said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have arrived at any decision as to the utilization or disposal of the many millions' worth of unarmoured Screw Line-of-Battle Ships now unused?

said, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, he would answer the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There were certainly a considerable number of the ships to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred in our ports, but he was afraid the hon. and gallant Member had been greatly misinformed as to their saleable value when he spoke of their being worth millions. The fact was there was no market whatever for those ships, although there was a demand for them as guard, drill, and hospital ships. The subject was now under consideration by the Select Committee upstairs, und in all probability the evidence taken before the Committee would be placed in the hands of Members in a few days.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Clergy Act of British Guiana has been forwarded to this Country, for the purpose of receiving Her Majesty's Assent; and, if so, whether he will lay the same before Parliament?

said, that the Act to which the hon. Member referred had not yet been received in this country, although it was at the same time known that such an Act had been passed for the purpose of substituting a provision for the clergy of British Guiana upon the expiry of the present Act next December. The new Act would come into force in January next, and its object was to supply more largely funds for the maintenance of religion in British Guiana when the charge upon the Consolidated Fund of this country for that purpose should cease. The Act, so far from tending to disendow religion in that colony, would have the effect of largely increasing the religious endowments from local resources.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Spanish Authorities have arrived at any decision in the case of the "Tornado"; whether the owners of that ship have had the benefit of "a proper judicial investigation" and an appeal, as stipulated for in his Lordship's Despatches to Sir John Crampton of 25th and 30th of May, 1867; and, whether there would be any objection to produce all the Correspondence on this subject not yet laid before Parliament?

said, in reply, that he had received information that the Tornado had been condemned by the Prize Court at Cadiz, and he had heard a rumour that the decision had been confirmed by the Council of State, but he had received no official information on the latter point. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, he was waiting the Report of the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom the case had been referred, and until he received their Report it was impossible for him to say whether or not any irregularity had arisen in the proceedings. When he received that Report, it would be his duty to consider it, and he should then have no objection to lay upon the table all the Papers relating to the matter which had not reached his hands at the date of the last publication.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the slow and unsatisfactory promotion which takes place from the rank of Assistant Surgeon in the Army Medical Department; and, whether he is of opinion that measures should be taken to assimilate the system of promotion in that branch of the Service to that which exists in the Indian Medical Service, where it is obtained after a period of twelve years?

, in reply, said, he could not help taking exception, to the first portion of the hon. Member's Question. The hon. Gentleman could, he imagined, have scarcely been aware of the fact that last year no less than sixty-five Assistant Surgeons were promoted, while in no year during the ten preceding years had the average of promotions exceeded forty. Instead, therefore, of the promotion being "slow and unsatisfactory," it had never been more rapid or more satisfactory than it was at the present time. With reference to the latter portion of the hon. Member's Question, he might remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole of this subject was carefully considered by a Select Committee as lately as 1866, and under the circumstances he did not see that any measures such as those suggested by the hon. Gentleman were required.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Table of Fees to be taken on Consecrations and Ordinations under the Provisions of the Act 31 Vict. c. 135, has been submitted by the Archbishops to the Lords of the Treasury for their sanction?

replied that no such Table of Fees had as yet been presented to the Lords of the Treasury. Some months ago, when the hon. Gentleman made a similar inquiry, he had informed the hon. Gentleman, on the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that such a Table was in preparation. He had, however, received no further information, and, although he had sent a communication to the Archbishop, he did not anticipate an immediate answer on account of the absence from town and the indisposition of the most rev. Prelate.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been arrived at as to granting a Frontier Service Medal to the Punjab Irregular Forces and Regular Troops, European and Native, engaged in important expeditions for the defence of the North West Frontier against the Hill tribes of Afghanistan since the annexation of the Punjab to British India in 1849?

replied that the matter was not one in which the Secretary of State could take the initiative. He apprehended that any steps which might be taken in the matter must be taken by the Government of India. He had no reason for stating that a proposition on the subject would be made; but he thought it not improbable that there would be, and as he was disposed to give every encouragement to the system of granting Service Medals whenever it could properly he done, if any proposition of the kind should come before him in this case he would give it his favourable consideration.

said, he would beg to ask, Whether, considering that a Medal had been granted to the Troops serving in the New Zealand campaign, in 1863, it was intended to grant one to the Troops who served in the campaign of Umballah, where the loss in three months was greater than that which had occurred in three years in New Zealand?

said, in reply, that he must repeat that he could not officially take the initiative, but he would communicate privately with the Governor General on the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether considerable changes are not contemplated in the Circuits of the Judges for the Midland and Northern Districts; and whether Her Majesty's Government, in the event of any change, will consider the necessity of holding assizes at some convenient place within the Southern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire?

said, in reply, that he was not aware that any changes were contemplated, unless changes might be contemplated by the Judicial Commission now sitting. No steps in the matter would be taken by the Government without considering the Report of that Commission, which was now pursuing its inquiries.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to a Letter addressed by him to the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Surrey, dated the 21st instant, and relating to a complaint on the part of the Commanding Officer of the 7th Surrey Volunteers of conduct of Colonel Colville, one of the Inspecting Officers of Volunteers, Whether it is in accordance with the rules of the Service that an Inspecting Officer should make injurious comments as to the discipline of any one Regiment, in his official capacity, to another Regiment, and that, too, without notice or intimation to the Commanding Officer of the Regiment so spoken of?

Sir, in answering this Question, I cannot help saying that it is much to be regretted that the hon. Member in the shape of a Question has made what is, in effect, an ex parte statement; and not only an ex parte statement, but a statement in regard to a transaction still incomplete. The letter referred to in the beginning of the Question was one referring to complaints that had been made by the commanding officer of the 7th Surrey Volunteers with regard to the conduct of Colonel Colville. They were made in a very irregular manner, and the substance of my letter was to request that the Lord Lieutenant would call upon the commanding officer of the 7th Surrey Volunteers to make any complaints which he might choose to bring forward against Colonel Colville in a regular and proper manner. I have not yet received any answer to my recommendation. I have only to add that Colonel Colville entirely denies the imputations referred to in the latter part of the Question, and I am bound to say that Colonel Colville is one of the most able, valuable, and experienced of our inspecting officers.

attempted to offer some explanation, but was compelled to resume his seat amidst loud cries of "Order."

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the British Factory at St. Petersburg is a body officially recognized by the British Ambassador?

said, in reply, that the British factory was only a voluntary association of British merchants, nearly all of whom were, he believed, members of the Russia Company to which he had alluded on a former occasion. As such a voluntary association it was undoubtedly recognized. He was not aware that it enjoyed any peculiar rights or privileges. Any sums of money raised and administered by the society were, he believed, raised by the enterprize of the members of the factory themselves.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What obstacles now impede the establishment of Diplomatic Relations between this Country and the Republic of Mexico?

Sir, the relations at present existing between England and Mexico are not of a satisfactory character. We have no diplomatic intercourse with that Republic, and, consequently, we have no direct means of affording that protection which we should wish to give to British subjects resident in Mexico. But I wish to point out—though I think I stated it before in this House—that though this state of things is one which Her Majesty's Government regret, it is not directly or indirectly their doing. The fact is that the present Government of Mexico, acting, as I venture to think, not very wisely, but acting, no doubt, within their right, chose to consider the recognition by England of the Mexican Empire an act of hostility against the Mexican Republic, which, they contend, was the only legitimate Government ever in existence in that country, though, of course, during the time when the Empire of Mexico was de facto established, it must necessarily have been in abeyance. They therefore upon this ground thought fit to break off diplomatic relations with this country. We cannot deny their right to do that. Neither do I think it would be—I will not say suitable to the dignity, but consistent with the self-respect of this country, they having taken that step, that we should ask them to re-consider it, and admit us again to friendly intercourse. All I can say is, that whenever they may think it right to take what I will venture to call a more rational view, and show a wish to make up this difference, they will not find any difficulty in the way of a reconciliation on our part. But I think the House will agree with me that the first overtures ought to come from them, and not from us.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is now in possession of any information respecting the circumstances under which Mr. Castle, of Melton Mowbray, was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour for nonpayment of costs?

Sir, I have received some information on the subject, from which it appears that Mr. Castle had taken proceedings against a man for using threatening and abusive language. The summons was dismissed, and Mr. Castle was ordered to pay the costs, or to be imprisoned with hard labour. I may mention that the Act, commonly known as Jervis's Act, gives the magistrate discretionary power to impose imprisonment with or without hard labour. Mr. Castle, it further appears, has been several times imprisoned for non-payment of costs, or things of that sort. On this occasion, however, somebody, to prevent his going to prison, came forward and paid the costs for him, and therefore he was not imprisoned at all, nor was he put to the slightest inconvenience, though he protested loudly against the interference of his friends, and professed himself very desirous of undergoing imprisonment.

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Treasury have yet decided between the Admiralty and the War Office, as to the proposal to purchase land and erect storehouses for the latter Department at Woolwich, while accommodation for that purpose can be obtained at comparatively small cost in the naval property at Deptford?

said, in reply, that the question was not yet decided, and up to the present time the Treasury had taken no part in the discussion. The Admiralty had offered to the War Office a spot in Deptford Dockyard; it, however, was not deemed so suitable for the purpose as the spot that had been originally applied for. It was now proposed that a joint Committee of the Admiralty, War Office, and Treasury would consider the matter, and he had no doubt that in this way a satisfactory arrangement would be arrived at, and that ground for military storehouses would be provided at Deptford Dockyard.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the 92d Regiment has reported favourably of Colonel Carter's Knapsack, and preferred it, after a careful trial, to the plan of equipment invented and put forward by a Committee sitting at the War Office; whether the Officer commanding the Brigade of Guards has applied to the Horse Guards, consequent upon a limited trial, to have a further and more extended trial of Colonel Carter's equipment, and the nature of the reply given to his application; and, whether the Secretary of State for War will direct that Colonel Carter's equipment, now excluded from trial, be fairly tried, in competition or otherwise, before any new equipment is finally decided upon for the Army?

Sir, I am extremely glad to have this opportunity of stating that there is not the least disposition on the part of the authorities either at the Horse Guards or the War Office to deprive the army of whatever knapsack may turn out to be the best and the most convenient. It is quite true that the 92d Regiment has reported favourably of the trials they have made of Colonel Carter's knapsack, and it is intended that the trial shall be extended to the other Highland regiments, as it appears that Colonel Carter's knapsack is better adapted for the uniform and equipments of the Highland regiments than for the army generally. It is also true that the officer commanding the Brigade of Guards has applied to the Horse Guards to have a further and more extended trial of Colonel Carter's knapsack. This, however, was before a trial had been made of the knapsack invented by a Committee appointed for the purpose. The latter, as far as it has been tried, has given great satisfaction. There is no objection whatever to a further trial of Colonel Carter's knapsack being made, if it be thought desirable, as the sole wish of the authorities is to obtain the best and most convenient knapsack for the army.

I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the Secretary of State for War respecting a statement which appears in the evening papers. It is stated that on Wednesday last, during the great heat of that tropical day, a flying column was sent out from Aldershot, that nine of the men forming part of it experienced sunstrokes, and that eighty-seven of the men had to be sent to hospital. I want to know, Whether there is any truth in that report, and if there is, whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken any steps—which he usually does in the case of flagrant outrages of this sort—to prevent troops being sent out in flying columns in the heat of the day?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, I wish to say that I have been informed that when the flying column arrived at Sandhurst there was no provision whatever to give them shelter from the intense heat of the sun. A friend of mine was present, and he states that the troops were completely exhausted when they marched on to the ground at Sandhurst, and that there was no shelter or shade of any sort provided for them; there were no tents, nor were they taken into a neighbouring wood where shade might have been obtained.

Sir, I have had no information on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The House, therefore, will not expect me to answer the Question now. If the hon. Member will repeat it to-morrow, I shall by that time be adequately informed of the circumstances, and will give him an answer.

said, he wished to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is true that a severe attack of Smallpox has broken out among the sheep in Schleswig-Holstein; and if so, whether it is proposed to take steps to prevent the importation of sheep from that country?

replied that official information had been received of an outbreak of smallpox in sheep in Schleswig-Holstein, whence we were re- ceiving upwards of 2,000 sheep per week. An Order of Her Majesty in Council might prohibit the importation from that country, but it was feared that the sheep would still come through some of the Dutch or Belgian ports. Extra inspection had, however, been ordered, but as the disease had a period of incubation of eight days, during which it was impossible to detect that the animals were infected, this did not appear to be any security against diseased animals getting into the country. A quarantine of ton days offered more security, but it must be general, and this would be hard on importers of healthy sheep from uninfected parts of the country. The Privy Council were carefully watching the matter in order to take immediate steps to check the importation of the disease should it appear to warrant severe measures.

, who had given Notice to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the great public services of Lord Brougham, it is the intention of the Government to propose the erection of a monument to his memory, in Westminster Abbey? said: I feel, Sir, so great an interest in the Question that I am about to put to the Government, that I do not wish it to be put with the usual dry formality, and I will therefore conclude with a Motion, though I promise the House not to avail myself of the privilege which I shall thus obtain by indulging in any very large number of words. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, there ought not to be erected a monument to the memory of the late Lord Brougham, expressive of the admiration in which that great man was regarded by the country? I make this Motion for two purposes—one because, from my very intimate relations with that noble Lord, I have felt the greatest regard and veneration for his memory, and I therefore trust that the House will permit me to express my own feelings on the matter, and the other because it will give the right hon. Gentleman in his reply—supporting as I hope he will the proposal that I make—an opportunity of expressing in a few apt and eloquent sentences, such as he always has at his command, his own feelings with regard to that noble Lord. I have waited long—I cannot say that I have waited patiently—in the hops that some one more competent to perform this task—for I am fully sensible of my own inadequacy—would undertake the duty. But, Sir, no one has come forward for that purpose. The Session approaches its end, and I feel myself obliged to ask the Question of which I have given Notice, and in a few feeble words to express my own convictions with regard to this subject. The character of Lord Brougham's mind was one of vast extent and great perspicuity. He was not merely a philosopher, but a philosopher whose power of teaching was unexampled by any man of his time. He was not merely a philosopher, for as au orator he was able to guide, instruct, and I fear very often to frighten one of the first legislative bodies that now exists upon the face of the earth. And it should be recollected that those great powers of Lord Brougham's mind were always exercised for the good of mankind. It was not merely a personal object that he had in view. I have no doubt that, as is the case with every man, he had personal objects, but whatever powers he enjoyed were devoted to the benefit of mankind. It should also be remembered that when he began his career it was not so easy a task to be the friend of the people as it is now, when that character is frequently assumed as a road to wealth and popularity. At that time he who would be a friend of the people had before him a thorny path. It was Lord Brougham's lot to have frequently to contend with foes of vast power and great influence in this country, and he ran great risk, I do not mean bodily risk, but personal risk, in undertaking the cause for which he so gallantly contended. No matter in what clime oppression appeared Lord Brougham was always to be found on the side of the oppressed. Who will forget what he did on behalf of the African slave r He lent his great powers—not alone, but in companionship with other great men—to strike off the chains from the African slave; and ignorance in every part of the world, and more particularly in his own country, found in him an ever ready and unceasing opponent. There was no man who understood so completely as he did the instruction of the people. He stood alone—he towered above all the statesmen of his time—in his appreciation of the danger arising from popular ignorance, and he did all in his power to do away with that ignorance, and to support in every shape the principles of civil and religious liberty. Every person who could justly feel himself aggrieved knew that he would find in Lord Brougham, in Mr. Brougham, in Henry Brougham, a friend full of counsel and sympathy. I will conclude my observations by remarking that he was a wise, a great, and a good man, that he was one of England's greatest sons, and I think it is the duty of our country to pay that tribute to his memory for which I now ask, to show how greatly he was honoured and admired by his country.

I cannot help, Sir, expressing my opinion that in all countries the circumstances attending the funeral of the late Lord Brougham were regarded with regret, and something like humiliation. He who was the greatest man of his time as an orator, and in the extent of his knowledge and Parliamentary services, now lies buried in a foreign land, among strangers, while to men far inferior to Lord Brougham the honour of a monument in Westminster Abbey has been accorded. There is a great delicacy, I know, in interfering with the expressed wishes of one who is dead, and I am told, with what truth I do not know, that Lord Brougham expressed a wish to be buried at Cannes. That wish, if it were expressed, arose probably from feelings of humility on the part of that distinguished man, and though we are accustomed always to respect the wishes of the dead, this is, I think, one of those occasions on which the performance of those wishes might be dispensed with. I think the feelings of the nation would be gratified by the remains of Henry Brougham being transferred to this country. His wishes have been complied with, for he has been buried at Cannes; but I trust, for the honour of this country, his remains may now be translated to Westminster Abbey.

No man, Sir, could, in my opinion, have given expression to remarks which would have been more acceptable to the late Lord Brougham had he now been alive than those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck); while none, perhaps, would have been more unacceptable to him than those which have fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer). I rise merely for the purpose of pointing out, though I should fully concur in voting any sum that might be necessary for the erection of such a monument as would form a fitting tribute of respect on the part of this House, that the country did not fail to recognize his great merits while he was living. One of the greatest marks of respect ever paid by the House of Commons to any public man in his lifetime was paid to Lord Brougham, the only other instance being, I believe, in the case of Lord Nelson. The patent of Lord Brougham's peerage was made out "for public services," and by the insertion of those words in the patent of his peerage he received a compliment which has, I believe, only been paid to himself and to Lord Nelson. No fees were demanded for that patent, the fees being paid by the country on account of his public services. The House ought to bear that in mind. The peerage was also granted on very unusual terms. I believe two elder brothers were passed over in favour of the present possessor of the title. I quite coincide in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, and I equally dissent from what has fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk. But I do trust that it will go forth to the country that the House showed in Lord Brougham's lifetime that they were not unmindful of his eminent and distinguished services.

I desire to say a word or two, Sir, in support of the Motion made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), not only on account of the strong personal regard which I entertained for Lord Brougham, but because I certainly believe that he was one of the most remarkable men that this country has produced. While enjoying intellectual powers of a most extraordinary character, few men were more tenderly alive to the feelings of humanity or more uncompromising in their attempts to put down oppression and its causes. He was, if I remember rightly, I almost the only one who, having fought side by side with Wilberforce with the greatest energy for the abolition of our slave trade with Africa, was able to take a prominent part in the efforts made for the abolition of slavery throughout the whole of the British dominions; and to the latest day of his life he employed his great powers for the abolition of slavery throughout the world. No doubt he had great faults, but he was cast in a gigantic mould, and all his characteristics, whether good or bad, were striking in the extreme. It will not, therefore, be to the credit of the House or the country if we do not make some very decided manifestation of the great esteem in which he has been held.

I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; (Mr. Roebuck) that it is desirable there should be some public recognition of the career and character of Lord Brougham, such as is indicated by the Question he has placed before the House, one which, through the influence of art, shall produce a lasting impression upon the public mind, and keep within its continual recollection the memory of the great deeds of a man who was, no doubt, one of the most considerable persons this country has ever produced. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, with the terseness of which he is a master, but with complete propriety, placed before the House a sketch of the career of Lord Brougham, and made it unnecessary for me to dilate upon it. It may be truly said of Lord Brougham that none more completely represented his age, and no one more contributed to the progress of the times in which he lived. He had two qualities, almost in excess, which are rarely combined in the same person; one was energy, and the other versatility. The influence which creative power gave him, combined with strength of character, alone sustained him in a career which for its duration, as well as for its dazzling feats, has rarely been equalled in this Empire. But, Sir, when I have to consider on the part of the Government how and by what means we can do honour to Lord Brougham's memory in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the country—whether by raising some monument or some statue to him—I am painfully impressed with the failure of most efforts of a similar nature that have been made to perpetuate the memory of great men. Her Majesty's Government are extremely anxious if possible to avoid adding to those unsatisfactory demonstrations of which we have already had too many instances. But this subject has not really been neglected by the Government, for at the time the hon. and learned Gentleman placed his Motion on the Paper—now some months ago—I mentioned the subject to my Colleagues and there was a unanimous feeling in favour of setting up some memorial of the kind referred to if it could be done in a satisfactory manner. I would at this moment also remind the House that another great man has this year left us, whose merits should be recognized in a manner such as the hon. and learned Gentleman has intimated. I refer to one of a very different character from Lord Brougham, but one of whom it may be said, without disparaging the high qualities of that remarkable statesman, that he was not inferior probably to any Englishman who ever lived, but that he towers among the statesmen and poets and orators who have graced our land. I mean Faraday, the greatest discoverer since Newton. There has been a very anxious wish expressed by men eminent in science that a statue should be raised to Faraday. I have had the honour of receiving a deputation on the subject, and her Majesty's Government entirely respond to the wish. But the same difficulty has been in our path in both instances, and the consequence has been that we have not made any proposition to the House on the subject. I do not, however, despair of being able to suggest a plan by which our common object can be satisfactorily accomplished. The subject, the House may rest assured, is not thrown aside by Her Majesty's Government, especially in the case which has been brought under our notice in so striking a manner by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We shall give particular attention to the matter, in the belief that we shall be performing only a public duty, and one of no mean character, if we can in a manner satisfactory to the taste and feelings of the country propose some arrangement which shall commemorate the form as well as the character and services of men so eminent as those to whom I have referred.

Sir, we must all feel indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) for having given Members of the House an opportunity of expressing the deep sympathy and admiration with which the House regards the career of Lord Brougham. Nothing could have been more becoming and appropriate than the observations of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck). I had the high honour of enjoying the friendship of Lord Brougham during many of the later years of his life, and I very cordially echo what has been said, better than I could say it, both of his public and his personal qualities. It may, perhaps, not readily have been inferred by those who knew Lord Brougham chiefly from the part he took in the most stormy debates of his times, that there was in him, as my hon. and learned Friend had said an overflowing affectionateness of character, I can testify that that is strictly true. That characteristic entered into beautiful combination with the strong, vigorous, masculine, and even ruder parts of his mental and political composition. Lord Brougham was eminently happy in the length and consistency of his career; in most of the great undertakings of his life he addressed himself to purposes in which his countrymen could not but recognize an ardent love of liberty, a determined hatred of corruption and abuse, and remarkable disinterestedness. It seemed as if a certain instinct led Lord Brougham continually to deviate from the path of mere party politics for the purpose of anticipating the wants of coming generations, and preparing the paths which after-coming men were to tread. The fame of Lord Brougham is a great and secure fame. It would be presumptuous in me to refer in detail to one point that has scarcely been mentioned; but I believe all those who take an interest in the improvement of the laws of this country will ever be glad to own the name of Lord Brougham as one among the earliest, most energetic, and most effective of all those who have laboured in that great and open field. With regard to the mode in which public feeling may be exhibited, I own to sharing the feeling expressed by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer); and probably the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) shares it also to this extent, that it is a matter for deep regret that this great and distinguished son of our country should not have his remains deposited among us. That I entirely concur in, and without inquiring into the causes of the misfortune, I would add it must also be a subject for regret that it is a matter which has passed beyond our cognizance. With respect to the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, I would not press upon him any proposition because, as with the prerogative of mercy so with the prerogative of honour, we, as independent Members, should put strong restraints upon our own feelings, and should not endeavour to anticipate or to direct the Advisers of the Crown regarding the bestowal of tributes of public honour. The right hon. Gentleman has adverted to a difficulty which stands in his way. Now, although I do not admit that all, at least, of the recent efforts of monumental art among us have been unsuccessful, because I could point to one or two erected within the last few years which have been eminently otherwise, yet no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has spoken with justice to the difficulty with which he labours when he desires to make sure the result for which he proposes to ask a grant of public money will be satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am afraid, have to take another point into consideration, and that is, the character in which a grant of public money is to be proposed for the monument of Lord Brougham. In the case of persons whose fame has been simply political every Member of this House must be aware that it has been our policy for a long time past to act with singular reserve; the cases are surprisingly few in which statesmen who have been only statesmen have had the honour of a public recognition in the form suggested for the honour of Lord Bougham. It is, however, for the Government, and the Government alone, to decide whether the fame and distinguished acts of Lord Brougham, though confined to statesmanship, may warrant them in making a proposal of that nature. The right hon. Gentleman has adverted to a very illustrious name in science—the late Professor Faraday—and, although we may not think of placing the name of Lord Brougham, in competition with that of Faraday, yet it will be right for him to consider whether the great efforts made by Lord Brougham and continued with almost superhuman energy down to almost the latest moments of his life for the public weal by means which, in many cases, were beyond the sphere of politics, do not enable the right hon. Gentleman to escape from the trammels of those precedents which impose very strict and narrow limitations with regard to the monuments of statesmen who are statesmen alone. I am sure the question will be carefully considered, and I have no doubt I shall be able cordially to concur in the proposal of the Government, whatever it may be; but in the meantime I express many thanks to my hon. and learned Friend for having offered me an occasion on which I can express my feelings regarding this most remarkable man—a man of whom I wish to take this opportunity of placing it upon record that, although he had lived a life not only of activity, but of contention, I, who knew him well, and knew him only during the years of his retirement, can scarcely ever recollect to have heard him mention any person, either friend or foe, except in terms either of admiration or kindness.

, in moving that the Order of the Day to go into Committee on this Bill be discharged, said, he had hoped up to a late period that the Bill might have been more fully discussed. He fully understood that it was to have been put down for Tuesday last, which would have given him an opportunity of carrying it through Committee; but by mistake another Bill was put down before it, and it did not conic on at all. He might have found a later day, but he had previously said that Tuesday was the last day he could bring it on; and the noble Lord the Member for Taunton (Lord William Hay) had left town on the understanding that the Order would be discharged. Apart from that, he doubted whether he should be justified in proceeding with the measure, seeing that several points of considerable importance remained to be discussed. He was not sorry, however, that he had brought forward the measure, as an opportunity had been afforded to the House of expressing a decided opinion upon two material points of the Bill with respect to the status of the present members of the Council. The House should understand that the Act of 1858 merely enacted that in the event of any change being made the; members of Council should not be entitled to compensation until they bad completed ten years of service, and therefore when the matter was re-opened next year the, only difference in the state of affairs would be that those members of Council who bad completed their tenth year of service during the present year would be entitled to compensation. He thought that the best plan would be when the Bills were introduced next year that they should be referred to a Select Committee. Under these circumstances he begged to move that the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon the Bill should be read and discharged.

said, he rose to move the addition of words providing that any inmate in a workhouse, above the age of twelve years, should have the right to refuse to be instructed by such minister, after having been once visited by him. He thought that paupers ought not to have forced upon them the ministrations of persons to whom they objected. He fixed the age at twelve years, because in two other clauses of the Bill the age was named as equivalent to years of discretion.

said, he would suggest to the hon. Member to insert fourteen instead of twelve in his Amendment, in accordance with the age prescribed in the Industrial Schools Act.

said, he was willing to insert "of fourteen," absolutely.

said, he considered it a farce to suppose that a child of twelve or fourteen years of age could form an opinion upon religion, unless it was influenced by some person who had the opportunity of speaking to it on the subject. He thought that some persons competent to examine the child should first say whether it was fit to decide for itself upon the point of religion.

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) whether he would have any objection to the children being examined by the Poor Law Inspectors before requiring them to declare what particular religion they professed?

said, that while he had no desire to proselytize, he was anxious to prevent any undue interference with the religion of the inmates of the workhouse.

said, he wanted the opinion of the House of Commons on this important question, but he could not hope to obtain it at that period of the Session, when the attendance of forty Members could scarcely he secured. This was not merely a question whether a young child should be the judge of his religion, but whether a person of any age, being an inmate of the workhouse, should be compelled to submit to the religious ministrations of any clergyman who might be forced upon him. The Bill required, in the first place, a Creed Register to be kept of every inmate; secondly, that such register might be inspected by the ministers of any religious denominations connected with the churches and chapels in the neighbourhood; thirdly, any such clergyman might, in accordance with the regulations of the workhouse, visit and instruct any inmate, whether he were seven or seventy years of age, whose name appeared on the register. And all this was done, forsooth, in the interests of religious liberty! He contended that it was an outrage upon the principles of religious liberty. And those who opposed such interference with the religion of those poor people were charged with intolerance and a determination to oppress their consciences. The noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward; Howard) had used many hard words respecting him on a previous occasion, because of the course he had pursued respecting the; Bill. But he (Mr. Chambers) had the testimony of a leader among the Roman Catholics of the House that he had not said one unkind word of any of his opponents. Now, he asked the Committee to say frankly, whether the Bill savoured of religions liberty or of religious coercion. He, for one, did not believe that any religious minister had a right to force his religious ministrations upon him, if he had the misfortune to become a pauper and to enter a workhouse. In opposing those provisions he felt that he was the friend of religious liberty. He would not allow any man to coerce even a criminal to submit to ministrations of religion which he did not desire. He believed that the law at present did all that was required, and that the alterations were not for religious liberty, but against it. They were conceived in the spirit of intolerance, and it was attempted to pass them at the fag-end of a Session when forty Members could not be kept together.

said, he thought there would be no objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) if it were coupled with the qualification that in the case of every such child the Poor Law Board should direct an inquiry to be made whether the child was competent to form an opinion on religious matters.

said, he would object to that qualification in the name of his constituents. They were already too much hindered with the control of the Poor Law Board. They were saddled with enormous taxation, and were left with no power but to carry out the decrees of the Board. It was not a case of opposition to Roman Catholics alone. They objected to the coercion of any class of people, of whatever religion.

said, he would remind the Committee that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) had stigmatized the objections to this Bill as hypocritical. He could assure the right hon. Member that he was lately in conversation with an eminent member of the Bar, not in that House, who would not believe it when he (Mr. Newdegate) told him that the substance of this Bill was that any person in a workhouse must—whether he liked it or not—receive the visits of a minister of religion. It was to-night admitted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) that this was the substance of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman approved of it.

said, he thought it would be decidedly wrong to intrust power to the local vestries, which had proved—as in the case of the St. George's Vestry, of which he was a member—that it was a power capable of being abused in their hands. The powers conferred by the Bill ought to be in the hands of the Poor Law Board.

said, this was not the first time that the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Rearden) had had the audacity to make a charge against St. George's Vestry, Hanover Square.

rose to Order, and called for the withdrawal of the word "audacity."

said, he would use the word boldness instead.

said, that was equally offensive. He must call on the hon. Gentleman to apologize. ["Order !"]

said, the hon. Member for Athlone had objected to a particular expression, which had been withdrawn.

said, that, as far as his personal experience of the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, enabled him to do so, he gave the most unqualified denial to the charges of proselytizing tendencies which had been made against that body. Any Roman Catholic child subject to their authority had ample opportunities of being visited by the minister of their own persuasion, and Roman Catholic adults were not only allowed to go out on Sundays, but also upon what the Roman Catholic Church considered to be holydays as well. He hoped that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would be accepted.

said, experience had shown, and that in the very case referred to, that it was ludicrous to suppose children of such a tender age could decide authoritatively as to their own religion. Before they were allowed to decide upon so serious a question there ought to be some inquiry into their mental condition, and as to whether anything in the nature of inducements or other influences of an organized system of proselytism bad been brought to bear. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would fix the age at fourteen, and allow somebody to examine the children.

said, he would resist any such inquiry if the child's age was to be fixed at fourteen years. At the same time it would be for the Committee first to vote upon the age of fourteen, and after that to say whether or not they would have an inquiry

said, the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) had given no reason whatever for objecting to an impartial inquiry by the Poor Law Board. Sic volo, sic jubeo was his tone. But were the Committee to be bound by it?

said, the Poor Law Board was not a competent or impartial tribunal. This was a Bill brought forward by the Poor Law Board in opposition to the wishes of every Board of Guardians in the country. Its object was to prevent as far as legislation could do it, the children of the poor from being brought up in what, at any rate, was a loyal religion, and to leave them by accident as it were, to become members of a religion which, as far as the teaching of its priesthood was concerned, was a religion of disloyalty and sedition, opposed to the historical spirit, and to every instinct of this country.

I call that an insult to my religion; and I call upon the hon. Member to apologize.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) has made use of some terms which are not very common in this House, and which are certainly calculated to give offence to a body of Members in this House.

said, he was always desirous of conforming to the opinion of the great majority of hon. Members, and although he felt that in doing so he was somewhat curtailing the liberty of speech to which private Members were entitled, he was willing to withdraw the statement, retaining, however, the opinion to which he had endeavoured to give expression. This Bill had been brought forward by the Poor Law Board at a time when their views upon religious matters possibly differed in some respects from those which they now entertained. But, whatever the origin of the clause, its operation was plain. In large towns it was invariably found that the children of the working classes had been surreptitiously baptized into the Roman Catholic faith. Through the willing agency of the public Departments; therefore, this Bill would enable the Roman Catholic priesthood to kidnap the children of humble Protestants and enroll them in their own communion. The House of Lords had condemned the Poor Law Board by striking out the clause.

said, he hoped that children would not be allowed to change their religion without being examined by the Poor Law Board.

said, that the question of religion did not arise on the present clause, but on Clause 12. The present clause merely said that in the case of children who were, say, Baptists or Roman Catholics, the nearest minister of their faith should be allowed to go in and instruct them. If, as suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), a child, on being visited by a minister of religion, objected to being instructed by that particular individual, that was not a religious objection, but a personal objection, and it did not seem necessary that a child should have more liberty in choosing any particular person to instruct him in his own creed than in the selection of his schoolmaster.

said, he must repeat that the clause providing for the Creed Register related not merely to children, but to all inmates of workhouses, and a minister of religion, coming in and finding a person seventy years of age registered as belonging to his creed, would have the power of inflicting his visits on the pauper. He quite agreed that a child of immature years should not have the power of saying that he would not have a particular minister and would have another; but he objected in the strongest possible manner to the Poor Law Board arbitrating in such a matter. He remembered the Poor Law Board being very unpopular in this country, and he should see it so again on account, among many other reasons, of the passing of the present Bill.

said, be had hoped that they might have come to a compromise on this clause by means of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge, the age of fourteen being inserted instead of twelve. Perhaps it might meet the objections of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) if the age of sixteen were inserted.

said, be thought the age of twelve quite sufficient. He knew many children of that age who would puzzle some hon. Members in that House on religious subjects. In Scotland a person of fourteen years of age was able to make a will, or appoint a manager of his property. The Marquess of Bute at that age chose a person to manage his vast estates.

said, he must remind the Committee that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) applied to children in workhouse schools, and the children in the minority had no chance against the majority, but were jeered at and laughed out of their religion. It appeared from the third Report of the Poor Law Commission that a Guardian in one of the largest parishes of the metropolis stated, in answer to questions put to him, that the Guardians there never recognized any children as Roman Catholics. He really must say it was perverting common sense to assert that poor children of a tender age in workhouses made choice of a religion through conviction. He had great difficulty in assenting to the compromise which had been suggested.

said, the noble Lord denied that children under fourteen years of age had any religion of their own. That, to a certain extent, was the doctrine of the law of England.

begged the hon. Member's pardon. His observation on the subject had reference to children in the disadvantageous position of the children in our workhouses.

said, he (Mr. Newdegate) was referring to children in that disadvantageous position. The law of this country had been that if a child became destitute it should be educated in the religion of the State. A similar law existed in certain Roman Catholic countries still. He had been told of the case of a child in a public institution who objected to be visited by a priest. The father of the child was a Roman Catholic, and he was referred to, and he did not wish that the priest should continue his visits. The rev. gentleman insisted on doing so, but a lawyer explained to him that he had no right to adopt such a course. What was the remark of the priest? Why, that the father of the child must be a very bad Roman Catholic. From first to last, this Bill was a violation of the law of England. It was a departure from the modification of the original law of England that the Church of England, being tolerant, should be the instructress to all who did not profess a different religion. It would make the machinery of the Poor Law an instrument for enforcing intolerance. The Secretary of the Poor Law Board had gone the length of asking the leave of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell). We were rapidly going from the tolerant system of the Law of England to the most intolerant system of religion ever known in the world.

said, he thought there was a concurrence of opinion that the clause in its present form should not stand part of the Bill. The question was as to the way in which it should be amended. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) would not substitute sixteen for fourteen years of age in the proposed Amendment.

said, that the opinions with which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was imbued, were very erroneous one. When listening to the hon. Member he was reminded of a story he had heard of an Irish banister. The learned gentleman had told an attorney that he must succeed in a certain action. The attorney was defeated, and meeting the barrister some time after, said to him, "I acted on your opinion and was cast." "Where did I give you that opinion?" said the barrister. "In Capel Street," was the reply. "Oh, then," rejoined the barrister, "never believe a Capel Street opinion again." He would recommend the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to remember the moral of that story. As to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), he contended that children of fourteen years old in workhouses were not competent to select their own creed.

said, that the gentlemen who called for an alteration in the existing laws were in reality the persons who would give rise to a selection of creeds on the part of children in workhouses.

said, he was disposed to vote in favour of the retention of the word "twelve." But he must observe that the Amendment to the clause was founded upon a mistake. It was supposed that the clause provided that a minister belonging to the creed of a child who was on the register of the workhouse as connected with that creed might insist upon instructing that child. Now, the clause merely provided that such minister "may, in accordance with the regulations of the Poor Law Board," visit and instruct such persons.

proposed that the clause should be further amended by the addition to it of the words ''and who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a judgment on the subject," a proposal which was supported by Mr. Villiers.

said, he objected to the addition because the Amendment would then be applicable to the inmates of workhouses, however old they might be.

said", that if the Poor Law Board were to send down an inspector to make inquiry into each individual case and report thereupon, they might as well take away all rule and control from the local authorities.

said, he had had considerable experience in this matter, having for about eight years been a member of the Board of Supervision in Scotland. He had always stood up for the right of children to be educated in the religion of their parents, but nevertheless he should deprecate any addition to this clause, as it would, in his opinion, be for the interest of all parties that a fixed rule should be established.

said, he should not press the Amendment of which he had given Notice, as he had no objection to the clause as it now stood.

said, he thought the parent was not always competent to form an opinion, and might, indeed, be an imbecile.

said, that in order to make the clause conformable with Clause 10, he would beg to move the omission from the end of the clause of the words "and who shall be considered by the Poor Law Board to be competent to exercise a Judgment upon the Subject." The Board would judge by it sofficers, many of whom were Roman Catholics.

proposed the insertion in line 35, after the word "do," of the words "and the provisions contained in the Poor Law Board Act, 1847, relative to the salaries of the persons therein mentioned shall apply to the salaries of the persons to be appointed as auditors by the Poor Law Board." Several Committees had reported in favour of that proposal.

said, the election of the auditors was now in the hands of the Guardians, and it was the accounts of the Guardians which had to be audited. It was obvious that the present state of things in that respect was anomalous, and exactly the same as if a Board of Directors were to appoint the auditors of their own expenditure.

said, he thought that the object should be to exclude central patronage while increasing central control. He would suggest that the Guardians should nominate three persons for the office of auditor, and that the Poor Law Board should appoint one of those three.

said, he would remind the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), who had given notice to move to leave out from line 30 to line 37 inclusive, that when the Guardians failed to appoint their own officers, the Poor Law Board, though they had no wish for the power, could make the appointments. The Committee of 1864, after going most fully into this matter, reported that the substitution of district auditors for auditors elected by the Guardians had led to greater uniformity of procedure, more vigilance, and more careful expenditure, and recommended that the auditors should be reduced in number and should devote their whole time to the public service. Previous Committees had taken the same view, and he hoped, therefore, that the clause would be agreed to.

said, he was quite satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and hoped there would be no opposition to the clause.

said, he must contend that the ratepayers, who were those chiefly interested in checking lavish expenditure, should have the appointment of auditors.

said, this clause proposed to repeal certain Acts which had been passed for the purpose of prohibiting parochial officers from purchasing goods for the relief of the poor from themselves. The overseers of the poor had to a certain extent the dispensation of relief, and therefore they should not have the power of purchasing from themselves the goods they had to dispense. He proposed to omit from the clause the words "and overseers of the poor."

said, the proposed Amendment was unnecessary, because though the overseers had certain duties to discharge towards the poor they had nothing whatever to do with the control of the expenditure.

said, that there were in the workhouses 1,000 Roman Catholic children who were brought up as Protestants because there was no one to demand that they should be brought up in their own creed.

asked whether a child which had had the misfortune to lose its parents should be handed over to the tender mercies of those who wished to kidnap children for their own creed?

said, that the Amendment would really reverse the policy which had been adopted for the last thirty years in this country. The law was that where a child's parent was notoriously of a certain religion the child should be brought up in that religion. That was Clause 19 in the Poor Law Amendment Act; but, in some cases, the operation of the law had been defeated by preventing the supply of the proper evidence of the parents' religion. In effect the result of the Amendment would be to bring up as Protestants the children of Catholics. [Mr. KINNAIRD: Only where the child has been deserted, and the religion of the parent is not known.] But it was much easier to ascertain the religion of the parents of deserted children than any others. The witness by whom this was stated came from Birmingham, and was now employed in Marylebone. It appeared from his evidence that in the latter place deserted and orphan children were, brought up in the religion of the parents, and that since this system was adopted better order had been kept in the House, there had been better conduct among the paupers, and the townspeople were satisfied. The Amendment proposed a refinement in intolerance which would carry us back thirty years, and it involved a principle which was quite new, that of punishing parents by choosing a religion for their children, and which might be applied to offences other than desertion.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had come round to the view he (Mr. T. Chambers) had advanced at first, that the Bill was not necessary if the provisions of the present law were carried out.

said, the Amendment proposed a different law for the poor from that applied to the rich. A child possessed of property would be brought under the cognizance of the Court of Chancery, which would ascertain the religion of the parents and take care that the child was brought up in it, but because children were helpless and friendless they were to he treated in a different manner. What he asked was that all children, proved to belong to Catholic parents, whether they had been deserted or were orphans should be brought up in their parents' religion.

said, that the Amendment only affected "deserted"—not orphan—children, so that the appeal of the noble Lord was not in point. There was no illiberality in the State taking care of these deserted children—children picked out of the gutter—and in the State providing them with education. What was the meaning of "a deserted child?" It was a child not claimed by any one, and for whom there was no one willing to pay. All that was wanted was that it should not be assumed that such deserted children were Roman Catholics.

said, it was proposed in the case of deserted children—on the ground that they had no person standing in a recognized relation to them, and that they were to be paid for by the State—that they should, therefore, be brought up in the religion of the State. But that was not the principle of the existing Poor Laws, which were conceived on the principle that children should be brought up in what was supposed to be their own religion—namely, that of their parents, provided it could be ascertained. Now, all that the clause would do in the case of deserted as well as in that of orphan children would be to enable the Poor Law Board not to act on the assumption that the children were of any particular faith, but to accept the evidence which a Creed Register might afford of such faith, and when that was ascertained the religion of the father was to rule the religion of the child.

said, the Creed Register would not prove the religion of the parents, but only the opinion on the subject of the person who made the entry. The result would be that these deserted children would be put up to auction, and they all knew who would claim them. He maintained that when the parents were not forthcoming the children should be brought up in the religion of the State.

said, he would support the Amendment. This question of the removal of children would give rise to a great deal of squabbling.

said, that in the majority of cases there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the religion of the parents of a deserted child.

said, he thought hon. Gentlemen were losing sight of the meaning of the clause. The gist of the alteration proposed was that the Poor Law Board, in the absence of a requisition from the parents or god-parents, might exercise the powers vested in them by the Poor Law Act, and, upon reasonable evidence of the religion of the parents, order deserted children to be sent to a denominational registered school where they would be brought up in their parents' religion.

said, he wanted to know what was the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by the Poor Law Board before taking such a step, and whether the evidence taken by the officials who made the inquiry was to be laid before the Guardians and the public? The opinion throughout the country would be that the religion to which the child would be assigned would depend very much upon the person to whom the inquiry would be committed. The public had very little faith in Boards for such purposes as these.

said, that the whole debate had shown that all the words of the clause after "these Acts" ought to be struck out, and therefore he should move that they should be struck out. They were asked to give the Poor Law Board the perfectly novel power of sending deserted children out of the workhouse to a denominational school. Upon what evidence was the Poor Law Board to judge of the creed to which the child should be consigned? The fact was that the Guardians had no right to part with the children in favour of any denomination whatever.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).

said, this was an objection against the existence of a Creed Register. There was no difficulty in the matter. It was the duty of the parochial officer to ascertain what was the religion of the parents.

said, the difficulty he felt was as to how they were to ascertain the religion of the parents when the deserted child was too young to give any information.

said, he considered the clause unnecessary, as the present system worked perfectly well. Since the passing of the Poor Law Act a sum of £7,000,000 had been borrowed on a uniform plan, which it would not be well to interfere with.

said, in the absence of Mr. T. Potter, he would move a clause (Provision for poor deaf and dumb or blind children), empowering Guardians to send deaf and dumb children to uncertified institutions.

said, that no such provision as that proposed by: the hon. Member was called for except by one or two of the metropolitan unions. If it should be generally demanded there would be ample opportunity for considering it hereafter.

said, he had given Notice of a clause of similar effect, though not going so far as that proposed by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis). No injustice would be done to any locality by the adoption of the clause of which he had given notice. Its principle was that asylums, hospitals, and other buildings, and all land used or occupied therewith for the purposes of the Metropolis Poor Act, 1867, should be assessed for rates upon the annual value of the site, and any buildings on it at the time of the purchase.

said, that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill's) argument applied to a clause not before the Committee.

said, he must oppose the clause. Reporters were present at the meetings of all Boards of Guardians of importance, and that ought to be sufficient for the ratepayers.

said, that with the view of protecting a vested interest which, in his opinion, ought to be respected by the Legislature, he would beg to move to leave out—

"As such coadjutor, continue to act in the same manner as at present as Archdeacon of Middlesex," and insert "and exercises episcopal functions therein, continue to receive out of the Consolidated Fund the annual payment of two thousand pounds, which has hitherto been made to him in part by the Bishop of Jamaica out of the stipend of three thousand pounds paid to the said Bishop from the Consolidated Fund, under the before-recited Acts, and in part out of the stipend appropriated to his Archdeaconry of Middlesex out of the Consolidated Fund, under the said Acts; Provided, That during his receipt of such annual payment no payment shall be made to him out of the Consolidated fund in respect of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex."

said, he thought the chum rested neither on a technical nor a moral ground, and that the precedent which his right hon. Friend's Amendment would establish might be productive of great inconvenience hereafter. The proposal was really one for appointing a new Bishop of Jamaica after the next avoidance of the see.

said, he would point out that, as a new charge would be imposed on the Consolidated Fund, the matter could not be taken into consideration except under a Resolution of the House.

said, the Government would accede to the proposal, on the ground that it was expedient to deal with such a claim in a wide and generous, and not in a niggardly, spirit. The clause was drawn by the late Lord Cranworth. He thought there was a fair moral claim; and that the Bishop of Kingston would be hardly dealt with if the House did not view the matter in a liberal spirit.

said, he thought there was much to be said in favour of the proposition of the right hon. and learned Recorder.

said, it appeared that a coadjutor Bishop had been appointed to assist the Bishop. The office of the coadjutor was correlative with that of the Bishop, and could not extend beyond it. When the present Bishop died the office of his coadjutor could not continue to exist. The House were asked to give the coadjutor, not in virtue of an office which he held now, but in virtue of an office which he would hold after the death of the Bishop of Jamaica, a sum of £1,600 out of the Consolidated Fund. He held with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that this could not now be done.

said, that the Bishop of Kingston had at present a life-interest in the life of the Bishop of Jamaica, and it was now proposed to give him a life-interest in two lives. The difference was just a grant from the Consolidated Fund.

said, that no new charge on the Consolidated Fund would be created by the adoption of the proposition.

The whole question seems to be whether this is a new charge on the Consolidated Fund, or a reservation from the £20,000 supposed to be given up. The Bill proposes to relieve the Consolidated Fund from the payment of £20,000, while if the Amendment be passed it would only be relieved of £18,000. I think it is a matter which is open to the decision of the House.

said, that as the subject appeared to be taking wider range, he would move the adjournment of the debate.