asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the revised designs and plans prepared by Mr. Street for the New Courts of Justice have been received and approved; and, whether he anticipates being in a position to announce to the House before the close of the Session that the contract has been signed and the building handed over to the architect?

in reply, said, that the Treasury had approved of the contract being entered into to carry out the revised designs and plans proposed by Mr. Street for the New Courts of Justice; but he was not prepared to state the exact time when the contract would be signed. He was not able to fix the day when the building would be handed over to the contractor, and still less was he able to fix the day I when the Session would be brought to a close; so that he could not say whether he should be able to state before the close of the Session that the building had been handed over to the contractor. The best opinion, however, that he could form was that the contract would be signed in about a month from this day. It took a long time to complete a contract for very elaborate specifications.

said, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to place the plans and designs in the Library of the House?

said, the subject would be brought again under the consideration of the House when the Estimate was moved; and, in the meantime, he would consider the suggestion of the hon. Member, with a view to see what could be done.

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of answering a Question put to me last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and by other hon. Members, with regard to the course the Government propose to take with reference to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill. I have to say that it is not our intention to move the re-committal of the Bill in order to insert the clauses relating to Scotland and Ireland. The motive I will not state in detail. It is a very simple one and—though this is a sort of matter to which I am not accustomed to refer—was stated in very few words and very fairly in a leading article in one of the public journals this morning—namely, that it was better to have the greater certainty of an imperfect Bill than to run extended risks for the sake of a better and more complete Bill. I may say, with respect to that apprehension; I do not refer solely, or indeed principally, to the risks which the Bill might run in the House of Lords. These risks I am not well able to appreciate. They might exist or they might not; but what I do refer to is this: it is quite evident, from the declarations of opinion we have already heard in this House, that if the re-commitment were proposed, it would be the subject of serious and probably lengthened debates, which, quite irrespectively of what the House of Lords might or might not do, would, I am afraid, on the question of time, be fatal to the Bill during the present Session. From these prudential motives we have thought it our duty to abandon our intention of re-committing the Bill.

inquired what course would be taken with respect to this Bill?

in reply, said, that he had placed upon the Paper Amendments in reference to several of the clauses of the Bill, so as to enable the Rating (Liability and Value) Bill to come into operation, without reference to the Valuation Bill, and which he would move on the Report. He could not state to the House at that moment that it would not be possible to pass the Valuation Bill, because he did not recognize any serious objection to the Bill in the Amendments on the Paper. One of the Amendments had regard to the importation of the provisions with respect to the Surveyor of Taxes into the Rating Bill. He had no doubt in his own mind that there was sufficient justification for this proposal, and that he should be able to satisfy the House that this conclusion was a right one. He was not disposed at that moment to give up all hopes of proceeding with the Valuation Bill this Session; but still he had thought it prudent to place upon the Paper Amendments that would make the Rating Bill a perfect Act in itself, without any reference to the Valuation Bill.

said, the valuation and rating of Government hereditaments in Scotland and Ireland was otherwise provided for. Suggestions were made that they should extend principles contained in other parts of the measure to Scotland and Ireland—such, for instance, as the repeal of certain exemptions from rateability, and the conclusion at which the Government arrived was, that, considering the lateness of the period of the Session which they had reached, it would not be prudent so to widen the scope of this Bill; but they expressed the opinion that the same principles ought to be applied to the rateability of property in Ireland and Scotland as those they had applied to the rateability of property in England; and it would be the duty of the Government at the beginning of the next Session to deal with these subject-matters in separate Bills.

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would import the provisions with respect to the Surveyor of Taxes from the Valuation Bill into the Rating Bill, and at the same time keep the Valuation Bill on the Paper. But would it not be far more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman were to be content with the importation of the necessary clauses of the one Bill into the other, and to move that the Valuation Bill be taken off the Paper?

explained that it was in the view of the Valuation Bill not being carried that it was necessary to take care the clauses to which he had referred should be imported into the Rating Bill; but these clauses did not relate to the Surveyor of Taxes. He expected shortly to be able to state whether they would proceed with the Valuation Bill this Session.

said, that taking all things into consideration, the Government could hardly hope to proceed with this Bill during the present Session.

rose to a point of Order. he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was about to import into this Bill certain clauses which stood on the Notice Paper and would more properly form part of the Valuation Bill. But these clauses appeared to him to be such as could only be introduced in Committee. He should like to know whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move those clauses on the Report?

If the clauses to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman impose any new charge they must be moved in Committee of the Whole House. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think fit to explain the objects of his new clauses, and to state how far they affect the rating of property to which they apply.

said, that upon the best advice which he had been able to obtain, he was satisfied that in bringing these Amendments forward upon Report he would be acting in accordance with the Rules of the House. The House would remember that during the passing of the Bill through Committee certain Amendments were moved with regard to the rating of plantations and woods; and he was desirous to obtain the general view of the Committee upon this particular question. The Government listened to the suggestions which were made on both sides of the House, and they came to the conclusion that they would accept the Amendments; but they also determined to put them into a practicable shape. The House must be perfectly aware that they could not accept suggestions made during the progress of the discussion in Committee without reserving the right, and indeed the duty, of correcting the method of their legal expression. It was to the method of their expression as a matter of drafting that his Amendments were confined, though it was perfectly true they were in the shape of two new clauses. He proposed to omit the proviso moved by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), at the end of Clause 3, and also to omit Clause 19, and to move instead two new clauses. The new clauses did not impose any new charge; they merely carried out in a legal form the decision already arrived at as to the method of assessing the value of rateable property.

again appealed to the Speaker. It was admitted that the clauses were new, and he must ask whether it was not a case which trenched so closely upon the Rules that, as a matter of Order, the Bill should be recommitted for the consideration of these clauses.

If the now clauses proposed by the right hon. Gentleman involve any new charges such as were not embraced by the clauses agreed to by the Committee, undoubtedly it would be out of Order to proceed with such clauses in the House; they must be dealt with by the Committee of the House. If I apprehend correctly the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, these are not new charges. If that is so, it is competent for the House to deal with them without referring them to a Committee of the Whole House. Of course, it would be open to the House, if it thought proper, to take this course—to proceed with the Bill as it stands; and if, upon further consideration of the clauses, it is found that they involve a violation of the Rules of the House, undoubtedly the Bill must be recommitted in respect of such clauses.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the new clauses would not impose any now charge. He wished to know how and in what manner that question was to be determined?

said, that perhaps the hon. and learned Member could tell the House in what respects the clauses were out of Order.

suggested that the hon. and learned Member could do so when they came to discuss the clauses, and then it could be decided whether he made out his case. He moved that the Bill be now considered.

desired to say a few words in explanation of certain Amendments to this Bill as regarded Scotland, which he had placed on the Paper. The original intention of the Government in introducing this measure was that it should apply to England only; but it having been represented that it would be well that it should be extended to the sister kingdoms, certain clauses had beeen introduced by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld), more or less adapted to meet the particular circumstances of these two countries. With one exception, these clauses were unobjectionable, so far as Scotland was concerned and so far as they went; but it was found, in the opinion of those who were entitled to express an opinion that they did not truly meet the case of Scotland, as they failed to abolish certain exemptions in that country which the Bill proposed to abolish in England, and to deal with other exemptions in Scotland which did not exist at all in England; and not only so, but a conviction existed in the minds of the rating authorities of Scotland that the Bill did not make any provision — or at least made insufficient provision—to remedy some very serious abuses that had arisen in Scotland in the application of the 37th clause of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Besides this, an objection was taken in Scotland to the plan proposed by the Government for valuing Government property. He had been applied to to give expression to these opinions, and had put certain Amendments on the Paper to be proposed at this stage of the Bill. The Amendments were of three kinds. Those on the 6th clause proposed to remove exemptions from rating enjoyed by literary and scientific societies, which had been abolished in England, but which, from an error in the wording, the Bill did not deal with in Scotland; and also to abolish an exemption enjoyed mostly under private Acts by buildings used by municipal corporations and other public bodies for public purposes. To these Amendments no serious objection was, he believed, to be apprehended. Another object of his Amendments referred to the repeal of the 37th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and as to which they should, no doubt, have to contend against very powerful interests—but he desired nothing but what was fair. His third Amendment had reference to an alteration in the system of valuing and arbitrating on Government property. These Amendments found, he believed, very general approval and support from the Members for Scotland. The Lord Advocate, he believed, was favourable to their principle; nor did he think any formidable opposition was to be apprehended from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, except possibly upon the question of the valuation of Government property, on which he was aware the right hon. Gentleman entertained a strong opinion. But soon after Notice of these Amendments had been put upon the Paper, his attention was called to the fact that, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, it would not be competent to him to move them upon the Report—the question, in fact, as had been raised by the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr. It seemed therefore that the only course open to him was to put an Amendment upon the Paper to recommit the Bill in regard to the clauses on which the Amendments had arisen—namely, the 4th, 6th, and 12th clauses. In ordinary circumstances no objection could be taken to that course; but his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had complained of his conduct in the matter as though it was of an unfriendly and hostile character; and had represented to him that the effect of the re-commitment of the Bill would in all probability be to throw very serious difficulties in the way of its passing. He had suggested that all the Amendments requisite in regard to Scotland might be embodied in a simple Bill, to which no objection could be taken; but there seemed little probability of the draft of such a Bill being agreed upon in time to pass it this Session. He therefore felt unable to accept the responsibility of so dealing with this Bill as to risk throwing away the large amount of time and labour the House of Commons had already expended upon it. Nor could he allege to himself any advantage from opposing this Bill. The Bill itself would give the people of Scotland a substantial gain. It established an important extension of the rating area, as regarded Government property and mines, and if it fell short of their just claims in regard to literary societies and municipal buildings, he believed that omission to be wholly accidental, and they had already heard from the right hon. Gentleman that it was the deliberate intention of the Government to complete the measure for Scotland in these points at the very earliest period next Session. As regarded the 37th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, he felt that it would be utterly hopeless to attempt to deal with a question of that kind, involving the interests of the great railway companies, at this late period of the Session. The only other Amendment was in regard to the scheme of valuation, and the character of the tribunal to be appointed to arbitrate, and that was one which could be discussed on this stage of the Bill. That being so, and having taken the best advice, he thought it was not his duty to press the Motion that the Bill should be recommitted.

said, he did not concur in the course taken by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham), nor in his reasons in support of it. He should therefore move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that the Bill be recommitted. The Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) were of such a serious character, and the measure itself was of such importance, that he felt it was impossible they could be adequately dealt with on the consideration of the Report. There was no doubt the Bill was intended to lay the foundation of future legislation in regard to local taxation, as distinguished from Imperial taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman declared otherwise, then he must call it a mere "meddling and muddling" of the law in respect to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be technically right in the course he intended to adopt; but the right hon. Gentleman was certainly not acting in accordance with the spirit of the Rules of the House. It was of vital importance that the House should consider this Bill in all its details before it was allowed to pass to "another place." The Bill originally contained 19 clauses, to which four were added during its progress through Committee. Of those 23 clauses it was now proposed to omit one; five new clauses were to be proposed by the author of the measure; and no fewer than 44 verbal Amendments were intended to be introduced. These figures were sufficient to show that the Bill had not been fully and fairly considered in Committee. If these had been mere verbal Amendments, he should have interposed no obstacle to the passing of the Bill; but the fact was that the proposed new clauses raised the whole question as to whether certain descriptions of property should be now, for the first time, made rateable. Although it might be true that the right hon. Gentleman had not actually taken out clauses from the Valuation Bill in order to insert them in this, yet it was certain that the clauses about to be proposed were clauses which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the distinction between the two measures, ought to have been in the Valuation Bill. The title of the present Bill, which appeared to be the original title of the two Bills when combined in one, remained; so that, in point of fact, every clause of the Valuation Bill came under the title of the present Bill, and therefore might technically be introduced in it; but whether this were a fair way of dealing with the House was another question. His own opinion was that the two measures ought to have been proceeded with concurrently, and that neither of them ought to have been passed without the other being complete. There was one most important point to be borne in mind in dealing with the clauses in respect to the extension of rateability—namely, that the scheme be a practicable one, otherwise a rate might be invalid. The Bill extended rateability to three classes of property — namely, mines, land occupied for growing woods and saleable underwood, and to fowling, shooting, sporting, and fishing, when severed from the occupation of the land. He would remind the House in connection with the Act of 1840, that some one objected to the validity of a rate because every inhabitant of the parish was not rated, as he was bound to be under the Act of Elizabeth, and the decision of the Court was fatal to the rate. A Bill was then brought in to remove the difficulty by exempting persons from rateability in respect of their ability derived from their stock-in-trade; but after passing the House of Commons, it was discovered in the House of Lords, when it was too late to amend it, that it contained words which would carry the exemption further than was intended, and the Bill was consequently withdrawn. It was again introduced into this House without those words and passed through all its stages without discussion, and became law. What would be the result if the Bill before the House passed in its present form? What legal definition would be given to the words "right of sporting?" Fox-hunting was a sport which many took great delight in; but how could it be assessed? There were also persons who enjoyed the sport of rat catching, and to show how valuable it was, he would mention the fact that when the reservoir burst at Sheffield a few years ago a claim for compensation was put in by a rat-catcher because the rats in the valley were drowned by the calamity, and the rat-catcher lost his occupation, but the claim was refused on the ground that the applicant had no beneficial interest in the rats as such. How were they, then, to rate a sport like that, in which there was no beneficial occupation? There were many persons, too, who considered rook-shooting sport, and the Bill made it rateable when severed from the occupation of the soil; but what that meant it was difficult to decide. It either meant that when not severed from the occupation of the soil it was not rateable, or else it meant that it was rated already. These matters were small in themselves; but when it came to a question as to the validity of the rate, they became very important. With regard to the right of fishing, was fishing in lakes to be rated, and how was it to be done? If it were not done legally it would invalidate the rate, and all for the sake of bringing in these things which were most unimportant as regarded the ratepayers, whilst great questions were left untouched and unsettled. The Bill if passed in its present form could not remain permanent or unaltered for more than a year or two; for the question of what was to be, and what was not to be rated, must be finally decided ere long. With regard to the question of whether the exemption of stock-in-trade should or should not include all machinery, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government used the argument that stock-in-trade was exempted, not because it was not rateable as such, but because it could not be got into the net. If that were so there would be no difficulty in rating machinery, and if the right hon. Gentleman's argument were sound it ought certainly to be rendered liable in some form or other. He did not consider that the Bill could be fairly and properly discussed on the Report, and if there was no chance of making it a perfect and permanent measure it ought not to be persisted in during the present Session. He agreed with those who thought the Bill possessed value, because it proposed to deal with Government property; but he took it to be a delusion to suppose that the liability of Government property depended upon the present measure. The Bill now under consideration would only lay the foundation of such liability, which must hereafter be dealt with in a distinct and separate measure. He proposed, therefore, that the Bill, which was most clumsily drafted, should be recommitted, in order that it might be thoroughly considered. Amendment proposed, to leave out I from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "recommitted," — (Mr. Cawley,)— instead thereof.

said, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) had intended to propose that this Bill should be recommitted with respect to certain clauses—not for the purpose of making any alteration in the Bill, but of making it more perfect, and of making the same rule apply to Scotland and Ireland that was applicable to England. He cordially approved of the views which the hon. Member expressed in the first part of his speech; but the second part was quite independent of the other. The hon. Member with great force urged that there were great defects in the Bill, arising from the fact that the Bill originally only applied to England, but in its progress it was made applicable to both Scotland and Ireland. But then having urged this matter very logically, and haying conclusively shown that the right thing would be to re-commit the Bill in order that any Amendment might be introduced, he went on to the second part of his speech, in which he spoke against all that he had previously advocated, and showed that it would be inconvenient and obstructive to delay the progress of the Bill, and he concluded without moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It was therefore impossible for him (Mr. M'Laren) to support the hon. Member, part of whose speech was logically true, but part was altogether fallacious. The question now before the House was to re-commit the Bill as a whole. He approved of the Motion to re-commit the Bill as regarded the four matters which had been mentioned, as that would take up a very short time indeed; but he declined to re-commit the whole Bill, fearing that it would take up more time than could be reasonably demanded from the House. He approved of the Bill as a whole, and thought it an admirable one. All his objection was that it did not carry out in Scotland that which it enacted in Ireland. He had himself given Notice to omit from the 4th clause the words "so far as relates to England" which would have made the exemption universal; and he regretted that it would not be in his power to move it.

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the Motion for re-commitment. As far as the extension of Clause 6 to Scotland and Ireland was concerned, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would have received the unanimous support of Members on both sides of the House, and though there would not have been the same unanimity in reference to Clause 4, he doubted not that a majority of hon. Members would have been found to support the proposal to remove the exemption as far as Ireland was concerned. In Ireland the question of exemption was looked upon with considerable disfavour, and in the City of Dublin so extensive were those exemptions in respect to property held by public bodies, that the rates on private property were increased as much as 9d. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Irish ratepayer to be left at that disadvantage, when, by consenting to this Motion, the injustice of the case might be got rid of.

said, he had no doubt as to the wisdom of the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) in withdrawing his Amendment. To have recommitted the Bill at this late stage of the Bill, and at this late period of the Session, would have been unwise. He thanked his hon. Friend for putting on the Paper some excellent Amendments, and he must express the gratification which he shared with many outside this House at the encouragement which Government had given him in the preparation of those Amendments. In reference, however, to the Amendment of Clause 6, he thought his hon. Friend might have gone further, and should not have confined himself to Scotland. At present, docks and harbours were frequently exempted, much to the injury of ports, such as Leith, Liverpool, and other places. He could give illustrative instances, but would just state how Leith was affected. Goods were landed there, or shipped, and they had to pass over the streets of Leith to the detriment of the pavements. In the various stages of their progress through the town those goods were protected at the expense of the rates of Leith, yet towards those rates nothing was contributed by the owners of that property or by the owners of the ships which brought it to the port. Nothing could be more unfair to the inhabitants, who had to pay for the protection of their property and houses. Somehow or other, in various parts of the country exemptions were frequently smuggled in; but this Session he had hoped to receive from the Government a measure which would remove all such inequalities, and would be a great measure of justice. He was glad to find that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was not opposed to the Bill.

said, his appeal to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) was made simply on the score of time, and the Government had to thank the hon. Member for the consideration he had shown by withdrawing his Amendment. At that advanced stage of the Session he could not entertain any reliable hope of the passage of a Bill full of technicalities if it were recommitted. The question before the House was whether the Amendments that were proposed should be considered upon the Report, and should pass into law during the present Session. He would remind the House that the Bill was introduced purely as an English Bill. It was not usual to deal with such a subject as this with regard to the three countries in one and the same Bill, because such a proceeding would greatly complicate the measure. It was urged that there should be no delay in extending to Scotland and Ireland the advantages of removing the exemption of Government property from rating which the Bill proposed to give to England. The Government thought that a fair appeal, and divided the Bill into three parts, the second of which they proposed by certain clauses to apply to Scotland and Ireland. With regard to the rating of Government property he contended that great delay would arise if the Bill was not passed, because it proposed to give legislative power to proceed to arbitration on the question of the value of Government property, and until this had been done nothing effectual could be achieved in regard to the rating of this class of property. Therefore, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) in thinking that no harm could be done if the Bill did not pass at all in the present Session. He had merely, as far as he could consistently with the scope and object of the Bill, prepared new clauses to meet the wishes of Members and the general opinion of the Committee. There was no new matter in them, and there was no reason why they should not be discussed on the Report. The clauses were re-drawn in fulfilment of a pledge he gave the Committee. He hoped the House would be content to negative the Motion of the hon. Member, and allow the Bill to be considered as amended.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his observations predicted that if the Bill were recommitted it would be lost for the Session, and then at the close of his speech he informed the House that the Amendments he proposed were merely to give effect to the decisions the House had already arrived at, and that they introduced no new matter. Those two statements did not appear quite consistent one with the other. For his own part, while he approved of the principle of the Bill, he confessed that if the Bill were to be hurried through the House, and wore to be an imperfect measure, he would rather prefer postponing legislation on the subject for another year. At the same time, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the new clauses of the Government might be discussed in Committee of the House without the loss of an unreasonable amount of time. Had the Government been anxious to pass the Bill this Session, they would surely have introduced it earlier than they had done, so as to enable the House to consider it fully before May, instead of which the Bill was not printed until the 7th of May. He regretted that it was not referred to a Select Committee. They were now, on the 15th of July, discussing the question whether they should re-commit the Bill or discuss it on Report. Since it was read a second time, the Bill had grown from six pages to ten, not because of Amendments arising out of the original propositions of the Government, but because of additions which the Committee had found necessary to introduce; and now the Government proposed to take out of the Bill nearly all those additions made by independent Members, and carefully discussed in Committee, in order that they might substitute other wording which the right hon. Gentleman said would more effectually carry out the intentions of the Committee. The Amendments occupied six pages and the Bill only about nine; so that the proposal to re-commit the Bill was not an unreasonable one. Sir Erskine May stated that it was always advisable when numerous Amendments were to be proposed to re-commit the Bill. He hoped, therefore, the Government would accede to the proposal, and lose no more time.

wished to ask, as a point of Order, whether it would not be necessary to re-commit the Bill, at all events so far as concerned the proposed new clause, which was to follow Clause 3 in the Bill. It was provided that the law of rating should extend to "rights of fowling, shooting, sporting, and fishing, when severed from the occupation of the soil," but in no part of the Bill was it declared upon whose shoulders the burden should fall. This new clause imposed a burden on certain persons, and was, therefore, a rating clause, which ought to be considered in Committee.

said, he thought that his right hon. Friend was under a misapprehension, and that no new burden was charged by the new clause. As to the charge on the occupier of the land, it was involved in the 19th clause, and the clause only put into a legal and practical shape what had been embodied in Clause 19.

contended that as the clause provided that the occupier of any rights of fowling, sporting, or shooting, might deduct the rates from the owner, there was a new charge placed upon the owner.

held that the clause did not impose any new charge, because the Bill by another clause—Clause 19—provided that all these rights should be assessed, and that where the owner was not occupier, the occupier should be entitled to deduct the rates from his rent.

The question raised upon the point of Order is one of great difficulty and complexity; but, according to the best judgment I can give on the matter, it appears that the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), so far as they relate to matters affecting the rating of property other than the rights of sporting, do not infringe upon the rules of the House. With regard to such Amendments, therefore, there is no necessity to recommit the Bill; but it appears to me that there is great force in the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson), and that the incidence of the rate with respect to the right of sporting, as imposed by the Committee, is varied by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Therefore, according to the Standing Orders of the House, the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clause 3. I submit that view to the judgment of the House.

said, he Ras anxious to "get on." He would therefore, suggest that the hon. Member for Salford should withdraw his Motion, and that the Bill should be recommitted with regard to Clauses 3 and 19 and the new clauses.

said, he thought it desirable that Bills should go up from that House to "another place" in as good a form as possible, and he did not believe that these Amendments could be discussed as they ought to be, except in Committee. The Committee had been discussing this matter for nearly two hours, and it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had not sooner consented to the recommittal. It was quite certain that much difficulty, litigation, and misunderstanding must arise upon the clauses as they stood, and the House must take care that summary justice was not done upon the Bill by its summary rejection in "another place."

said, it was desirable to act upon the opinion of the Speaker, and he therefore proposed to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Cross) that the Bill should be recommitted upon the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford. He proposed, therefore, to omit part of Clause 3, and to omit Clause 19, and he should then propose the new clauses as a rider to Clause 3.

said, he was in the hands of the House, and had no objection to withdraw his Amendment, although it seemed to him that the Amendments involved the whole Bill.

objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. He had before urged upon the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of this Bill, that he would expedite it if he would consent to its re-committal. The right hon. Gentleman however declared that he would not consent to re-commit the Bill, because that would endanger its becoming law. He thought that Scotland and Ireland had been rather hardly used. The President of the Poor Law Board had given what nearly amounted to a pledge, in order not to retard this measure, that he would bring in a Bill for Scotland and Ireland. [Mr. STANSFELD: No.] He was in the recollection of the House whether the right hon. Gentleman had not said he would do his best to table such a Bill, and if the House was about to re-commit the Bill it ought either to include Scotland or Ireland or else the right hon. Gentleman ought to bring in a Bill applicable to the United Kingdom. Would not the right hon. Gentleman facilitate his object if he would drop that portion of the Bill which did not apply to Ireland and Scotland and proceed only with so much of the Bill as had been made applicable to the whole United kingdom? The right hon. Gentleman told the House there was no precedent for dealing with rating questions for the whole of the three kingdoms, yet by this very Bill he proposed, with regard to England, to repeal the Act of Victoria which exempted literary and scientific institutions throughout the United Kingdom from liability to rates. He thought that Clauses 4, 6, and 12 should be recommitted.

sincerely desired that the Bill should pass in the course of the present Session, and that it should be as perfect as it could be made; but he could not see why, if the debatable parts of the measure were to be recommitted, the whole Bill should not follow the same course. The Bill had been brought in in a skeleton form, and had been built up in a most confused and confusing manner. It began at the wrong end of the subject; and he hoped that before it was got rid of there would be an assurance on the part of the Government that in the course of the next Session something real and substantial would be attempted to be done.

wished to explain, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), that he had only expressed an opinion that the general re-committal of the whole Bill would be attended with, perhaps, fatal delay.

said, he could not see that practical delay in dealing with the rating question would result from postponing the whole matter until next Session, inasmuch as Clause 7 only provided that the Treasury should at some future time bring in a measure.

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not consent to recommit Clauses 4 and 6, because he felt sure that they could be usefully added to the Bill without loss of time.

said, he thought the Government were to blame for the difficulty in which the House found itself, because they did not sufficiently think out all the questions before they brought them under consideration. He hoped the Bill would be proceeded with at once, as far as the rating of mines, woodlands, and Government property was concerned. The Bill, as it at present stood, was in a state of confusion; but it contained ample materials for the construction of a good and satisfactory measure this Session, as far as the three matters to which he had referred were concerned.

said, it appeared that they were not able to get at the propositions about which there was a general concurrence, because it was insisted by some hon. Members that the whole Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of dealing with Scotland and Ireland. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld; objected to the re-committal of the whole Bill, on the ground that if they entered into that re-committal every point that had been considered and settled with reference to England itself must necessarily pass through the ordeal of being put from the Chair, and therefore every Member would be entitled to raise a discussion on it, as if the Bill had never been committed. In the first place, was it desirable to pass this Bill or not? And, in the second place, was the forcing upon the authors of the Bill that they should deal with the three kingdoms in one and the same measure a useful and equitable method of proceeding? As to the first question, he believed it was felt by both sides of the House that it was desirable this Bill should pass. Certainly, if it were desirable for the Government, it was undoubtedly desirable for the House, and for those who wished to bring the Government fairly in face of the other main portions of the subject of local taxation. In the view of the Government this was a portion of the question of local taxation which required first to be dealt with. When a simple proposition was submitted to them, the House could, as in the case of freeing a literary institution from taxation, do it at once; but when they came to deal with the law of rating as applicable to various kinds of property, such precipitation was not convenient. He did not think either Scotland or Ireland would lose anything by the House consenting to the partial re-committal of the Bill, as contemplated by the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), and to which his right hon. Friend in charge of the measure was willing to consent. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. Hibbert) had Bills in relation to Scotland and Ireland—one ready, the other almost ready—which could be introduced next Session. The main question was whether the House wished the Bill to pass this Session or not.

shared most fully in the desire to see this Bill passed; but he must observe that those measures of the Government never would have been brought forward except for the Notice of Motion of his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes), and when brought forward they were laid on the Table in a very imperfect shape, as if there was no idea of their becoming law. He hoped the Government would consent to re-commit the Bill in reference to the 3rd and the 19th clauses, and he even thought they might include the 17th clause also, which would not lead to any prolonged discussion.

having been assured that there were Bills in preparation for Ireland and Scotland, thought it would be indiscreet for the Irish and Scotch Members to oppose the Government.

inquired whether that would include any new clause?

said, if the Bill were ordered to be recommitted with respect to Clauses 3 and 19, that Order would not apply to other new clauses.

Then I will move to add, instead of "with respect to Clauses 3 and 19," "with respect to any new clauses."

said, that no new clause could be received unless it were ordered that the Bill be recommitted in respect to it.

said, what he understood was that all new matter relating to Clauses 3 and 19 could be moved and dealt with on the re-committal of the Bill, but not other new clauses on all manner of different subjects totally unconnected with Clauses 3 and 19.

considered that the Members for Scotland had not been treated with becoming fairness, as they were deprived of the privilege which had been accorded to the English Members of re-committing the Bill. It was in deference to the President of the Local Government Board that he withdrew his Amendment in favour of a limited recommitment, and now he found the Government were ready to accede to a limited re-commitment as far as England was concerned only.

suggested that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clauses 3 and 19, and any new clauses relating to the subject-matter of those clauses. Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add the words "in respect of Clauses 3 and 19, and of any new Clauses relating to the subject matter of those Clauses."—(Mr. Cross.)

said, he wished to vindicate himself, and to reply to the remarks of the Prime Minister. There was an old saying that England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. Unfortunately, the Scotch Members had always supported the Government, and had never asserted. themselves. In his opinion, however, the time had now come when they should do so. They were a small minority in the House; but, if they acted together, they were a power. They had been always confiding in the Liberal Government which they followed, and, in his opinion, they had very often been too confiding, and what had been the consequence? Scotch legislation had not kept pace with either English or Irish legislation. The Irish Members acted wisely; they looked after their own interests, and they made their influence felt. Session after Session Irish business took precedence of other business; and it was time for Scotch Members to assert themselves in regard to what they considered ought to be done for their country. This Bill was a first step in local taxation, which affected Scotland equally with England, and yet Scotland was not to be dealt with on the same footing. This was a consequence of there not being a Scotch Minister in the Cabinet. He must earnestly protest against the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister that it was unprecedented or unusual that any Member or any section of that House should attempt to force important modifications or changes in a measure of which a Member of the Government had charge. In pursuance of his duty to his constituents, he should take every advantage of the position in which the Bill now stood to obtain the full extension of its provisions to Scotland. He would never be deterred from the fulfilment of that duty by any observations of any Minister of the Crown.

moved, as an Amendment, to add, "and also in respect of Clauses 4 and 6."

said, he had placed on the Paper several Amendments to this clause. He should, on coming to Clause 19, propose to omit the proviso which had been accepted on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read). In the meantime, he would ask the Committee to add the new clauses of which he had given Notice on the Report, and to make them an addition to Clause 3. In point of form the first step he intended to take now was to substitute "for" for the word "as." This was a merely verbal Amendment.

then moved to leave out the word "underwood," in order to insert the words "or for both such purposes and." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to omit the proviso moved by the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

said, that in point of form the next step for him to take would be to move the omission of Clause 19.

moved, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "sporting," because it was a word which would simply serve to puzzle the assessment committee.

moved to omit the word "fowling," and said that the words "shooting and fishing" would really cover all that the Government wanted to rate.

was of opinion that it would be necessary to retain the word "fowling."

pointed out that the exact words in the Bill, "sporting, shooting, fowling, and fishing," were commonly inserted in deeds. It was safer to stand by the old words, which had been used for a very long time.

doubted whether they would cover the catching of rabbits in a warren.

said, he was not sure as to "fowling," but he thought "sporting" was too wide and general a phrase. The value for rating purposes would be a bagatelle.

said, he thought it would be better to omit the word "sporting," which might include rat-catching; for he knew places where rat-catching was a favourite sport, and was largely practised. He thought, however, coursing might be included.

said, he did not think it worth while to make such objections. The object of the Government was to include everything which formed the subject of a lease. Did the hon. Member ever see a lease of the right of rat-catching? All the rights referred to in the Bill were some- times of value, and he did not see why they should not be rateable.

said, he would like to know whether it was intended to rate the right of a master of foxhounds to ride to cover.

doubted whether the words would cover the case of a rabbit warren, about which there was no clement whatever of sport.

said, the words would include the case of a free warren.

suggested that the word "sporting" should be omitted, and the words "killing game and rabbits" substituted, as this, he thought, would include coursing, &c.

said, it appeared to him that by the course they were taking in this matter, hon. Gentlemen opposite were manifesting a great want of faith in their constituents and in the assessment committees. There was no reason whatever why they should treat them as their enemies.

remarked that although he should have the greatest confidence in the assessment committee, they would have to apply the law as it was laid down in the Bill.

said, that of course the Government had no intention or desire to rate masters of foxhounds. He agreed that the words suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), "the killing of game or rabbits," would answer every purpose.

preferred to retain the word "sporting," as they did not know what "game" was.

felt sure that the words proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire would meet every difficulty.

moved the insertion of the following new clause, after Clause 3—

said, he wished to know what was meant in the clause by the expression "the natural state of the land." Something must have been done with the laud at some time or other since it was created; and that being so, who could tell what its natural state was? The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the words from the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and he should like to have some explanation of their meaning.

proposed to omit the word "only" in the first line of subsection (a) "if the land is used only for a plantation," &c. The land might be used for the purpose not only of growing wood, but of preserving game, and those words would seem to imply that the land was assessed only for agricultural purposes.

explained that the word "only" in sub-sections (a) and (b) was used with reference to a provision contained in sub-section (c).

observed that if land in its natural state were assessed, some allowance ought to be made for the expense necessarily incurred in clearing it. Some of the ancient forests had remained uncleared because it was thought the land would not repay the cost of clearing.

promised to consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman before the bringing up of the Report. If the owner of a wood used it as a game cover, it might be necessary to make him pay for his game as well as for his wood.

was in favour of retaining the word "only" in the sub-section.

said, his object in moving the omission of the word "only" was to obtain the opinion of the Committee on the point. He would suggest that the Chairman should report Progress in order that the Government might have time to consider the point.

said, it was unnecessary to report Progress, as the question raised would be considered before the bringing up of the Report.

moved in paragraph (a), line 1, to leave out "a plantation or" after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph—

"If the land is used only for plantation the gross value shall be estimated either as if the land were let for planting purposes, or as if the land were in its natural state and let and used for agricultural or grazing purposes without any trees growing thereon, as the Assessment Committee may determine."

His object was to encourage the plantation of land unsuitable for agricultural or grazing purposes, but which, though too poor for those purposes, might be made useful for the growth of larch and other trees.

said, that if those words were adopted by the House they would be departing from the understanding which had already been come to with respect to the rating of plantations and woods, and the Government therefore could not accept the Amendment.

moved the omission of the words "in its natural state." These words had been defined to mean that as a man without his clothes was in his natural state, so land without trees was in its natural state; and if that were so it would be better to omit the words.

said, that the more they went into this matter the greater mess they seemed to make of it.

said, these words had been been inserted to carry out the view which was generally expressed by the Committee, that land covered by plantations or woods should be assessed as if the plantations and woods were not there, and as if the land were let for ordinary agricultural purposes. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time said, that as its title did not convey any very clear idea of its objects, he wished shortly to explain them. By the existing regulations the salaries of Deans were fixed at £1,000 a-year, and no more. To the Deanery of Lichfield, however, there had been attached since 1706 the important and valuable living of Tattenhill, Staffordshire, which was within the diocese of Lichfield, but at some distance from the Cathedral city, and therefore not coming within the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 94 which forbad that any Dean should hold with his deanery any benefice not situate within his Cathedral city. The question, therefore, was whether by the provision of the general law he was disabled from the possession of that living. The Government thought it fair to submit the matter without delay to the decision of the proper tribunal, and the Court had decided that the Dean of Lichfield had taken the living absolutely when he accepted the Deanery. The Bill provided prospectively for the severance of the living from the Deanery, and left it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to lay down the conditions under which it should be divided after the severance had been carried out. Previous to the annexation of the rectory to the Deanery Her Majesty had been seised of the advowson in right of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Bill provided that after the severance the advowson should be vested in Her Majesty as formerly.

rose, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the Ecclesiastical Policy applied by Her Majesty's Government to the Windward Islands and to Trinidad; and to move "That this House disapproves of the Ecclesiastical Policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Windward Islands and in Trinidad." The hon. and learned Member said, that Her Majesty's Government since 1869, had been engaged in disestablishing the Church of England in the West Indies, and his first object was to show that in carrying out that ecclesiastical policy, they had violated the principles which they had themselves laid down upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford for the disestablishment of the English Church. Her Majesty's Government had also been engaged in endowing the Church of Rome in the West Indies; and his second object was to show that in carrying out that ecclesiastical policy, they had violated the principles which in 1868 carried them to place and power. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) not long ago said, that concurrent endowment was dead; but at that time the despatches of Lord Kimberley had not been laid on the Table; and he (Mr. Charley) submitted that concurrent endowment still survived and flourished under the auspices of the Colonial Office. He confined his Motion to the Windward Islands and Trinidad, because it was difficult to gather from the Returns which had been presented what had been precisely the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the other West Indian colonies. The most important of the Windward Islands was Barbadoes, and it was the seat of the Bishop of those Islands. In 1869, Lord Granville, then Colonial Secretary, instructed the Governor of those Islands to disestablish the Church of England in Barbadoes. Governor Rawson was surprised at the revolutionary policy of Her Majesty's Government, and wrote a despatch to Lord Granville, in which he said it was no light task which had been imposed upon him; that he approached it under a great sense of responsibility, and that the people of Barbadoes were almost exclusively members of the Church of England. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

resuming, said, that Governor Rawson gave some interesting statistics founded upon the religious Census of 1861; from which it appeared that the population of Barbadoes consisted of 152,727 persons, of whom. 135,000 were members of the Church of England; 10,500 were Wesleyans; 3,000 were Moravians; 230 (chiefly military) were Roman Catholics having a military chaplain; and 30 belonged to other denominations. In his despatch, alluding to the intention of the Government to disestablish the Church of England in the island, Governor Rawson said—

"I see no reason for making any change in the existing arrangement. The supremacy of the Church of England ought not to be theoretically or practically interfered with in this island,"

and he added that the Wesleyans very generally brought their children to the Church to be baptized, claimed the offices of the clergy of the Church at the burial of their dead, and many of them attended the services of the Church as well as their own religious meetings. It appeared from the Returns before the House that on the 6th of July, 1871, a conference of the clergy and laity of the Church was held in Barbadoes, at which, among other things, they recommended that a Petition should be presented to the Legislature, praying that it should contribute to the salary of the Bishop of Barbadoes. Lord Kimberley seemed to have been greatly shocked at that proposal, for in his despatch to the Governor, he directed him to make it clearly apparent to the Legislature that to contribute to the salary of the Bishop would not be in accordance with the principles on which Her Majesty's Government desired to act in reference to the ecclesiastical affairs of the West India islands; and that whatever aid the Legislature desired to extend to the Church should be paid in a bulk sum to the Church Body. On the 10th of October, 1871, the Governor replied, stating that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government would make so entire a change in the ecclesiastical condition of the island, and. would uproot the foundations of a system which had been cemented by ages, and yet showed no signs of decay, that he thought it prudent before communicating with the Legislature to consult his Council. Having consulted his Council, the Governor found them unanimously opposed to the change. They expressed their opposition in a document, which was set forth in the Papers in which they said they were aware of what had occurred with respect to the Irish Church. They noticed, they said, with great satisfaction the distinction which the Prime Minister drew between the Irish Church and the Church of England, the one being the Church of the minority and the other being the Church of the great majority of the people; and they respectfully but confidently claimed the benefit of the distinction thus drawn for the Church in Barbadoes, and on similar grounds. There was scarcely a word which fell from that distinguished champion of the English Church which would not apply to the Church in that island, and with the more point and greater force, because of the greater unanimity which prevailed respecting it among the people. Indeed, such was the harmony that existed there on the subject, that it was questionable whether even among the comparatively small body of Nonconformists, to whom there was every desire to do justice, a Mr. Miall could be found to propose its disestablishment. They added that it was connected with their early history; that it was interwoven with the social and political life of the people of the island; that it was one of the permanent institutions of the country; that the carrying out of the policy of Her Majesty's Government would create great and inevitable confusion. Such was the opinion of the Governor, the Council, the Legislature, and the people of Barbadoes. Her Majesty's Government had since consented to the payment of a salary of £1,000 a-year to the Bishop but that graceful act did not in his opinion at all derogate from the feeling with which their deliberate attempt to disestablish the Church of Barbadoes should be regarded, an attempt founded on what principle he could not conceive, but should like to be told. He passed on to Tobago, and asked on what principle the Government proposed to disestablish the Church of that island? With respect to that island, 9,000 of its 16,000 inhabitants were members of the Church of England. There were three rectors in the island, each with charge of about 3,000 Churchmen, and each having a salary of £320 a-year with an allowance of 2100 a-year for a curate, payable from the Legislature. The Governor proposed that the revenue of the Church should be reduced from £1,060 to £800, but the Earl of Kimberley insisted that there should be a strictly proportionate concurrent endowment, and that the Church of England should only have £625, the exact proportion to which it was entitled as calculated upon the number of its members. That was what was done in islands with only a small Roman Catholic population, and he now came to islands on which the Roman Catholics were in a great majority. In St. Lucia, where there was a majority of Roman Catholics among the population, a despatch of Governor Rawson's, dated October 30th, 1871, stated that—

"There had been no complaint or jealousy on the part of the Roman Catholics, neither had there been any religious dissension or dissatisfaction. The members of the several Churches have for a long time lived together in uninterrupted harmony."

A spirit of discontent, however, was infused into the island by the attempt to introduce the principle of proportionate concurrent endowment, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop wrote to Lord Kimberley insisting that the principle should be thoroughly carried out according to the respective numbers of Roman Catholics and Protestants, when the former would receive £1,600 and the Protestants £100. Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members being found present.

resumed:—The attempt by Lord Kimberley to extend to Her Majesty's subjects in St. Lucia the principle of religious equality, had simply introduced discontent among Roman Catholics who were perfectly contented before, though their endowments had meanwhile been increased. In Grenada, where there was also a majority of Roman Catholics, the Legislative Council proposed to give £1,000 to the Church of England and £1,000 to the Roman Catholics, instead of giving £2,000 to the former. The Governor reported that there was no on the part of the Dissenters to the Church; but Lord Kimberley, however, would not hear of the arrangement, insisting that no grant should be given to any religious body which was out of proportion to its numbers, and that the scheme of proportionate concurrent endowment should be carried out. The Legislature thereupon passed a resolution declaring that they would disestablish the Church of England as soon as possible, but afterwards they changed their minds, and resolved that the present religious position of the several Churches should continue as at present. A Church Disestablishment Bill was subsequently introduced into the Legislature by the Lieutenant Governor and was rejected, being blow No. 2 to the Earl of Kimberley. Governor Freeling then wrote a despatch in which he stated that it was useless to press the subject of concurrent endowment further at that time. Governor Rawson, however, on the 9th of May, 1873, penned an extraordinary despatch to the Earl of Kimberley, in which it was proposed that mass meetings should be held, and a newspaper established in the island over which he presided, in support of disestablishment, and, curious to say, Lord Kimberley favourably entertained that proposal. In the island of St. Vincent there were 17,000 Anglicans and 17,000 Dissenters, including Roman Catholics. The Government insisted upon disestablishment there, and required that when vacancies occurred in livings the amount of the incomes was to be handed over to other religious denominations. In Trinidad the Church of England was disestablished in 1870 by Lord Granville. At that time the revenue stood thus—The Church of England had £5,136 income, and the Church of Rome £5,300; and when a despatch was sent to the Governor by Earl Granville to know what changes he would suggest, the reply was that no changes were required. The Earl of Kimberley, however, in a remarkable despatch, dated the 6th of January, 1871, laid down the general principle upon which he desired the Governors to act. On a Roman Catholic incumbency becoming vacant the last stipend should be paid to the Roman Catholic Body; but when a Church of England incumbency became vacant, two-thirds of the last stipend should, until equality was arrived at, be paid to the Roman Catholic Body. The Archbishop of Port-au-Spain, not satisfied with that slow mode of carrying out the object in view, and wanting the money down at once, wrote a despatch to the Earl of Kimberley, in which he expressed his wishes very forcibly, and the noble Earl at once acceded to his request, and concurrent endowment was carried by main force through the Legislature of Trinidad. In conclusion, he called upon all hon. Members of the House who were opposed to disestablishment to vote in favour of the Motion which he had brought forward, whatever might be their views with regard to concurrent endowment. He also called on all hon. Members who were opposed to concurrent endowment, whatever their views might be with regard to Establishment, to vote in favour of his Motion, because they could not be in favour of a system of concurrent endowment which had been well described as a system which obliged almost everyone in the community to contribute to the Support of one or more religious systems which he deemed entirely incorrect. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had made out a case which required explanation from the Government. It appeared from the Parliamentary Papers which had been issued, that there had been not only au unprecedented tampering with the free legislation of the Colonies, but that there was some influence at work upon the Ministry, not apparent, adverse to the Church of England and violently stripping her in the Colonies of the revenues she derived from local resources. That influence had, it appeared, been brought to bear upon the Government immediately after the disestablishment of the Irish Church, pressing them to disestablish the Church in the Colonies; but although the idea was mooted it found no sympathy in that House. It had apparently, however, taken effect upon the Government, being admitted by them as a necessary corollary to the disestablishment of the Irish Church. He believed, however, that the House, if it had known the steps taken, would never have supported the course which the Government had consequently pursued, and the subject was one of the gravest possible kind in its constitutional as well as in its religious and moral aspect. Formerly, the Colonial Church was supposed to form a portion of the Established Church of England; but it having been formally decided to the disadvantage of the Colonial Church that such was not the case, the latter Church was entitled to any advantage in its favour that that decision might afford. He wished to know, after that decision, what business an English Minister had to meddle in the concerns of the Colonial Church? Most of our colonies had representative Legislatures, and neither Queen nor Parliament had certainly any right to interfere with their local matters without the concurrence of the local Legislature; and even in the Crown Colonies local matters should only be dealt with by the Representative of the Crown on the spot, in accordance with local public opinion. In no case was the Crown entitled to arbitrarily control colonial local affairs, still less, as in this case, to interfere in a manner contrary to the expressed local will. In the present case the Crown had initiated a scheme of concurrent endowment in the colonies, which was directly opposed to their feelings. Ministers founded on vague principles, arbitrarily laid down, a theory of religious disendowment, with a sole alternative of concurrent endowment, which they had proceeded to force adversely upon the local Legislatures. Lord Derby's Administration had wisely discontinued the grant, amounting to about £220,000 per annum, which had been charged on the Consolidated Fund to the Colonial Church of the West Indies, on the ground that it was an unjust tax upon the British taxpayer, and, now that its temporary object had been attained, was equally opposed to the interests of the Colonial Church. In ecclesiastical as well as in civil and military matters, it was better that every country should be self-dependent. About the same time the Jamaica Clergy Acts expired, and the result of the action of the Government had been that the Jamaica Church had consequently been stripped not only of its English subsidy, but of its own revenues. The very able Governor, Sir John Grant, had, in contemplation of the Clergy Acts expiring, drawn up a scheme for a new arrangement of the local resources of the Jamaica Church under its now circumstances, which he had sent home for approval. Lord Granville, however, instead of sanctioning that scheme, which had received the support of the local Legislature, had said that the moral and religious culture of the subject-race was to be the Governor's object, and not the ascendancy of any particular religious communion. He was not prepared to admit the antithesis. Even if religion were only for the "subject-race," there was no such race in Jamaica; but he thought that the moral and religious culture of the upper classes should be regarded equally with that of the lower classes. As more influential it was even morn important, and certainly quite as necessary. The free Legislature of Jamaica had devoted £30,000, out of a total revenue of £300,000, to religious purposes, and had thus clearly expressed its views with regard to what it considered its ecclesiastical requirements; but Lord Granville, in issuing his ukase, had forced the Governor to alter his scheme against his own wishes, and to establish a new system against those of the local Legislature. The Baptists of Jamaica, finding their own offerings falling short, desired a level field and no favour, but that was not the general wish of the oldest and freest of our West India Colonies in its representative days, nor was it now. The Jamaica Church was now, as a voluntary society, to be incorporated by a charter, even the cost of which incorporation it had been required to pay. The whole proceeding was very characteristic of the colonial policy of the party opposite, who were always endeavouring to force doctrines fresh from their experiments in this country down the throats of our Colonies. Sir John Grant wrote to Lord Granville—

"I was offering a scheme, but as not in accordance with your instructions it must be dropt. I will draft another on your basis of religious equality."

Barbadoes had a population of nine-tenths Anglican Church, but the advantages of national worship must be sacrificed to this inexorable theory. General Rawson—

"found them even more unanimous than he had anticipated against the change, and not at all prepared to break up the foundations of their Church, cemented by age."

As a similar instance, it would be recollected that in Ceylon, Lord Grey created a rebellion by forcing upon the island, unprepared, and in a state of panic, the just-adopted principle of free trade. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who was unable to be present, had placed in his hands a Paper which he had received from the West Indies, in which the writers said that to force upon the West Indian Colonies an ecclesiastical policy which might suit other colonies was a very arbitrary way of dealing with their interests. To say that they would throw upon voluntary resources the Church of the West Indian Colonies was to forget that the peasantry in those islands, upon whom the burden would have to be thrown, were only a generation removed from slavery. Again, there was great inequality between the effects of this treatment on Church and Dissent. The Dissenters had their own congregations in particular places, who collected amongst themselves a sort of joint-stock by voluntary contributions; but the Church had its agencies in all parts, and sought to evangelize the whole of the population without distinction of particular localities. It had to set up its agency often, and especially, where there were none to contribute. Further, the writers of the Paper to which he was referring contended that the disestablishment of the Church in the Colonies was uncalled for, as against the almost unanimous feeling of the people concerned. On the whole, it seemed to him that unless some explanation could be given of the facts which had been set forth, it was a ease in which Her Majesty's Government had violated all the constitutional principles of colonial self-government by having, in a most unprecedented and unwarrantable way, forced their own nostrums and doctrines where they had no business to intrude them at all, and appropriated revenues over which they had no control, and imposed force on an unwilling people, exerting the Imperial power in opposition to popular freedom.

had heard with some degree of regret the speech of his right hon. Friend who had just sat down in which he had charged Her Majesty's Ministers with having "violated every principle of constitutional Government," and of having "forced measures down the throats of Colonial Legislatures contrary to their opinion." Such, he had said was "the general policy of the party opposite." But his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) regret was tempered by the reflection that, in spite of this sweeping charge, the fact remained that since he had occupied the position he then held, upon every single question of colonial policy, Her Majesty's Government had received the cordial and generous support of his right hon. Friend, and by the consequent hope that his withdrawal of that support upon the present occasion was only temporary. His right hon. Friend had spoken of the policy of Her Majesty's Government as having been dictated or suggested by some of the enemies of the Church of England. He, for one, was no enemy of the Church of England, but he was not sure that those were the best friends of the Church who endeavoured to maintain her supremacy in localities where she was in a small minority, and would keep her in such a position before the eyes of the people as to render her unpopular, and so diminish her strength and usefulness. It was urged that the policy of which complaint was made was not a corollary of the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. He would appeal from the right hon. Gentleman who urged this argument to Gentlemen belonging to his own party, and inform them and the House that the policy complained of was not originated by Her Majesty's present Government, but was, if not actually originated, at any rate taken great part in, by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Bill brought in in 1868 by the Government of which he was a Member had nothing to do either with the question now before the House or with the disestablishment of the Irish Church. It was very good generalship of his right hon. Friend to introduce this statement, knowing as he must have done that this Pill would be brought up against him in such a debate as the present. But he maintained, on the other hand, that the Bill of which the Duke of Buckingham moved the second reading in 1868 rendered it impossible not to adopt some such policy as had since been followed by Her Majesty's Government. The Duke of Buckingham, in moving the second reading of a Bill to relieve the Consolidated Fund from the annual payment of £20,300 for purposes connected with the Church of England in the West Indies—a grant made on the proposition of Mr. Canning in 1824—stated that the House of Commons was "evidently of opinion that the grant had done its work and was no longer necessary;" and Lord Cairns, speaking on the same occasion, stated his opinion that the colonies were prepared to provide the cost of maintaining their own Churches. Again, on the same occasion, the Earl of Carnarvon said that in his opinion there was a great deal that was parallel between the case of Ireland and the Church of England in the West Indies. He said that in the West Indies the Established Church, as in Ireland, was the Church of the rich few — a Church whose educated clergy, scattered in the midst of a far less educated race, stood very much in the same relation to the population as did the clergy of the Established Church to the population of Ireland. After the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and when speeches like these were made in the Imperial Parliament, and reported in the colonies, was it to be supposed that the matter could rest where it had rested heretofore, or that the whole question must not have been opened up and fairly placed before the colonists themselves as to the position in which they wished the Church of England hereafter to stand in relation to them? He did not know why his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) should have objected to religious equality, for he believed they were all in favour of that principle as long as it was not opposed to religious liberty; and if religious equality could be attained without inflicting wrong on any portion of the community, it was a thing to be desired. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stood up and was prepared to stand up for the Church of England in this country. But he had always held that there was nothing abstractedly right or wrong in establishment and endowment or the reverse. The question of disestablishment and disendowment must be considered relatively to the real circumstances and position of the particular community with which they had to deal; and it was quite possible to support the establishment and endowment of the Church of England, and yet to think that her establishment and endowment in other countries was not desirable either for her own interest or for those of the population generally. How did matters stand in Trinidad and the Windward Islands before the policy of Her Majesty's Government was brought forward in re- gard to them? Why, the small minority belonging to the Church of England was endowed, whereas the large majority was not endowed at all. It was true that at Barbadoes the Church of England had a very large majority of the population; but, as to that island, although the policy of the Government had been distinctly placed before the Legislature of Barbadoes, yet when the Legislature objected to the principle which was proposed, no attempt was made to force its adoption upon it; and it had been confessed by the Mover of this Motion that the Government had performed a graceful act in advising Her Majesty to confirm the Barbacloes Bishop's Act. As to what had been said about Jamaica, if they considered the position of that colony before the disendowment of the Church and its position after that event, they could not fairly come to any other conclusion than that the work which had been done was a good and a wise work. What was the previous condition of Jamaica? Speaking from memory, he believed about.£36,000 was contributed from the revenue to the Church of England, who numbered 25,000 persons as against upwards of 80,000 belonging to Nonconformist bodies. Was this a system which could be defended? Now, let him quote from that Jamaica despatch of Lord Granville's of which his right hon. Friend complained. Lord Granville said—

"Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the moral and religious culture of the subject-race, and not the ascendancy of any one communion, ought to be the object of your Government."

His right hon. Friend, quoting this despatch of Lord Granville, said that the moral and religious culture of the lower classes and the subject-race was not so important as that of the upper classes. He could not admit that proposition, but maintained not only that the moral and religious culture of one class was as important as that of the other, but that if either should be the special care of the State, it should be that poorer class which was least able to help itself. But what were the principles that had been laid down by the Government? Why, that in those islands, in some of which the Church of England was in a. majority, and in some in a small minority, it was desirable that instead of letting that Church remain the only endowed religion, it should be proposed to those various colonies that they should either disestablish and disendow all, and leave all to stand on their own merits, or that some concurrent endowment should be adopted consistently with religious equality. And there was a second principle laid down by Lord Granville in a despatch of the 16th November, 1869, in the following words:—

"With less than one third part of those who effectively belong to any Christian communion attached to the Church of England, and with nearly two-fifths of the population never attending any religious services, it would be unjust to devote the proceeds of taxes levied from the whole population, to a body to which so small a portion of that population belongs."

The Government did not, as had been said, impose restrictions on the colonists endowing their own Churches, but it had set its face against the idea that it was right for them to raise taxes from the large body of poor people who did not belong to their communion at all, and to employ those taxes in converting them to their religion. To accuse Lord Kimberley of harshness in that matter was only to show an ignorance of his character, and an unacquaintance with his administration of the colonies, which he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) ventured to say had been marked with an ability which had raised both him and his administration in the good opinion of the world. In St. Vincent's, where it was alleged they had treated the Church of England so badly and reduced her emoluments, 17,000 of the population belonged to that Church, 14,000 to the Wesleyans, and 3,000 to the Roman Catholics. And here the hon. and learned Member for Salford had shown the cloven foot—"What chance," said he, "would those 3,000 Roman Catholics have had of obtaining a share in the endowment, but for the interference of the Government?" Hinc illœ lachrymœ. But where was the justice of the hon. Gentleman? Would he have left things as they were, the Anglicans receiving near £2,200, the Wesleyans .£250, the Roman Catholics nothing? What the Government said was that if there was to be concurrent endowment, instead of everything being given to the Anglicans and nothing to others, something more indeed ought to be given to the Anglicans than to the others; but there should also be given to the other religious denominations a fair proportion of the whole grant. In Tobago, the Anglican Church had 9,000 adherents, the Moravians 3,600, the Wesleyans 330. Was it fair that the former should have everything and the others nothing? Was the condition of things previously existing in St. Lucia equal and just? After what we had done in Ireland, would it have been satisfactory to leave things as they were in that island, where there were some 30,000 Roman Catholics and under 2,000 Protestants, the former receiving £900 per annum and the latter £800 supplemented until lately by £200 per annum from the Consolidated Fund? In Trinidad, with 64,000 Roman Catholics to 26,000 members of the Church of England, there were in the local Legislature eight votes to three against disendowment and in favour of concurrent endowment, so that it was untrue to say that concurrent endowment had been forced down the throats of the people. Since then a Petition had reached the Colonial Office in England, signed by upwards of 200 persons, in favour of total dig-endowment; and it was not improbable, if that principle made progress, that disendowment might eventually be adopted. He might go at great length through all the cases, but he had stated what he believed to be the main reasons for the action of the Government. His own difficulty was to see what different policy the Government could have adopted; and he felt very sure that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in power, and his right hon. Friend at the Colonial Office, his fair judgment and candid mind would have led him to adopt that very policy which he repudiated to-night. He could not follow the hon. Member for Salford when he spoke of Governor Rawson as being an honourable man who had been cleverly manipulated; he could only take exception to the use of such an expression; and as to the Government "descending into the gutter," he did not know what it meant, but if it implied anything dishonourable on the part of the Government he could only repudiate the suggestion. He could not see any reason to condemn Governor Rawson for having stated that the Roman Catholics had held a public meeting, and were about to establish a newspaper to advocate their claims. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that dissension had been created. But what was the meaning of the action noted by Governor Rawson? Simply that the Roman Catholics having long been content to rely upon the justice of the Legislature of the Governor and of the Home Government, had found the delay in recognizing their claims so long that they had deemed it desirable to resort to measures which were perfectly legitimate for the furtherance of those claims. Why should the hon. and learned Gentleman object? If he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was not mistaken, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself frequently made use of public meetings to advance his views, and possibly at some time or other he might have had some connection with newspapers. Why, then, should he blame the Roman Catholics of Grenada for following so good an example?

explained that he meant to say that Her Majesty's Government had fostered agitation in the Island of Grenada against the local Legislature.

said, that every interruption only strengthened the case of the Government, and that there was nothing whatever in this or any other despatch to indicate that Her Majesty's Government had taken any part in agitation against the local Legislature. It was true that the latter had changed and re-changed its views, and possibly the action of public meetings and newspapers might, not for the first time, have influenced such change. But Her Majesty's Government had neither the power nor the will to force the Legislature of Grenada to act in this matter against its will. In all these cases, what the Government had done was to place its own views of ecclesiastical policy fairly before the local Legislatures, but in no case had undue pressure been used. In all that he had said, he had advanced nothing which required him to explain or retract expressions which he had used elsewhere in defence of the Establishment of the Church of England in England, and which he was prepared, when necessary, to use again. There were cases in which a great National Church, rooted in the hearts and affections of the people, could not be uprooted and disturbed without doing violent injury to the social, political, and moral welfare of the community; but these considerations did not apply in communities where the majority was of one religious persuasion, and the whole endowment was given to the other. In such cases there could be but one result, the weakening of the moral influence of the endowed religion, little by little, and the spread of principles opposed to religion altogether. Believing that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was founded on truth and justice, and that no Government could have acted on any other principle, he asked the House not to assent to the condemnation of it proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Salford, a condemnation which he was sure would be disapproved by every thinking man in the House, and by the great majority of the people of this country.

said, he was of opinion that anyone who had read the Blue Book on the Table must have come to the conclusion that the meddling of the Earl of Kimberley had interfered with the religious peace of the islands, and that now there were those ecclesiastical disturbances and a state of things which everyone must deplore. In one island — the Island of Grenada—they had the satisfaction of knowing that the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Lieutenant Governor were putting their heads together for the purpose of circumventing and overruling the wishes of the local Legislature. In another case, the local Government declined to proceed in the course suggested, but after a little judicious manœuvring, one or two Members of the Council were induced to stay away, and by a majority of 1, the policy of Her Majesty's Government received the sanction of the Legislature. Those were circumstances which might be fairly brought before the House of Commons, for the Government were forcing disestablishment and disendowment, or a system of concurrent endowment—a policy which would scarcely have been expected from a Government that had said so much against concurrent endowment in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his defence of the Government said, that that policy originated in 1867, when a Conservative Government relieved the Imperial Exchequer of the payment of a sum of £20,000 for the endowment of the Church of England in the West Indies. The necessary result of that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was that religious equality was to be produced either by disendowment, or by concurrent endowment. He was surprised that the Prime Minister did not run out of the House when he heard the Under Secretary for in the Colonies defending concurrent endowment, considering how he had spoken of that means of establishing religious equality in Ireland. The Imperial Parliament had never sanctioned the disendowment of any one of the branches of the Church of England in the Colonies, and in the Act of the English Parliament of 1867–8 there was not one word said either about endowing other denominations, or of disestablishing the English Church in any one of the islands, but it was left entirely to the Colonial Legislatures to say what they would do in support of the local Churches. Her Majesty's Government, however, when they came to deal with the question in 1870, issued a Circular to all the colonial Governors, in which they stated that the principle they had determined should be carried out in the West Indian Islands was perfect religious equality, and they thought the best way to accomplish that was by concurrent endowment. Now, he would ask what liberty, or what freedom was left to the Colonial Legislatures when they were told that a thing had been determined in Downing Street, and done it must be? That was Lord Granville's mandate; but the Earl of Kimberley following him, descended to the most minute particulars, and enforced the sacred principle—that the members of one denomination should not be called upon to pay for the endowment of any other denomination. He would ask the House how that statement could be reconciled with the fact that in one or two colonies, where it was known to the Government that certain religious denominations would not receive any endowment, they were disregarded, and the money was handed over, as in the case of Trinidad, where the Baptists and Presbyterians refused to receive it to the general Exchequer of the island. In that manner it was thought that concurrent endowment might be reconciled with the conscientious scruples of those who would not take any public money, and who thought it the height of in-justice that they should be taxed for the support of any other sect. It seemed to him most marvellous that when Government was denouncing all those who were suspected of having a latent leaning towards concurrent endowment in the case of Ireland, they should themselves be forcing it upon the West Indies. Why, even in the present Session, in the debate upon University education in Ireland, the Prime Minister, catching at some words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), notwithstanding that his right hon. Friend had said the thing was dead, charged him with still entertaining it as a living idea, and of hoping some day or other to make it a practical reality. That was, he thought at the time, a most unjust charge to make, and it seemed most extraordinary that at the very period when the Prime Minister was making that unfounded charge against the right hon. Gentleman, he was himself endeavouring to make the concurrent endowment which he denounced a practical reality in the West Indies through the instrumentality of his noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley. However, having read the Book now on the Table, and seen how, for the last two years, Her Majesty's Government had been systematically engaged in forcing on concurrent endowment, he could understand what was meant by the charge against the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. To return to the question of colonial freedom and local self-government, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies told them that Lord Kimberley acted towards the Colonial Legislatures in the kindest and blandest possible manner, and merely reminded them of the moral duty which was incumbent on them not to tax the members of any one denomination for the endowment of another. Well, as respected that he (Lord John Manners) had already shown how his Lordship disregarded that principle in respect to the Baptists and the Presbyterians, who refused to have any endowment whatever, and when defeated in argument by Governor Rawson, he receded from his position, it was only for a moment, still leaving the colonies under the conviction that sooner or later the policy of Downing Street of endowing the different seats in proportion to their numbers, would be forced upon them. If, however, that numerical principle were to be acted upon, what was to be done in one or two of the islands where a largo proportion of the inhabitants were not Christian at all? There it was to be permitted to insert the word "Christian" before the word "denomination," and thus the question was brought to a complete state of absurdity. He must also recall to the recollection of the House that which had been so well put by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), the possible future application of that principle which the Government had been pressing on the Governments of the colonies, urging them either to adopt the principle of concurrent endowment or the principle of total disendowment. He (Lord John Manners) asked what application all that must have to future questions which had to be submitted to the consideration of that House? He feared no other than a mischievous one. In the case of Barbadoes where there was no contest at all upon the subject, the Church was established and endowed in the reign of Charles II., and it was therefore an older establishment than the present Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which was established in the reign of William III. Now, what was its position in Barbadoes? He had no doubt it would be found that the Church of England had done its work there in a way that would afford no justification to the Prime Minister for proposing its disestablishment. The Church of England in Barbadoes, he believed, was not at all in the same position as the Church of England in Ireland. He believed that the Church of England in the Island of Barbadoes was the Church of the great body of the people. In Trinidad, again, there were three dominant religions as there were three dominant religions in Ireland. He would ask why it should not be suggested to them to apply the Trinidadian experiment with regard to any surplus that might remain, in the case of the Irish Church? If the policy of disestablishmeut and concurrent endowment in the West Indian Islands was the natural child of the Irish policy of 1868–9, what in five or ten years might not be the views of the present Government of the result of the combined disestablishment of the Irish and the West Indian Churches? He recollected the vehemence which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had de- nounced the idea of concurrent endowment, and yet they saw with what pertinacity the policy of concurrent endowment had been forced down the throats of the Colonial Legislatures, and against the advice of Colonial Governors. He hoped that that view of the case would not be disregarded by a discerning House of Commons. He would vote for the Motion, because the policy it condemned was in direct opposition to the principle of colonial self-government which he thought had been established years ago; and because he believed it was forcing the Colonial Legislatures to do that which they did not wish to do.

thanked the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) for bringing forward the question, because it showed a series of grave transactions which had been carried out by the Government without asking the opinion of that House, and upon which it had never pronounced its judgment. He felt it was a grievous mistake that great affairs connected with the outlying portions of the Empire should be transacted by the Government without consulting the House of Commons. Here was an important policy being carried out in an important island, and which, if carried to its legitimate consequences, would be undoing the policy which that House had laid out for itself since 1868, and preparing the way for concurrent endowment in Ireland. He could not vote for such a policy, lest his constituents might call him to account, and say he was preparing the way for that which they sent him to that House not to favour, but to oppose. He hoped the Government would be able to give some explanation to ease their minds on the subject, and justify the trust they had hitherto reposed in them.

What the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Macfie) has said, Sir, is much to the purpose. I cannot listen to the discussions between the right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the two front benches without feeling that the policy of this country upon ecclesiastical questions has been cast loose ever since the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Ireland, which is now very generally admitted to have been a mistake; but it appears that that measure was not intended to be an isolated policy for Ireland, but that that policy has been pursued in the Colonies. I cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that if this country is to have a decided policy, it must be decided by the people, and not by the politicians of this House. We have now had this illustration—that although in Barbadoes an enormous majority of the people are attached to the Church of England, Her Majesty's Government were not in the slightest degree biassed by that circumstance, but sought by all means to disestablish the Church to which the majority of the people are attached. That cannot be denied. It may be called very liberal to make such a suggestion to the people of Barbadoes, and we may be told that the people of Barbadoes have exercised their choice, and that nothing could be more satisfactory than their decision that they will not part with their Established Church. But this controversy has another result. The Government have wrung out of this policy of disestablishment an endowment for the Roman Catholic Church; they have established in Barbadoes the principle of concurrent endowment, although they failed in their attempt to disestablish the Church of England in that colony. Now, Sir, it is perfectly manifest upon the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that Her Majesty's Government have no policy upon these subjects, except that of obedience—where they cannot help it—to the majority of the people. Let us consider these two principles—disestablishment and concurrent endowment. It seems evident that the way to concurrent endowment is through disestablishment. I stated my conviction that that would be discovered when the proposal was before the House for the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland; and what is the fact even in Ireland already? Why, that the convents and priories of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland are virtually endowed, through the administration of the grant for national education. That is the fact. If the majority of this House object to the principle of concurrent endowment, they made a mistake in adopting the principle of disestablishment. The point you have reached is this—that the opinions and the position of every denomination are valued by the politicians of this House exactly in proportion to the political power which each denomination happens to possess. That, Sir, is the lesson that I have long sought to impress upon the Protestants of this country. I tell them that they are slumbering in an unsafe position; that they are deluded into a false security; that if they suppose that the political power of more active denominations will not increase through their inaction, they are deceived. I warn them not to look for security to any political or partizan connection. There is but one security for them—political action! In that is their only security for the retention of their religious establishments and their own religious freedom. That is the lesson which the discussion of this night is calculated to enforce; and I trust that it will not be thrown away upon the people of this country. They have this illustration in the Colonies—that by their having unfortunately sanctioned—and I hope that what I now say will reach the ears of the people of Scotland—by their having unfortunately, and by mistake, sanctioned the principle of disestablishment, they have given an impetus to a principle that leads directly to concurrent endowment — the very principle to which they are opposed. That is the political lesson which I derive from the discussion this night, and I shall tell every Protestant that I have the honour of meeting or addressing, that he must look to political action alone if he desires to preserve the religious institutions he values, or even to be permitted a fair hearing in this House.

said, he had entertained the opinion that concurrent endowment was an excellent thing in those new countries where there was a scattered population and great difficulty in supporting a resident clergy. He had seen, however, from his experience in Australia, in cases in which such endowment had been done away with, a greater amount of zeal and energy exhibited by the Church of England than she had ever previously displayed. He had thus become a convert to the principle of abolishing all endowments from the facts which had passed before his eyes.

in rising to move

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the amount and application of the revenues of the Church of England and into the system of parochial benefices, with a view to the better adjustment of parishes and incomes, and the amendment of the Law relating to patronage,"

said, that his Motion was a necessary result of the decision of the House upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall). By that Motion the House had been asked to resign all control over the Church of England. This, it had refused to do by a very large majority, and, surely, if they were not prepared to give up control, they were bound to do the work of control efficiently. He accepted, but in no humiliating sense, what the hon. Member for Bradford had said—that the National Church belonged to the State as the Army, Navy, and Civil Service did; that the House was bound to exercise authority over it; and that, if the House did not, no other power could. Convocation and synods were trying to do so, but they were not acknowledged by the country. He contended that it was the duty of the House to exercise its control over the patronage and discipline of the Church of England, and so prevent ecclesiastical matters in general falling into ecclesiastical hands, because at this present time in every country in Europe the ecclesiastical powers were endeavouring to assert their authority against the civil powers in these matters. The House ought either to give up its power or to make it real; and if the House would do its duty in this matter it would place England in a position which would be the envy of other countries that were disturbed by ecclesiastical controversies. His Motion dealt with abuses that were vehemently attacked by Nonconformists, and of which no Churchman could deny the existence. The first was the flagrantly unequal distribution of the revenues of the Church. He wished to obtain authoritatively information on this subject, as to which we had now nothing but the vague result of personal inquiry. There was no other power but Parliament that could really ascertain the facts, and one of their first duties was to supply the public with accurate information in reference to Church revenues. As an instance of the grievous inequality which existed under the present system he would refer to one rural deanery, by no means au exceptional one. In this deanery there were 23 livings, of these the eight largest had a total income of £8,000 a-year, with church accommodation for only 3,233 persons, while the 15 smaller livings had a total income of only £2,012 a-year, with church accommodation for 6,097 persons. The result was that with half the population and half the church accommodation the eight richer livings had four times the income of the other 15 livings. Such inequalities surely called for some action on the part of the House and of the Government. The Ecclesiastical Commission had furnished with reference to capitular estates precisely the kind of information which he asked the House to offer to the country with respect to the other temporalities of the Church. As to parochial and other portions of the revenue of the Church, they had no official and reliable information since the Commission of 1832; but, in the meantime, the number of benefices had increased by 5,000; and, on the other hand, there had been a great shifting of population. Proper statistical Returns were urgently required. That private persons could not obtain them was beyond question. At the request of the Church Reform Association, the Rev. Mr. Fowle had devoted much time to the inquiry; but had confessed that the results he arrived at could not be relied on as accurate. On his assumption that a population of 300 was enough to give active work to a single clergyman, and that £200 a-year was the lowest on which he could live properly, the inquiries he instituted brought out the following results: — There were 409 livings in which there was neither work, nor food; 1,141 in which there was food, but no work; and 3,032 in which there was work, but no food. It certainly was time that these anomalies should be inquired into and redressed. Another point was the question of patronage. Convocation which represented the Church complained of the manner in which patronage was at present exercised, and recommended certain proposals which would remedy the existing grievous system. It was, he thought, important that the House should take the matter up and deal with these recom- mendations. In 1867, out of 12,088 benefices in the Church of England, as many as 6,403, or more than one half, were in private hands. His Motion affected only the temporalities and lands of the Church, and he thought it was time that the House undertook to deal, at any rate, with that part of the subject. There was no way at present of getting at the value of those temporalities. They were estimated—tithes and rentals—at £1,949,000; lands acquired since the Reformation, £2,251,051; voluntary collections and other items of income, £5,445,000; making a total of over £9,645,500. Other estimates, of course, were very different; but he gave those which appeared to have been the most carefully worked out. It appeared from that, that it was computed that nearly £10,000,000 a-year was allowed by the House to be used, and to remain in a form which all members of the Church of England who took an interest in that subject agreed to be one of great abuse, and. unfortunate for the Establishment itself. Therefore, whether for the removal of scandal from the Church, whether as a step towards her reform on the one hand, or towards her disestablishment on the other, there was the strongest ground for obtaining either by a Commission, or in some other way, such statistics and details as he asked for by his Motion, with a view to Parliament making that control and supervision a reality which it had so peremptorily refused to give up. He would admit that what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had done in regard to collecting information and raising the smaller livings, was good as far as it went; but it was quite inadequate to meet the real requirements of the case. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Address.

I am glad, Sir, that my hon. and learned Friend has had the opportunity of bringing forward his Motion, and more especially because he has thus raised the whole question of Church patronage. As I have given some little attention to this subject, perhaps the House will permit me to supplement my hon. and learned Friend's facts by a few others. And, in the first place, with regard to the number of livings which are actually at this moment in the market and in the hands of agents for sale, I had the curiosity the other day to take up a number of The Ecclesiastical Gazette—an organ which I think The Saturday Review assures us is the official paper of the Bishops. The first name of an advertising agent which I found in the columns of this paper—May 13th—was that of Mr. Ancona, of John Street, Adelphi. I procured his register of livings for sale, and found that it contained particulars of 94 advowsons and next presentations. Returning to the Gazette, I found Mr. Lava's monthly selection of Church property—namely, eight advowsons and next presentations. Then came Mr. Stark's advertisement. His register for May contains about 180 advowsons, next presentations, district churches, and Episcopal chapels for sale. He states on the cover, that—

"He begs to remind intending purchasers that he has always many desirable, and—in some cases—cheap livings passing through his hands privately," and he also "takes this opportunity of reminding clients of the absolute necessity there exists, whenever a parish is visited, of the object of these visits being kept strictly private."

The House therefore may imagine this intending purchaser—this successor of the Apostles, prowling like a poacher about the future scenes of his ministratrations, peeping like an area sneak into the windows of the capital rectory house; but, above all things, taking up a retired but commanding position in the parish church, from which, during Divine service, he may take stock of the age and infirmities of the incumbent. The next advertisement is Mr. Corbett's. Mr. Corbett's list contains 46 advowsons and next presentations. Then we come to Mr. Bagster's monthly register of church preferments for sale for May—104 advowsons and next presentations. Then to the advertisement of The Church and School Gazette, conducted by graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. The Rev. W. Powell Jones, who edits this Gazette, informs us that he has 700 livings on his books, but on procuring his register, I find particulars of only 114. He prefaces his list by the observation, that—

"It was held by a very eminent Prelate, lately deceased, that 'you might just as well call the buying and selling of a vacant living magic, as call it after the folly of Simon Magus.'"

Now, adding the 15 isolated advertisements of the sale of livings, which are to be found in this copy of The Ecclesiastical Gazette to the advertisements of livings contained in the various registers which I have named, we arrive at 561 as the number of livings which are advertised for sale in one number of this paper. There are 13,276 livings in the country, of which 21 are in the gift of the parishioners themselves, 580 are in the gift of trustees, 4,800 in that of the Crown, the Bishops, deans, and chapters, the Universities, and so forth, leaving about 7,900, of the annual value of some £2,000,000, in private hands. So that about one-fourteenth of the saleable patronage of the Church is up in the market at the same time. But perhaps I shall be told—such is the eagerness of vendors to effect sales—that they sometimes employ more than one agent. Very well. Let us set the duplicate advertisements against the private sales to which frequent reference is made by the agents, and we still have 561 as the number of livings for sale. But, I contend that we are entitled to add largely to this number from the lists of livings advertised for exchange. Exchange in this connection is a prettier word than sale. Many livings are advertised "for sale with an exchange of preferment." For example, Mr. Ancona advertises—

"Advowson, Western County. Price, with possession, £13,000; but if preferred, the incumbent would accept in reduction of such purchase money the presentation to an eligible living of, say, £600 nett."

Not long ago a clergyman applied to all the agents whose names he could learn about a living for exchange, and in every case he received in reply particulars of livings for sale. Suppose that an agent published only one list of livings, which was headed "For exchange," and that several of his advertisements appeared in the lists of other agents as those of livings for sale; suppose, further, that when you applied for this list, you received along with it a paper, headed, "Particulars of Church preferment for sale or exchange," in which the space left blank for "Price asked for advowson, or next presentation," precedes that for "Particulars, if for exchange;"—now this is a fact, there is such a register—and what is the inference which anyone would draw? Is it not that this decorous register of livings for exchange is virtually a register of livings for sale? But if the House will reflect, they will see that an exchange has always more or less of the nature of a sale about it. And that that is the view taken by the agents is evident, for while they charge only one commission in the case of a sale, in the case of an exchange they charge two—one to each party to the transaction. Well, I infer from all this that we are entitled, if we please, to add largely to the number of livings for sale which I have given. Now, as to the actual business done. Mr. Bagster advertises a register of purchasers 300 strong. Mr. Stark

"begs to announce that in consequence of the very large number of sales during the last few months, he is at the present time somewhat short of preferments to meet the demands of the numerous bonâ fide purchasers who are looking to him for preferments;"

and, in the same number of this Gazette he states that his sales, since the last issue, are 10 in number. Now, if Mr. Stark is generally as successful, and the other agents are equally fortunate in proportion to the number of livings which they advertise, I calculate that at that rate the whole saleable Establishment would be turned over in less than 19 years. Now, let us turn to the advertisements themselves. They constitute a valuable contribution to the history of our manners and customs, affording as they do indisputable evidence with regard to the tastes and habits of that most important class—the clergy. A gentleman has carefully analyzed 400 of their advertisements, He found "good society" in 107; e.g.—" Rector of this parish has the entrée of the best county society," "good society and no squire"—"in this parish are five gentlemen's houses, two of them belonging to, and occupied by, a baronet and an admiral." Beautiful scenery appears in 53, fishing in 31, shooting in nine, hunting in six, and rookeries in three. Stabling is a great item. There is stabling for eight horses in one case, for seven in another, for six in four, for five in five, &c. Then there is the health and ago of the incumbent. "Incumbent about 80, and in a very precarious state of health, so that an early sale is desired." "Population, 1,800; annual value, £1,800; incumbent (the advertiser), aged 58;" but he is, it is believed, in a very bad state of health. Then comes smallness of population. "Population under 100, duty nominal." "Almost a sinecure, popu- lation under 100, income £400." "Almost a sinecure, single service and no school." A Lancashire rectory is advertised—"No cure of souls; incumbent 77 and non-resident; £450 per annum." One in Shropshire—"Stables for five horses; net income £800; population 1,740; duty only on every alternate Sunday." There are some items of intelligence which one might think would find a place in these advertisements, which are "conspicuous by their absence." Out of the whole 400, only 14 contain any reference to religious views. Three High Churchmen are wanted, and 11 Evangelicals. The owner of a Yorkshire vicarage was evidently born far north. He says—"High Church; but Evangelical would do for this parish." The owner of a Dorsetshire vicarage is a real man of business. "The incumbent, on his furniture being taken for 400 guineas, would get his successor presented to the incumbency." Now, perhaps, the House would like to know who these gentlemen are who cater so pleasantly for the clerical appetite. Well, I must refer them to four admirable letters, signed "Promotion by Merit," which appeared in The Manchester Examiner last winter, and have been re-published. The writer of those letters was able, by means of The Clergy List, to identify 43 vendors in Mr. Stark's list for October. I have always heard that the aristocracy are averse to trade; but this evidently does not apply to trade in all its branches, for one Duke, one Marquess, two Earls, a Dowager Marchioness, a Countess, a Baron, not to mention two Baronets, figure in the list. I will only name one—the noble President of the National Free and Open Church Association—the Earl of Shrewsbury. At the anniversary of that Society last year, his Lordship remarked that "It was the duty of Churchmen to endeavour to leave Mr. Miall and his friends no tangible ground for attacks upon the Church," and he offers the next presentation of Burghfield, Berks, "with a capital rectory-house, glebe, and a tithe rent-charge, amounting to about £1,120 per annum." But, Sir, it sometimes happens that the agents do not effect a sale. The case is urgent; the incumbent is very old; or perhaps it is thought that the best price is likely to be obtained by a healthy public competition. Then the living is put up to auc- tion. During the last 12 months four parish churches have been put up at Liverpool, St. Ann's, St. Paul's, St. Catherine's, and St. Philip's. In this last case a clergyman is the seller, and he offers the "valuable advowson of St. Philip's, of the value of £400 to £500, with prospect of an increase." "Thee Church enjoys the privilege of marrying from all parts of the town." Ovington was put up at the Auction Mart, Token-house Yard, on March 19th. The patron and rector, Rev. C. Fisher, advertised "Capital hunting, fishing, and good society; capital rectory-house, coach-house, stabling, green-house, and good water." He said that he had reached the advanced age of 53. Somehow or other this age did not appear to the spiritual speculator so advanced as it appeared to him, and there was no sale. Trehaverock, in Cornwall, was put up on April 3rd. Trehaverock presents many modest attractions. There is no duty, no residence required, and the parsonage seems to be usefully occupied as a public-house. On Ash Wednesday, thanks to the vote of this House, hon. Members had the opportunity of adjourning to Tokenhouse Yard to see the Church transact her temporal business. Two livings were put up on that day. Dodbrook in South Devon and Falmouth. The age of the incumbent of Dodbrook, was asserted in the advertisements to be 68. He wrote, however, before the sale to say that it was only 56, and though—

"The parish and neighbourhood afford excellent society, and the general state of Church feeling is good, there being but one Dissenting place of worship in the parish,"

that announcement acted as a fatal damper, and there was no sale. By an Act of Charles II—into the origin and details of which, perhaps, we had better not minutely inquire, because that Prince had a good many odd people about him, whom he was anxious to reward, and had odd ways of rewarding them—a rate of 16d. in the pound is directed to be levied for the parson of Falmouth and his successors for ever on all houses, shops, warehouses, cellars, and outhouses within the parish of Falmouth. With tithe and harbour clues that rate amounts to about £1,700 per annum. Last year the living fell vacant, a gentleman of 77 was appointed, and the living thrown on the market. It was bought in at the sale. The last instance which I shall give is that of Hilgay, in Norfolk; of the annual value of nearly £1,420. This living was offered for sale on May 20th, and along with an hon. Friend of mine I visited the Auction Mart at the time appointed. The auctioneer informed us that of late years that kind of property had become the most difficult to deal with of any which they had to deal with then, owing to the attacks which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Arian) had made upon the Church, but, he added after the speech of the Prime Minister the other night, we shall hear no more of disestablishment for many a long day. He has evidently formed a different opinion from that of the Bishop of Peterborough, who, in reference to the same event, warned the Diocesan Conference at Leicester "not to put their trust in Princes, or in politicians, or in Premiers." But with regard to Hilgay, the living fell vacant last year, and the rev. Canon St. Vincent Beeshey was appointed. When he took leave of his old parishioners last October, he spoke of the

"Grace of the Great Shepherd and Bishop of Souls which had disposed the kindly hearts and generous impulses of patrons to seek the best spiritual superintendence they could obtain for the people they are called upon to provide for:" and of his own preferment as "coming from the spontaneous desire of a faithful widowed patron to carry out her husband's own desire that his people be ministered to by a successor in their curate."

Poor charitable but withal, misguided Canon! He did not know, that it was not the fact that 40 years before he had been curate in the parish, but the accumulated experience of 67 years which made him so valuable an acquisition; that the living was ordered to be sold by the will of his predecessor; and that his 67 years would be made more of at the sale than even the "good dining-rooms, wines and beer cellars, piggeries, and stabling for eight horses." Now, Sir, I know that, as my hon. Friend has said, the Bishops condemn all this sort of thing. "The sale of a living is a scandal, an evil, an abuse of a high and solemn trust," says the Bishop of Manchester. But who preaches loudest the Bishop of Manchester or the Archdeacon of Sudbury, who sells the advowson of Yalding, in Kent, "net income, say, £1,950, incumbent 72, price £13,000, of which £7,000 must be paid down?" And of all the Bishops who con- demn, one only—so far as I know, has any material remedy to suggest, and that is the Bishop of Exeter. He proposes to throw the burden of the redemption of patronage on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—in other words, to hand over to rich patrons funds set apart to meet the wants of poor districts; and that is a remedy which I think will scarcely meet with much favour in this House. Failing the Bishops we turn to my hon. and learned Friend. What is the remedy which he has proposed tonight? To prohibit the sale of next presentations. My hon. and learned Friend is a man of sound sense. Where then does he get his credulity? Is he not acquainted with the history of the Church in relation to patronage? Does he not know that advowsons will be sold with a verbal agreement that they will be handed back or re-sold the moment that the desired appointment is made? Failing then the Bishops, and failing my hon. and learned Friend, where shall we turn for a remedy? Shall we turn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he come down to the House some day very early in April, and ask us to tax the people, in order that we may abolish purchase in the Church, as we have abolished purchase in the Army? Or will the Church herself come to the rescue? Will members of the Church assemble in Exeter Hall—say, under the presidency of the Earl of Shrewsbury, or the Archdeacon of Sudbury— and subscribe £10,000,000 sterling in order to wipe out this scandal? No, Sir, there is only one alternative—keep your State Church, and keep with it that system of patronage upon which it is founded, and which is firmly built into its structure. Do away with your State Church, and at the same time get rid for ever of a system which sears the public conscience, lowers the whole national conception of religion, and poisons at its source the fountain of sweetness and light.

said, the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) was, no doubt, very amusing and imaginative, and redolent with some of the wildest and most rollicking statistics he had ever heard applied in that House, and when applied to the solemn subject on which they were engaged, he considered it did great credit to his literary powers. He (Mr. B. Hope) thought they should trust in this matter to the revived spirit of religion, the influence of public opinion, and the activity of the Church. The crude invention of a Commission, hastily appointed in a thin House, was not the remedy to apply to the state of things to which the hon. and learned Member for Frome had drawn attention, and the existence of which he (Mr. B. Hope) would admit. Besides, who was to appoint the Commission—the Government, the Opposition, both together, or the two Houses of Convocation. A Commission appointed by either one or other of those bodies would not command public confidence, while the result of their labours must end in their issuing a sterile Report upon the subject. In any case, it must be greatly hampered in discharging its task.

said, he must remind the House that the last speaker had entirely begged the question, and had not controverted any of the facts adduced. For himself, he would rather trust the honour of the Church to a Commission than to those persons who were trying to stifle discussion on the flagrant scandal of the sale of livings. The thinness of the House was no reason for refusing a Commission. As a Churchman, he trembled for the Church, more on account of the abuses which existed within it and its increasing dissensions and schisms than on account of the attacks of the hon. Member for Bradford. There were, no doubt, great difficulties to be got over; but the abuse of selling livings for the cure of souls ought to be got rid of in one way or another. He lived in a parish the livings of which had been put up for sale several times, and deplored the evils which attended that system. If that was the way in which livings in the Church of England were to be disposed of, he was afraid evil consequences would follow. If any remedial action were proposed to be adopted, necessarily the first demand would be for facts, and therefore the inquiry should be granted.

said, he sympathized with the object the hon. and learned Member for Frome had in view; but he objected to his Motion on the ground that there was already available, without the proposed inquiry, sufficient information for all practical purposes as regarded doing away with all the existing evils complained of. He regretted, therefore, he could not vote with the hon. and learned Member. He considered it would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the Church if they took away the great prizes that existed in the shape of the rich livings of the country, offering as they did to members of the Church the only inducements to elevate themselves in its service. He also believed that it was essential that lay patronage should exist, and that the advowson should always go with the land. The person holding the advowson held it in trust for the public benefit, and on that consideration he could not support the sale of the advowson any more than he would support the sale of a vote.

said, he had no doubt that the object of the hon. and learned. Member for Frome in proposing the Motion was to benefit the Church. Although he sympathized with his hon. and learned Friend in his wish that the fullest information should be obtained on this subject, he could not help thinking that his statement was overcharged. His hon. and learned Friend should have remembered what progress had been made with reference to this subject in the last 40 years. Since that time the property of Bishops, of chapters, and ecclesiastical corporations had been very largely and very wisely dealt with, and great good had been done in distributing the wealth of the Church among the poorer districts. He doubted whether any action of Parliament could have effected greater progress than had been effected in that period by the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought the information as to the value of ecclesiastical livings could be obtained without a Royal Commission. As to the question of patronage, he thought Parliament would not desire that that matter should be inquired into unless it was also prepared to deal with it. His hon. Friend opposite had proposed a remedy; but he did not think the House was prepared to enter into the question of patronage. If they abolished patronage, what system could they substitute for it? They should observe what was occurring in Scotland, and meanwhile his hon. and learned Friend should remember that there were defects in all systems. He thought that with so little prospect of serious Parliamentary action the House should not entrust so important a subject to a Commission. But he was willing to undertake, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ascertain what means of obtaining information could be placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission, as to the number of livings, the amount of property, and the other information sought by his hon. and learned Friend's Motion.

said, he was thankful for small mercies, so on the understanding that his right hon. Friend would arrange for extending the inquiries of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to parochial revenues, he would withdraw his Motion.

opposed the Motion as one to which it would be impossible to give effect at the present late period of the Session, and pointed out that in the metropolitan district only eight persons had been convicted under the Act during the past year, adding that it did not operate in the case of the working classes with that exceptional severity which some appeared to suppose. Magistrates were becoming more familiar with its interpretation, and their decisions were much less severe than they had been at first. Under all the circumstances, he could not accede to his hon. Friend's Motion.

said, that the effect of the Act had been to produce heart-burning and a sense of injustice wherever it was put in operation. In many cases its penalties had fallen outside its intended circuit—the Chipping Norton case, for example, where women had been sent needlessly to prison. He thought the Government would have done well to grant the inquiry.

concurred in what had been said by the last speaker, and supported the Motion for an inquiry.

defended the Act, and was glad that the Government had resisted the Motion for inquiry.

regretted that the Government had not assented to the Motion, and said that unless they promised an inquiry early next Session, he should insist on the House going to a division on the question.