asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, after submitting his scheme of Army Re-organization on Thursday, he will allow the Debate to be adjourned until the following Thursday?

, in reply, said, that he should wish to consult the convenience of the House in reference to the matter. He had at first proposed that the discussion upon the proposal of the Government should be adjourned until Thursday next. That day, however, was devoted to another purpose. He thought it desirable that after the Committee should have heard what the proposals of the Government were, future progress should be considered, and he would be very desirous to consult the convenience of the Committee. He believed Monday next was vacant, and he should hope there would be no objection, if there should be an adjournment from next Thursday, to go on on that day.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Statute now in force in the University of Oxford by which a Candidate for the degree of B. A. at that University is required either to pass an examination in the Articles of the Church of England, or to make a declaration that he is not a member of that Church, is not a violation of the second section of the "University Tests Act, 1871," which provides that—

"No person shall be required upon taking, or to enable him to take, any degree (other than a degree in Divinity) within that University to make any declaration respecting his religious belief or profession."

, in reply, said, that the Question which the hon. and learned Gentleman had put to him arose not on the second section, but upon the third section of the University Tests Act. No doubt such a statute as the Question referred to might be in direct contravention of the University Tests Act; but it was plain that it might be passed and used with no such intention. He was unable to say more than that, because this was a question of law; it was a question of the construction of the University Tests Act, in which he had no more authority than any other hon. Member of the House. He could not take upon himself to pronounce a judicial opinion upon it, nor could Government undertake to enlighten the House on the matter judicially.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been come to by the Secretary of State on the subject of two Laws recently passed by the Council of the Governor General; one for introducing the Metric System of Weights in India, the other called a Canal and Irrigation Act, in which provision is made for levying a special rate from the owners of land accessible to irrigation from a canal, although they may not use the canal waters?

replied that both the Acts referred to were still under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.

, in putting the Question which he had placed upon the Paper, and which was in the following terms:—As to the time at which the American Case, framed under the alleged provisions of the Treaty of Washington, was first received by Her Majesty's Government, and the circumstances attendant on that reception—said: I beg now to make the inquiry that I did upon the first night of the Session, and unsuccessfully last night, to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. It refers to our relations with the United States of America; but it does not at all refer to the merits of the case as between our Government and the Government of the United States, which I should most scrupulously abstain from touching under present circumstances. The House will perhaps remember that on the first night of the Session I pressed the right hon. Gentleman for information on two points. One was as to the date of the "friendly communication" which had been made to the Government of the United States; and the second was as to the time when the Case of the United States, drawn up under the alleged provisions of the Treaty of Washington, had been transmitted to Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman gave me an answer to the first Question which was precise if not satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said the "friendly communication" was made on the day before the meeting of Parliament, or, more correctly speaking, on Saturday, the 3rd of February. With regard to the second question, we could only collect, rather vaguely, from the right hon. Gentleman, that the American Case had been in the possession of the Government about a month at the time he was speaking, and that it had been in the possession of the Cabinet generally for a much shorter time. Indeed, I think that, appealing to his Colleagues near him, he said it had been in their possession only a week. Then the right hon. Gentleman said it was a voluminous production, and that it had to be printed. Now, a statement has been made, which I have reason to believe is authentic, because it agrees with information which had previously reached me—namely, that what is called the American Case was transmitted to the Government in the middle of December, and that within 48 hours afterwards a certain number of printed copies were forwarded to Her Majesty's Government, in order that the Cabinet might be supplied with copies at once, and become acquainted with the Case. Neither the forms of the House permit, nor the necessities of the question require, that I should call the attention of the House to the important consequences which may be connected with these details. We shall, no doubt, have ample opportunity of entering into them hereafter; but it is of importance that, in the interval, both sides of the House should have as accurate an acquaintance as possible with the facts on which all are agreed. I trust, therefore, that after the statement I have made, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that it will be satisfactory if he would now more precisely inform us as to the time and circumstances under which Her Majesty's Government first became acquainted with the American Case.

The Question of which the right hon. Gentleman gave Notice afforded me but little guidance as to the particular view with which it was given. I begin by saying that I need hardly remind the right hon. Gentleman or the House that when he addressed to me on the first night of the Session Questions as to the reception and distribution of copies of the American Case from the Foreign Office, he must have known that without the slightest notice it was impossible to give him specific information. However, I gave him such information as was in my power, which was partial and general, and if he had made known to me at the time his wish for further information I should have been glad long ago, within a day or two, to supply him with it. Having had Notice from him this morning, I sent to the Foreign Office and obtained the information, but I obtained it with reference to what I presumed to be the point of his inquiry—namely, how it happened that the Cabinet were not put sooner into the possession of the American Case. That is what I supposed to be the point of his inquiry; if I am wrong in that, and if other matters are also in view, I shall be happy to do my best on a future occasion to acquaint him with any particulars. Now, first of all, with regard to the number of copies of the American Case, there is no doubt that, not in the middle of December, but by the 26th of December, a number of copies of the Case were received at the Foreign Office, which would have enabled them to be distributed among the Members of the Cabinet; but the authorities of the Foreign Office judged—and, I think, judged rightly—that that was not the first use to be made of these copies of the document. A certain number of copies were necessary to be retained in the Foreign Office itself for use and examination by those who belong to it. A certain number it was necessary to send to America for Sir Edward Thornton, who was depending upon us for them. A certain number were necessary, especially for sending to various colonies, in a part of which the acts alleged against us were known or declared to have happened; and, finally, the persons whom it was necessary to supply with copies were all those who, either as regular or occasional legal advisers of the Government, and persons conversant with the facts, were especially charged with the duty of its early examination and with the preparation of the counter Case. Now, Sir, that was the view taken by the authorities of the Foreign Office, and, in my opinion, it was a perfectly correct view. I am bound, and it is only fair, to say that the Foreign Office set down to my debit a copy of this Case at the earliest date of its reception—that is to say, as having been sent into the country to me on the 20th of December, but I have not been able to trace that copy. I am endeavouring to do so; but I am bound also to say that if I had received it, and knowingly received it, I should very likely have allowed a considerable time to elapse before I had been able to make myself master of that important volume. I had devoted considerable time, with no small inconvenience, to making myself master of the English Case, of which I had read every word, and my comments on which I had sent to the Foreign Office; but, with regard to the American Case, I frankly own that I should have looked for guidance and suggestions to those whose duty it was to consider the legal and international bearing of the points, and to prepare the counter Case. Now, that is the general principle upon which the Foreign Office proceeded in the distribution of those copies, and I will now give the facts rather more particularly, that the right hon. Gentleman may see how the figures stand. On the 15th of December copies of the Case were exchanged at Geneva, as was required or provided by the Articles of the Treaty, and arrangements were then made for the exchange between the agents of a certain number of copies. In consequence of those arrangements, 12 copies were received at the Foreign Office on the 20th of December. Of those, seven were sent out and five were retained at the Office for use. On the 26th of December 13 more copies were received, of which 12 were sent out, being distributed among persons of the classes to whom I referred—including, however, a copy to Lord Lyons at Paris, and a copy to Earl Russell, who, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will feel was entitled to be put very early in possession of a document in which his name, like my own, unfortunately, cuts a figure. That being so, 25 copies had been received and 24 had been disposed of by the Foreign Office at the end of December, by which only three Members of the Cabinet had profited, and I think that the distribution was in all respects a reasonable one, under the circumstances, on account of the great occasion there was for sending copies of the Case for examination to other persons. The whole number was 25, and the number disposed of was 24, of which 19 had been sent out of the Office and 5 remained in it. The right hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that there was not a sufficient number of copies to distribute among the Members of the Cabinet, and the Case had been sent to the printer to be reprinted on the 26th of December. The reprinting of a considerable volume at the Foreign Office is not a very slight matter. The House knows that the printing department at the Foreign Office is a strictly confidential department, and as such it is necessarily a very limited one. It was occupied much at that time in printing, as I am informed, the translation of the English Case, and it was likewise much occupied in printing papers connected with the Commercial Treaty with France. The House also knows that the 26th of December is not the very best day on which to send work to the printers with respect to which you desire that the greatest possible dispatch should be observed. I do not know that there was delay upon that account to any serious extent; that is only an observation which occurs in connection with the date. On that account it was that the reprinting of the Case took a longer time than it would have done under ordinary circumstances—I mean on account of the other work with which the Department was charged. Having said that only three Members of the Cabinet had or were supposed to receive copies in December, I should add that three others received copies, I believe, through the courtesy of the United States Minister. With respect to the rest of the Cabinet the statement which I made on the first night of the Session, upon hasty reference to my right hon. Friends who sat near me, was that the Case had been in their possession, as I believed, for not more than a week or ten days. That, I believe, was very near the mark. I am not sure that I have been provided with the exact day on which these copies were distributed to the Cabinet; but it was undoubtedly well on in the month of January, though not quite the end of the month, that the distribution was made. I frankly own that, whether rightly or wrongly, when I first heard of the American Case my belief was that it was an exact counterpart of the British Case—that is to say, a dry and dull, but most able and close argument upon the points connected with the Alabama and her consorts, and I imagine that all those who gradually became possessed of the volume underwent the same sentiments of surprise as myself at the entire novelty of an important portion of the contents of the volume.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received two Memorials in favour of the Contagious Diseases Acts, one of them signed by nearly a hundred members of the medical profession residing in London, and the other signed by about twelve hundred members of the same profession; and, if so, whether he will lay those Memorials upon the Table?

, in reply, said, the fact was that there was only one memorial, but there was a series of signatures. One portion of it had reached him some time ago with 87 signatures, and since then he had received another portion of it with 1,000 additional signatures. He would produce the document if it were moved for.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will consider the propriety of making Tuesday the 27th instant a general Bank Holiday and not confining it to the Metropolis, as proposed?

, in reply, said, the Government were very desirous, as he stated on a former occasion, to consult the public wish and convenience on this matter. He was bound to say that up to that time the Government had no reason to suppose that there was a general desire throughout the country for any interference by public authority with the course of business, and the Government had not thought it their duty to force upon the country a thing which they did not think it desired itself in connection with the Thanksgiving.

said, he believed it would be a necessary part of the proceedings connected with the Thanksgiving to move the adjournment of the House from Monday till Wednesday.

said, Mr. Harvey unhappily had been suffering under ill-health, but had given him letters containing the facts of the case from the University of Oxford, and had, he thought, distinctly stated that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing that the admission of Mr. Harvey was not an absolute admission. He had recently placed the papers he had received from Mr. Harvey in the hands of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who he durst say would be able to give him legal advice in the course of a short time.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to place the Correspondence upon the Table?

said, the Correspondence was private, and was not at all prepared for any such purpose. He would take care that the right hon. Gentleman should be provided with a copy of the Correspondence.

said, the Government placed before Parliament the letter of Mr. Justice Willes.

said, the right hon. Gentleman would recollect that Mr. Justice Willes wrote a letter in connection with a statement made and published by another judicial authority, stating by implication that Mr. Justice Willes's sentiments were contrary to what he entertained.

, in calling attention to the last Report of the Commissioners for Emigration, and, in connection therewith, to the large proportion of the Emigrants from the United Kingdom who go to foreign parts and become aliens, and to move an Address for certain Returns, said, this subject concerned deeply the welfare of the masses of the people, and concerned the stability and progress of the Empire. In the instructions issued by the Queen to the Emigration Commissioners they were entitled Commissioners for the Sale of Waste Lands of the Crown throughout the Colonies. They were also called Colonization Commissioners. If the exceedingly judicious instructions given by Lord Russell when he was Minister for the Colonies had been carried out in the spirit in which they were dictated, they must have resulted in great benefits to the Empire. Lord Russell stated that the Sovereign held these waste lands in trust for the public good; that the first principle of the official conduct of the Commissioners should be to afford to all applicants the most easy access to all authentic means of knowledge with reference to emigration; and that to promote emigration, they ought to interpose actively. In the Returns the number of acres disposed of was given as 700,000, but in the United States it appeared that, independent of certain free grants and other appropriations, the sales amounted to about 7,000,000 acres. It must be manifest, therefore, that the original instructions given by Her Majesty's Government as to the disposal of our waste lands for the encouragement of emigrants had altogether lapsed. Unhappily, Her Majesty's Government and this House, in dealing with the colonies, had shown the same gentlemanly, confiding, and conciliatory spirit which had led and was now leading us into endless trouble with the United States. In the negotiations carried on about 20 years ago much was implied and much expected, but what was said was not expressed with sufficient clearness, and thus it had come to pass that the people of this country had no longer any control over the greater part of those territories which had been acquired by their prowess, their foresight, and their vigour. The hon. Gentleman, having quoted the authority of Earl Granville and the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to show that much land in Southern Africa, and very much more in Western Australia is still under the direct control of the mother country, proceeded to say that there were in the colonies of this Empire more than 2,000,000,000 acres, or between 5 and 10 per cent more than the acreage at the disposal of the United States. If this quantity of land were divided in equal proportions among the English, Scotch, and Irish subjects of the Crown residing in all parts of the world, it would give to each man, woman, and child a farm of more than 50 acres. The number of English, Scotch, and Irish emigrants last year was about 200,000. In 1870 the number of emigrants of all nationalities who had gone from this country was about 257,000, but many of them were Germans who arrived here merely in transitu. Of the 200,000 emigrants of whom he had spoken, 122,000 were males, the great bulk of them adults, and about half of the latter were artizans, gardeners, and farmers. The value of the gift which we thus made to other parts of the world might be estimated from the large percentage of males and of high-class emigrants, and by regard to their training and skill in the arts. That these men were of a good stamp would appear from the fact that in three years only, according to the Report of the Commissioners, emigrants from Ireland had remitted home more than £4,500,000. In 1869 and 1870 the Irish emigrants amounted respectively to 73,000 and 74,000; last year the number was 71,000; in 1864 and 1865, the first years given in the Returns, it was 105,000 and 101,000. But while the number of Irish who voluntarily expatriated themselves was diminishing, that of the English and Scotch was increasing. In 1869, 1870, and 1871 the number of Scotch was 22,000, 23,000, and 19,000 respectively; in 1864 and 1865 it was 15,000 and 13,000 only. In 1869, 1870, and 1871 the English emigrants amounted to 90,000, 105,000, and 102,000 respectively, while in 1864 and 1865 they were only 57,000 and 61,000. Such was the information given by our own Commissioners. But, according to the United States Commissioners, the number of English and Scotch, exclusive of Welsh, who emigrated to that country in 1849–50 was only 12,000; 10 years later it had risen to 31,000, and 10 years later still—namely, in 1869–70, it had risen to 139,000. Hon. Members might smile at the idea of men being estimated at a money value, but it had been done in this country, and was extensively done in the United States. Dr. Kapp, the Commissioner for Emigration in the State of New York, said that in the time of slavery a good field-hand was worth $1,200 and over, and added that he felt safe in assuming the capital value of each male and female immigrant to be $$1,500 and $750 respectively, and that estimate had been confirmed by a friend of his, a prominent political economist. Another authority said that nearly half these emigrants were skilled labourers and workmen who gave Americans the benefit of their skill without calling on America to pay for the cost of their education. Dr. Kapp spoke of "this colossal emigration of the European masses," adding—"It is still in its infancy." While the Government of this country were relaxing in their efforts to induce emigrants to go to the British colonies, the American Government were redoubling their efforts to attract population to their territory. Publications were disseminated here to promote emigration to America, and English emigrants, in the words of one American, were everywhere enriching the country and themselves. The United States Consuls abroad acted as emigration agents, and distributed the necessary papers and maps; and foreigners were instructed by advertisements published in various European languages how to become citizens of the United States. When such successful efforts were made to take from their allegiance to the Queen the best of our population, it surely became this House to take the subject into their earnest consideration, and see what could be done. In the first place, we ought to lay down and carry out with spirit a national policy—to infuse into the minds of the English people greater national spirit and patriotism, which, he feared, were in many quarters giving way to mere cosmopolitanism. More should be done to promote agriculture at home. Hitherto, the entire energies of the British Government had been devoted to the extension of manufactures and trade; but, pari passû, we ought to attend to the cultivation of the soil, to free the soil to the utmost, and so raise up a suitable population who would overflow into the colonies. We should also seek to remove every obstacle to the circulation of British capital throughout the Empire, especially facilitating its employment in the promotion of agriculture in the colonies. We should enter into friendly correspondence with the colonies, opening up offices throughout the country, in which maps and plans should be placed showing the available land and the colonies best fitted for emigration. Facilities should be afforded for removing our fellow-subjects to parts of the Empire where they would be far more useful to us than if they were alienized in America. A system of inter-communication should be established at moderate rates, which he believed could be arranged so as to be no burden upon the mother country. Lastly, the Crown should continue to bestow honours upon our fellow-subjects in the colonies, especially for any services rendered by them in reclaiming waste lands, and successfully establishing English emigrants there. In doing, all that we should be only following out, perhaps feebly, the policy of the people of the United States, who were the greatest colonizers in the world. We should be conferring advantages both on the men left at home and on those who emigrated; we should benefit the colonies by increasing there the number of taxpayers, of land-buyers, and of producers of wealth; while the United Kingdom would derive great advantage from a policy which would develop her agriculture and make her less dependent on manufactures, a much less stable occupation. He contrasted the amount of our exports taken by our colonies with the amount taken by other countries. Victoria took £9 a-head one recent year, and £6 the year after, while France, with the vaunted Treaty of Commerce in force, took only 6s. a-head, including the coals, of which it had far more than was good for us, and the United States only 15s. a-head. It was objected that the carrying out of any systematic scheme of emigration would entail expenses upon the Government, and that it was unfair to tax one labouring man to help another. There was, however, no necessity to have recourse to taxes. Let the land be disposed of at such a price as would induce people to go out to it with capital and take their labourers with them, and let the labourers, after seven years' service, have an allotment. The integrity of the British Empire would be more effectually secured by planting loyal men in all parts of the world in this way than by any other means. He therefore moved, in preference to at once asking for a Committee, for Papers showing the duties of the Emigration Commissioners, and the number of emigrants sent out under their auspices.

seconded the Motion. It would be of the greatest importance to America as well as to this country, if emigration could be so encouraged that a great highway could be established across North America to communicate with the Pacific. It had been ascertained that the district most favourable for such an operation and colonization, and which was some hundred miles in width, was as fertile as any portion of the globe; but the expenses of that emigration should be borne by those who would derive benefit from it. Ample and correct information should be forwarded to all those who were about to leave this country to establish homes in far distant lands.

said, he regretted that a subject of so much importance had failed to secure a good attendance of hon. Members to discuss the subject. The small number present would appear to indicate that a question of such vast importance to the working classes failed to interest their Representatives. The facilities given in England by the Parliamentary train to the working classes for travelling, had suggested the idea that some plan might and ought to be devised by which the cost of emigrating might be diminished, so as to bring the waste lands of the colonies within more easy reach of the labouring population of this country. The time had passed for considering the colonies as quasi-independent States, the property of the first few thousands who happened to settle in them. They were part and parcel of the Empire, as the great Western States were a part of the United States dominions. What we needed, he thought, was some Confederation embracing them all, and some central power intrusted with the revision of laws affecting the whole Empire. If we wanted a proof of the evils of the absence of such a power, we had it in those labour laws which had issued in a modified slave trade in the South Seas. By some joint action, authorized by Parliament, certain ships might be chartered to take passengers at a very low rate—say one-third the ordinary rate—and, like the Parliamentary train, be open to everyone—to Members of that House, if they liked to go by them. Practically, those only would in general take advantage of the facility offered, who ought to do so, because the comforts would be very inferior to those of passengers paying full fare. It would be for Parliament to settle how the deficiency in the payments was to be made up to the shipowner. He was persuaded that some plan of that kind would develop a wholesome stream of emigration, regulated by the greater or less redundancy of labour, and that one speedy effect would be the diminution of poor rates and prison rates; and that public funds expended on emigration would diminish the charges on other public funds.

said, he doubted if it was desirable to further stimulate emigration, because he thought it was now as large as it should be. He did not make that statement so much that he objected to emigration, as to its being carried further. If the Government attempted to recognize a scheme for greatly stimulating emigration, it would have the effect of arousing a serious amount of opposition on the part of the employers of labour, especially having regard to the great and successful efforts that had taken place of late years on the part of Trades Unions. He entirely concurred that it was desirable that the stream of emigration from this country should be turned from America to our own colonies, and he expressed his regret that so little interest appeared to be taken in the House on a question of such great national importance in a commercial and political point of view. Figures and statistics showed that while the United States took from us goods and manufactures to the value of 15s. per head, the value taken by some of our colonies amounted to £6 per head. What his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfie) asked us to do for the sake of our own colonies and our own people, we were willing enough to do for the purpose of opening and establishing a trade with foreigners. To establish such a trade in the case of Japan, we had incurred considerable expense; and the present Government, who would probably decline any grant or expenditure for the purpose contemplated by his hon. Friend, had only just concluded a negotiation for the acquisition of a portion of territory on the West Coast of Africa. Those who argued that it was justifiable to lay out money in China, Japan, and other countries for the sake simply of promoting trade, would find it impossible to show that it was not desirable to spend money in sending to Australia persons who now went to the United States. The people of the United States were, no doubt, one with us, as persons were fond of pointing out, in religion, language, and tradition; but recent events encouraged the belief that they would allow all the associations growing out of a common origin to be overbalanced by considerations of private advantage. One of the most gloomy features in the future prospects of the world consisted in the disproportionate growth of some States as compared with others. The embarrassments which might be looked forward to in Europe in the course of the next half-century would doubtless be connected with the overwhelming growth of Russia and of the United States. To the latter, however, Canada might, perhaps, be raised up as a counterpoise; and if this end could be attained by such pacific means as emigration, it would be far better than attempting hereafter, with great efforts and at great loss, to accomplish similar results with warlike armaments. For these reasons he heartily concurred in the Motion of his hon. Friend.

Sir, I appreciate, on behalf of the Government, the motives of the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the question; but unfortunately we have to deal with things as they are in stern reality. What we desire is, I think, in the nature of things almost impossible, and cannot be obtained by any action the Government may take. I will, however, accede to certain parts of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, by consenting to provide the information asked for in cases where it has not already been given. It is quite true that when the Emigration Commissioners were first appointed, their principal duty was to superintend the location of emigrants in the waste lands of the colonies; but as time went on, this country deemed it right that all, or nearly all, our colonies should control their own waste lands, without any interference on our part. That being the case, the question of the duties of the Commissioners became much altered, and they now practically exist for these purposes—to afford to the Colonial Office every possible information respecting emigration, and to superintend the working of the Passengers Act, and to see that good provisions and good water are provided, and every possible arrangement made for the convenience of persons leaving this country for another. What the functions of those Commissioners really were would be stated in the Returns to be furnished to the hon. Member. The evident desire of my hon. Friend is, that there should be some system of State assistance to emigrants, which should people the waste lands of the colonies with our surplus population. That, however, opens up a large question. Are we striving to supply colonial wants, or to relieve an Imperial embarrassment? In one case, we shall be sending out a class of which even this country ought not to be in too great a hurry to get rid; in the other, we run the risk of causing dissatisfaction in the quarter to which the emigrants are sent; and we must remember that as we had got rid of our criminal population at one time at the expense of our colonies, and thereby incurred great unpopularity with them, they were naturally suspicious of any apparent intention on our part of getting rid of a portion of our surplus population which, having failed here, might not do better in the colonies. Again, there is the great objection to State assistance to emigration, that we interfere with the labour market at home, and either run the risk of sending away labour that some of our capitalists may require, or else of being obliged periodically to find work for surplus hands retained in the country. I believe that the adoption of the proposal of my hon. Friend will tend to dry up the source from which emigration now so satisfactorily proceeds, while it will also throw additional burdens upon the working classes at home. Besides, hon. Members ought not to forget that there is such a thing as the migration of labour within a country itself, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) could probably, if he had been in the House, have given some useful and instructive information on the point. I believe it is our duty to see that migration in our own country is properly looked after, before we determine on exporting our best labourers. Then there are difficulties relating to the colonies themselves which stand in the way of the adoption of my hon. Friend's proposal. The colonies maintain—and I think maintain fairly enough, that they are entitled to select their own labourers, and when my hon. Friend complains that the colony of New Zealand has secured the services of 5,000 foreign labourers, I feel rather pleased at finding that they cannot obtain so large a number of a very useful and valuable class of our population. To insist upon the colonies employing English labour would constitute an interference which would not be tolerated, while it is at the same time undesirable to assist in sending away those for whom employment can be found at home. A great deal of the want of employment in this country arises not from the absence of employment, but from the idleness and vagrancy fostered by the system of indiscriminate charity so much in vogue in our large towns. As the hon. Gentleman says, the emigration from this country and Ireland is very considerable. In the year 1870 the amount sent home by emigrants in North America to friends at home for the purpose of enabling them to leave Great Britain was £727,000, and during the same year £12,304 was sent home from Australia and New Zealand for the same purpose; while between the years 1841 and 1870 there had been sent home through the banks, exclusive of what was forwarded privately, no less than £16,334,000. That showed great providence on the part of the emigrants from this country; and I maintain it would be a great mistake to dry up the source of emigration. I hope, Sir, that although my hon. Friend may not be entirely satisfied with the matter of my reply, he will at least admit that I have treated the subject which he has introduced with that respectful consideration to which it is entitled. I am far from underrating either the importance of the subject or the attractive nature of that proposal for State-assisted colonial emigration to which my hon. Friend evidently inclines. I will even say more. To my mind there is something touching—I had almost said sublime—in the notion that the colonies should come to the aid of the mother country in this matter of emigration. It is as if England should say to her great and thriving colonies—"I have made you what you are. In days past and gone I have sent forth my children across the seas to lay the foundations upon which you have built. From them you spring; on your account they have endured perils and hardships without number; your very existence in the past, your prosperity in the present, and all your aspirations for the future, you owe to their exertions; under the flag of England you have flourished; her prestige has protected you; her blood has been shed for you; her treasure has been lavished on your behalf: now, at last, the time has arrived when you may repay something of the debt, and that, too, not only without loss but with positive advantage to yourselves. Receive England's surplus population to occupy your surplus lands; reciprocate the benefits which, during a long course of years you have received at her hands, and thus strengthen, by one more link, the tie which still binds us together to our mutual interest and advantage." I say, Sir, that there is something touching—something captivating in that appeal, and I do not wonder at the adhesion given to any proposal founded thereupon. But we have fallen upon dull, prosaic, practical times, and when, as practical men, we come face to face with this question, and have to reduce our theories to practice, we are obliged to leave the regions of romance and enthusiasm, and to deal as best we may with the stern realities which we have to encounter. First, if then, State interference with the labour market be dangerous and impolitic; secondly, if the progress of free emigration—hitherto satisfactory—would be unduly checked by such interference; thirdly, if well-organized migration within these islands may diminish the evils as a remedy for which State-assisted emigration is proposed, and if, after its adoption, its working would be attended with great and inherent difficulties, we may well pause before we assent to any such proposal. I commit myself—I commit the Government to no pledge with respect to the future. In moments of exceptional exigency exceptional measures may be necessary, and in such a matter as this no such hard and fast line can be laid down, as shall declare that at no time and under no circumstances can ever a temporary approach be made to the policy of State-assisted emigration; but as a general and established rule of policy we cannot adopt it. Let not my hon. Friend for one moment suppose that I question his discretion in having mooted the subject to-day. On the contrary, I regard with satisfaction, its ventilation within these walls. It is well that we should show to the thousands of our fellow-countrymen, who are touched by this question of emigration, that we can at least afford a small portion of our time to discuss a matter of ten-fold greater interest to them than many of those questions upon which hours of useless debate are sometimes wasted in this House. It is well that the opinions of thoughtful men upon this subject should be known to the country. It is well we should show that we feel, and feel deeply, for those who, without any fault of their own, and being willing to work, are driven by the want of employment at home to turn their faces towards distant lands—and the more plausible—the more attractive, at first sight, is the proposal that the State should assist such persons to emigrate—the more essential is it that the obstacles and difficulties which stand in the way should be calmly, fairly, and fully stated in this House. And, Sir, although I may not be able to go as far in this matter as the hon. Gentleman might wish, none the less do I recognize the good service which he has done by its introduction; none the less do I thank him for the discussion which he has inaugurated; and none the less do I assure him that the expression of matured opinion from him, and from others who have addressed the House must have its due weight and force with Government. It will stimulate us—if indeed such a process were needed—to increased activity in probing to the bottom those great social problems connected with the employment of labour in this country which are fraught with deep interest to the minds of English politicians. We have to deal with a circumscribed area—with a redundant population—and with an Empire of which, whilst it preserves its unity intact, the surplus lands and the surplus inhabitants are found in different regions of the world. In that sentence alone you will find the groundwork for almost innumerable political problems. One of these—and that not the least important—we have been discussing to-day. It is one which has pressed, and will press, still more, upon us; it is one which deserves—nay, which commands—earnest thought and deep attention; and I can assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that it is one to the magnitude and gravity of which Her Majesty's Ministers are not insensible, and to the satisfactory solution of which, upon sound and intelligible principles, their best efforts will continue to be directed.

said, he had listened with deep interest to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite who had just sat down, and concurred in the opinion that some fair balance should be struck between what he had termed colonial want and Imperial embarrassment. It was, he thought, a matter of regret that the House manifested such little interest in a question of this importance, when others of far less moment had often enlisted its attention. He regretted, too, that the right hon. Baronet who usually sat on the front Opposition bench, and who in the Recess had suggested the taking of artizans from overcrowded towns and planting them out in the clear, had been absent from this debate, because he would have had an excellent opportunity of instructing the House, or adding to his own stock of information. He could not allow the subject to drop without expressing his gratitude to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macfie) for bringing it forward.

, in reply, said, that employers as a class were desirous that the labouring classes should have the alternative of either work or emigration. He did not contemplate rendering State assistance in the form of a money grant; but he wished to see offices opened, information afforded, land sold cheap, and obstacles in the way of emigration to our colonies removed. He feared that next year would see from two to three hundred thousand British subjects emigrate to the United States, and 20 or 30 times as many emigrants become aliens as became our colonists. He advocated not so much an increase of emigration as the diversion of it to our colonies. He gladly accepted the Return in the amended form in which it was offered on the part of the Government.

, in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable Incumbent Ministers, with the permission of the Bishop of the Diocese, to provide for the delivery of Occasional Sermons or Lectures in their Churches or Chapels by persons not in Holy Orders of the Church of England, said, he proposed the Bill as a measure of practical reform, limited in its operation, but worthy of consideration for the beneficial results it might indirectly produce. It would relate to the qualifications of persons who might be considered fit to preach occasional sermons in churches of which they were not the regular ministers, and would not affect the ordinary minister, or establish a new order of persons in the Church. The object of the Bill was to remove useless and mischievous restrictions upon the discretion of the rulers of the Church and of the incumbents of parishes. That restriction was not founded on any law of the Church, or canon, or any distinct statement in the rubric of the Prayer Book. It was not imposed by any statute; but rested on a doubtful construction of statutes taken together with passages in the Prayer Book. The restriction depended upon the interpretation given to certain words in the Preface to the Ordination Service in the Book of Common Prayer, prohibiting anyone from executing any of the functions appertaining to Bishops, priests, and deacons, without ordination. Although preaching was one of the functions of ordained ministers, the previous practice of the Church would not justify its being considered as one of their exclusive functions. In the early period of the Church there existed an obvious distinction between those sermons which formed part of the regular services of the Church and those which were not so united to any particular service. The homilies which were associated with the Communion Service could be delivered only by the clergy who officiated, or were qualified to perform that service; but lectures or discourses which were given separately and distinctly in the have of the Church might be delivered by persons not specially connected with the regular congregation and holding no office in the Church. In the very earliest period of ecclesiastical history that distinction was observed. One of the best known cases in early times was the case of Origen. While a catechist on a visit to Jerusalem, he was asked by the Bishop to expound the Scriptures publicly; and the Bishop, being called to account, defended himself by quoting many precedents of similar invitations to laymen to preach publicly in the Church. At a later period, at the fourth Council at Carthage, a canon was passed prohibiting a layman from teaching in the presence of the clergy, except they requested him to do so, from which it appeared that the custom of lay preaching was sufficiently common to require a canon for its regulation and limitation. When preaching was resorted to by members of the monastic Orders, they were not ordained ministers; and when St. Francis began to preach in 1206, he had not been ordained. The preaching of lay friars stirred up new life among the people, and their zealous activity was acknowledged to be an important addition to the ordinary ministrations of the parochial clergy. At the Reformation no prohibition of lay preaching was made, and many who were not priests or deacons were allowed by the authorities to appear in the pulpits of parish churches in England and Ireland. In the 16th century Dr. Robert Harris was allowed to preach in churches near Oxford, when only a student of law and not ordained. Usher, while he was yet a student at Trinity College, and before he had taken Orders, was requested by the ecclesiastical authorities of Dublin to deliver sermons in Christchurch Cathedral. The deficiency of qualification for preaching which prevailed at that time led to the frequent appearance of learned and eloquent laymen and of unordained ministers in the pulpits of the Established Church, and when the Act of Uniformity was framed to prevent benefices from being held by those who had not been episcopally ordained, its enactments were not especially directed against the casual and exceptional preaching of Nonconformists. The section about lecturers seemed to contemplate the delivery of lectures by men who would not read the Church Service. That the Act was not understood at the time to abolish the liberty which had previously been allowed in exceptional instances to unordained preachers was shown by the legal opinions which were recorded in The History of Baxter's Life and Times. Mr. Saunders (afterwards Lord Chief Justice) gave as his opinion, in 1675, "That if Mr. Baxter hath the Bishop's licence and be not a curate, lecturer, or other promoted ecclesiastical person mentioned in the Act, I conceive he may preach occasional sermons without conforming, and not incur any penalty within this Act." Mr. Pollexfen, in 1682, gave as his opinion "that Mr. Baxter is not restrained by the Act of Uniformity to preach any occasional sermon, so as it be within the diocese wherein he is licensed." Richard Baxter acted upon these legal opinions and preached in many parish churches in Hertfordshire without interference. John Howe, who had received congregational ordination, and had been ejected under the Act of Uniformity, was permitted in 1671 to preach in Antrim Church by the Bishop of the diocese. In 1862 Lord Cairns, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Deane were asked whether a minister not connected with the Church of England, but who had signed the Thirty-nine Articles, and been licensed by a Bishop, would be liable to penalties for preaching; the opinion given was, that he might incur the risk of being convicted under the 21st section of the Act of Uniformity, but that the matter was involved in great uncertainty. The words "execute any of the said functions of Bishop, priest, or deacon" might mean execute those offices with all the authority incident to them; and if the words were so interpreted, they would not prohibit unordained ministers from preaching occasional sermons in churches. It followed that, there was not a clear right on the part of any Bishop to give his licence to a person not episcopally ordained, and who had not signed the declaration required by the Act of Uniformity. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) contended that it was not desirable to retain such a restriction. Every restriction not justified by sound policy should be removed, and as much freedom given as possible in all these matters. There could be no risk of abuse if the Bishop and incumbent had the power which existed before the Act of Uniformity was passed, and before the Prayer Book was put into its present form. If either should be tempted to abuse any power he might have, he would be subject to an immediate expression of public opinion. Everyone who had observed the conduct of those who sat on the Episcopal Bench must admit that caution and moderation were their characteristics. They were not accustomed to run counter to the cherished opinions of those over whom they ruled. Incumbents were not likely to introduce into their pulpits men who differed from them widely in their views; and their congregations would hear from the invited stranger very much the same tone of teaching and the same line of thought they were accustomed to hear. There would be a double cheek upon abuse in the responsibility of both the Bishop and the incumbent. The congregation would have a check, though an indirect one. If the incumbent should disregard their wishes, they would have an opportunity of making representations to the Bishop. He wished that a direct voice could be given to them. Whenever the principle of the Parochial Councils Bill was adopted, and the congregation had representatives to give expression to their opinions, they could be consulted as to the admission of a casual preacher; but it was very difficult, in the present want of organization of parishioners, to devise any machinery by which an opinion could be obtained from them in a formal legal manner, but it was very unlikely that their feelings would be disregarded by both rector and Bishop. The operations of this Bill might be useful by increasing the power and interest of the pulpit, and by enlarging the sympathy that existed between Churchmen and Nonconformists. It would be well for some congregations to have opportunities of hearing old familiar topics handled by persons whose training and associations were different from those of their accustomed pastor, and there ought to be a authorized place in the services for the utterance of well qualified persons in addition to those of the professional clergymen. A measure of that kind would meet the feeling which was growing in the Church for some relations with men who were beyond its pale. That feeling was manifested in a way that excited much observation last summer by two eminent Prelates, distinguished for their power and influence. Their wide Christian sympathy and their desire for more extended usefulness led them to occupy the pulpit of a Presbyterian church in Scotland, and he saw no reason to doubt that the same feeling would lead them into reciprocal action, and would cause them to open pulpits in their dioceses to Presbyterian clergymen whose talents and Christian character would fit them for sound and useful teaching. What these Prelates would do might be done by others, and that event afforded an answer to those who apprehended that the power given by the Bill to Bishops would not be used. The artificial barrier which had been raised by the Act of Uniformity against the admission into the churches of any teaching except that of ordained ministers ought to be removed. It was not suitable to a national Church. He presumed that the teaching which would be delivered in the form of occasional sermons would be of a practical character, dwelling on moral duties and the mode of applying Christianity to the details of every-day life. It would, probably, be found that the various sermons to be delivered under the Bill would be practically alike, and would be such as to bring out more distinctly the unity and concord underlying all the differences of dogmas. In his opinion, it was the province of the Church of England to help to establish that concord and unity. The Church of England was the most comprehensive and tolerant religious body in existence, and he wished that Church to become still more comprehensive and tolerant. The measure he proposed, though small in its scope of operations, was a step towards removing what some people might consider an assumption of superiority on the part of the Church of England, as if she declared that there was no preaching beyond her pale worth being listened to by her congregations. By at once repealing the restriction he had adverted to, they would enable her freely and heartily to extend the hand of fellowship to other religious communities, and to acknowledge formally that there was an union in common Christianity, even where there was separation in particular doctrines. The Bill was very simple in its construction, and consisted of only two clauses, the principal one being that when the incumbent of any parish made application to the Bishop of his diocese to give permission to a person, approved by the incumbent, to enter his pulpit and preach occasionally, such person, on the permission being granted, might at once preach in the church without being episcopally ordained, and without making the declaration required from clergymen by the Church of England. There was a precedent in the Act of 1840 for enabling clergymen of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and America to preach occasionally in the pulpits of English clergymen, the difference being that, as they were members of another branch of the Church they might officiate as well as preach. The Bill would emancipate the Church authorities from a needless restriction, and would leave their responsibility unfettered. It might lead to very useful results, but at all events it would add a feature of liberality and tolerance to the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had given them a very interesting discourse—he wonld not say occasional sermon—and had gone so fully into the objects of the Bill, that he felt obliged to state his objections to it more fully than it was usual for an opponent to do on the occasion of asking leave to introduce a measure. The Bill laboured under an ordinary difficulty—namely, that the intentions with which many persons would receive or would decline it would be far larger than the ostensible intentions of its authors. It might seem, on the face of it, a somewhat innocent proposal; but a closer examination robbed it of that character. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the supposed analogy that might be drawn from the primitive practice of the Church in allowing laymen to preach; but it must be remembered that that permission rested on the manifest and undoubted basis—that the persons enjoying the permission were in full and complete harmony and communion with the body in whose churches they preached, and derived their authority from the very fact of that harmony. It was therefore manifest that in this practice, no precedent, but the reverse, could be found for any proposal to allow ministers of other and hostile denominations to occupy the pulpits of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt on the importance of bringing into prominence the many points on which all denominations of Christians were agreed, as well as those on which they differed; and they would all confess that such a thing would be well worth doing, if it was to be done, and that it was, indeed, but the enunciation of the first law of Gospel charity. But he feared that this Bill would have no such happy result. It was clear that upon the clergyman who was anxious to bring a stranger into his pulpit would devolve the preliminary task of selecting him, because it was not to be supposed that the clergy of the Establishment would advertise in the religious journals, that any Dissenting minister anxious to occupy their pulpits on a particular evening would be at liberty to do so. A selection would have to be made, some would be taken, and the rest left out in the cold, and that somewhat invidious process would hardly be conducive to Christian harmony, or improve the amiability of those Dissenting clergymen who found that they were not selected, and who would necessarily consider that a mark of inferiority had thus been stamped upon them. Then the Dissenting clergyman who was invited to occupy the alien pulpit would not be free to speak his whole mind in it—the antecedent condition would be that he must fight in gloves, or, otherwise, if he were free to reveal his innermost belief, a Church of England congregation might chance to find, in their own edifice, the superior merits of Dissent pressed upon their attention. The Dissenter would not be a Dissenter if he were not convinced of the spiritual superiority of his denomination over the Church, and yet he would be bound in honour not to point out what he believed to be the more excellent way. He would be expected to keep within certain limits, and to confine himself to certain subjects—a course that would not be conducive to straightforwardness, but rather calculated to substitute sophistical and superficial relations of false forbearance for the attitude of honest and manly antagonism that now prevailed between the Establishment and the Nonconformists. Again, in what frame of mind would the congregation go to church to hear the well-advertised Dissenting preacher? It would certainly not be in that spirit of gravity and sobriety proper to be carried to all public devotion, but rather in the excited mood of persons who were about to see something sensational that would divert and distract, and, perhaps, astonish them; for, of course, the minister selected would be a man of mark—one who brought with him a reputation that raised him above the level of the other Dissenting preachers in the land, and would be expected not to disappoint his backers. And if the principle of the Bill was sound, why should it not be extended to laymen; and why should a church-going layman be set aside for a professed opponent of the Church? [Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE: It is.] Then that would simply introduce chaos. It must not be supposed that the men who would most press forward to be heard would be those who were best worth hearing—quite the reverse. The quiet modest, writers and thinkers would still prefer to fill the role of the listeners. Mouthy, ill-educated, restless, conceited, self-sufficient men, speaking out of the abundance of their ignorance, stimulated by their want of common sense and their plentiful supply of self-sufficiency, would hasten forward to take advantage of the Bill; but, in all other respects, and to all other persons, of what advantage could it be? The man who had anything to say would, they might be sure, select one of the many other channels of publicity already open to everyone—conferences, public meetings, lectures, the Press, &c—as hitherto; it was not such persons who would have their preaching mouths opened by the Bill. He had no doubt, for example, that the right hon. Gentleman could, if he chose, preach a very good sermon from a pulpit; but he was equally certain that it could be with no idea of availing himself of its provisions that the right hon. Gentleman now brought forward the Bill.

resumed. He deprecated the trial of such an experiment as that in the present disturbed state of the Church, when there was already more than a sufficient number of problems awaiting solution, and when there were already so many regular channels open for everyone to say whatever he thought worth saying. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would act most wisely if he did not now attempt to push this Bill further; but if he did intend to take it to the second reading, he (Mr. Hope) should certainly offer it all the opposition possible.

said, that he did not think it would be convenient to attempt to enter upon any full discussion of this measure at the present time, when it was not possible to estimate its bearings, notwithstanding the fulness of detail into which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple) had entered. He should undoubtedly watch the measure with great interest and some jealousy; because he thought it would be no trifling thing to allow the principle that persons should be allowed to assume the office of teaching in the Church of England, while they were not to be in any manner subject to her laws and discipline, or to profess any sort of conformity to her principles, or to be under any sort of obligation to follow her rules. He felt the highest respect for the motives of his right hon. Friend; but he thought such a principle was one that could not safely be adopted as the basis of legislation by that House.

said, he wished to explain that it was his intention, if the Bill were allowed to go into Committee, to accept an Amendment proposed to be made in the 4th clause by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot), who had given Notice of a Motion to postpone their going into Committee for a fortnight. The Amendment in question took the shape of the following addition to the clause:—

"Provided also, That any service, if not according to a published ritual, shall consist only of prayer, hymns, or extracts from Holy Scripture."

, in rising to move, "That this House will, upon this day fortnight, resolve itself into the said Committee," said, that was no doubt rather an unusual Motion, and one involving some delay on that important subject, but his reason for asking for such delay was this—It was, he knew, not quite regular to allude to what was happening in "another place"; but there could be no doubt that before long another measure on this same subject would come down to the House; and his hope was that hon. Gentlemen opposite would see the inadvisability of taking hasty action on that matter, when it was likely that another Bill would soon be before them dealing with the question, as far as he could judge, in a liberal and reasonable manner. He was glad the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had adopted a conciliatory course on this occasion; but it was to be regretted that he had not done so sooner, as it would perhaps have led to more satisfactory results than could be attained at the present moment. The hon. and learned Member now, however, said he was ready to accept the Amendment standing on the Paper in his (Mr. Talbot's) name with regard to the service to be performed in the burial-grounds of the Church of England by others than the clergy of that Church. The reason why he had given Notice of that Amendment in the 4th clause was that if Churchmen were driven to that point, they would make the best bargain they could. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew that Churchmen and Dissenters were fighting on opposite sides of that question; that the promoters of that Bill were taking the first step to disestablish the Church—["No!"], while Churchmen were resisting that attack. It was all very well to say "No," but the Bill was supported last "Wednesday with all the eloquence of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall), who, proposing to disestablish the Church, declared that he looked on this Bill as a step in that direction. Therefore, Churchmen intended to defend their outposts until they were driven into their fortifications, and he trusted their defence of their position would not be in vain. He would tell the House what the compromise was which they were ready to make. Hitherto, in the churchyards of the Church, every person buried had been buried with the service of the Church performed by her ordained minister. That did not seem an unreasonable state of things to remain until the hon. Member for Bradford had succeeded in disestablishing the Church, especially considering that the Dissenters had the right to their own burial-grounds and their own services, and could do as they pleased except in burial-grounds which did not belong to them. He was quite prepared to meet the Nonconformists half-way, and to say that if they liked to have their burial service elsewhere, as was the case in Scotland and in other countries in Europe, they could bury their dead in the Church of England burying-grounds. In his opinion, the members of the Church of England, in dealing with this and similar matters, had taken too timid a view of late, having regard to the position which they held. It was clear that they had a decided majority in the country, because hon. Members opposite belonging to the Nonconformist Body had refused to be counted, which was a proof that they, at all events, believed themselves to be in the minority. It was a curious fact that although the Dissenters were in a minority in the country, their Representatives were in a majority in that House; but in his belief a change in that state of affairs was impending, as had been foreshadowed by the recent return of a Conservative Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, which had been looked upon as one of the greatest strongholds of Dissent. He believed that in that and other recent elections Conservative Members had been returned not so much because of their political views, as because they were staunch supporters of the Church of England, as against the secular party, in matters of education. As long as the Church of England was the religion of the majority in this country, its members ought to take a bolder and more vigorous line than they had done of late years. Sitting in that House in a minority of 100 in the earlier Sessions of the present Parliament, the members of the Church of England had been compelled to take a humble position; but the time had now arrived when they could stand forward boldly and resist the proposed encroachments upon their rights. He spoke plainly and fearlessly upon the subject, and he trusted that hon. Members opposite were not offended at his doing so. The Motion he had to propose was not merely a dilatory one, but was intended to give time for a fair consideration of the rival schemes to this measure, which had been or were about to be brought before the House, so that some compromise might eventually be arrived at. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which he had been good enough to accept, was no doubt an improvement upon the Bill as it stood, and would doubtless receive full attention in Committee. The House, however, would see the propriety of the members of the Church of England, desiring as they did that the whole subject should be fully discussed, refusing to strike their colours at once. The main point in dispute was, whether the Church of England had made a sufficient concession in offering to allow Nonconformists to be buried in her churchyards. Not only had those who belonged to the Established Church no objection to Nonconformists being buried in their churchyards, provided no service was used other than that of the Church of England; but they were perfectly ready to accept any scheme that could be devised for providing Dissenters with burial-grounds of their own. Nonconformists, of course, had a perfect right to stand up and to endeavour to obtain the best terms they could exact; but he must confess his surprise that hon. Members opposite, who professed to belong to the Established Church, should propose such hard terms to their own Church. He supposed that it was political necessity that had induced the hon. and learned Member, himself a professing member of the Church of England, to introduce this Bill. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, that the Bill referred peculiarly to the rural districts, because in all towns and in some large villages there were cemeteries, and therefore the number of persons who would be affected by it would be but small. In the cemeteries attached to the large towns the burial-grounds were divided, and as the hon. and learned author of the Bill termed "ticketed," a practice that had answered very well. It was, however, a singular fact that where there were two burial-grounds—one for the Nonconformists and the other for the members of the Church of England—a great number of the former preferred to be buried in the burial-grounds appropriated for the latter rather than in their own, although they were compelled to submit to the Church of England service being read over them. A short time ago the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) had told the House that when the University Tests Bill and the present measure were passed, the Dissenters would not have a grievance left; but it was curious how, the moment one alleged grievance was removed, others were invented in its place. Thus, the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) had now discovered that the great grievance of the Dissenters was the existence of the Established Church—he trusted that that was a grievance which would long remain unremoved—and it had further been found out that the Education Act was another cause for complaint. He feared that Nonconformists were never happy, except when they were miserable; and never contented, except when they had a grievance. He thought that if the suggestions contained in the Reports of the Ritual Commission, to the effect that only certain portions of the Burial Service should be read when the whole service was objected to, the grievance which this Bill proposed to remedy would disappear. Before church rates were abolished the Dissenters might have had some cause to complain that they had not an equal footing in the churchyards, to the maintenance of which they contributed with the members of the Church of England; but at the present moment they were not entitled to make such a complaint. He was quite ready to admit that Nonconformists had a right to attend the church and to be buried in the churchyard; but if they chose to exercise that right they should be content to listen to the form of service which was used in those places. He believed he had a right to be in that House, and to join in the prayers, but he was bound to accept the prayers, which were read by the chaplain; for if he were to attempt an extempore prayer or venture to sing a hymn—however successful his efforts might be—he felt sure he would be ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Bill being avowedly "the beginning of the end" with regard to the Established Church, he was surprised that no Member of the Government had spoken upon it. He cordially supported the Amendment, desiring that by some fair compromise "this last rag of a grievance" of the Nonconformists should be removed, which he thought might be accomplished when the Bill from "another place" was before them.

said, he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to consider whether by forcing the Bill quickly through the House, he would be likely to attain the end which he desired. Another Bill on the same subject, in "another place," had passed a third reading, and it would be well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether if his Bill went there, it would not receive the same consideration which other Bills had received in that place, and whether he might not fail in attaining his object. He would recommend him to consider whether some fair compromise might not be arrived at by which this vexed question might be fairly and equitably settled. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would meet those who opposed the Bill on fair and proper grounds he might succeed in passing a Bill which would satisfy the Dissenting community; but if he insisted upon having the whole Bill, those who objected to it would be be prepared to fight it to the bitter end.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would persevere with the Bill. He had already acceded to a fair compromise—namely, that any service not according to any published ritual should consist only of prayers, hymns, or extracts from the Scriptures. The Nonconformists concerned thought they had an absolute right to bury their dead in the churchyards of the parishes in which they lived, and that their own clergymen had a right to perform the service.

said, he thought that when the proposed Amendment was discussed in Committee it would be found very defective. He should not object to prayers, hymns, and portions of Scripture; but a "published ritual" might excite the reprobation not only of Churchmen but Nonconformists. A quotation had been made in a high quarter from a book which was undoubtedly questionable, and which he believed contained a ritual. He wished for a compromise acceptable to both parties, and thought the Bill should be deferred till another measure came before the House.

said, he was surprised that champions of the Church of England should object to churchyards being the common burial grounds of the people of this country. He, as a Churchman, desired to maintain the Church, and surely the best way of doing this was to meet the wishes of Nonconformists, by allowing them to inter their dead with due solemnity and decency. He feared that a so-called compromise would really be an abandonment of the Bill, and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would resolutely persevere with it.

said, the principle of this Bill was the levelling up of Dissent to the Church, and not the levelling down of the Church to Dissent, and therefore he was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite gave their assent to it. It was a Bill, pro tanto, for concurrent endowment, and violated the principles on which the Liberal party came into power. The orthodox plan of proceeding would be to secularize the Church graveyards for the sake of deceased lunatics, or, better still, suicides, who were not entitled to Christian burial. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) looked upon the Established Church as an abomination—as an unclean thing—and how he could accept the offer of consecrated ground in which to bury his dead it was difficult to conceive. There were some clauses in the Bill which he could not see how any Nonconformist could accept—for instance, the provision with respect to payment of fees. The hon. Member for Bradford said the graveyard belonged to him as much as to the clergyman. Then how could he consent to pay fees and acknowledge the freehold of the clergyman? Then, there was no sanction attached to the Bill. What penalty were they going to impose on the clergyman for not obeying their Act of Parliament? He would not vote for a Bill which violated the principle of an Establishment, and the principles which hon. Gentlemen opposite had themselves laid down.

said, he thought it was very desirable that they should go into Committee on this Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of objecting to the Bill going into Committee, ought to show some liberality, and a little kindness. Hon. Gentlemen who held Church opinions talked of the rights and privileges which they had got. They had no more rights and privileges than any other man. A Nonconformist could walk in the streets of London and into that House—he could go into the Courts of Law as well as any other man. Instead of talking about the rights and privileges of Churchmen, it would be better to try to do justice to all. This question of burials was a very solemn one. Churchmen ought not to assume that if a Nonconformist had to bury a relative he would deliver a political harangue at the grave of that relative. He would recommend the House to go into Committee and try to make the Bill satisfactory to all parties.

said, he was prepared to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Talbot); but he would not altogether agree with him that the growing majority upon Church questions entitled Churchmen to take a stiffer position in that House than before. It was the duty now as ever to do what was right and best in the interests of the Church, of the country, and of religion. Members on those (the Opposition) benches were misunderstood in their views relative to the Dissenting body. There were Nonconformists and Nonconformists. A great many were excellent men; but there were others with whom the great body of the Nonconformists themselves were "wide as the poles asunder." The churches of the Church of England were Christian churches, and all the services in the church and churchyard ought to be Christian services. One view of the action taken by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was that he was leading an insidious attack upon the Church of England for some ulterior purpose. Another was that he was trying to remedy an acknowledged grievance which both parties admitted and endeavoured to remove by legislation. He was disposed to take the latter view, and to ask himself how near he had come to the hon. and learned Gentleman? The progress of this measure during the last two or three years had more than any other shown the wisdom of Parliamentary procedure. Every year the hon. and learned Member had made renewed and greater progress. Men of different views had gradually come nearer and nearer to an agreement, and the two or three years, so far from being lost, had been time well occupied, since it had been productive of practical results. The grievances in regard to burial grounds were very small, and the fair solution seemed to be that the Nonconformists should, as in Scotland, perform the burial service in their own houses, and bury in the churchyards without a service. The hon. and learned Member said, however, that this was not enough. The grievance was not only one of fact but one of sentiment, and the latter was often the greater real grievance of the two. It happened, however, that sentiment existed in this matter on both sides, and if the Churchmen gave way to the sentiment of Nonconformists, they ought to be met in a corresponding spirit. He did not insist on any particular words or phrases, but only that the services should be of a decent, orderly, and Christian character. This was quite as much in the interest of the Nonconformists as of Churchmen. Their ancestors were buried side by side with those of Churchmen, and the sentiment that bound them together in regard to their place of common burial was much greater than the peculiar differences of the day which might separate them. His hon. Friend seemed disposed to be satisfied with the use of a published Ritual; but a Ritual might be open to grave objection, even though published. A work lately quoted by a great authority was little less than blasphemous. Whatever words were used, let them be carefully and thoughtfully considered, so that they might satisfy the modest and reasonable yearnings of Churchmen. The solution of the question had grown out of the long discussions of which the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) complained, and he trusted he would accept the Amendment to postpone the Committee for a fortnight. The Bill could then go pari passu with the measure which had that night passed the House of Lords, and there would be time during the interval to consider what words were best adapted to carry out the views of both sides, or which would best represent the opinion of the majority of that House.

said, that the measure had been fully discussed already, and delay meant defeat. The Notice Book of the House was so heavily mortgaged that if he were to adjourn the Motion for a fortnight, he should not be able to get into Committee for a couple of months. The Bill which had to come down from "another place" was before the House last Session, and had most probably been read by every Member interested in it. He was urged to make some further concession; but the moment he did so the language he adopted was objected to. His answer to all the suggestions that had been made from the other side was, that this was not the time for discussing them.

urged that it was high time for hon. Members to become men of business; and, in order to do so, they ought not to wander from the subject before them. The other day they had a very long discussion on the principle of this Burial Bill, and every hon. Gentleman then got an opportunity of expressing his sentiments. The time was come when hon. Members should attend to the business before the House instead of giving room for having constant complaints made that the House did no business at all.

urged that, as an alternative proposal had been made, it was only reasonable that there should be some delay in order that both matters might be duly considered. The House was a very small one, and an inadequate representation of Parliament for the discussion of this grave matter. He did not wish to strangle the question; but thought the Government might help them to find a day on which to discuss the subject with minds better made up than they were at present. Meanwhile, he must support the Amendment.

said, a step had been made in advance; but it was clear that the Committee were not in a happy frame of mind for coming to any arrangement to-night. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley), who spoke the other day in a spirit of compromise which they all appreciated, had put down no Amendment; and, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who said he was prepared to make considerable concessions, had put down no Amendments, and was told he must make no concessions. Again, no opinion had been expressed by any Member of the Government, and he would, therefore, suggest that as there was very little hope of making much progress to-night, the Chairman should now report Progress, and the Bill be postponed for a week or a fortnight.

said, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was merely a repetition of the Motion which had just failed, and he could not accede to it.

said, he was anxious to bring both parties together in this matter. One aspect of the question was, that the Bill was meant to relieve Dissenters from some actual grievance which was pressing on their consciences. If that was the view which was to be taken of the measure, no one could be more anxious than he to meet their wishes; but there was another aspect of the Bill, and that was that it was simply an attack on the Church of England, and a step towards its disestablishment. That was a view which derived strength from the speech which had been made by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) the other evening. He should like, under these circumstances, to know in what shape the Bill was presented to the notice of the House. Taking into account the candour of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) who had charge of it, he was willing to suppose that it was intended merely to remove a grievance; but he would remind the Committee that the various Bills which had been brought by the Nonconformists before the House had all been based on religious scruples. They objected to the payment of church rates for the purpose of maintaining property which they said was exclusively the property of the Church of England, and they now introduced a measure to obtain a right to the property themselves. That placed them, he contended, to a certain extent in a false position If the Nonconformists were honestly asking merely for the removal of a conscientious grievance, then it was but right that they should have some regard to the religious scruples of the members of the Church, and that they should not inflict upon them a greater grievance than that which they sought to do away with in their own case. He was afraid the Government had given their assent to the measure because the matter had been pressed upon them as a political question. Now, he, for one, did not wish to regard it in that light. If there was a grievance, then it was the duty of the Government, in trying to remove it, to take care that they did so in such a way as not to interfere with the conscientious scruples of others. According to the Bill as it was framed, all towns which had cemeteries were exempt from its operation; while if a landowner chose to give ground, and the parish chose to accept it, for the purposes of a cemetery, that parish would be also excluded. In that way a grievance which was not very large to commence, would be reduced to a very small point indeed. He would, then, in all fairness, ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he had taken into his consideration what would be the extent of the residue which the Bill would touch? He should like to know from him, also, whether he had made any calculation as to the life of the existing churchyards? The residue to which he referred would mainly consist of old parish churchyards, and it would be found that, as in the case of all the large towns, it would be for the benefit of the community that a great number of these old churchyards should be closed. If the population went on increasing as of late years, that would probably be done in the course of 20 years. Why, then, should a blow be inflicted on the conscientious scruples of a large number of our fellow-subjects for the purpose of passing a measure which would in 20 years be practically of no use? Nothing, for his own part, grieved him more than to see so many instances of men who were separated in life not being united in death, and if cemeteries were provided anywhere he should like to see them provided for men of all creeds. What he desired was that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should direct his attention to the points to which he had just referred.

said, that although he had not until the present Session taken any part in the discussions on the Bill, it was perfectly well known what views he entertained with regard to its general policy. In dealing with it, however, he wished to be understood as speaking merely his own individual opinions, for he denied the right of the House to call on the Government to support or oppose any particular measure which they themselves did not find it desirable, from one cause or another, to propose. It might be that there were portions of the present Bill in which certain Members of the Government could not concur; but, for his own part, he supported it entirely for the purpose of removing a grievance, and for no other reason. The existence of that grievance seemed to be universally admitted, for great efforts had been made on both sides of the House to come to a friendly solution of the question. The grievance might not be very widely spread; but it was nevertheless a real and deep grievance. His hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down asked him whether he had made any inquiries with respect to the duration of the churchyards, and he must admit that he had made no such inquiries. Practically, the House was now dealing with the question of the rural churchyards, and in the rural districts there was no such increase of population as that to which his hon. and learned Friend had alluded. The Census showed not only that it had remained stationary, but that it was in many instances decreasing. Some rural cemeteries had been for centuries, and would continue to be for a great length of time, adequate burial places for the population of the localities in which they were situated. That being the case, the duty of the Committee was, in his opinion, to apply itself in a spirit of conciliation and moderation to the solution of a difficult question. A proposal had been made by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mowbray) for a funeral service which might be accepted on all sides; but that was a proposition which would not meet the views of many Nonconformists. But, apart from the services, there were numerous forms of religious worship which were accepted equally by all parties, and his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had, in his opinion, done much to meet the difficulty by consenting to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. Talbot), which provided for the reading of prayers, hymns, and extracts from the Holy Scriptures.

, while stating that the simple object of the Bill was to remove a real grievance under which Dissenters laboured, declined to be held responsible for any opinion which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall), or anybody else who supported it, might express with respect to it. It was, of course, open to any hon. Gentleman to vote for it on any ground he pleased.

said, he could not allow the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the rural districts to pass without comment. Every one who lived in the country knew that the churchyards in his districts had been largely increased within a comparatively recent period.

confirmed the statement just made by the hon. Baronet. He agreed with the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) that this Bill should be discussed on its merits. If there were a grievance it should be met; but he hoped the House in diminishing the minimum grievance of one class would not impose a maximum grievance upon another, and that they would endeavour to forget entirely the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall).

said, a good deal of capital seemed to have been made out of the few words which had fallen from him on a recent occasion. Those words appeared to him to have been greatly misunderstood; but he did not retract them. He had no interest in this Bill, except as it branched out of another question in which he did take an interest. Hon. Members seemed to think that he wished to obtain the end he had in view through the means of this Bill; but so far from that being the case, he could wish this grievance to continue, as it would give him far more strength for agitation than if Parliament chose to close up this smaller question. This was a Bill for remedying the practical grievances of Dissenters, and, so far, it was a Bill for disestablishing the Church. The repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the passing of the Emancipation Bill, the adoption of new laws for the registration of births and deaths, and the abolition of church rates were all the severance of ties which formerly bound the Church to the State. The House had gone so far, and if it took the step which the Bill proposed, it would, undoubtedly, contribute practically towards the result which he was anxious to bring about; but it would do so far more practically by opposing this Bill; and, consequently, he took but little interest in the success of this or any particular scheme. The grievances were handles for him which he could use to some purpose. Undoubtedly, if hon. Members wished to consult the interests of the Church which was the object of their supreme affections, they would endeavour, as far as possible, to reconcile its ministrations with the feelings and sympathies of the great bulk of the population.

said, he heard with regret the speech which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) made a few days ago, and that regret was not relieved by what the Committee had just heard. When the hon. Member claimed an absolute right, not only to the churchyards but to the churches themselves, and when he avowed that the passing of this Bill was but another step towards disestablishment, how could hon. Members accept such declarations as reconciling them to a measure of this description? He (Mr. Gregory) was anxious, however, that the question should be settled on an amicable basis, and from conversations he had had with clergymen of the Established Church he believed arrangements might be made with the recognized ministers of other denominations who wished to perform burial services in the churchyards under proper regulations. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that he should state how far he was prepared to go in meeting the Amendments upon the Paper.

objected to the omission of the words, which were inserted by the Committee in the Bill in order to meet conscientious scruples on the part of members of the Church of England. It would not be fair and right to introduce by a side-wind an alteration in the service of the Church in an Act intended solely for the relief of the consciences of Nonconformists. If there was to be any alteration of the service of the Church, let it be done openly in a Bill dealing with the Prayer Book.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

protested against the Amendment which had been made on the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley), believing that the clause would have been more acceptable to many if, instead of reading "and either with or without," it read, "and without any other religious service." He wished to make it plain that if the service were not that of the Church of England, there was to be no service at all. He therefore moved the rejection of the clause.

said, he was under the impression that the opinion of the Committee would have been taken on the Amendment for which preference had just been expressed. If they had passed the clause with that Amendment, the grievance remaining would have been infinitesimal. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said, he believed the number of places in England, omitting Wales, in which there was any grievance was very small indeed.

said, he thought his hon. Friends had rather misconstrued the effect of the clause. In fact, the clause was exactly in the form in which they wished it to be. It would be out of place to take a division on it, if the opinion was that burial without a service of the Church of England should be permitted.

said, he could not concur in that construction of the clause. There was a far greater grievance affecting the clergy of the Church than that which affected the body of Dissenters. The clergy were bound to read the service in many cases where, according to their consciences, they ought not to read it. That subject had been considered by the Ritual Commission, and a great part of the difficulty was got over by recommending an alternative service in lieu of the present burial service, and if that alternative service should be adopted, it would not only relieve the clergy of the great grievance which rested upon them, but it would relieve every Nonconformist, because there would be nothing in it requiring the clergyman to deny the service to any Nonconformist, or anything to which any Nonconformist could object.

considered it was very material that the words should be retained in the clause.

said, the question could be better raised on Clause 4. As a matter of fact, the clergyman would always know the name of the person who was to perform the service.

said, he hoped that some notice would be given to the clergyman as to the certificate of death. A clergyman could not bury his own parishioners without a certificate of death; but there appeared to be no provision in this Bill with respect to a certificate of death where the Church service was not performed. It might be a very convenient arrangement for burkers to get rid of a body without service and without certificate. He must beg the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to this point.

said, that as the law stood at present a clergyman burying without a certificate of death was bound to give notice to the registrar, and, therefore, it was necessary, in reference to this matter, that some person should stand in the same place as the clergyman, and send notice to the registrar.

was of opinion that the words in the clause should be retained.

suggested that the clause should be postponed, for if any other religious service but that of the Church of England was to be performed, it would be desirable to know who was to perform it.

said, it was necessary that some provision should be made in the clause with reference to the certificate of burial. The person who would perform the service should be the person who should be authorised to send the certificate to the clergyman and registrar.

said, he would introduce words into the Bill at a future stage that would meet the difficulty.

said, it would be necessary to retain the words, or else no other person than the clergyman would be able to officiate. It was impossible to particularise the person or persons who should officiate at the burial of those who were not members of the Church of England.

said, that in some bodies of Dissenters there were persons who were not strictly ministers, but recognised preachers, and he thought that the clause should be extended, so as to include such recognised preachers.

supported the Amendment.

said, he knew what a clergyman of the Church of England was, and he knew what a clergyman of the Church of Rome was; but he thought it very desirable that some explanation should be given of what was meant by the word "minister;" otherwise they would get into all sorts of quibbles and quirks. They were without any Law Officers of the Crown; but perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would furnish an interpretation. Without some such statement, it was impossible to know whether the words "or other person or persons" ought to be retained in the clause or not.

said, the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) was impressed with the importance of Gretna Green weddings, and doubtless he wanted Gretna Green funerals as well. He hoped the Committee would prevent any scenes of this kind.

asked, if a prescribed form of service were adopted, what could it matter to hon. Gentlemen opposite by whom it was used, as, in their eyes, all who were not Church of England clergymen were equally unauthorised?

said, it was desirable to meet the scruples of religious sects, such as that of the Society of Friends, who, for the most part, buried in grounds of their own, and who would doubtless conduct their services in a creditable manner, if they desired to inter in consecrated ground.

said, he thought the remarks just made did not apply, since the Society of Friends invariably interred in their own ground.

said, he did not see how the grievance of the Dissenters was to be met if the words "other persons" were omitted. He had received several letters on this point. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, he thought the very worst way to bring about an amicable settlement was to authorize any person or persons to go into a churchyard and offer up any service he or they thought fit. He appealed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state whether he thought it right that a person, not being a minister, who might have been preaching on a Common, or any other place on Sunday, should be allowed to enter a churchyard and offer up any prayer or service he might think proper. Such a thing, he ventured to say, would not be tolerated for a moment, and disturbances would certainly arise if it were attempted. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, he believed they would, and, holding that opinion, it was better to speak out. If these words were allowed to stand they would prevent the Bill from becoming law.

reminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman that part of the arrangement with respect to the Bill implied that the services were not to be left absolutely to the discretion of the person officiating. There were to be prayers and hymns, and portions of Scripture read; so that there would be some limitations on the inventions of persons who were not-authorized ministers. Living, as he did, in the midst of a large population of Dissenters, he was aware that sects for whom it was impossible not to entertain the highest respect were constantly without ministers; and, in the absence of ministers, most respectable and excellent persons, chosen for the purpose, officiated.

suggested that if, as was now agreed, there was to be an alternative form of service prescribed by the Bill, the duty of reading this ought to be cast on the clergymen of the Church of England. Not one clergyman in a hundred, he ventured to say, would refuse when once the service had been prescribed by law. He thought that a reasonable compromise.

said, that for the sake of smoothing matters and postponing a discussion which must sooner or later occur, they had omitted the words "either with or without a religious service," and yet they had by no means agreed that there should be any religious service at all. Now they were about to give a tacit assent to the same proposition by passing the words "the minister or other person or persons who is or are to officiate at such religious service, if any, be intended to be solemnized." He entirely objected on principle to any religious service being conducted in a churchyard belonging to the Church of England by anyone but an ordained minister of that Church, because he regarded the churchyard as quite as sacred as the Church itself. He therefore proposed, in page 1, line 29, to leave out the words "to officiate at such religious service, if any intended to be solemnized," in order to insert the words, "responsible for the burial."

said, he hoped that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment, because the incumbent had sufficient authority to deal with the matter by other parts of the Bill, and because it would be a great misfortune if a statute were to contain an enactment that would in any degree prevent the poor man from having a funeral on any particular day.

also objected to the Amendment, on the ground of the inconvenience that would be occasioned if no interment could be made on Sunday and Christmas Day when they came together.

remarked that the clergyman had no power to fix the hour of termination, which ought to be given.

said, he was desirous that there should be no collision in the churchyards.

said, that as practically the Bill would apply only to the rural districts the probability of any such collisions was not very serious.