conditions not required by the majority of the episcopal bench. In one instance there was a case pending in a court of law upon the subject, the right rev. Prelate requiring a very marked, visible, and substantial separation between the portions of the ground allotted to churchmen and dissenters. Nor was this a singular case of the kind; for in another case the demand of the bishop was not only unreasonable, but utterly illegal, and the right rev. Prelate actually refused to obey the law, requiring a condition for consecration which the law did not authorise him to demand, viz. that a conveyance to and fro should be provided for the officiating clergyman. The result was that persons were obliged to bury relatives in unconsecrated ground. The Government had been pressed to make a provision against the recurrence of these difficulties. No doubt this was treading on delicate ground; but, on the whole, he thought the interference proposed was reasonable, because rendered necessary by the refusal of some of the bishops to obey the law. The Burial Acts to a great degree threw on the Burial Board the duty of superintending the preparation of burial-grounds; and the grievance was, that members of the Church of England were prevented by those difficulties from availing themselves of the right of burial in consecrated ground, to which by law they were entitled. Certainly there had not been many cases, but there had arisen one or two instances of difficulty: it would form an inconvenience for which it was necessary to provide a legislative remedy; and the clause proposed provided that when the Secretary of State had approved of a burial-ground, the incumbent of the parish or his curate might bury in it before consecration, without being liable to spiritual censures. The clause had been submitted to very high ecclesiastical authority, and had been approved of.

Clause (In any Burial Ground provided under the powers of the Acts hereinbefore recited, or this Act respecting which one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State shall have certified that the necessary provisions have been complied with, it shall be lawful for the incumbent of such parish, or his curate, or such duly qualified person as such incumbent may authorise, to bury in such Burial Ground).

appealed to the hon. Gentleman not to press a clause which was open to the gravest objections. The hon. Gentleman had admitted that; the clause was of an extraordinary character and required an extraordinary justification. The hon. Gentleman, however, had mentioned only two cases, admitting that in almost every instance the difficulties had been adjusted by the good sense of the parties. The case in which the bishop had appeared unreasonable with respect to the character of the separation was before the Courts of law, and if the Courts of law could not deal with it efficiently the Government would have no difficulty in framing a provision by which the controversy might be brought to a conclusion. He granted that it was a serious matter, where the bishop was determined to disobey the law, and refused to consecrate until provision was made for carrying the incumbent to and fro between his residence and the burial-ground; but, although bishops were very high personages, they were under statutory obligations, and those obligations might be enforced. This clause did a great deal too much, and a great deal too little. It did too little, because it did not provide a remedy for the grievance of which complaint was made. The grievance was, that members of the Church could not obtain burial in consecrated ground, while the clause would merely enable the incumbent to bury them in unconsecrated ground. Besides, the incumbent, notwithstanding that the clause permitted him, might decline to bury in unconsecrated ground, and the bodies of members of the Church of England would remain unburied, or be buried in the same defective manner as at present. It did too much, because it abolished the whole force and effect of the Act of Uniformity, upon which our ecclesiastical system was based. The incumbent, who could not now officiate in unconsecrated ground, might officiate or not as he pleased. The bishop could not proceed against him. He would be removed from the operation of the ecclesiastical law, and might bury with the English office, or with extempore prayers, or with the rite of the Roman Catholic church. It would be placing in the hands of the clergy the power to create anarchy, so far as the rite of burial was concerned, simply because a particular bishop had refused to do his duty, and had made a demand which was unreasonable and absurd. Some other bishop might make unreasonable demands with regard to the office of baptism, and by virtue of this precedent a clause might be passed allowing the clergy to baptize as they pleased. The passing such a clause would have the effect of emancipating, if it might be so called, the clergy from canonical obedience and from the observance of the Act of Uniformity. The prelate who had made the demand for the conveyance of incumbents was known for his high character, his talents, and his experience, and if a little time were given for consideration, no doubt the dispute would be brought to an amicable settlement. He could not admit that a case for legislation of some kind might have arisen; but if it had, the remedy proposed was ineffective on the one hand and objectionable on the other. There was one other point to which he wished to advert before he sat down. Not very long ago a memorial or petition was presented in another place from 3,000 or 4,000 clergymen, complaining of the hardship of being compelled to read the burial-service over persons who had not led a Christian life or died a Christian death. It was admitted that there was some hard-ship in the compulsion, but it was thought unadvisable to give the clergy the uncontrolled discretion whether they would perform the burial-service or not, according to their own standard of sanctity in life or rectitude in doctrine. This clause would introduce a system in which it would be open to the incumbent to stand at the gate of the burial-ground, to call upon the persons who brought the body to be buried to testify to the life, opinions, and belief of the deceased, and then to make his decision whether he would bury or not. He was quite sure the clause was introduced with motives and purposes entirely different, and that it was never intended to raise the difficulties to which he had referred.

said, that the refusal of the bishop alluded to had taken place in the district which he had the honour to represent. Time for consideration had been given to the right reverend Prelate in question, but there was no prospect of an amicable settlement. The ground was about a mile from the town on one side, while the incumbent had built for himself a house about two miles distant on the other. Under these circumstances the bishop refused to consecrate, unless a conveyance to and fro for the incumbent was provided. The State arbitrarily forbad the use of the old burial-grounds, and when the parishioners bought a new one the bishop refused to consecrate unless an arbitary requirement was complied with. The case therefore stood thus:—The rich were compelled to bury their relatives at a distance, in outlying districts, and the poor to go to the cemetery, a dissenting minister reading the service over the body. That was a practical difficulty, and, in his opinion, was practically dealt with by the clause proposed. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had suggested a much stronger remedy, but was willing to accept the one proposed by the Government.

said, he had no doubt of the excellent motives which had suggested the clause, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary would seriously consider the objections made to it, as it would be unwise on account of a particular grievance to legislate in a manner that would lead to still greater inconveniences. The provision would be ineffectual for the purpose for which it had been framed, as it did not at all apply to the consecration of burial-grounds. Both the cases put were infractions of the law; but he could not believe that it was necessary to legislate at all, for he thought that, upon being made acquainted with what had passed during the present discussion, the right rev. Prelate who had been referred to would see that he had been acting against the law, and the state of matters which was now complained of would not long continue. If even the grievance were not terminated, a proper remedy should be applied, not in the indirect manner proposed by the clause, but by giving greater facilities for enforcement of the law. The clause, if passed, would, if compulsory, place incumbents in the position of failing in their canonical obedience, and, if permissive only, it would place it in the power of an individual clergyman to exercise his own discretion as to the burial of any of his parishioners. He hoped the clause would not be pressed, but that the interval between this and the next Session of Parliament would be employed to remove the grievance which it was intended to remedy.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State would persevere with the clause. The demands of right rev. Prelates had grown to such a height as to become positive scandals. It was strange that whenever any measure of liberality was proposed the friends of the Church declared it was dangerous to the safety of that institution. He belonged to a Church which was never in danger; but no concession for the sake of producing harmony in the community could ever be suggested without exciting this cuckoo cry that the Church of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was in danger. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a grievance which had been complained of in the Church for centuries, against which 3,000 of its ministers had protested—that of requiring the stereo-typed burial-service to be read over every man, no matter what his life had been or what his death, thus compelling clergymen to be the propagators of falsehood and deceit. The bishops would reform themselves just so far as the House would compel them to do so and no more, and he welcomed this clause as the beginning of a system of check upon them which he hoped would be carried further.

remarked that he thought the clause was inadequate to the evil complained of, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.

said, he also would recommend the withdrawal of the clause, and recommended the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) to speak with a little more charity of the acts of ministers of a Church to which he did not belong. The reading of the burial-service over the body of a person of bad reputation was not, as the hon. Member described it, a falsehood, but was simply the expression of a hope that the Almighty would pardon the sins which the deceased had committed in this world. With regard to the difficulties which had been experienced in the division of burial-grounds, he thought it would be much easier to define a certain portion of ground fur consecration than to permit a judicial discretion to individual clergymen.

said, he should support the clause, but wished, as a Dissenter, to protest against the tone in which the lion. Member for Sheffield had spoken of right rev. Prelates whose opinions, however different to his own, he could not doubt were sincere and conscientious. He hoped the clause would be adopted, as it was only permissive, and would, lie believed, lead to the restoration of a good understanding between the parties in the case that had been referred to.

said, it was precisely the permissive character of the clause that he objected to, because it would be conferring upon individual clergymen the power of deciding upon the character of those whom they were called upon to bury. Those clergy who felt their canonical obedience most strongly, would not avail themselves of the clause; those who did not so feel the canonical obedience would avail themselves of it, and the Church would be divided into two parties, of which those who felt their canonical obedience most strongly, would be the most unpopular. The unpopular man would lose his fees, and thus the conscientious man would suffer, while the less unselfish clergy, man would get the benefit of them. The difficulty could be more simply met than by such a clause as the present, involving as it did such great consequences, and introduced at the end of a Session, and in a thin House, when it could not be fairly discussed. It would be far better to wait till the Swansea case was decided, than to give a fluctuating power to persons varying in their opinions and talents so much as did the clergy of the Church of England. The difficulty of the enclosure, which had already been before a Committee in another place, might be met by the purchase of a railing at an almost infinitessimal price. This was the common-sense view of the question. The Swansea difficulty was a quarrel arising from the hot blood of both parties, which might soon be remedied by proper interposition.

said, that he was glad that no charge of rashness had been brought against him for proposing this clause; but on the contrary the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the facts on which he founded the clause. The fact was that in two instances, in consequence of errors of judgment on the part of right rev. Prelates, the inhabitants of certain parishes were deprived of their common-law right to be buried in consecrated ground. Surely it could not be said that Parliament was powerless to meet that evil. The objection to the clause was, first, that it did not meet the evil; and secondly, that it was of so anomalous a character as to break down ecclesiastical barriers in such a way, that no one knew what mischief would ensue. As to the first, he had said, that he hoped that the sense of Parliament being communicated to the right reverend Prelates, would be sufficient to check the scandal—for scandal it was—and to stop the evil; in its birth. He was happy to say that in most cases the proposals of the Burial Board had been met by the bishops in a conciliatory spirit; but this was not always the case, and the question was whether there was sufficient ground for legislative interference. If they thought that they could do without it, let them adopt other means; but, for himself, he thought the exigency sufficiently grave to warrant their acceding to this moderate proposition. It was true that it was not altogether an adequate remedy, but he trusted that it would be enough to work upon the good feelings of those right reverend Prelates now disposed to question the law, so as to put a stop to these unseemly disputes. It was true, that incumbents might refuse to avail themselves of these provisions; but if that happened, or if the episcopal authorities evinced a determination to throw difficulties in the way of carrying out the law, then it would be time hereafter to ask the House for more stringent powers. The course that was proposed of granting permissive powers to clergymen was not unknown, for it was only in the last Session that an Act was passed permitting the celebration of Divine Service in unconsecrated edifices. He might fairly shelter himself under that Act, when he was accused of producing a measure which would subvert the laws of the Church, and introduce a flood of evils of an unknown character.

said, that there was a common-law right to call upon a clergyman to bury, which he feared the clause was calculated to take away. He also objected to the clause for the reasons which had been so ably stated by the right hon. Member for the Oxford University. He was afraid that it would open a wide door to the introduction of forms and ceremonies of an objectionable, and it might be ridiculous character. He would suggest that the clause should be withdrawn, believing that, after what had passed, those right rev. Prelates, to whom such frequent reference had been made, would see the necessity of bowing to the opinion of Parliament.

said, that the present state of uncertainty as to the law, had given rise to serious differences in the county he represented, and on that ground, as well as on the more general grounds, he objected to postpone legislation on this subject. He also wished to call attention to the fact that the clause conferred objectionable powers upon the incumbent, while it gave no right to the parishioners. He did not believe, however, that many clergymen would avail themselves of the measure. He believed that the scruple of the Bishops referred to was untenable, although the matter admitted of a doubt. The Under Secretary, he thought, ought to have confined himself to a declaratory clause, setting forth that it should not be requisite to erect a fence between the consecrated and unconsecrated portions of burial-grounds. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn; if not, he would move that the Chairman report progress in order that the Government might have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter.

said, he must describe this as a most shabby Motion. The clause, he said, had been much discussed, and he hoped the Committee would come to a decision upon it.

said, he would withdraw his Motion, seeing that the feeling of the Committee was against it.

remarked, that one party had been left entirely out of view in the discussion which had taken place—namely, the members of the Church. The clause contained no provision securing to them what they required—consecrated ground; but he hoped that when a burial-ground was certified to be in a certain condition means would be provided for compelling the bishop to consecrate it. As the clause stood it seemed to him that, because the captain refused to do what they wanted, they were going to set his soldiers against him, and so bring about a state of anarchy. He trusted that the clause would be withdrawn with a view to the introduction of another, defining what a burial-ground should be, and compelling the bishop to consecrate it. Under the present clause it would be in the power of an incumbent to go into the unconsecrated portion of a burial-ground even when a consecrated portion existed.

said, he would move the insertion of words compelling the bishop to consecrate any burial-ground respecting which one of the Secretaries of State had certified that the necessary provisions had been complied with.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, as opposed to the spirit of the clause. It was an exaltation of legal over ecclesiastical authority to which he could not give his consent.

said, he supposed that the intention of the hon. Gentleman was simply to authorize a clergyman to bury in unconsecrated ground, but he believed that this clause would go much further—it would, in fact, exempt incumbents of parishes quoad the burial-office used in unconsecrated ground from all the restraints of ecclesiastical law. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he meant to introduce a proviso to the effect that clergymen officiating in unconsecrated ground should remain subject to the law of the Church with respect to the burial-service?

replied, that in his opinion it would be extremely injudicious, to use no stronger word—to prescribe what burial-service an incumbent should use in the event of his availing himself of the clause. He took it for granted that the officiating clergyman would use the burial-service of the Church.

observed, that the Committee were at length getting a little light upon this matter. He did not think they knew before that it was intended to give the clergyman an option, not only as to burial in unconsecrated ground, but as to the nature of the service he was to use. If it pleased him to follow the usage of the Dissenters or of the Roman Catholic Church, he would be able to do so, pleading the authority of an Act of Parliament.

said, that after the statement of the Under Secretary, he saw nothing to prevent a clergyman from getting possession of a plot of ground, having it certified, and then officiating at burials either without any habiliments at all, or tricked out with excessive, and perhaps ridiculous, pomp. Such a man, indeed, if he were of an energetic and original turn of mind, might found a sepulchral seat of his own.

was understood to give notice that on a future occasion he would propose the insertion of words restricting the clergyman to the use of the burial-office of the Church.

intimated that upon the bringing up of the Report he would move either Amendments upon the clause, or its rejection altogether.

said, he should now propose a new clause to the effect that the unconsecrated part of any burial-ground which shall have been sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and respecting which the Secretary of State shall have certified that the necessary provisions have been complied with, shall immediately, upon being so certified, be deemed a part of the burial-ground of the parish or parishes for which the same has been provided.

said, he considered the clause unnecessary, its object was secured by the existing law.

said, he begged to move to insert the following clause:—

"That it shall not be lawful for any bishop, previous to or as a condition for consecration, to require the production of, or to examine into, the title deeds concerning the purchase and conveyance of any burial-ground; nor shall any sum exceeding the sum of,£ be allowed in payment of the fees charged for the deed of consecration, and any other charges and expenses connected therewith."

The object of the clause was to remedy an inconvenience which had been most seriously felt in the diocese of Exeter, and to prevent the public from being any longer made the victims of bishop-made law.

observed that he thought the clause was quite out of place in such a Bill.

said, he also should oppose the clause. Nothing could be more reasonable than that a bishop should see the title deeds of any burial-ground he was called to consecrate; and with respect to the consecration fees, that was a question which could not be disposed of on an occasion like the present.