asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Returns relative to the General Election ordered on the 20th March last will be presented; and, in case particulars have not yet been received from every county, division of county, and borough, to give the names of the counties, divisions of counties, and boroughs from which particulars have not been received, and to state what course he proposes to pursue with reference thereto?

, in reply, said, that with the exception of three counties and eight boroughs, the Returns which had been ordered on this subject had been made. He believed that before the end of the Session the Returns for these three counties would be received, and he hoped to be able to answer the hon. Member's Question more fully if it were repeated about the middle of next week.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the published Revenue Returns up to the 25th of July (which state that the gross revenue from the Post Office and Tele-graph Service amounts to £2,250,000 for the current financial year, as against £1,280,000 for the corresponding period of last year), How much of this nominal increase of £970,000 is real, and how much is due to the mode of appropriation of those revenues during the last financial year?

, in reply, said, that any comparison between the Returns of Revenue from the Post Office and Telegraph Services up to the 26th of July this year as compared with the Returns up to the 26th of July last year would be very fallacious, because there were various circumstances which disturbed the comparison. In the first place, irregularities had occurred in the Post Office which were not adjusted last year, and, in the second place, a new system had been en-forced by which repayments with regard to the expenses of collection were made monthly, instead of quarterly. He would prefer at present not to give any answer with regard to the precise statement of accounts. He was afraid that if he entered into any statement on the subject it might mislead, and he would wait until the end of the quarter, when a fair comparison could be made.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's ship "Raleigh" has now been commissioned nearly eight months without being employed on the service for which she was intended; that every available space has been filled with ballast to give her stability; that she is now two feet deeper in the water than she ought to be without attaining that stability; and, whether this ship was constructed from designs for which Mr. E. J. Reed, C.B., late Chief Constructor of the Navy, is responsible?

, in reply, said, that the Raleigh was commissioned for the period which the hon. and gallant Member had named, and she had a reduced complement of officers and men. As soon as she was completed, she was employed in the service as a cruising ship. A slight accident occurred to her screw, which rendered a new one necessary. It was not the fact that every available space had been filled with ballast. She had received 180 tons of ballast, which was the amount her constructor wished her to have. No inconvenience was caused by the storing of that amount of ballast, and she had the required stability, although several changes had been made in her while building. Her armament had been very much increased in weight—namely, by one-half—and in consequence of that and other alterations which added to her weight, she drew 16 inches more water than was originally intended. The designs of the ship were incomplete when Mr. Reed resigned his appointment at the Admiralty, and he was not responsible for the changes made in those designs.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a series of Meteorological Observations taken at four stations in the Bombay Presidency were sent home periodically to the India Office since 1854, and that many of the Observations have been lost; and, whether the Meteorological Observations taken since 1867 at fourteen stations in the Madras Presidency have yet been published or utilised in any way?

Sir, Registers of Meteorological Observations from the Bombay Presidency since the year 1853 have been sent to the India Office, and a few of these documents have been mislaid—at least, they cannot now be found. Since 1853 to 1863 Re-turns from Madras and Bombay have been sent to the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich. Since that time they have been sent to the Army Medical Department. Finding, however, that no use was made by that Department of these Returns, we have asked them to be sent back, and they are now in safe keeping at Greenwich. The Secretary of State has recently pointed out to the Indian Government that if these Returns are to be utilized, it will be necessary to adopt a system of general control and inspection, so as to insure uniformity of method.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the further and final Report of the Judicature Commission can be laid upon the Table of the House during the pre-sent Session?

, in reply, said, that the fifth and last Report of the Judicature Commission was finally agreed to on the 20th instant. The only delay that had occurred had been a delay with reference to the signatures. He hoped that the signatures would be obtained in time to lay the Report on the Table before the close of the Session?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Is the Government prepared to give an assurance that the case of the Irish National School Teachers will be considered during the recess, with a view of introducing a measure early next Session for the improvement of their condition; and, is it proposed, in estimating the average salary of the teachers, to take into account money earned by them outside school hours in the Science and Art Department or otherwise?

, in reply, said, that he had already given an assurance in a debate on this subject, that the case of these teachers should be considered during the Recess with a view of improving their condition and to determine from what funds the means of that improvement should be derived. As to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, that matter would have to be considered.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When further Papers relating to the recent disturbances in Natal will be laid on the Table; and whether, if they are not received before the end of the Session, they could be put into the hands of hon. Members during the Recess?

, in reply, said, that the more important Despatches, for the arrival of which the production of the Papers had been delayed, had not yet come to hand, and he was unable to say whether they would be laid on the Table this Session. As to the second part of the Question, it would not be in his power to put Papers in the hands of hon. Members during the Recess.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether by the new rules under the Judicature Act the Bank Holidays will in future be observed in the Law Offices?

Sir, the Bank Holidays, as fixed by the Act which bears the hon. Baronet's name, are four in number—Easter Monday, Whit Monday, the first Monday in August, and the first working day after Christmas Day. It is proposed by the Judicature Rules to adopt three of these Bank Holidays as holidays in the Law Offices—namely, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and the day after Christmas Day—but it is not proposed to make the first Monday in August a holiday; and, having regard to the pressure of business in the Law Offices at that period of the year, I do not think that it would be conducive to the interests of the public to make an early day in August a holiday in the Law Offices. I may take this opportunity of stating that I have to-day laid on the Table of the House a Copy of the Judicature Rules as pre-pared by the Judges and submitted to the Lord Chancellor, and also a Copy of the recommendations of the Judges as regards a re-arrangement of the Circuits.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by Baron Bramwell at Stroud upon the practice of giving the artisans employed in the mills a holiday on the day of polling at Parliamentary Elections with-out deduction of their wages; and, if so, whether it is his intention to rescind the order lately issued to the dockyards which authorised the practice condemned by Baron Bramwell; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for extending the hours of polling so that the artisans employed in dockyards, mills, &c. may have increased facilities for recording their votes at Parliamentary Elections?

, in reply, said, he doubted whether the Circular recently issued by the Admiralty fell within the principle referred to by Baron Bramwell in his judgment. The Circular provided that there should always be a half holiday for voters in Dockyards, and in his (Mr. Hunt's) view, that would not constitute an inducement to them to vote for any particular party. Not having had the advantage of legal advice, however, he was unable to state whether the Circular did infringe the principle in question; but the matter should be inquired into. At present he was not prepared to rescind the Order. As to the hours of voting, no such measure as that indicated by the hon. Member was at pre-sent under the consideration of the Government.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that he has proposed a scheme for the regulation of Saint John's Hospital, Bath, containing the following Clause:—The trustees of the charity shall consist of such of the trustees for the time being appointed by the Lord High Chancellor under the provisions of the fifth and sixth Victoria, chapter seventy six, to be trustees of the Municipal Charities vested in the Corporation of the city of Bath as shall be members of the Church of England, who shall be ex-officio members of the charity. No trustee shall act in the ad-ministration of the charity until he shall have signed a memorandum to the effect that he is a member of the Church of England and is willing to undertake the trust as regulated by the scheme; whether he is aware that Nonconformists have hitherto acted as trustees of the said charity; and, whether, in face of the opposition that has been expressed by the citizens of Bath in public meeting assembled, and also by the present trustees, to the proposed scheme, he purposes to ask for its approval by the Court of Chancery?

Sir, under the certificate of the Charity Commissioners, proceedings have been taken and are now pending in the Court of Chancery for the purpose of having a proper scheme prepared for the future administration of the charity known as St. John's Hospital, Bath. I may mention that the charity is not educational, but eleemosynary. In the ordinary course of proceedings, a scheme was prepared and brought in by one of my Predecessors, and until the last few days I have had no personal cognizance of the matter. I have, however, ascertained from inquiries which I have made this morning that the scheme brought in contains a clause, in the terms mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member—namely—

"That no trustee shall act in the administration of the charity until he shall have signed a memorandum to the effect that he is a member of the Church of England, and is willing to undertake the trust as regulated by the scheme."

Such clause has been the subject of discussion in the chambers of the Judge to whose branch of the Court the cause is attached, and the municipal trustees of Bath, who are parties to the suit, have raised several objections to the clause I have just referred to, and among others they have objected to the provision requiring the trustees to be members of the Church of England. The Papers are now before me in my official capacity to consider the objections so raised, and it will be my duty either to yield to the objections so made by the municipal trustees, or to adhere to the original proposal of my Predecessor, as in my judgment I shall deem proper. In so doing, it will be my duty to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and to the authorities upon the subject; but, whatever view I may take, the whole question will have to be eventually determined by the Judge. As regards the Question of my hon. Friend, whether, in the face of the opposition of the citizens of Bath, I propose to ask the Court of Chancery to approve of the scheme, he must not consider me as wanting in courtesy if I decline to state by anticipation what course I may think it proper to pursue in the discharge of the duties of my official position.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to a report of a punishment inflicted by the Head Master of Shrewsbury School on a boy of the name of Loxdale, whom (it is alleged) he flogged with eighty-eight stripes, whereupon the governors, after well considering the matter, did not regard the punishment excessive, but begged he would not do it again; whether the account is substantially accurate; and, if so, to ask further whether that punishment does not far exceed any which is inflicted on young criminals, whether felons or misdemeanants?

, in reply, said, that he had no further information on the subject than had appeared in The Times of that morning, but his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh, who was one of the Governing Body of the school, would no doubt be able to state the facts. As to the second part of the Question, he thought his best course would be to refer the hon. Member to the Statute Book and leave him to judge for himself. For certain offences, boys under 16 might receive 12 stripes, and, in some cases, offenders under 18 might be whipped; but the number of strokes and the instrument were not specified. In cases of robbery with violence, if the offender was under 16, the strokes were not to exceed 25, and were to be inflicted with a birch rod; lads over 16 might receive 50 lashes with the cat.

said, he would, after the direct appeal which had been made to him, venture to trouble the House with a few observations. He was one of the Governing Body of the school, and he was appealed to by Mr. Moss a few days ago, to vindicate him from the charge of having grossly ill-used a pupil. He thought the case demanded a searching investigation, and that it ought to take place at Shrewsbury; but, unfortunately, from his Parliamentary and legal duties, he was prevented from attending the inquiry. It was conducted by the Rev. Dr. Bateson (the chairman), the Bishop of Man-chester, Earl Powis, Mr. Hibbert (late M.P.), and Mr. Kenyon, Q.C., and they arrived at the conclusion that the original charges against Mr. Moss had been exaggerated, and also that the punishment inflicted was not excessive or improper. As to the facts, he was not able to add anything to the statement which had appeared in the newspapers. The conclusion to be drawn from the facts was another matter. He had no right to impugn the decision of his colleagues. He could hardly put his finger on five men more competent to conduct such an inquiry, but he should be unworthy of the position of a Governor if he did not endeavour to form an independent judgment. He had read over carefully every word of the evidence taken, and he had also heard from Mr. Moss's own his lips his defence and explanation, and he was bound to say that he could hardly understand the decision at which his colleagues had arrived. In his opinion, the punishment was both excessive and improper. That, of course, was only his own individual opinion; but it might derive some additional weight from the recommendation which the Governors appended to their finding, and which was that such a punishment should not be inflicted in future. Under all the circumstances, and thinking that he would be placed in a false position if he were considered responsible for the decision, to which he had been no party and of which he could not approve, he had that day placed his resignation in the hands of the Governing Body.

asked the Post-master General, Whether it is true that the clerks in those departments of the Post Office which already enjoy the other bank holidays are not to be allowed a holiday on Monday next, August 3rd; and, if so, whether he does not consider that the clerks in the Savings Bank Department at any rate have a claim to the same holidays which are secured by law in all other banking establishments?

, in reply, said, the Bank Holidays Act did not apply to the Post Office; but it had been arranged that the clerks should have a holiday on Easter Monday, Whit Mon-day, and the day after Christmas Day. It would, however, be inconvenient to observe the first Monday in August as a holiday at the Post Office. He did not think the clerks in the Savings Bank Department had a claim to the same holidays which were secured by law in other banking establishments.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it would be unnecessary for him to enter into any detailed statement with reference to it. The circumstances which had rendered it necessary to bring in the Bill were thoroughly well known to the House. In consequence of the state of Public Business, it had been found impossible to proceed with the Amendment Bill brought down from the House of Lords during the present Session, and as the Judicature Act of last year could not be worked in its existing form, it had become a matter of absolute necessity to introduce the present Bill, the second reading of which he now begged to move.

said, he was not disposed, under the present circum-stances, to raise any objection to the passing of the Bill, nor would he on that occasion make any remarks as to the general expediency of postponing the period at which the Act of last year was to come into operation; but, before the Bill was read a second time, he wished to point out an objection which he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would be able to meet. The Act of last year was to have come into operation on the 2nd of November, 1874, which day was chosen by consent of the Whole House in the last Parliament as being the most convenient day on which a radical change in our legal procedure could with propriety come into effect. Therefore, if the present measure merely postponed the coming into operation of the Act to the 2nd of November next year, he should raise no objection to the proposal. But that was not the course intended to be taken. The Bill proposed that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of November, 1875, "or on such earlier day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint." That was giving power to the Executive Government to cause the Act to come into operation on whatever day they pleased, and he thought that before such a power was conferred, strong and conclusive reasons should be adduced why Parliament should not itself fix the day on which the statute was to come into operation. No doubt, his hon. and learned Friend would cite as a precedent the Probate and Divorce Act of 1857, in which case it was provided that the Bill should not come into operation until the Judge had been appointed and the Rules drawn up. It was not to come into operation sooner than the 1st of January, 1858, but there was a Proviso that the Order in Council should be issued one month previous to the day appointed for the Act to come into operation. That, however, was not the course which his hon. and learned Friend now proposed, for the Order in Council might direct that the Judicature Act should come into operation immediately after the date of such Order. Surely it was not advisable that such a state of uncertainty should exist, especially as there was very little probability of the Act coming into operation before the 1st of November, 1875? If the Attorney General would consult the profession he would find that uncertainty as to the time when the Act would come into operation was producing the greatest in-convenience, and the uncertainty would be doubled by the terms of that Suspension Bill. That uncertainty was injurious both to the public and the profession, and if the Attorney General appreciated the extent of the injury he would be anxious to do what he could to substitute certainty for uncertainty. Be-fore power was given to the Government of the day to say when the Act should come into operation, the necessity for the power ought to be clearly and distinctly shown, and he would therefore ask, whether it would not be better to name a fixed day for the commencement of action?

pointed out that it would be a matter of very great difficulty to the branch of the profession to which he belonged to carry on their business unless time was given for the consideration of this Act and the new forms under it, between what might be called the legal year and the period when the Act came into operation. It was impossible that it could be brought into operation per se, as there was the question of the Court of Appeal to be considered. As the Judicature Act now stood, there was but one Court of Appeal. The Government, by their Bill of last year, proposed to supersede that and have an intermediate Court of Appeal; but that could only be constituted by another Act of Parliament. He thought it would be objectionable to adopt the Act of 1863 unless there was a subsequent Act grafted upon it providing for a second Court of Appeal. If a subsequent Act were brought in, it could hardly take effect before the November term of next year. He trusted the House would admit the reasonableness of the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton.

said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading, but to express regret that all those great legal reforms which were heralded with such a flourish of trumpets at the commencement of the Session had proved so abortive. He could not help thinking that if ordinary diligence had been used and if the Amendment Bill had been brought to the House of Commons after the Easter or Whitsun Recess, it would have been passed with the greatest ease. Indeed, if it had been brought in on the 1st of July it might even then have been passed, but for that unfortunate mania for ecclesiastical legislation which had crept in. He hoped the Government would bring in an amending Bill as early as possible next Session, and so remove the inconvenience which was caused by the present suspended animation of our Courts of Law.

said, he very much regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to introduce the Bill at all. The Judicature Act of last Session introduced a most important reform into our Law Courts, and that reform was what the British public was prepared for; but they were now asked to allow this matter to stand over for another twelve months. Under the circumstances this appeared to him to be inevitable. He felt certain that this would cause great dissatisfaction, not merely in the profession, but amongst suitors and persons who took a deep interest in this question. He trusted the Attorney General would be able to respond to the appeal made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton.

said, that if the second reading were agreed to, he proposed to take the Committee for Monday next, and in the meantime the subject-matters to which his attention had been drawn should receive consideration.

said, he thought the postponement of the Amendment of the Judicature Act of last year was exceedingly wise, and absolutely necessary. It would give time for the consideration of what was really a now question. By the original Judicature Act it was provided that there should be only one step of appeal That was condemned by all experienced persons as a system which did not exist in any country in the world, and which must result in a complete stoppage of the legal business of the country. By the present amending Bill that was sought to be altered. It proposed that there should be not one Court of Appeal, but two, the second one to be an Intermediate Court. That raised quite a new question before the House. There being a second step of appeal, where were cases from that Court to go for ultimate result? The Government had received this damnosa hœreditas from the late Government. The question of the ultimate Court of Appeal was of the utmost importance, and required careful consideration.

Sir, I moved this Resolution because the House appeared to be in a considerable difficulty, and I felt it my duty to offer a suggestion which I thought might extricate them from it. The Resolution was sanctioned by the House, and I have no doubt if we had gone into the discussion of its merits, it could have been shown that the Consolidated Fund would have suffered in no degree whatever from adopting the principle of this temporary charge. But since the Resolution was passed a communication has been made to me which induces me to believe that the Resolution is no longer necessary, and I therefore now move that the Order he discharged.

Sir, it would be interesting to the House to have some further explanation on the subject of this Resolution before the Order is discharged. We adopted the Resolution under an assurance from the Government of its necessity, and therefore it is desirable we should know what view the Government takes respecting it? Do they think the Bill stands well without it? On what foundation do they propose to discharge the Resolution?

Perhaps the House will allow me to explain more fully. I regret I cannot make a communication in detail as I could have wished; but probably I may be able to do so before the House adjourns. The arrangement is one which will secure the offices of a Judge of the highest distinction, and who will require no increase of remuneration beyond the pension which he has already earned as a reward for his services.

said, he wished to explain why he had not moved the Amendments of which he had given Notice in Committee. In order to do so, he would require to draw the attention of the House to what had taken place with respect to the 1st clause, which fixed the title to be the "Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874." He objected to that title as a misnomer, inasmuch as the author of the Bill, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Selborne, and Lord Cairns had all declared, in and out of Parliament, that it neither touched doctrine nor discipline, that it created no new offences, that it in no way interfered with public worship, and that it was simply an improvement of the Procedure Act. He therefore proposed to alter the title to one which described the real object of the Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Russell Gurney) said he had no objection to withdraw the clause, and upon that he (Mr. Hubbard) withdrew his Amendment. Some hon. Members, however, forced a division on the clause, and "the Ayes" had it; but he thought the House would hardly be satisfied to leave upon the face of that new statute a title which affirmed a distinct inaccuracy.

rose to a point of Order. Could a hon. Member discuss in the House what had taken place in Committee?

ruled that the hon. Member was not in Order, the question before the House being that this Bill be now considered.

said, he did not understand the Forms of the House so well as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He did not, however, propose any further Motion on the subject, and should leave it in the hands of those who had charge of the Bill. All he cared for was that in their legislation they should be explicit and truthful. With regard to the Schedule, when that was last under consideration, it was considered imperative that those who might be complainants under the provisions of this Bill should be qualified by being interested in the matters of which they complained—that, in fact, they should be members of the Church of England. But some hon. Members had raised doubts as to the sufficiency of that declaration, and it would be remembered that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) asked, "What was a member of the Church of England?" and an-other hon. Gentleman, a member of that respectable body the Society of Friends, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Bassett), said that they all were members, some conforming and some non-conforming. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) had also declared that a member of the Nonconformist Body was legally a member of the Church of England. It might be, in one sense, said that every baptised person was a member of the Church; but the clear and indisputable test was, whether or not any person was a communicant. The Sovereign of this country was, by law, required to be a member of the Church of England, and the evidence of such membership was provided by the reception of the Holy Communion in the Coronation Service. It had been his intention, therefore, to add the words "being a communicant," in the declaration required from a complainant under this Bill; but the House having twice, by large majorities, affirmed the necessity of a declaration that the complainant was a member of the Church of England, he accepted that fact as decisive of the intention that the membership should be a reality, and that the terms used were sufficient for their purpose. He trusted the Bill would now go to the country at large, and to the clergy in particular, under auspices which would induce them to give it their serious consideration. It had his entire concurrence with regard to the main object which he assumed it to have.

, in pro-posing as an Amendment, the addition of the following new clause:—

(Provisions relating to college chapels, &c.)

"The duties appointed under this Act to he performed by the Bishop of the diocese shall in the case of the chapels of the colleges and halls in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, he performed by the visitor of such college or hall, and in the case of the university church of any of the said universities when used by such university, or in the case of the Temple Church, or of the chapels of Lincoln's Inn or Gray's Inn, the said duties shall be per-formed by the archbishop of the province. The persons entitled to make a representation in relation to the chapel of any such colleges or halls shall be three persons who shall be doctors of divinity, law, or medicine, or masters of arts who have, and for one year next before taking any proceeding under this Act, have had their names on the books of such college or hall. The persons entitled to make a representation in relation to the university church of any of the said universities when used by such university shall be three persons who shall he doctors of divinity, law, or medicine, or masters of arts, who have and for one year next before taking any proceedings under this Act have had their names on the hooks of any college or hall in such university. The persons entitled to make a representation in relation to the Temple Church shall be three barristers at law of three years' standing of either the Inner or Middle Temple, and in relation to the chapels of Lincoln's Inn or Gray's Inn shall be three barristers at law of three years' standing of the said inns respectively. If any complaint shall be made concerning the ornaments, furniture, or decorations of any chapel of the colleges or halls of any of the said universities, or of the Temple Church, or of the chapels of Lincoln's Inn or Gray's Inn, the person complained of shall be the person responsible for the custody of such church or chapel, and the visitor or the archbishop of the province, or the judge, as the case may be, shall have power to carry into effect any direction contained in any monition at the cost of the person responsible for the custody of such church or chapel. In any other matter which may be the subject of a representation under this Act the person complained of in relation to a chapel of any of the colleges and halls of any of the said universities or in relation to the university church of any of the said universities when used by such university, or in relation to the Temple Church or the chapels of Lincoln's Inn or Gray's Inn, shall be the clerk in holy orders alleged to have offended in the matter complained of; and the visitor or the archbishop of the province, or the judge, as the case may be, in the event of obedience not being rendered to a monition, shall have power, if he think fit, to suspend the person complained of from officiating in such church or chapel until obedience to the monition is promised in writing. Nothing in this Act shall affect the provision with respect to the chapels of colleges and halls of the said universities which is contained in section 6 of 'The University Tests Act, 1871.'"

said, the Bill was considerably altered in Committee, and the 19th section which provided the exemption of various churches and chapels was struck out. He had been told that, having charge of the Bill, it was his duty to propose a clause with regard to these exemptions. The clause proposed that the duties appointed under this Act to be performed by the Bishop of the diocese should in the case of chapels of the colleges and halls in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, be performed by the visitor, or in the case of the University church, the Temple church, or of the chapels of Lincoln's Inn or Gray's Inn, the duties should be performed by the Archbishop of the province. The persons entitled to make a representation in relation to the chapel of any such college or hall should be three doctors of divinity, law, or medicine, or masters of arts, and with regard to the Temple Church and Inns of Court chapels three barristers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the addition of the clause.

, in moving the omission of the clause, said, short titles, as a rule, were, in his opinion, of little or no consequence, but if there was to be a short title at all it ought, he thought, to describe what was in the Bill. Now, he contended that the Bill did not relate to the regulation of public worship at all, and that being the case it was a misnomer to call it by such a title, and he should therefore propose that it be loft out.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 15, after "and," to insert "to the Channel Islands," said, he had ascertained at the Home Office that that had been done in the case of other Bills without consent being obtained, and that no objection had ever been made.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 38, to leave out the words "has transmitted to the bishop, under his hand, the declaration contained in Schedule (A), and who "said, the term "parishioner" would be very much circumscribed and narrowed if it were only held to include those who were prepared to subscribe such a document. He protested against a wider distinction than that which now existed being drawn between Nonconformists and members of the Church of England. His own opinion was that parishioners ought not to be confined solely to members of the Church of England, but the term ought to include all members of other denominations who were living in the parish. Were the scope of the clause limited as it stood in the Bill fresh opportunities of aggression would be given to Churchmen against the Nonconformists. He hoped the House would reconsider the determination it had formerly come to, and would agree to his Amendment. If it did so, the Bill would be strengthened, and it would meet with much more acceptance in the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

said, the definition of a parishioner which was given in the clause was for the special purpose of putting the powers of the Court in motion, and would not define the qualification of a parishioner for any other purpose. The hon. Member for Swansea was mistaken in supposing that the object of this clause was to deprive Nonconformists of any rights to which they were entitled. The clause simply provided that if any members of the Church of England were aggrieved at the way in which the services of the Church were conducted in the church which they attended, they should have a right to complain of any illegality. The effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be to introduce an inconsistency into the Bill by allowing persons who did not attend the Church of England to prefer charges against clergymen for not performing the services properly, although they had voluntarily renounced their participation in those services.

said, al-though he could not support the Amendment, he had no wish to narrow the boundaries of the Church of England. He rejoiced to think that all Nonconformists were members of that Church and had a right to attend her services and to be buried in her graveyards. But the feelings of the clergy on this matter should be considered. The discussion of the Bill had generated a feeling of irritation among a portion of the people of this country, and the feelings of the clergy on this matter ought to be taken into account. The clergy ought not to be enabled, through any illadvised alteration of the Bill, to say that they had been placed at the mercy of those who did not attend or conform to the services of the Church of England.

Sir, I have not thought it my duty to take any part in the discussion on the clauses of this Bill, as I deemed it more respectful to the members of the Church of England to leave the matters which concerned them so intimately entirely in their hands. But the question before us now is one which touches the interests of Nonconformists, and I wish to say a few words upon it. I feel grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), for the gallant fight he has made for the principle embodied in his Amendment, and which seems to be one of great gravity and importance. This clause introduces what I cannot but regard as a dangerous innovation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen who support these provisions of the Bill which restrict the right of setting the Act in operation to members of the Church of England, have well considered the full significance of the course they are taking. What they are doing is this—they are denationalizing the Church of England, converting it from the Church of a nation into the Church of a sect. And they are doing that in direct opposition to the principle which, as I have always understood them, they have hitherto consistently and strenuously maintained. That principle is this—that the Church of England is a national institution which claims to comprehend within its pale, all the members of the State, whether they wish it or not. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) finds fault with me for having made that statement on a former occasion. But I did it, not on my own authority, but on that of members of the Church of England. I do not know how far the other Members of that Church in this House are prepared to adopt his definition of its membership, as being restricted to communicants. But I could produce a complete catena patrum, a long list of authorities from the earliest times until now, in support of the view I have stated as that of the Church. I have already on a previous occasion cited the words of Hooker, who affirms that Church and State are so absolutely identical, that "no person appertaining to the one can be denied to be also of the other." Archbishop Whit-gift, again, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, said—

"I perceive no such distinction of the commonwealth and the Church that they should be counted as it were two several bodies, governed with divers laws and divers magistrates.… The Commonwealth of England is not distinct from the Church of England."

Bishop Jeremy Taylor says—

"The Church is not a distinct state and order of men, but only the Commonwealth turned Christian."

Lord Eldon said, that—

"He knew no difference, as to the persons of whom they are composed, between the Church and the State; the Church is the State and the State is the Church."

And if you want a more modern authority, I will give it from a highly-respected Member of this House. Everybody will admit there is not amongst us a more genuine or earnest friend of the Church of England than the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). But what did he say, in a discussion that took place two or three years ago, on the Bill for the establishment of parochial councils by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool? Here are his words—

"The Church would have no right to continue established if she became merely congregational; that was, if she ceased to he the Church of the parish or of all the parishioners, whether they accepted her ministrations or not."—[3 Hansard, ccv. 851.]

But you are now drawing a distinction which I believe has been hitherto unknown to the law. The law in regard to all existing ecclesiastical and parochial arrangements, has never recognized this distinction between one class of parishioners and another. All parishioners, according to the parochial or territorial system, are supposed to be under the charge of the parish clergyman. Nonconformists have a right to seats in the parish church, to burial in the parish churchyards, to be baptized and married and join the communion in the parish church. Nonconformists may, and do, act as churchwardens, though I believe they have power to claim exemption; and the most curious thing is that a Dissenter may act under the Bill without taking the declaration, if he be a churchwarden. Dissenters are members of the parish vestry, and may take part in discussions and votes on all Church questions that may come before that body. Even as regards church rates, the only disqualification imposed by the Church Bate Abolition Act is, that those who have not paid a rate cannot vote on questions relating to that particular rate. In all other respects the rights of Nonconformists are as before. In those few cases in which the election of incumbents is the right of parishioners, all the parishioners, irrespective of religious distinctions, act as the constituents. If the Church of England be a national institution, it ought to be subject to national control. And it is so in the last and highest resort. Surely this House is the whole nation acting in its representative capacity. And yet this House claims and exercises the right to deal with all the affairs of the Church, its doctrine and discipline and its Ritual. If nobody outside the Church of England has any right to intervene in matters affecting rites and ceremonies and the conduct of the clergy, why is Parliament—why is this House, which consists of Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, of Dissenters as well as Churchmen, of Jews as well as Gentiles—called to pass such a Bill as this? If only an Episcopalian can be an aggrieved parishioner, why, à fortiori, a Nonconformist ought not, by legislation, to determine the mode in which that aggrieved Episcopalian is to obtain redress. To be consistent you should enact a new test for hon. Members for this House, so that when they come up to the Table, they shall be required "solemnly to declare themselves to be members of the Church of England as by law established;" since when they come here they have to deal with every sort of question pertaining to the affairs of that Church. No apprehension, I believe, could be more absolutely groundless than that which seems to haunt some hon. Gentlemen opposite—that if the Nonconformists were not excluded, they would busy themselves in getting up frivolous and vexatious suits under the Bill, merely to bring the Church into discredit. You may trust the good sense and good feeling of the Nonconformists not to pursue such a course. We never do interfere in the internal arrangements of the Church, and there is very little probability indeed that, if the Bill were to pass without the clause, any Dissenter would ever meddle in the matter. Still, we do not wish our legal rights to be done away with by a side-wind. May I, without offence, make one other remark on the Bill generally? I confess that the discussions on this measure have not boon to me pleasant or edifying. I have felt sincere sympathy—I say this not sarcastically, but quite sincerely—with Members of the Church of England in this House, some of whom, I think, must have felt almost intolerable humiliation. At least, I should have felt so if I had been in their place; if the affairs of my Church—all its most sacred and spiritual interests, everything relating to its doctrines, its discipline, its forms of worship, were to be thrown on the floor of this House, to be dealt with by all sorts of men, some of whom may not have the smallest sympathy with it. But the members of the Church of England have at least this consolation—that the difficulties and embarrassments in which they are now involved have sprung directly from a revival of spiritual life within the Church. I remember the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge saying, two or three years ago, that the Church of England as it is now, and as it was 50 years ago, is a totally different thing. The hon. Gentleman did not then refer to any change in doctrine or Ritual, but to the development of a more vigorous spiritual life in the bosom of the Church. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich repeated the sentiment on a late occasion. I agree with them both, and I cordially rejoice in the fact. You Members of the Church of England do us Nonconformists gross injustice if you doubt the perfect sincerity with which we rejoice in the additional efficiency of the Church as a Christian institution. But life also has its inconveniences. You can do what you like with dead timber. You can fabricate and fashion it into any form you please. But a living tree cannot be made to grow according to rule. What you are trying to do appears to be this. You are taking this new wine, which is full of life and fermentation, and putting it into the old bottles of uniformity, and yet you expect them not to burst. They will burst, and ought to burst, in my opinion. What the Church wants is more liberty to develop her own life. Give her that liberty, and the Church will render greater and more important services than even those which she has already rendered to the cause of Christianity in this land.

said, the hon. Member was right in ascribing to him a desire to maintain the national character of the Church of England; but his hon. Friend claimed for the Nonconformists a right in the Church of England. His object as a Member of that Church was to preserve her in such a condition that the claims of the Nonconformists should not be ignored. When, however, they were providing against the innovations of Rome, he feared it would impede the efficacy of their action if they admitted other Nonconformist Bodies to participate in the task. The task they had to undertake in the Bill was strictly a Church of England task. If the Dissenters were invited to join in the work, he thought they would be likely to drag the Church in an opposite direction to the Nonconformity which the Bill desired to correct; but still their action would be the action of Nonconformists. Therefore he held that the power of bringing into operation the provisions of this measure should be confined to members of the Church of England.

supported the Amendment. If Ritualism merely meant outward ceremonies and gestures, he, for one, should not feel inclined to meddle with it at all; but it was in reality an attempt on the part of those who were bound by the most sacred obligations to uphold the Church of England to introduce doctrines which the country rejected three centuries ago, and he, in reference to this matter, claimed the right to forget that he was a Nonconformist and to recollect that he was an Englishman. By attempting to narrow the definition of the word "parishioner," members of the Church shut out some who were their warmest friends, and who would be their staunchest allies in the struggle in which they were engaged. The Dissenters did not envy or desire to partake in the endowments of the Church of England, but on the question now before the House they claimed to be members of that Church.

then moved an Amendment of which he had given Notice.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 14, to omit the words "of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice or Her Majesty's Imperial Court of Appeal," and to insert—

"of any court to which the jurisdiction of any such court has been or may hereafter he transferred by authority of Parliament."

, in rising to propose, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 36, after "Faculties" to add—

"And whereas it is expedient that the judge shall receive a fixed salary, forming a charge on fees received by ecclesiastical officers; but until the laws relating to such fees shall have been amended by Parliament, and a fee fund or fee funds established, temporary provision must be otherwise made for the payment of the said salary: Be it Enacted, That any salary or emoluments which such judge shall be entitled to receive from the said offices, other than the office of judge under this Act, shall be paid over by him to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and all fees payable in respect of proceedings before the said judge under this Act shall also be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall pay to the said judge by equal quarterly payments such salary as shall be assigned by the Queen, by Order in Council, not exceeding the sum of four thousand pounds per annum. Every such payment, or so much thereof as may exceed the salary and emoluments which the judge may be entitled to receive from the aforesaid offices, together with the fees to be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under this section, shall be treated as an advance to be repaid from fees received by ecclesiastical officers, in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine."

said, he did not think the announcement made by the Prime Minister diminished the necessity for the Amendment. It would not be creditable to that House that they should send forth a Bill of that consequence, creating a Court of which a Judge was the pivot, without providing any means for the payment of that Judge. It might be true that a satisfactory arrangement might be made for the present, but that arrangement depended upon the life of a single man, which might fail. It would not be creditable to the House to sanction legislation of so incomplete a character that it depended on the life of a single person. He was glad the proposal to put the charge on the Consolidated Fund had been withdrawn, because it was open to considerable objection; but he would have voted for the worst arrangement, rather than have had none. The arrangement he now proposed was perfectly feasible, and in principle it was entirely unobjectionable. The original proposal was that the salary should be charged upon the fund of the Ecclesiastical Commission, not with the ultimate intention of its bearing the charge; but in the form of an advance, under guarantee, which would certainly protect the fund from loss. The ecclesiastical fund was nothing more nor less than a trust for the good of the Church, and that Bill was supported as one for the good of the Church. It was the object alike of the Bill and of the Ecclesiastical Commission to maintain the Protestant Reformation in England, and that was far more important then increasing the emoluments of particular incumbents. Therefore, if it were necessary to state the proposition broadly, it was impossible to apply the fund to a more appropriate and legitimate purpose than this. A considerable portion of it was derived from capitular and Episcopal estates. The germ of his proposition was contained in a Bill of Lord Shaftesbury's, which passed through the other House in 1872, and which the present Home Secretary took charge of in this. That Bill proposed to appoint a Judge much after this fashion—to pay all ecclesiastical fees to the common fund, and out of it to pay for the judicial work of the Church. The right hon. Member for Greenwich gave to that Bill a partial approval. The present Home Secretary showed that the income from the fees of chancellors, registrars, apparitors, surrogates, &c, amounted to £71,000 a-year, and contended that the work could be much better and more cheaply done if the fees were paid to the common fund. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), in his characteristic language, said there was no sport equal to the tracing out of these fees, except rathunting in a barn. The estimate made at the time was that the work could be done for £30,000, leaving £40,000 for the remission of fees and other purposes. These funds were at the disposal of the House, for the Act under which all the offices were held stipulated that Parliament might abolish them at any time without giving the holders any claim to compensation. Parliament had complete power over these offices and the fees, some of which were exorbitant; and the Government could deal with them by introducing a Bill such as that of which the present Home Secretary had charge in 1872. These fees should all be paid into a common fund, and one of the payments to be made out of it should be the salary of the Judge appointed under this Act. If Government would accept the Amendment, the Commissioners would only have to advance the money, the ultimate fund out of which the salary was to be paid being these ecclesiastical fees, which would be at the ultimate disposal of Parliament. In this way they would have ample means to give complete practical effect to this Bill, which would then be worthy of that House. Any proposal with reference to the payment of the Judge short of a really permanent and operative arrangement would be a discredit to their legislation and make it be believed that the measure was, after all, intended to be a sham. If the proposal were accepted, it would be easy, in case the office should be accepted by a Judge holding a pension, to provide that the pension should be in lieu of salary. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

supported the Amendment. Before going into Committee, he had proposed a somewhat similar scheme; but his hon. and learned Friend had carried it out in greater detail. There could be no doubt, that if this proposal were adopted, there would be ample funds available for the payment of the Judge, although the Archdeacons were entitled to £11,000 a-year out of the sum. He thought it would be wise if the question of the separation of these offices were considered, and a fair division of the duties secured.

could not think the House would be inclined to accept the Amendment. The extraordinary proposal was, that the House was to dispose of a fund which was not in its possession, and to dispose of it by anticipation. His hon. and learned Friend was aware the Bill would not come into operation until the 1st of July in next year, therefore, there would be ample time to consider the question of ecclesiastical fees; but he could not think that Parliament would tie its hands as to the disposal of those fees by an Amendment on the mere Report of a Bill. He strongly objected to taking the money out of the common fund for the purpose, and which money ought to go to the poor clergy. To deal with ecclesiastical fees was one of the most serious subjects that could come before Parliament, and would require a Bill itself, and not that they should be treated in the off-hand manner proposed.

said, he could not see the force of the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. They knew that there was a revenue accruing from fees, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was not proposing to give up all the fees. The common fund had been provided for by the income of the Bishop's estates. He held that these funds were essential for the preservation of the Church.

remarked that, as by the last vote they had denationalized the Church, it would be unjustifiable to take any of the money required from the Consolidated Fund. He, however, thought the Bill was very defective, when it did not provide for the payment of the Judge's salary, and in his opinion the funds for that purpose should come out of the Ecclesiastical Fund.

thought that an elaborate plan would be required to carry out the system now proposed; such a plan as was not at present in existence. If they had a retired Judge who was willing to take the office, there was surely no necessity for entering upon the consideration of such a plan at the present moment. To deal properly with the matter they must have such a scheme as could only be carried out by an Act of Parliament. He would suggest to the House what had been already suggested by the Prime Minister—namely, to take the Bill as it was, and leave this question of salary, and out of what funds it should be paid, for future consideration. It must be remembered that ecclesiastical fees were paid for special purposes, and could not at once be diverted from them without interfering with existing rights and interests in such a manner as to inflict an enormous amount of injury and injustice. Take, for example, the fees paid for marriage licences. They were very large; but a Royal Commission, consisting of such eminent men as Lord Selborne and Lord Chelmsford and others, recommended their abolition. He did not agree with the recommendation, but he respected the opinion of such authorities. What effect would the Amendment have, were these fees abolished? None, whatever. The principal part of the fund relied upon, would have disappeared. On the whole, it appeared to him that the proposition would only embarrass the working of the Bill, and he hoped, therefore, his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw it.

thought that to pass the Bill without making any provision, beyond a mere temporary arrangement, for the maintenance of the Judge whom it was proposed to appoint, would be to stamp it as a farce and an unreality. In common with others, he had voted the other day for making that a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, not because he thought that was strictly the proper course, but because he recognized the paramount importance of the Bill. Whatever difficulties there were would be best overcome by declaring plainly that the salary should be provided out of the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which, in his opinion, ought certainly to be devoted to Church purposes. If the Bill was passed in the form now proposed, it would, to the student of the Statute Book, mean nothing at all.

held that it would be a disgrace if they were to pass the Bill without making a definite arrangement as to the salary of the Judge. For his part, he should not have been sorry to see the money come from the Consolidated Fund; but the next best proposal was that of the hon. and learned Member (Sir William Harcourt.) When the Bill came from the other House there was provision for the payment of the Judge; but that provision having been hastily condemned, they were now driven to the alternative of supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. His (Colonel Barttelot's) proposition was, that as they were going to appoint a Judge, they were bound to provide a proper salary for him.

thought that in fixing the salary they would also consider the work which the Judge would have to do. Unless the Act should promote litigation the Judge would really have very little to do. If he were to be paid £4,000 a-year for deciding two or three cases within the twelve-month, as seemed likely to he the case, by the experience already gained during past years in the Provinces of York and Canterbury, then he would have one of the most valuable appointments in England, and would be paid for that amount of work more than any man who went before him, or any man who was likely to come after him. He thought the suggestion which had been made by the Government was a very good one, for they had found an eminent man who would accept the office without salary, and it would he unwise to name the amount of salary until they should know what would he the amount of work to he done under the Bill.

thought the first object of the House should be to secure the services of a first-rate Judge, whose opinions would command confidence; and that the House could not gauge the value of the services of such a Judge, by the fact of his having only two or three causes to dispose of in a year. With regard to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that the source out of which the salary of the Judge should be paid should be fees paid for the performance of various ecclesiastical functions, he (Mr. Hard-castle) thought no more reasonable course could he proposed. He knew as a fact that the work done by a considerable number of ecclesiastical officers, in respect of which they derived considerable incomes, was really merely nominal. The most leisurely man he knew was a Bishop's registrar. He feared that the Bill would go before the country in an incomplete state if, after having appointed a Judge, they provided no means for securing the continuance of a suitable salary.

supposed there was no one in the House who did not wish to secure the services of a Judge of the highest ability, and that he should be adequately paid. But he hoped the House would not sanction the dangerous course proposed in the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were intended for the relief of spiritual destitution in populous places, and it would be impolitic and unjust to appropriate them to the payment of a Judge's salary. He might also remind the House that in the Court of Arches last year there were only three or four cases, such as would come under the provisions of this Bill, heard and decided, so that he could not help thinking a salary of £3,000 or £4,000 a-year was rather too much. At all events, it could not he paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

asked, out of what fund the salary of the Judge was to he taken, if it was not to he taken out of an ecclesiastical fund? He thought the application of the funds administered by the ecclesiastical Commissioners to the payment of the salary of the Judge, was one of the most legitimate purposes to which that fund could he applied.

said, it was plain to him, from the speech of the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Hardcastle), and from some other speeches, that the Motion before the House was not understood. The hon. Gentleman stated, and he (Mr. Gladstone) had, no doubt, most sincerely believed, that the proposal provided for the salary of the Judge out of ecclesiastical fees. But the proposal was nothing of the kind. To say that there were ecclesiastical fees out of which the salary of the Judge could be paid, was pure, absolute, undiluted moonshine. His hon. and learned Friend said there were plenty of fees out of which to pay the Judge. If so, why did his hon. and learned Friend go to the Ecclesiastical Commission? If, as had been frequently said, there was a fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, out of which the salary of this Judge could be paid, let him be paid by all means; but he (Mr. Gladstone) believed that such a fund did not exist. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government made the proposition which he did on this subject, because it made this much at least plain—that there had been no difficulty at the outset in providing the salary for a first-rate Judge. He understood that a person of the highest eminence had agreed to serve in that office; a proceeding which confirmed the fact that, from the amount of judicial power that there was in the country, there was no doubt that the anticipated difficulty was entirely visionary. He affirmed that that was a proposal to take the salary of a Judge out of the sole fund of a public character which was available for increasing the stipends of poor clergy, and establishing new livings to meet the spiritual wants of the people. The explanation that had been offered as to how the funds were to be provided was the purest speculation. It was supposed that if Parliament had time for the purpose, and if there happened to be hon. Gentlemen willing to devote time and pains to ecclesiastical affairs, and if the strong interests which were involved did not happen to be able to battle successfully against interference, these benevolent gentlemen might be able to provide funds. Where were these philanthropists to be found? Was it so easy to find men who would not only sacrifice their own convenience, but expose them-selves to every kind of vexatious opposition, to attain that result? There was not the slightest chance of any reform of the fees with the view of providing the Judge's salary once it was fixed on that fund, and he was quite sure all enthusiasm on that point would vanish into thin air. To suppose that at some time or another somebody would be found willing to undertake a most difficult task, for the purpose of adding several thousand pounds to the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, was a pure delusion. This was, in short, a proposal to pay £1,000 more than the framers of the Bill or the House of Lords deemed necessary, and that not out of fees, but out of a common fund, which he was confident the unanimous sentiment of the House would again declare ought not to be applied to the purpose.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 19, the omission of the words "forbidden by law," with reference to alterations in, or additions to, the fabric, ornaments, or furniture of a church; with a view of substituting in the same line, after "made," the words "without a faculty from the ordinary authorizing or confirming such alteration or addition."

said, he thought the words proposed to be introduced were too ambiguous, and that they would lead to litigation. The proper expression was that which would guide the Ecclesiastical Judge in dealing with the question—namely, the word "unlawful." The Ecclesiastical Courts did not decide those matters with reference to the existence of a faculty from the Bishop, but simply with reference to the legality or illegality of the acts complained of, and Lord Stowell, who was the highest authority on such subjects, laid down the principle that even if some change had been made without a faculty, the question for the Court to determine was whether or not the thing was wrong in itself; and he (Dr. Ball) believed that the ecclesiastical law would be found quite adequate to remove everything that was really objectionable. The remarkable case of the tombstone inscribed "Pray for the souls of," was not decided with regard to a faculty, nor was the case of "Westerton v. Liddell." He much preferred the word "unlawful" to the ambiguous phrase "forbidden by law."

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's learning was thrown away, as it had nothing to do with the Amendment. Complaints might be made against some ornament or object in a church which could not perhaps be said to be strictly unlawful in itself, but which might be removed because it was put up without a Faculty. He would give as an example the setting up of a confessional box. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, with his knowledge of ecclesiastical law, would not, he was sure, undertake to say that a confessional would be unlawful—at least, it had not yet been so decided. But the protection against such an object would be, that the Bishop had not given a Faculty for it, and it was important to preserve this safe-guard. The Bishop might now say that he displaced it, because no Faculty had been obtained for setting it up. He did not know why his right hon. and learned Friend had become the vehement and eloquent opponent of that Bill that afternoon for the first time; but he knew that the Bill would be utterly useless without the alteration, and he therefore hoped that the House would support the right hon. and learned Recorder in correcting the oversight.

said, the Bill had been all along represented as making no change in the law, but only in procedure. It was now clear that the Bill was about to change the law. His right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder proposed to leave out the words "forbidden by law," and to substitute others; but in his (Mr. Hardy's) opinion, it was not necessary to do so, recollecting that Lord Stowell dealt with questions of law of this kind on principles that it was not now necessary to depart from. If his right hon. and learned Friend, therefore, pressed his Amendment, he would alter not only the Bill, but the mode of procedure, inasmuch as Lord Stowell laid it clown that the great thing to know was whether a thing was lawful in itself, and if it were lawful, he would not enter into the question of the Faculty. He (Mr. Hardy) said the confessional was a question which, as to its illegality, was not yet decided, although he himself thought there could be no question as to its being unlawful, and it was better to try what the present law would do before making a new law. Let the Bill be confined to questions of ecclesiastical procedure without altering the ecclesiastical law.

said, the Bill would not in the slightest degree alter the law. He had never said that this Bill was merely confined to procedure, but had always recommended it as a measure to enable the law to be enforced. He believed the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had correctly stated the law, and that if a confessional were set up, the only way in which it could be at once removed was by showing that a Faculty had not been obtained.

said, that a controversy of great importance had been raised by the right hon. and learned Recorder. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had stated that this was no longer to be described as a Bill of procedure, but as a Bill for the alteration of ecclesiastical law. It was of the utmost importance to get at the bottom of the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would give the House his opinion on this subject. Lord Stowell had drawn a distinction between strict law and matters done under a Faculty. Here, a thing was to be declared unlawful unless a Faculty had been obtained for it. Nothing came up to the demands of strict law unless a Faculty had been obtained for it, and there was a great convenience in retaining that strict law. But that was not the law by which they were governed according to the declaration of Lord Stowell, endorsed by Sir Robert Phillimore, and quoted by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. The practical course of the law was, that new objects were introduced into churches, and, in point of fact, if anyone considered what the Church was, they would see that all manner of new objects must be continually introduced; but for the most part they were of very small importance indeed, and when one of those objects was questioned, the matter went before the ordinary and was inquired into. They had heard in the course of the discussion of the confessional. Well, of course, everything was cited that could warm men's blood, and disturb their judgments, and draw them from the calm consideration of the case. But what was the difficulty in regard to the confessional? As he understood, from what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), if at present the confessional was challenged before an ecclesiastical Judge, it was in his power to condemn it, because it had been put up without a Faculty. The practical course as laid down by Lord Stowell was, that the question tried before the Judge was not, as a rue, whether there had been a Faculty or not, but whether the object was lawful or unlawful. The effect of the alteration proposed by the right hon. and learned Recorder was, that it would not be tried whether the object was lawful or unlawful, but it would be simply whether a Faculty had been obtained or not. He could not understand, therefore, how it could be said that the law was not altered. According to the proposal made, a Faculty would be required for everything beforehand, even for now hymn books, supposing it were a new edition containing three or four new hymns. ["No, no!"] Well, if the illustration were objected to, he would not take one; but there were a multitude of objects connected with the furniture and services of the Church as to which the power of the ordinary was at present absolute; he might be reasonable or unreasonable, but he had arbitrary power, and its exercise had never produced any inconvenience. The proposal now made was, that every clergyman who wished to avoid having a complaint made against him must obtain a Faculty beforehand—a matter which involved application to a judicial officer and the payment of money. At present, in 99 cases out of 100 there was no difficulty at all, and in the hundredth, for the cause of of-fence, whether it were the introduction of a confession box, or whatever it might be, the law was still available. Was it desirable to introduce these preliminary proceedings in 99 cases out of 100? Surely, it was imposing upon clergy-men and churchwardens a good deal of unnecessary trouble and expense. Before a Faculty could be issued, there must be inquiry, if there was the slightest cause for doubt, and without any necessity, hardship, delay, and expense would be incurred.

said, he interposed reluctantly, but he must contend that the full question turned on the power given by the 8th and 9th clauses of the Bill, and the way in which the alteration was to be effected by the Amendment, which was one entirely of procedure and not of amendment of the law. To use a Common Law illustration, the Amendment merely gave one the right to issue a Writ. With respect to a Faculty, when a question came before a Judge, it was open to him to consider whether it was lawful or not; and the Judge, whether the Faculty was written or not, would have to determine in the manner in which Lord Stowell determined.

said, that, having been so pointedly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he could not abstain from saying a few words in reference to the proposed Amendment; but he was not disposed to attach so much importance to it as some hon. Members did. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Recorder, had, in the first instance, proposed to omit the words "forbidden by law" and to substitute for them the words, "without a faculty from the ordinary authorizing or confirming such alteration or addition;" but now he proposed to substitute the words "without lawful authority." He (the Attorney General) thought that the words "forbidden by law" and "without lawful authority" would be found in practice to have substantially the same effect; but, viewing thorn as a lawyer, he thought the words "without lawful authority" were some-what more extended in their operation. Instances had boon suggested, and it would not be difficult to suggest others, of acts and practices which were not for-bidden by law, but for the doing of which there was no lawful authority.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 26, to leave out from "provided also" to "representation" in line 43, inclusive, said, he was about to ask the House to reconsider a judgment at which, on a recent sitting, it had arrived after a very short discussion in Committee, and, as he thought, without the extreme gravity of the matter involved in that judgment really being perceived. He must, however, apologize to the House for not having been present himself on that occasion, as a very urgent private matter had required him to be elsewhere. He had made an offering in the cause of peace, and he trusted that the Bill would advance with very little further discussion after the Amendments in the 9th clause; but he had not the "slightest idea that any change would be made which would involve matters of such importance, and really destroy the balance of the Bill. He made that statement on public grounds, and without the slightest reproach to anyone, and hoped his observations would not savour of the spirit of controversy. He wished to obtain the calm attention of the House to the subject, and to appeal to the Government to consider whether the general principles of equity did not require the Amendment which he would propose—namely, that they should revert to the form of the clause as it stood before the alteration was made in it that was suggested by the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt), which provided for what was called an appeal, but what was really no appeal at all, but only a reference to the Archbishop, and which invested the Archbishop with an original jurisdiction to institute suits, or allow them to be instituted, in a diocese not his own. That, he contended, was unequal, impolitic, and contrary to the principles of our law with regard to episcopal and archiepiscopal powers, and, if fit to be done at all, it was wrong to propose such a fundamental change on the 28th July, and without giving the clergy an opportunity of considering it. In discussing the matter, the House must cast aside all thought as to particular persons, or whether certain individuals were more trustworthy than other individuals; they must discuss the question entirely in the abstract, without the smallest supposition that anybody was likely to act otherwise than according to his best convictions and his sense of duty. When the matter was previously discussed in the House, he was glad to observe that those legal authorities to whom the House naturally looked on all important points of ecclesiastical law voted in the minority. He alluded to the Attorney General for England, and still more to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, because he was the only man belonging to the Anglican community in the House, whom he knew of, whose duty it had been to study ecclesiastical law, and to administer it in the capacity of a Judge. Under the sanction of those high legal authorities, it would not, he hoped, be thought presumptuous if he endeavoured to draw attention to that subject, and tried to induce the House to revert to the original form of the Bill. In the first place, he said it was not an appeal that had been given. The provision as it originally stood in the Bill was, that the Bishop was to follow a certain course of proceeding, unless he was of opinion that the suit should not proceed; and if the Bishop was of opinion that it should not proceed, he was to enter his reasons for that opinion in the records of his diocese. That was the original form of the Bill; but as it now stood, in consequence of the Amendment of which he complained, the Bill provided that if the Bishop was of opinion that the suit ought not to proceed, the matter should then go the Archbishop, that the documents should be sent to the Archbishop, who, if he was of opinion that the suit should proceed, was then to send his decision to the Bishop, and the Bishop was thus to become the servant of the Archbishop and the instrument of that decision, and to put the matter forward contrary to his own conviction and exactly as if his conviction was the opposite of what it was. That was not an appeal. An appeal must be open to either party, but that was open to one party only. It was saying to one party—" If the Bishop decides for you, his judgment so far will be final; but if he decides against you, there is somebody else to go to who may reverse his decision." The Committee could hardly have been fully aware of the one-sided character of that proposal when it adopted it. But, secondly, it was not an appeal because the original procedure was not a judicial procedure, and because the Archbishop who was to be called on to reverse the decision of the Bishop would have inferior means of judgment to those which the Bishop possessed. The Bishop in his own diocese ought to know, and, in most cases, did know, the circumstances of the parishes in it; he was in personal relation with those who were connected with those parishes; and therefore, at any rate, he would know where to go to obtain information. It would be impossible to place on record all the information he received, and that record could hardly be more than a summary of his reasons, because it was not merely a complaint and its answer, but he would have to consider all the circumstances of the case. Neither could he transmit that consideration of all the circumstances of the case to the Archbishop, who would therefore have to try it with means of judgment altogether inferior to those of the Bishop. That was fundamentally at variance with legal principles, for a Court of Appeal must always have all the material accessible to the Court below; and in saying it, he spoke in the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who if he (Mr. Gladstone) were wrong, would correct him. Those were exceedingly strong reasons; but he would give another still stronger. This proposal he did not hesitate to say was at variance with all principles of ecclesiastical law. The relation of Bishops to Metropolitans and of Metropolitans to Suffragans was a matter which had as deep a root in ecclesiastical law and in the history of Christendom as any other question of ecclesiastical law that could be raised; and if alterations of an essential character were to be introduced into those relations, that ought undoubtedly to be done with the utmost deliberation. It seemed to have been thought by the hon. Member who made that proposal, that wherever there was a convenience, or supposed convenience, in putting the Bishop out of the government of his diocese, and putting the Archbishop into the government of it, that might be done. That, however, all the law of Christendom had always forbidden. The regulation of the relations between Metropolitans and Suffragans lay at the very foundation of the structure of an Episcopal Church, and the great canonists had laid it down that the proper function of the Metropolitan was to consecrate the Suffragan, and then to govern him and see that he did his duty; and in the event of the Suffragan refusing or neglecting to do his duty, then in certain cases the Metropolitan was allowed and required to interfere. But nothing was more strictly forbidden by our law, and, indeed, the whole law of Christendom, than the immediate government of the diocese of the Suffragan by his Metropolitan. He was supported in the view he had taken by the learned canonist Van Espen, who maintained that it was only in the case of a breach or neglect of duty—in the case of actual misconduct on the part of the Suffragan—that his Metropolitan could legitimately interfere in the government of his diocese. A breach of duty, how-ever, was one thing, but the exercise of an honest discretion in the discharge of a duty imposed on the Bishop by Parliament was not a breach nor a neglect of duty. That was the principle of the Reformation, and to the principles of the Reformation they were now endeavouring to give effect. The statute of 23 Henry VIII., chap. 9, confirmed that view of the relations between the Metro-politan and his Suffragan. The canon law of the Church and the statute law of England proceeded upon the principle he had laid down, and both were equally clear in maintaining the independence of the Bishops as against the interference of the Metropolitan. The Archbishop had frequently been called in as a restraint to a Bishop—that was a position known to the law. The Arch-bishop, too, could be called in on behalf of an injured person—as, for instance, on the withdrawal of the licence of a curate—but never to institute a suit. But here was a proposal—for the first time in the history of our law and of the history of the ecclesiastical law of Christendom—to supersede a Bishop in the government of his own diocese on a question he had conscientiously decided. Further, it was a great and cruel hard-ship that every clergyman who was the object of one of these complaints, besides being examined by his own Bishop—which was quite right—should be subject to a double ordeal, before he knew whether he was to be tried or not. He was, under the Bill, to undergo one examination by his own Bishop, and then, being acquitted, he had to be examined again by the Archbishop, who in the very nature of things could not know so much of the real character of the case. But even if all these things were in the abstract right to be done, as he had said before, they were not right to be done, on the 28th of July, in a Bill which had been four and a-half months before the country, and in regard to which the country long ago believed that its fundamental principles were fixed. If the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire was afraid that some one or more of the Bishops would improperly decline to act when called upon, he must know that there was power to institute the suits in any one of the dioceses, or in the diocese of the Archbishop, if the suitors had more confidence in the Archbishop, than in the Bishop of the diocese. There was no plea either of necessity or expediency in support of a course which would be productive of grievous hardship and great irregularity. He was convinced that in reference to this matter the House was playing with edge-tools, and that the excitement which at one time existed with reference to the Bill would never have calmed, if the proposal to which he was alluding had been included in the Bill as originally drawn. It had, however, done so; but he would warn those hon. Members who supported the proposal that they were playing the game of those whoso purposes they did not wish to advance.

said, he had availed him-self since the adjournment of the House that (Friday) morning at a quarter to 4 o'clock, of the opportunity of consulting with those hon. Friends who usually acted with him, and he was happy to say that he was then able to announce the conclusion at which they had unanimously arrived with reference to the Amendments which had been placed upon the Paper; but before he did so, he hoped the House would bear with him if he adverted to the previous history of the measure before them. The Bill was introduced in the ordinary way as a Continuance Bill, and in that Bill, following, he admitted, the evil precedents of some recent years, were included Acts of very great importance, and among others Coercion Acts, vitally affecting the liberties of the Irish people His hon. Friends, together with himself, had no reason to suppose that the Bill was not one of the usual measures, which for several years past renewed those Acts as a matter of course, and virtually amounted to their perpetual renewal, and therefore they felt they were bound to make a stand against that system, and they did so. He believed that in doing so they had done service not only to Ireland, but to the general legislation of the House, by directing attention to the evil which was growing gradually up of including Acts of great consequence in an annual renewal Bill. That was the first point they had to assert, and he believed that they had the unanimous approval of public opinion and the opinion of the Press with them, when they said that the system was a vicious one. He was bound to say that in that opinion, Her Majesty's Government cordially, from the very beginning of the discussion, acquiesced, and, therefore, in the first place, he thought he was justified in saying that he believed that vicious system was put an end to altogether, and that, so far, English and Scotch Members would, with the Irish Members on that occasion, admit that that system of continuing Acts in this manner had been terminated, and that Irish Members had established a constitutional principle, for his hon. Friends and himself were, he contended, entitled to take credit that they had been the means of determining that the course which had been followed should not be pursued any longer. In saying so much, he was not to be understood as using the language of triumph, for such language would be most unbecoming in him, believing, as he did, the system to be so vicious as only to require to be noticed by the House to secure immediate reform. There, however, remained the question whether they ought to assent to the renewal of those Acts, and if there were any hon. Members of that House who were disposed to think that he and his hon. Friends had taken a course that might be called factious, he asked their attention to what had occurred. On Saturday last the Bill was put down for a morning sitting, He then made an offer to the effect, that if it were thought there was any danger of those political catastrophes, as they were called, occurring—and he regarded the danger as being very remote indeed—they would consent to the Bill being continued until September of next year. He regretted that the Government did not accept that offer. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government on that occasion pledged himself that those Acts should not be renewed in a Continuance Bill in the Session of 1875. They did not, however, think that they ought to be satisfied with that assurance, and therefore they prepared themselves to prevent these Acts being made perpetual in the manner proposed. Now, yesterday evening, after the debate had proceeded for some time, and after Amendments had been proposed, a declaration was made on the part of the Government, that they would accede substantially to the course which he had proposed—namely, that the Acts should continue only to the end of 1875. That concession, although not quite all which they had desired, very materially altered their position, and he would only say that some of the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper he would have been glad to press on the attention of the House; but he believed their true and proper course now was to protest, as they would do in one division, against the inclusion of the Peace Preservation Act in that renewal Bill, and then leave to the Government the responsibility of dealing with the matter. It must rest with the Government, in prolonging the existence of those measures for a certain period, to decide whether any amendment in them should be made or not. He would first, however, observe that in 1856 an Act was passed regulating friendly societies in Ireland. In the Bill that Act was omitted, and consequently all those societies in Ireland would be illegal. He wished to point that out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and leave the protection of those societies to him. But on one clause of the Bill they must take a division. He was now expressing the unanimous resolution of those hon. Friends with whom he was in the habit of acting in that House, and with whom, he rejoiced to say, there had been few occasions on which he had had a difference of opinion. They had determined, after the concession made by the Government, and after achieving the triumph of the principle for which they had contended, not to occupy further the time of the House with the discussion of any of the details of the Bill. They could not, however, in consistency or in accordance with self-respect, consent to the renewal of that Act till the winter months of next year. They divided upon that yesterday. They would divide now in a somewhat different form, and propose that they should expire at the end of the next Session of Parliament, as originally proposed by the Acts themselves. It should be remembered that the Westmeath Act would expire at the end of June next, and that, he contended, was a declaration of Parliament, that the whole of these Acts should be reviewed early in the Session of Parliament. They therefore proposed that all these Acts should expire at the end of next Session; and by doing so, they did nothing more than ensure an early discussion upon the question of their renewal, but he hoped they would never be renewed. They, however, intended to divide the House, as he had said, upon one Amendment, and they would throw upon the Government the responsibility of continuing the Act to which it referred. He wished to make an earnest appeal to the Government. They had heard a great deal in those discussions of the responsibility of the Government. He admitted fully that responsibility. The Advisers of the Crown were bound to ask for Her Majesty any powers that were necessary for the protection of life and property. But there was another and a deeper responsibility that rested on men in his position in that House. He would never advise the Government to forego those Acts, if he did not believe it was right and just, and for the interests of peace and order in Ireland to do so; and that was also the feeling of his hon. Friends. Some of them had largo possessions in land, and others in mercantile establishments in Ireland, while all of them had an interest in the security of their homos; and, as representing the immense majority of the Irish people, they told the Government that they did not need those Acts to secure the ascendancy of the law in their country. He, for one, believed that the Common Law, firmly and vigorously administered, was sufficient to secure the tranquillity of Ireland. He had faith in the grand old Common Law, with that elasticity which enabled it to meet every new danger that arose; and he believed that those Coercion Acts were the resource—he did not say it offensively to the present occupants of office—of a weak and incapable Government. Ireland had been handed over to the present Ministry in a state of tranquillity. It might be said that was the result of those Coercion Acts; but it was not so. Did anybody believe that the Act which disarmed the people of Limerick was the reason why there had been two maiden assizes in that part of the country? If he were speaking in an Irish Assembly, he knew what the response would be. In a greater degree than to any Coercion Acts, the tranquillity of Ireland was due to the efforts of those who, in the face of considerable obloquy, had preached the doctrine that it was not to unconstitutional courses or to secret societies, but to constitutional agitation and discussion in that House, that they were to look for the redress of grievances. He, therefore, asked the Government to pay more attention to what the Irish Members said than to the declarations of stipendiary magistrates and police constables, many of whom, from the tendency of their offices, would revive the Coercion Acts to save themselves the trouble of a vigorous administration of the ordinary law, and to take a course which he believed in his conscience, was more consistent with their own dignity and with the welfare of the Empire. Neither he nor his hon. Friends would offer any further opposition, except to the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act, 1870. His hon. Friends and him-self were prepared to take an independent course. He would not say that they were prepared to support the present Government; but they were just as averse from offering opposition to the present Ministers as they would be from offering opposition to right hon. Gentlemen on his own side, if they returned to office. They wished to deal with every Government as it dealt with their country. They knew no party there except the party of their country; and if that Government would only abandon the old policy of repression which sometimes stifled crime, but never effectually stamped it out; if they would give them equality with England, equality in their municipal institutions, equality in their franchise, equality in all respects before the law, that was all they wanted, and he was sure the House would find Ireland would not be backward in evincing the gratitude that would be due from such a course of conduct being pursued.

I have pleasure, Sir, in admitting that the hon. and learned Gentleman has addressed the House in a fair and moderate speech, and also that it is not the first fair and moderate speech which he has made on public affairs. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends, if they did not advance their peculiar views, would obtain for them an impartial consideration, if they adopted that tone always in this House. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman has objected to two things—first of all, to Continuance Acts; and, secondly, to Coercion Acts. What I complain of is that, whatever may be the opinions of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends, it is extremely unfair to make their opinions upon those two questions a ground for any attack upon Her Majesty's Government, or any foundation for the embarrassment of Public Business at the present moment. Now, with regard to Continuance Bills, I am not prepared to say that there are not circumstances in which such Bills may not be necessary, and probably we shall never have a Session of Parliament in which some recourse to such instruments may not be required. But that in Continuance Bills it is extremely desirable Acts should not be included which touch some vital interests of the nation, I am perfectly ready to admit. Whatever may be one's opinion upon the necessity of legislation of that kind, all will, I think, agree that the policy which those Bills express and enjoin ought to be brought, forward in a manner more open and direct than can be done by a Continuance Bill; and, as a general rule, the introduction of Acts such as those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred in a Continuance Bill is to be deprecated. These are not new opinions of my own, nor of the party with which I am connected. It is a fact which cannot be denied, that the very grievance of which the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends now so loudly and strenuously complain, was first brought under the notice of the other House of Parliament by noble Lords who are my Colleagues, and I have always agreed with them upon that matter. But what I do complain of is, that the question has boon taken up at the end of the Session, and worked and turned as it has been against the present Government, who could take no other line upon this subject. We have been upon these benches now for some time, and the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends, though they made many demands, intimated many requests, and occasionally made many complaints, never alluded to these particular Bills. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when he first paid a visit to Ireland, was very anxious to know the subject which particularly interested the Irish people, and those Members of Parliament who arrogate to themselves, and not altogether with injustice, the peculiar privilege of representing an important portion of the Irish nation. And what was their recommendation? They said—"What we complain of is the unruly character of the River Shannon. The River Shannon is a stream of so turbulent a character that unless the English Government are qualified in their Ministerial capacity to cope with it, there is an argument in favour of Home Rule." ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Gentleman who cries "Oh!" is probably the very man who hissed the hon. and learned Member for Limerick last night. But what are the facts? Her Majesty's Government, though having the conduct of public affairs during this Session, have really had it during a Session curtailed of one-third of its usual duration. It was only after Easter that Business really commenced in this House, and therefore it was quite impossible, in dealing with those matters which imperatively demanded our attention, that we could reform this system of Continuance Bills, which would be no easy nut to crack in any Session. However, I have already expressed my opinion upon that subject. I think it is in every way to be deprecated that Acts such as those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has called our attention should be included in Continuance Bills, and, so far as we are concerned, they will not be included again. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the other night that my assurance on that head, though it was not altogether to be disregarded, was one in which too much confidence should not be placed, because events might occur which might prevent myself and my Colleagues from remaining in that responsible position which we at present occupy. Well, upon that subject I give no opinion. But that intimation was perfectly inconsistent with the assurance which the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends are now perpetually giving us, that there is no chance whatever of what they call "a political catastrophe" next Session. What I want to impress upon the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends is this—that when we urge the necessity, or rather the expediency, of a term of some months longer being allowed to this Continuance Bill than the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed, it is a great mistake to assume that the only circumstance which can occasion the meeting of an autumnal Parliament is what the hon. and learned Gentleman calls "a political catastrophe." We have had a great many November sittings in my time, and very rarely occasioned by "political catastrophes." On the contrary, they have been occasioned by the action of the Bank Act in more than one instance. They have been occasioned, too, and may be occasioned again by circumstances involving questions of peace or war. It is not merely by a political catastrophe, a Dissolution of Parliament, or a change of Ministry that an autumnal Session is occasioned; and therefore, when we have the possibility of vicissitudes to encounter, it is certainly an act of prudence to provide that at the very moment when Parliament has to deal with these questions, we may have ample time to consider what we have to do. Now, leaving the question of Continuance Acts, I come to the much greater question of Coercion Acts. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, I will not say pressed the Government for an expression of their policy on that subject, but he has very frankly announced that the time will come and is not far distant when we must, of course, express our opinions on the matter. When the time comes we shall express our opinion. We shall take a just and complete view of the circumstances of Ireland, and if it be our duty to our Sovereign to recommend that that system of policy, which is described by the name of Coercion Acts, should, in our opinion, not be repeated, there could be no public men more happy than we should be in making that announcement. But, at the same time, let not the hon. and learned Gentleman for a moment suppose that to obtain a passing popularity either with him, his Friends, or any other body of men, we will conceal our opinion from our Sovereign. What-ever we believe to be necessary for the general welfare of the country, that we shall be prepared to propose, and upon the opinion of this House the fate of that policy will depend. I have again to acknowledge the becoming manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman under circumstances, I freely admit, of some difficulty, has conducted himself throughout this discussion. He has shown a proper sense of the dignity of the House and his own position as a not undistinguished Member of this House, and I trust that the general spirit which his conduct has elicited may not be a useless lesson to those who have not so much experience as the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, he wished to say a word in explanation of a matter some-what personal. When the right hon. Gentleman said that when the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant went to Ireland, the only complaint made to him was about the River Shannon, he (Mr. Butt) must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the second night of the Session he moved an Amendment to the Address, complaining of the operation of these very Coercion Acts, and in it, he made no allusion whatever to the unruliness of the River Shannon, which like a great many other instances of unruliness, was to be attributed to the mistakes of English officials.

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment to extend the right of carrying arms to certain classes of persons who did not at present enjoy it, but he would not press the Motion, unless the Government accepted it.

, in moving as an Amendment, in Schedule 14, page 3, column 1, to except "19 and 20 Vic, c. 36, Preservation of the Peace, Ireland," said, he and his Friends were bound to enter their protest against the Act, but it was the last division they would have on the Bill.

said, that having begun his speech at an unseasonable time, he was compelled to sit down before completing it. He had, however, nearly concluded all he had to say, and would only trouble the House with a few re-marks indicating the exact character of the Amendment which he proposed. He had ventured to lay down these propositions—that the Amendment hastily introduced into the Bill did not give the right of appeal at all; in the second place, that the eminent person who was to be called on to review and reverse the judgment of the Bishop was a person who must necessarily approach the case with a far inferior knowledge and means of information, because although it was the duty of the Bishop to know all the parishes in his diocese, it was impossible for the Archbishop to know every parish within his province. Thirdly, he ventured to point out that the giving the Archbishop original jurisdiction was totally contrary to the principles of the Episcopal Church. In the fourth place, he said that it was a great hardship upon the clergy to be subjected to double instead of single ordeal, preparatory to trial; and lastly, he urged that even if all these things were fit to be done, they were unfit to be done on the 28th of July, and unfit to be maintained on the 31st of July, for he solemnly believed that at the very moment when he was making that last appeal to the equity of the House of Commons, that more than one half the clergy of the Church of England who would be personally affected by the Amendment were not aware of that which the House was voting. In doing so, he had, he hoped, redeemed the pledge he had given, and thought he had neither reproached nor censured any one. It was all very well to talk of the information disseminated by the Press, but its filtration into country parsonages was not always so extensive as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose. For his own part, he had never thought that the basis of the Bill was wise, because, in his opinion, it inclined too much towards the undesirable object of abstract uniformity, which, if it were to be the ideal of the Legislature, might well recall the imago of Harley Street or Eaton Place. He, however, was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough to protect congregations against legal innovations. Although admitting there was a case for legislation, and perceiving the feeling of the House on the subject, he had not deemed it desirable to press his views upon its attention. He saw no advantage to the Church or to the country in the prolongation of an angry debate. Such a result, he did not care who won, it could have only one tendency—the unsettlement of existing fundamental relations. That was his fixed conviction, acting on which he was willing to allow much to go forward of which he did not approve; for he believed that the excitement of conflict would be a greater evil than than that which would follow legislation, if it were only founded upon some regard to what was equitable. He felt satisfied, however, that his main propositions could not be overthrown, and that if the proposal in the Bill were persevered in the renewal of difficulties in respect to it in "another place" might be anticipated. He looked for-ward to the most formidable and lasting consequences from a proposal which had been so hastily introduced, and which he believed to be so full of in-justice. He most earnestly, therefore, wished to impress on the House his deep sense of the importance of the course which he invited it to adopt, especially to some of the clergy, in whose case, perhaps, he had no individual reasons for gratitude or regard. For that, how-ever, he did not care one rush. All he aimed at was justice—the only true and noble object which a man could hold up to his view, and in that name he placed his Amendment before them. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, that as he was the author of the particular clause in the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman had taken exception, it was right he should briefly state why he advocated the clause. As to the clause not being equitable, because the parties could not be heard before the Archbishop, he would call attention to the fact that parties could not be heard before the Bishop. The only question which a Bishop would have to decide was whether he would allow the charge to be brought, and the Archbishop had simply to express an opinion as to whether the reasons given by the Bishop were sound or unsound. He also contended that the Archbishop would have before him to and him in coming to a right decision all the information which a Bishop could command. It required, in his opinion, no very intimate knowledge of a diocese to be able to ascertain whether the law had or had not been broken, and what was required was that the Archbishop should have a power of review. There was nothing unconstitutional in that. In our judicial procedure grand juries had the power of reviewing the decision of the Justices. He ventured to think that a case in point, forbore the question was decided, without the accused being present. He would not go into questions of ecclesiastical law; but they all knew that an Archbishop had a certain control over the Bishops of his Province, that there was an appeal from the Bishop's Court to the Court of the Archbishop, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged, the Archbishop had a certain power of restraint over the action of the Bishops. It was admitted that he had such a power in regard to curates, in order that justice might better be done to the curates. Well, it was now intended by that clause that this power should be intrusted to the Archbishop, in order that justice might better be done to parishioners. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had just told the House that "in the event of the Suffragan refusing or neglecting to do his duty the Metropolitan was not only allowed but required, by ecclesiastical law, to interfere." In the present instance when a Bishop did not allow a complaint from the parishioners to go before the Judge, there would be an appeal to the Archbishop, that he might examine into the case and express his opinion whether or not there had been any neglect or misconduct on the part of the Suffragan in refusing to let the complaint be tried. With every respect for those who had given their minds to the study of the Canon Law, he hoped the day was far distant when the judgment of that House would be swayed by a reference to Canon Law. The object of that Bill was to secure uniformity of practice and obedience to the law in all the dioceses of England, but according to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, the clergy were to do pretty much what they liked. That was no doubt in accordance with the policy shadowed out in the celebrated Six Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman. They made no mistake when they said the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of privileged Non-conformity. As to that being an unfit clause to pass late in July, if it was a proper thing to discuss that Bill, at all, late in July, it was equally proper to introduce Amendments which were essential to the well working of the measure. In reference to the clergy being unaware of what was being done, he might observe that they had a most excellent Press, through which all their proceedings were communicated to the country far and wide. The clergy, as a matter of fact, were not ignorant of the proceedings in Parliament, for he had himself received a letter from a clergyman of some eminence thanking him warmly for proposing the Amendment under discussion. The question really was, whether the Bishop ought or ought not to have an absolute veto on the commencement of proceedings; and the strongest argument in support of the clause was supplied by the right hon. Gentleman in a former debate, when he told them there were indiscreet Bishops. He did not wish to give an in-discreet Bishop an unfettered licence. He only wished, in the event of the Bishop deciding against the feelings of the parishioners complaining, that his opinion should be submitted to the re-view of the Archbishop, with a view both to secure general uniformity, and also to protect the parishioners against individual caprice. That provision was adopted in Committee by a majority of something like three to one, and he trusted that the House would now support its own decision.

said, he thought the speech to which they had just listened showed how extremes met. The hon. Member argued that there was an indiscretion in Bishops which required to be controlled, and that there was none in Archbishops, who, there-fore, did not require control. The hon. Gentleman told them there might be an indiscreet Bishop, and that it was requisite to have some one over him; and there was to be no one over the Archbishop, because it was to be presumed that the Archbishop was infallible. No doubt, out of the whole body of Bishops appointed, there might be some who were indiscreet; but, with the highest respect for Archbishops, he ventured to say they were not always absolutely discreet or infallible; and when the hon. Member proposed that the decision of a Bishop should be reviewed by a person who they had no right to suppose would be more discreet than the Bishop, he was both setting up the infallibility of two Popes instead of one, and at the same time laying down a law hitherto entirely unrecognized in the Church of England. He was attempting to make the two Archbishops odious by converting them into the public prosecutors of the Kingdom. ["No, no!"] What were they to be then? That was not an appeal, but a case in which the discretion of one man was to be overruled by the discretion of another, not in the sense of relieving harshness or injustice, but for the institution of a prosecution. If it were a question of law, he could under-stand their referring it to another tribunal; but it was a question of simple discretion, not of law. Where the Bishop said a prosecution ought not to be instituted, his opinion was to be re-viewed by his Archbishop, a person, in all probability, no more discreet than his Suffragan; and if the Archbishop said there was to be a prosecution, the unfortunate Suffragan was to be compelled to take all the steps in the prosecution which he had himself refused to sanction. That was a perfectly novel proceeding in the whole history of the country. He regretted that he was not present when that question was previously discussed. He came in at the division, and he thought that provision one of the harshest over introduced into any Bill. The hon. Gentleman wanted to obtain perfect uniformity throughout the Kingdom; but the fact of the law being set in motion by the Archbishop would not produce uniformity in all their different dioceses. Uniformity would not be secured by the action of the Archbishops, but through the decisions of the Judge. He wished to know whether the hon. Member had consulted the Archbishops as to the power which he sought to confer upon them, or the Bishops as to whether they would consent to such power being exercised over them? The Bishops were bound to their Metropolitan under certain terms and conditions. Did they ever suppose that in matters left to their discretion, they were to be overruled simply by the discretion of the Archbishop, and not by the opinion of a Court that they were wrong in point of law? They had first refused to make the Bishops subject to the Bill, like the rest of the clergy, and now they turned round on them and said that if they exercised the discretion vested in them in accordance with the feelings of the parishioners, and not in accordance with their own consciences and their sense of duty, they would not interfere with them. But was it supposed that they would always have two Archbishops who would not be guided by their own sense of duty or their own discretion, but by popular feelings? [Murmurs] That was what the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) said. ["No, no!"] At all events, the effect of what the hon. Gentleman said was, that they could not leave it to the discretion of the Bishop to overrule the wish of the parishioners, but they would refer the matter to the Archbishop, in order that he might set up the will of the parishioners. In conclusion, he called upon those who supported the clause to say whether they had any authority from the Archbishops to ask for a jurisdiction which had never been given to them before.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them that on that question extremes met—an observation which he thought exceedingly well founded, for on that subject extremes did meet, and the Motion of the right hon. Member for Greenwich was supported by the Secretary of State for War and the Member for the University of Oxford. They were informed the other day at the Mansion House, that that Bill was one for which Her Majesty's Government were morally responsible, and up to that point the Government, under the lead of the Prime Minister, had given an unmistakable support to the principles of the Bill brought forward by the right hon. and learned Recorder on grounds which were perfectly intelligible—namely, that they intended to rally the English people on the broad platform of the Reformation. The aspect of the Bill had changed that evening. The Prime Minister was absent, and the conduct of the Bill was left in charge of the Secretary of State for War, who was no friend of the measure, but had, on the contrary, declared against it from the first. That right hon. Gentleman was the close ally on the present occasion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, who had moved a critical Amendment in the Bill. Those right hon. Gentlemen agreed in their conclusions, and in the principles from which those conclusions were drawn. What were the reasons alleged against a conclusion solemnly arrived at in Committee upon the Bill and for which, if he recollected right, the Prime Minister voted? Over and over again, in the progress of the Bill, he had seen the Prime Minister walk into one Lobby, and the Secretary for War into the other. And, now, his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, representing the Government, came for-ward in support of an Amendment which would, if carried, destroy the whole spirit of the Bill. Did the House sup-pose that his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich had come back that day for any other object than, if possible, at the last moment, to wreck the Bill? or, that the Secretary for War, who said nothing upon the Bill in Committee, had derived courage from any other circumstance than that his Predecessor in the Representation of the University of Oxford had come forward to propose his Amendment? What were the grounds on which they were invited to overthrow the Resolution of the Committee? They were told that the Resolution could not be accepted because it was contrary to the opinion of the Canonists of Christendom. But the canonists of Christendom were not the authorities by which for the last 300 years the House of Commons had been governed in its legislation. The principles of the Reformation and the Constitution of this country had been founded upon a repudiation of the doctrines of the Canonists, which had been solemnly read at the Table of the House that evening. The head-quarters of the Canon Law were not at Westminster. The Canon Law of Christendom was fulminated from the Vatican. It was the law of Ultramontanism, and was adverse to the principle of a National Church in every country of Europe. It was the law which, in order to found the Reformation, it was necessary to repudiate. Five minutes ago he took from the Table of the House the statute upon which the Reformation and the Constitution of this country was founded. It was the statute of the submission of the clergy; and the condition of the sub-mission was—

"That they, the said clergy, nor any of them from henceforth shall presume to attempt to allege claims or put in force any constitution or ordinances, provincial or synodal, or any other canon; nor shall they enact, promulge, or execute any such canons, constitutions, or ordinances provincial."

He would venture to say that from 1533 the Constitution of the Church and State of this country had depended upon the repudiation of the Canon Law, as controlling either the authority of Parliament or the principles of the Canon Law. The laity of England had repudiated the Canon Law from a much earlier time. It was the repudiation of this law which gave rise to the celebrated declaration of those who represented the country gentlemen of England in those days—Nolumus leges Angliœ mutari. Therefore, when he heard alleged in the House of Commons the doctrine of a Canonist; with whose name he was happy to say he was entirely unacquainted. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] His right hon. Friend might say "Hear, hear;" but he should be utterly ashamed of the profession of the Common Law, if he did not make the declaration. To hear a Canonist quoted as an authority against the legislation of Parliament was enough to make the bones of Lord Coke turn in his grave. And, when he was told that the relations between the Bishops and the Archbishops were to be governed by the opinion of Van Espen or of any other Canonist, he said, he would not recognize the authority of any such opinion. The relations of the Bishops and Archbishops were to be governed upon due and proper consideration of the law of the Queen, Lords, and Commons of England. Unless the House of Commons had very much changed, it would not be swayed by the opinion, whether expressed in Latin or any other language, of the Canonists of Christendom, but it would consider what was to the advantage of the Church and the State, and those were subjects which they were perfectly competent to discuss in the vulgar tongue. He would therefore ask, what it was expedient to do with reference to this matter?—a very practical question. They had passed almost to its latest stage, a Bill which provided that the statute law of England should be put in force in relation to the Church, and the machinery provided was, that certain persons should be en-titled to complain if the law was not observed, such persons to complain to the Bishops, who, in the first place, were to put the law in operation. But in discussing these ecclesiastical questions considerations were admitted which would not be admitted in discussing any other subjects. For instance, soon after the meeting of the last Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge having introduced arguments drawn from the Canon Law and similar sources, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, in that fine masculine Saxon of which he was so perfect a master, swept away the cobwebs, and said—"Let us have done with this ecclesiastical rubbish." He (Sir William Harcourt) thought that on the present occasion they might sweep away the Canon Law in the same way. The Bill provided that the Bishops were to be the persons to decide what was to be done upon complaints presented to them; and primâ facie, it would be sup-posed the person to whom complaint was made would say—" Let us remit the matter to the consideration of a Judge." But the House had introduced the question of the discretion of the Bishops, and this he held to be a very dangerous principle; but he was willing that it should be tried as an experiment. The hon. Member for West Kent the other evening said that what he wanted was fair play, and that that would be attained by having High Church and Low Church Bishops whose decisions could be put one against the other. He did not think that was the view of the majority of the House, who would probably above all things desire to prevent the state of things so much admired by the hon. Member. The House did not desire that the Bishops of the last five years should pronounce decisions exactly opposite to those pronounced by their predecessors of five or ten years before. They thought that it would be for the advantage of the nation and of the Church that there should be some single, at all events, some authority which would give unity to the practice of the Judge. Well, he had referred, when they were in Committee, to the fact that a Bishop had presented a Petition to Convocation, in which the petitioners stated that they did not consider the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council binding. What would such a Bishop be likely to do, if he were asked to sanction proceedings under this Bill? Would he not say that he considered the Bill was not a good Bill, and that he must, there-fore, decline, so far as he was concerned, to allow it to be put in operation? Such a thing was possible, he even thought it was probable, and be preferred to have two chances rather than one for the enforcement of the law. But then it was said that this was a one-sided affair. He could not concur in that view. If the Bishop determined that the law should be enforced, he entirely agreed that his decision should not be appealed against; but if a Bishop said he would not allow the law to be enforced, then the case would be entirely different, and in that case a double opinion would be extremely valuable. The presumption should be in favour of the law, and the question now under discussion should be decided not upon the opinion of Canonists, but by the judgment and common sense of that House. They should remember that it was not the Archbishop who was to determine the case; the only thing the Archbishop was to be asked was—should the particular case, the subject of the appeal, go to the Judge? He thought the House would virtually say by its decision that it was not desirable that of 27 dioceses in England 25 should say—"Let the law be enforced," and that two should say—" The law is a bad law, and shall not be enforced." The question was a practical one, and he hoped the House would determine it upon its own authority, and without reference to the Ecclesiastical Law of Christendom, or any more limited portion of that large denomination, as the Committee had already by a large majority decided.

said, the speech of his hon. and learned Friend might be divided into three portions. In the first part he had good-humouredly referred to the differences which existed on this question between the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and speaking of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, had said that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had assumed the leadership of the House and had gone against the Bill. It was quite clear, however, that the first part of his hon. and learned Friend's speech was answered by the second, which was, and was intended to be, a manifesto against the course taken in reference to the Bill by the late Prime Minister, and a direct challenge to the opinions which that right hon. Gentleman had put forth. If there was any reproach, therefore, arising from the differences of opinion which prevailed, that reproach applied to the bench opposite as well as to the Treasury Bench. In the second part of his hon. and learned Friend's speech, the vast majority of the House concurred, and he confessed that he was among the majority, The clergy of the Church of England had accepted their benefices upon the express condition that they should conform to the law of that Church as accepted by the nation and by the Parliament of England. He quite concurred with his hon. and learned Friend that the obligation they were under to perform these services according to law was binding and supreme, and further that they were not only not to break the law themselves, but that they were bound to set an example to others of obedience to the law. With respect to the third part of the speech, they might dismiss altogether the hostility and animosity of his hon. and learned Friend to the policy of the late Prime Minister. It was a practical question, and one which had nothing to do with Canon Law. The question was—Was the law to be en-forced? On that subject they were, he hoped, all agreed. How then—and this was the point for consideration and decision—was it to be enforced? For his part he was bound to say he thought the House would exercise a wise discretion in leaving the matter, in the first place, in the hands of the Bishop. He never heard of an appeal being given, except in very rare cases, from one Court to another on questions of more discretion; but if any such appeal were to be given at all, it should be given whichever way the decision of the Bishop went. The proposal was to give an appeal from the discretion of one man to another. He doubted if there was much difference in social position between an Archbishop and a Bishop, although it might be said that the men who filled the office of Archbishop, being more carefully selected than those who filled the office of Bishop, were better qualified to give an opinion on a matter of discretion than their Suffragans. But the fact was, that while there were only two Archbishops there were 27 or 28 Bishops; and there was less chance of permanent injury being done by the larger number of men, who would check and control each other's opinions, than by the decision of one or two men whose opinion was uncontrolled in any way, and who might be High Church, Low Church, or Broad Church, as chance might determine. He had supported this Bill throughout, believing it to be a wise and beneficial measure; and he did not think that this question was of the importance which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had attached to it. The question had been asked on the other side of the House, whether the Archbishops had been consulted on this matter, and he thought that that question ought to be answered. He had had the opportunity of ascertaining the opinion of both the Archbishops on this question, and he was authorized by them to state that their deliberate opinion was decidedly against the Amendment made in Committee.

said, that the question before them was a very simple one, and one that they might come to a vote upon without further discussion. It was, whether the Bishop, being authorized to put the law into motion, they should allow him to refuse to put the law in motion. He was of opinion that there ought to be an appeal from the decision of the Bishop to the Archbishop.

said, he was in favour of striking out the Amendment which had been introduced into the Bill in Committee. Under that Amendment an appeal was to be given in favour of the prosecution, while it was to be withheld from the defendant if the decision were adverse to him. That was a principle totally the reverse of that which existed in the analogous cases of an Information by the Attorney General, the proceedings in a prosecution, or the office of the Judge promoted in ecclesiastical matters. He also opposed the Amendment inserted in the Committee, because it was unwise to place any Judge in such a position as that proposed by the Amendment. It would be a most dangerous principle to lay down that if the Bishop decided one way he would be safe from appeal; but that if he decided the reverse he would be exposed to reproof, and his decision might be reversed by a superior authority. Under the present law, if a Bishop refused to promote the office, &c, there was no appeal to the Archbishop. It was doubtful whether in such a case the Queen's Bench had power to issue a mandamus, but if it had, why change the law in this instance? If one Bishop was of opinion that the point raised was one in which no prosecution should take place, it was undesirable on a question of absolute and pure discretion to subject him to direct collision with another Bishop, although he might have the word "Arch" before his name. If there was to be an appeal it should be given on both sides, and not confined to one. He had heard an Appellate Judge say that he could not take upon himself to reverse the judgment of a single Judge in a matter of pure discretion, although had the ease come before him in the first instance, he would probably have decided differently. Why, then, was the collision invited which the present clause was calculated to produce? As the Bill originally stood, an appeal was not given to the Archbishop, and he, for one, thought the peace of the Church would be best promoted by leaving it as it had come down from the House of Lords, where there was not the slightest whisper that the appeal was a cardinal point of the measure. It was by embarking on propositions which were new to the law of England that the Bill would, in his opinion, be endangered, for then public opinion would come to the conclusion that the question had not been dealt with in a judicial spirit. He should there-fore vote against the clause, as he had done before.

, having observed that he had on a former occasion stated that there had been some delay in the business of the Arches Court in consequence of the Dean of Arches occupying another office, said, he had received a communication from the Judge of the Court of Admiralty to the effect that, although he had had a great amount of work to get through in that Court, he did not allow it to cause any delay in the proceedings in the Court of Arches. As to the clause under discussion, he must confess that he did not attach to it so much importance as appeared to be given either on one side or the other. It was not in the original Bill; but yet, there could be no doubt that it had been supported by a very large majority. As he had before said, he had perfect confidence in the discretion of the Bishop; but he could not at the same time see that any evil was likely to arise if an Appeal were given to the Archbishop. It was contended, he might add, that such an appeal was unprecedented, but under the 1st and 2nd Vic. there were a number of cases—such, for instance, as that of non-residence—in which a Bishop exercised his discretion, and in which an appeal lay from him to the Archbishop.

said, he rose simply to call the attention of the House to the Rubric with respect to the exercise of the discretion of the Bishop, in which it was set forth that in cases of doubt the parties doubting should resort to the Bishop of the diocese, who, in his discretion, should take steps for quieting and removing the same, and that if the Bishop should be in doubt, then he might appeal to the Archbishop.

said, that although he had on a former occasion voted for the clause, he should feel it to be his duty after listening to the debate that evening to vote against it, inasmuch as he was of opinion that where the question involved not a matter of law, as he had thought, but merely of discretion, there ought to be no appeal.

said, that inasmuch as these proceedings would rest on facts and not on law, it would be most dangerous to allow a Bishop to establish in his own diocese a rule ad-verso to the operation of this measure, which he could do by aggregating a number of cases which he would not allow to be tried. It had been said that the Bishop did not pronounce judgment; but he did so, in fact, when he refused access to the Court. But he (Mr. Newdegate) could not conceive a power that ought to be more emphatically subjected to an appeal than that put into the hands of the Bishop by the Bill; and that appeal ought to he with the Arch-bishop. It was of the very essence of the Bill that there should be a facility of procedure, and if the House entrusted to anyone the power of defeating that principle, it ought to be only to the highest authority in the Church. There was great diversity of opinion among the Bishops, and was it the object of the House to allow one practice to be established in one diocese and another in another? They all knew that the right hon. Member for Greenwich de-sired all kinds of diversities in the Church, and was entirely opposed to the principle of the Bill. But the House desired to enforce all reasonable uniformity. The right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to defeat the Bill in every way; but he would appeal to every consistent supporter of the principle of the Bill to vote in favour of giving this power to the Archbishop.

said, he would like to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, if the clause were to be carried out, what would be the case in the dioceses of Canterbury and York, where the Archbishops and the Bishops were the same persons?

proposed, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 9, to leave out the words "gratuitously, with the exception of stamp duties," in order to insert the words, "if unopposed, on payment of such a fee not exceeding two guineas as shall be prescribed by the Rules and Orders."

thought the Amendment a very good one.

said, he would not oppose the Amendment, although he thought the maximum fixed was somewhat high.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "shall," and insert "is hereby declared to," said, that he had intended to move the Amendment without making any remark upon it; but he was in-formed that one or two hon. Gentlemen who had opposed the Bill on the second reading, intended to object to his proposal, and it therefore became necessary for him to make a few remarks. When he proposed the same Amendment in Committee, he was met by only one objection—namely, that the effect of its being carried would be to prevent other hon. Members from moving Amendments which, if carried, would have the effect of changing the constitution of the elective body. He therefore yielded to the request of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to withdraw his Amendment, and propose it on the Report. He believed that some hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had since then found out other objections to the Amendment. He did not know what they might be; but the object which he had in proposing the Amendment at the present stage of the Bill was to restore to the Church of Scotland a right which it possessed at the date of the Union between the two countries. He wished to make that part of the Bill declaratory and not enactive. At the union of Scotland to England, or, perhaps, more properly speaking of England to Scotland, the people of the Church of Scotland had the power of electing their own ministers. It was true that the initiative took place with the heritors and elders of the Church, who looked out for a clergyman qualified for the duties; but the ultimate result depended upon the congregation. It was in the interest not only of the Established Church, but of the Dissenters themselves, and more especially of the members of the Free Church, that he moved the Amendment, the object of which was to render the Bill in conformity with the law of 1690, and he was sure that all those possessing an acquaintance with the feelings of the people of Scotland would support it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

said, he objected to the Amendment on two several grounds. First, that it was historically untrue; and, second, that this was an enacting, and not a declaratory Bill. With regard to the first point, he would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Dumbarton to the fact that the Bill was not a Bill, as described by the hon. Member for Fife, to repeal merely the Act of Anne. It was a Bill with a double aspect. Its object was, no doubt, to repeal the Act of Anne, and also Lord Aberdeen's Act; but it was intended, besides, to substitute by positive enactment a new body for electing the ministers of the Church of Scotland for that which existed previously. His hon. Friend had boldly asserted that he meant to restore to the Church of Scotland its ancient right, and therefore he asked, in his Amendment, for a declaration by the House of that right. What did that mean? The Act of Union said nothing whatever about patronage; and therefore they fell back upon the Act of 1690, which was diametrically different from those clauses in the Bill, which were to vest the right of electing ministers in the congregation. What power did the Act of 1690 give? It gave power to the heritors and elders of the Church to propose a minister to the congregation, who then had the power of approving or disapproving. If they disapproved, they had to state their reasons for disapproving, and then the matter went to the Presbytery, who had absolute power of determining who should be the minister. They found in the Bill a new mode of election, and a new body of electors; and they were by the Bill vesting in the congregation that power which was before vested in the heritors and the elders. The House would remember the mode in which the question came from the General Assembly. They found that the General Assembly, in the first in-stance, recommended the heritors, the elders, and the communicants as the electing body; then, when the Bill was introduced into "another place," they found a noble Duke objecting that that was too narrow a suffrage; and now they found that communicants had boon dropped, and congregations substituted in the Bill. He must repeat that in the measure a new body was substituted for that which was expressly designated in the Act of 1690.

said, the hon. Member for Aberdeen had so clearly stated the difference between the law as it was, and the law as it was proposed to be declared to be by the proposed clause, that he would not occupy the time of the House by going over what had been so well said. In round numbers, the present proposal included about 1,000 parishes and 500,000 communicants who would become the electors, or about 500 electors to every congregation. By the Act of 1690, it was the heritors and elders who according to law proposed the minister to the people. That was the election by the heritors and elders, subject to a veto by the congregation, and an appeal to the Presbytery. An hon. Member had stated that the Bill was not more for one Church than another. That statement surprised him. The Free Church, as it seemed to him, had been sacrificed by the Bill, and had been insulted by it. ["Oh, oh!"] The Free Church ought to have been considered, and had not been considered; and his impression was that the effect of this revolutionary Bill—the most revolutionary Bill ever passed with regard to Scotland since the period of the Union—would be to unite the whole of the Free Church against the Establishment, and with them the United Presbyterians, and other denominations; and that a majority of hon. Members would be returned for Scotland on the principle of disestablishing the Church. In his opinion that would be the pivot on which future elections would turn.

said, the hon. Members for Aberdeen and Edinburgh had been very consistent in their opposition to the whole Bill, and had done everything they could to prevent its passing. Therefore, he was not discouraged by their trying to make the Amendment more palatable to those who did belong to the Church and to those who did not. Under the Act of 1690, the power of election was vested in the congregation; while the heritors and the elders had the right to propose to the congregation, the ultimate result depended upon the congregation them-selves. The views of contemporary writers wore, that effect was always given to any objection taken by the congregation, unless it was the result of improper proceeding on the part of the congregation. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member for Aberdeen might say "No;" but he (the Lord Advocate) was stating his views of the case, and he hoped the hon. Member would not interrupt him. He ventured to say that that was the proper construction of the Act of 1690, and they were now coming back, by throwing out the Act of Queen Anne, to the original Act.

said, the historical statements were either true or not true. If they were false, it was not worthy of the House to accept them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said nothing to answer the allegation that the statements were historically false. He, however, had said the Act of 1690 was practically the same as this Act. He (Mr. Lyon Playfair) denied that altogether; that Act set forth that the heritors of the parish, together with the elders, were to name a person to be approven or disapproven by the congregation. Was that election? That settled the question, and there was no occasion to discuss it further. The Act of 1690 was a totally different Act. It was historically false to say it was the same Act as they were now passing. It was not worthy of the House to put in a declaration which was historically false.

said, if the Lord Advocate could restore the right of the heritors, elders, and congregations to elect the minister, he would deserve the support of the House; but it appeared to him that this Amendment went no further than one of his own, which had been declared to be wrong.

said, the right hon. and learned Lord said it was desirable to make the Bill as palatable as possible to the people of Scotland; but it ought not to be made palatable at the cost of historical truth or of constitutional principle. He maintained that if the Amendment were accepted, they would sacrifice both. Even if, as was alleged, but as was not the case, by the Act of 1690, the elections were left to the congregations, that was qualified in this Bill by the regulations to be laid down by the General Assembly. But he went rather on the question of constitutional principle. The Amendment was to make the Bill more palatable by substituting the words "is declared to be" instead of "shall be." Why should they be so squeamish about using the word "shall?" The reason was, that it was supposed to be distasteful to some people in Scotland that the House of Commons should appear to dictate to them as to how they should elect their minister. But he maintained that that was a right which Parliament possessed. Parliament could do as it liked with regard to the Established Church; it could say what she should believe and what she should do. Then, if that were the state of things, why should they take all this trouble in order to save the conscience of some people of the Free Church?

said, the question raised by his hon. Friend was of great importance. It was to declare that that was the law which never was the law. In taking that course, the Legislature would discredit itself. The right hon. and learned Lord said the opposition came from the enemies of the Bill, but he was not an enemy of the Bill. He had voted for it, but he must remind his right hon. and learned Friend that to declare a thing in Parliament did not alter history or law. In many in-stances, declarations had been made in Parliament which had only brought discredit on those who made them.

said, he had been much surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for Stirling. He hoped that though they had the right to disestablish and disendow the Established Church of Scotland, they would never think of altering her form of worship or creed. He also had to complain that the senior Member for Edinburgh had stated inaccurately the number of communicants in North and South Leith.

said, he pledged him self to his constituents that he would vote in favour of any measure to repeal the law of patronage. This was a popular Bill in Scotland, and he was sure that the relieving of the Established Church of this incubus would be a great good. He hoped that the House would agree to the Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "a" and insert "one or more candidates to fill the vacant office of." The hon. Member said that as the clause stood, there might be only one person presented to the congregation by a scheming committee, and he wished to give the congregation a choice. The proposition seemed so reasonable that he hoped the Lord Advocate would adopt it at once.

said, he objected to the introduction of the word "candidates," and thought the clause had better stand as it was.

said, he was willing to substitute for the word "candidates," the word "persons."

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, after "thereof," to insert "as well as upon all other questions with which it is the province of the Church to deal," said, that the object of the Amendment was to protect the spiritual independence of the Church against the civil Courts.

said, that having fully and anxiously considered the Amendment, and consulted with persons in authority on the subject, he was of opinion that it was not within the scope of the Bill, and also that it was not necessary for the object in view.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "not exceed," and insert "be equal to," said, its effect would be that a patron would receive a compensation which would amount to one year's stipend certain.

said, he would agree to the Amendment, in sub-stance, but would suggest an alteration to make it applicable to more than one patron.

, in moving as an Amendment in page 3, to leave out from the word "that" in line 7, to the word "parish "in line 8, said, he considered it was important in the interest of the Church that the Amendment should be inserted, and, moreover, it would clear away a serious blot in the Bill.

supported the Amendment.

opposed the alteration.

regretted the course which the Lord Advocate had considered it his duty to take.

trusted the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment would divide the House upon it.

thought that the clause as it stood was the only method in which a guarantee for payment could be secured, and he therefore trusted that the Amendment would not be accepted.

said, he looked upon the Amendment as a great improvement, but considered that the time for collecting the money should be three years, instead of six months.

moved, as an Amendment in page 4, line 13, after "with "to insert "the appointment of the minister first appointed as the minister of any new parish quoad sacra or."

thought that the proposal was inconsistent with the Bill.

moved, as an Amendment, in line 36, to change the phrase "such other adherents" to "any other adherents."

objected, on the ground that it might have the effect of enabling kirk sessions to exclude adherents.