asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that Mr. R. G. Hamilton, an assistant secretary to the Board of Trade, has been appointed Accountant General of the Navy, in preference to competent gentlemen of high character and standing who have served many years in the Department with the hope of promotion; whether Mr. Hamilton receives a salary of £1,500 per annum, being £300 a-year more than his predecessor received; and, upon what grounds this increase has been given to a gentleman quite untried at the Admiralty?

It is true that Mr. R. G. Hamilton has been appointed Accountant General of the Navy at a salary of £1,500 a-year, which rate of salary is £100 a-year, and not £300 a-year, in excess of that received by his predecessor. The Accountant General's Department having been thoroughly reorganized, it was considered desirable to obtain the services of some gentleman whose known experience and abilities would enable him to carry out the reforms contemplated. These abilities Mr. Hamilton has shown himself to possess in the exercise of his duties at the Board of Trade, and the increased rate of salary is given in consideration of the increased amount of responsibility incurred owing to the abolition of one of the two Deputy Accountants General.

gave Notice, that on going into Committee of Supply, he would call attention to the appointment, and move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the appointment of a gentleman as head of a Department with which he has not previously teen connected, and without any experience of its working, and over the heads of tried and competent servants of the Crown, is unjust, and has a tendency to seriously weaken the public service."

observed, that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment Bill was down for that evening. In the absence of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor), who had charge of the Bill, he asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he would use his influence with the hon. Member not to bring on the Bill at an hour when it could not be fairly and reasonably discussed? The divisions which took place in the House of Lords clearly showed it to be necessary that the Amendments should receive fair discussion in that House.

, in reply, said, that he could give no pledge on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne; but, having heard nothing from him, he certainly should not expect the Bill would be brought on that night.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What was the cause of the delay in introducing the Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders relating to Waterworks for Downpatrick and Sligo, whereby the Bill has been lost for this Session?

, in reply, said, the Sligo Provisional Order proposed to revive powers conferred on the Town Council by a local Act in 1869. Besides compulsory powers to interfere with the waterworks, the draft Order proposed to enable the local authorities to take quarries and other private property without compensation. Before the introduction of such an exceptional Order in the form of a Bill, it became necessary to consider how far it affected the Public Health (Ireland) Act. A Bill to confirm the Order was introduced in sufficient time to be passed if it were unopposed; but a Petition was presented afterwards, which precluded the possibility of its becoming law this Session, and would have had the same effect if the Bill had been introduced at a considerably earlier period. The reason of the delay was the time that was necessarily occupied by the Local Government Board in. its preparation, and the subsequent consideration by the Law Officers of Ireland of the difficult questions which had been raised. It did not follow that this had been the cause of the loss of the Bill, as it was not certain that such an Order, being opposed, would have had any chance of being passed this Session. The Down-patrick Order was included in the same Bill, and therefore shared the same fate as Sligo; but care would be taken in future to avoid placing an Order not likely to be opposed in a Bill with another Order to which opposition might be expected.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

thought the Amendment involved an exceedingly important question. If a Highway Bill were to be passed, it should be a complete measure. In the Scotch Bill, discussed at the previous Sitting, it was distinctly laid down that Glasgow was to pay for certain roads in the neighbouring counties. Glasgow and Scotch Members protested; but the provision was carried in spite of their protests. The right hon. Gentleman laughed; but the Committee were now dealing with a similar subject as it affected England. There were 95 boroughs to be exempted; but, if they were exempted, why were all the other towns to be included? There were but four boroughs in Lancashire having quarter sessions of their own. Other large towns of Lancashire, with their hundreds of thousands of population, were to be charged; but these four fortunate towns would not be charged. Was this right? His right hon. Friend had proposed, in his first Bill, to give power to re-establish turnpike tolls, under certain conditions; but it was felt by all that that could not now be done. He would only now say that these towns who benefited more by the abolition of tolls than any other part of the country in which they were situated, had a right to pay something towards the maintenance of the roads. In his own county there were two towns—Chichester and Lewes—which were in precisely the same position. Chichester had a quarter sessions, and would be exempt from payment; Lewes had no quarter sessions, and would have to pay. Such anomalies would not bear examination. It was not right to deal with a difficulty by putting it on one side as was here proposed; and the difficulty here would, in his opinion, be met more easily than the Government supposed. He had looked into the facts with regard to county rates; and although it was true that for certain purposes these towns were free from county rates, there was nothing to prevent Parliament laying future burdens on the towns.

said, he was glad to hear the remarks of the last speaker, for though the hon. and gallant Baronet and he approached the question from different points of view, their conclusions were the same. The proposed compromise was indefensible, and in the county with which he was connected would operate most unjustly. He was connected by residence with the borough of Warrington, and he represented another large borough. "Was it possible for the Committee to entertain for a moment a proposal, the effect of which would be to exclude Wigan from liability to contribute to the maintenance of main roads because it happened to have quarter sessions, and to impose a heavy charge upon Warrington and Burnley because they had not quarter sessions? He believed that at the present moment the provisions of this Highways Bill were unknown in the country. He did not believe that the boroughs in different parts of the country which had not quarter sessions had the slightest idea that there was a Bill now before the House of Commons, the effect of which would be to impose upon them their proportion of one-half the cost of maintenance of the main roads of the Kingdom, which was an entirely new charge, and would be a very considerable tax upon borough property. The President of the Local Government Board had drawn a distinction between boroughs with quarter sessions and boroughs without; but as regarded the point they had now before them there was no distinction. The distinction that did exist was in reference to the administration of justice and the maintenance of gaols, the charges for which quarter sessions boroughs were relieved from, because they had their own administration of justice, and they used to have gaols of their own; but that had nothing to do with the maintenance of roads. They were now proposing to impose a new charge, and it should be dealt with in one of two ways—either they should exclude the large towns, or they should include them whether they had quarter sessions or not. He entirely objected to this piecemeal legislation. He should be quite prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman in excluding all boroughs. In Scotland, all towns of 5,000 inhabitants and upwards were excluded from the operation of the Highways Bill, so that any place which was, properly speaking, an urban as distinguished from a rural community, was exempt from contribution to the maintenance of high roads, and there was reason in the exemption. No doubt, boroughs made use of the county road; but then they had to make their streets at a very great cost, and to submit to heavy charges year by year for their maintenance. He did not say that it might not be legitimate, if some plan could be devised by which a proportional share of the maintenance of roads in counties should be placed upon the urban authorities; but it was intolerable and unjust that property which was of very great value in large towns should be called upon to contribute a very considerable share to the cost of the maintenance of these main roads. The set-off which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give to the towns was practically an illusion. He had the highest respect for the President of the Local Government Board, who, he believed, was most anxious to deal with the question in a fair and reasonable way; but he could not assent to the proposal by way of set-off, that in the case of certain roads which had been disturnpiked since 1871, if any part of them passed through a borough, the borough should have a claim upon the county for a certain amount towards the maintenance of these roads, because there were scarcely any of these roads within boroughs which had been disturnpiked since that time, and there would, therefore, practically, be no set-off; while the great amount of rateable property existing in large towns would form a very important item in the contributions to the county rate. What he would suggest was that the clause should be postponed, to enable the President of the Local Government Board seriously to consider how this matter could be dealt with. It could not, he was satisfied, be dealt with in the manner now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had bought off the formidable opposition connected with the Metropolis and the quarter sessions boroughs, and he would now have to buy off the rest of the boroughs, or to bring forward a scheme that would place on a just and equitable basis the amount of the contributions from the different localities. He regretted that the Bill was drawn on such narrow limits. It was wasting the time of the House to deal with the question in this piecemeal fashion; and he, for one, should not regret if the Bill were withdrawn. If, however, they were to go on, he urged that the clause should be withdrawn and another clause brought up, which would meet the difficulties to which he had referred. If that course were not taken, he should propose to amend the Amendment; and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in excluding boroughs with quarter sessions, and in including other boroughs, he should do everything in his power to oppose the Bill.

said, he had formed the opinion that all boroughs having quarter sessions were, to a certain extent, liable to county rate, notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who had moved the Amendment. There were three Acts of Parliament all requiring a contribution from the boroughs, in proportion to the expenditure of the county, for certain purposes. No doubt, the county magistrates could not assess or levy a rate within these boroughs; but they could send in a requisition of the amount required for county purposes, other than those from which the boroughs were specially exempt, and they had the power of enforcing this requisition under these circumstances. The question was, how were they to deal with the Amendment? He should be very sorry to stop the progress of the Bill; but he considered that if the Committee were to adopt the Amendment, as it stood, they should stereotype the principle of giving up now and for ever the liability, whatever it might be, of these boroughs. He should be willing to come to an arrangement with these boroughs. He had no wish to do anything that would seem unjust to them; and, having regard to their position, it might be desirable that they should not be saddled to the full extent that the county rate at present would fall upon them. But he did feel the impossibility of assenting to the words proposed; and he would therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that he should not at present press the Amendment. As far as the Metropolis was concerned, he had no objection to it.

remarked that it would be quite impossible, in a Bill of this kind, to impose a new charge in connection with the county rate without express acknowledgment and machinery for putting it into operation. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had complained that certain towns in Lancashire would be heavily charged for the purposes of this contribution, mentioning his own town and Warrington; while, he said, Wigan and other places would escape. But they were told by the Lancashire Members that those towns were only too anxious to contribute to the county rate. The hon. Member for Oldham himself (Mr. Hibbert) proposed an Amendment to that effect in the County Boards Bill. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) apprehended that the practice of Lancashire was to contribute by arrangement towards the county rate. Then the hon. Member for Burnley talked about the enormity of this charge. Now, what did this charge amount to? Only £150,000 upon the whole county rating of the Kingdom, or about one-third or one-fourth of the relief which had recently been afforded by the operation of the Prisons Act. As it stood, then, at the present moment, and until this machinery was extended and further developed, the charge was really not one worth talking about. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) seemed to suppose that it was a new fancy of his to exempt quarter sessions boroughs. It was nothing of the kind. When he came to frame this Bill, with a view of doing what had long been urgently demanded, he found no other rate upon which he could rest except the county rate, and that seemed to him a reasonable and a fair line to draw. Some of these quarter sessions boroughs would be glad to come into this arrangement, as they would receive in the way of contribution more than they would be called upon to pay. In the original draft of the County Government Bill, it was proposed to exempt even local board districts from the operation of this rating, but they one and all remonstrated against that solution; and he found that in Cheshire, Essex, Lancashire, and many other places, there was the greatest anxiety on the part of the local board districts to come in and have the benefit of this charge spreading over the whole of the county rate. Seeing, then, that it was not a large charge, seeing also that those towns were certainly contributory to the county rate, it did seem to him that this was a reasonable step to take, and that the addition which he proposed might be made to the clause without the slightest alarm or anxiety. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) said he would be satisfied if he thought the principle would not be stereotyped for ever. Surely the hon. Gentleman had sufficient experience of Acts of Parliament to see that this was an omnibus Bill, containing fragmentary Amendments, which would necessitate, at some later period, the introduction of a consolidation measure with a view to place the whole of the law on a uniform and satisfactory basis? The Highway Acts were a mass of confusion; and if he had attempted to consolidate them in connection with his Amendment, not one Session only but two Sessions might be too short for that purpose. He considered that the Government, in introducing the measure, bound itself to bring in, at as early a period as possible, a Bill to consolidate all the existing Highway Acts, when the Amendments now introduced might be reviewed and re-considered.

thought that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of diminishing, had strengthened the objections to the Amendment. He had perceived nothing in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman which would justify the imposition of this charge upon boroughs which had not quarter sessions, if quarter sessions boroughs were to be exempted. The right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to treat this matter as one of detail. That might be; but the reason why the Committee was in the difficulty in which it now found itself was that the Government had abandoned the County Government Bill, which would have determined, according to the mind of the country and that House, any questions upon which, at the present moment, they were unable to come to a conclusion. He would take this very question, on which he differed from many hon. Friends on his own side of the House. He said distinctly that he agreed with hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who argued that no boroughs ought to be excluded from their share of county expenditure; but he said, at the same time, that those boroughs ought not to be excluded from their share of county government; and that question would have come on for discussion if the County Government Bill had not been withdrawn. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted by the Committee, a claim would be created on behalf of boroughs which had no quarter sessions, many of them more populous than those which had, and he was at a loss to see how that claim could be resisted.

said, the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) generally took an exceedingly fair and impartial view of everything that was brought under his notice; and he was surprised, therefore, at his endeavour to impose a new charge upon quarter sessions boroughs on such slight grounds as he had alleged. He was quite prepared, nevertheless, to submit his case on behalf of one of the greatest quarter sessions boroughs to the hon. and gallant Member, who would, he was quite sure, give it a fair consideration. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this was a question which ought to be settled at once. If there were any claim which could, in justice, be urged against quarter sessions boroughs, let them by all means recognize it in their legislation immediately, and not postpone its consideration until two or three years' hence. But what was the just balance as between counties and boroughs in this matter? He took it for granted that the obligation to be admitted was, at all events, a mutual and reciprocal one. If, on the one hand, boroughs were called upon to pay for the usor of county roads, counties should, on the other, be called upon to pay for the usor of the borough roads. He would take his own case as an illustration. The markets of Birmingham were very largely attended by country people, who came in with very heavy waggons, which passed over a considerable extent of their roads. Those roads had all been disturnpiked for the last 10 or 12 years, and the country people contributed nothing towards their maintenance. At present, he did not think there was a single turnpike road within the municipal limits; and, accordingly, if under this Bill Birmingham were included as one of the highway areas, it would have a great deal to pay, but not one single penny to receive. He asked the hon. and gallant Member whether he thought that, in the case of Birmingham at all events, such a provision would be fair? Its position would be that of the stork in the fable, who was invited to sup with the fox. The fox served the meal on a flat dish, and the stork went hungry away, the fox licking up the whole of the dinner. It would be rather hard to expect that Birmingham should be prepared to pay for half of the banquet and get none of the meat. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had got up a sort of triangular duel. If he understood the hon. Gentleman's position accurately, he would actually prefer that injustice should be done to the quarter sessions boroughs than that justice should not be done to the borough which he represented. He would suggest to him that he should interfere at this stage of the proceedings if he could make out a just case for his constituents; and he, for one, would be very happy to support him in any addition which he might desire to make to these exemptions; but he would point out to him that, at all events, there were two primâ facie distinctions to be made between the quarter sessions boroughs and the other boroughs. In the first place, as the President of the Local Government Board had stated, the former had a sort of prescriptive right to immunity in connection with all these charges which had not been conferred by previous legislation upon the non-quarter sessions boroughs, and, in the next place, it would be found that in the vast majority of quarter sessions boroughs the position would be the same as in Birmingham—they would have everything to pay and very little or nothing to receive. In the case of the majority of boroughs which had no quarter sessions, he very much doubted whether the advantage would not be on the side of those boroughs, and whether the hon. Member's constituents would have any reason to thank him if he succeeded in obtaining the exclusion of his own borough from the provisions of this Bill. The real cause of complaint, it seemed to him, was this—that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents would be called upon to pay without having any share in the representation. That was an evil which he should hope at some future time might be remedied. If it be desirable—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had suggested—that quarter sessions boroughs also should come into the general scheme of county government, he saw no possible objection to that; but if they were to be made contributors to county purposes, and those purposes were to include main roads, then it would be necessary to have some other definition of main road than turnpike. They must have some definition of main roads which would include the main lines of traffic in their great towns, so that there might be established a reciprocal obligation on the part of the counties to pay for what they used, while they imposed upon boroughs a tax for what they used.

said, that ever since he had had a seat in that House he had always been anxious that jealousies between counties and boroughs should not be brought forward. He thought there could be no doubt that the main roads running from town to town were of as great importance to the boroughs, and, perhaps, more so, than to the districts through which they ran. He would instance for one the town of Sheffield, where the main road running into the picturesque part of Derbyshire traversed a wild moor district. Was it to be supposed that the farmers of that district would keep up a road for the great traffic from Sheffield, if the town itself did not contribute something towards the maintenance of the road? It was of very little importance to the farmer whether the roads were rough or not; but it was of very great importance to the heavily-laden omnibuses leaving Sheffield that there should be a good, level road. From Brighton to Newhaven the road was carried along the cliff, and was a most expensive one to keep up. It happened to run through two parishes on the South Down, in which the villages lay on the other side of the Down, and was, therefore, hardly of any use whatever to them. Still, under this Bill, it was proposed to exempt Brighton from contributing to the maintenance of this road, though it might be looked upon as the pleasure drive for that town. The probability was that the road would be neglected. He thought it must be manifest to everybody that the quarter sessions towns were very much interested in keeping up the roads; so much so, that although the right hon. Gentleman said that many quarter sessions towns, which were now under Acts of Parliament, would be exempt, yet he (Lord George Cavendish) thought that if the Committee were to omit all mention of quarter sessions boroughs and allow those that could pay to be brought in, it was very probable that before long the other towns would see that it would be to their advantage to contribute to the maintenance of the roads. In justice to the right hon. Gentleman, who had been blamed on both sides of the House for not bringing in a comprehensive measure, he must say that he did not see how it was possible, on the 5th of July, to pass such a measure—and it must be recollected that while Nero was fiddling, Borne was burning. While they were talking about who was to pay, the roads were getting worse. Those who knew anything about roads must know that "a stitch in time saves nine;" and if they put off the settlement of this question for another year the roads would only become worse and worse, and the expenses, already heavy, would be so much greater. The right hon. Gentleman was doing now what the Turnpike Roads Committee, of which he (Lord George Cavendish) had the honour to be Chairman, asked him to do, and that was to get in the narrow end of the wedge by laying down the principle that the counties should provide one-half towards the maintenance of the roads. If they got this principle established they should soon find in the working of it that several other things which they could not now perceive would become necessary; and they might expect in another Session to have what hon. Members were so anxious for—namely, a comprehensive measure passed. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had talked about a new charge being imposed upon boroughs; but he should remember that the in habitants of boroughs had not been released from the old charge to which they were liable under the old turnpike system. Whatever might be said against that system, it would hardly be denied that it was a fair one. The inhabitants of certain boroughs used the county roads, and they paid for them; but, under the present arrangement, they might use the county roads without paying for them. For his part, he could not see why quarter sessions boroughs should be exempted from this charge.

could not see why the boroughs should be allowed to use the roads without paying for them.

failed to see on what grounds an exemption could be made in favour of boroughs with quarter sessions any more than boroughs which had not them. In Lancashire there were four quarter sessions boroughs—Liverpool, Manchester, Bolton, and Wigan—but there were many other municipalities with a much larger population than either Wigan or Bolton; and he did not see why places like Oldham and Warrington should be called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of the main roads if the other boroughs in the same county were to be exempted. He did not understand upon what principle such a thing could be proposed; because the boroughs with no quarter sessions had to maintain their own roads just as much as the boroughs which had quarter sessions. The former were very glad to get rid of turnpikes, and so also were the latter. He knew that Manchester opposed nearly every Bill that was brought in for the purpose of extending the Turnpike Acts which existed in its locality. He opposed the Amendment, on the ground that at the present time in Lancashire the boroughs with quarter sessions contributed to the county rate for several purposes. Last year Liverpool and Manchester alone contributed something like £23,000 to the county rate for various purposes. If that be the case in that county, it certainly would be imposing no new burden to call upon them to contribute towards the maintenance of the main roads. He thought that in this case they ought to look upon it as a matter of justice and fairness. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that it would be unjust to make quarter sessions boroughs pay. On the contrary, he thought it would be very unjust that they should not pay, for this reason—that the inhabitants of such boroughs would use the main roads.

asked that he might be allowed to put himself right. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had stated that he had not adverted to the provisions of the Municipal Act with respect to boroughs before 1865. Now, he was in the recollection of the Committee when he said that he distinctly stated that the justices had no power of levying a heavy rate. He knew that the county could require a contribution from the municipal borough, and that the county treasurer could require an account. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said there was another question on the 12th clause. As he read the 12th clause, that was a clause which provided for management and jurisdiction, and did not affect county rate. He was sorry this discussion should have arisen, and threatened to become an impediment to the Bill. He should be happy to facilitate the progress of the Bill as well as he could; and with that view it had occurred to him that some qualifying words might be inserted in this clause. He would merely suggest that the Amendment might be accepted without prejudice, and that the question might be left open for consideration at a future opportunity. The difficulty, to his mind, was that if they passed this Amendment as it stood, they would decide for ever the exemption of these boroughs. Therefore, what he suggested was that after the word "or," and before "any order," they should insert the words "subject to and without prejudice to any provisions that may be hereafter made." This would show that further provision was contemplated; and it would prevent this provision from being quoted as closing for ever the consideration of the matter, or prejudicing the consideration of any further provisions which might be hereafter made. He would suggest those words, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider them.

, after listening to this very interesting discussion, would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not bring up something on the Report that would meet this case. He agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that boroughs would have to keep their own highways in repair. Although the traffic on the highways outside the borough did not pay the borough rates there were warehouses, or some places or other within the borough, on which they would pay rates. When they came to look at the heavy traffic from Bolton to Manchester those were two boroughs which would be excluded from the Bill, and the intermediate places would be subjected altogether to the expense of this heavy traffic. They had warehouses in Bolton and Manchester which contributed to the rates; but these places did not contribute to the highway rates. Although this Amendment would free the borough he represented, there was some justice in saying that the boroughs should contribute something. It was a question of degree; and he was sure if the right hon. Gentleman would consider it before the Report they might come to some arrangement.

said, there appeared to be some confusion in regard to this clause. It seemed to him that it was proposed that the boroughs were to pay their share of the county rate, and the counties were not to pay their share for roads within the boroughs. Now, he never could agree to that. It was not a question of policy, as an hon. Member had stated. In the borough which he represented there were 27 miles of highway, and under the clause as it stood they would have to pay for keeping these roads in good order. He wanted to know if they were to keep these 27 miles in order and to pay county rates as well, or would the county keep them? If they were to have fair play, the county should either pay for these roads, or the borough should be excluded from the county rate. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the latter course; and, as far as he could see, it must be maintained. If hon. Members for counties thought the matter should be re-considered, he did hope that they would be prepared to take their share, and would not throw all the burdens on towns which would have, at the same time, to pay county rates.

considered it was a question of expediency and time. He thought that after what had fallen from both sides of the House there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that it was a fair thing to exclude the towns. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), he did not know how they maintained 27 miles of road, when boroughs would receive half the contribution from the county rate. ["No, no!"] He thought that would be the effect. ["No, no!"] He would suggest that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should consider the matter, and perhaps he might meet the views that had been expressed. It was a question whether what was required could be done within the time. He did not know whether it was possible for him to postpone the clause, in the hope of bringing it up after with an alteration. There was a clause in the Scotch Bill which gave power to make some provision between boroughs and counties on the taking off of turnpike gates. During five years they had power to make rates. In England they had not this power; and he must say the justice of the case had been very fairly put by hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose boroughs, it seemed to him, should be all included in the Bill. The practical effect would be very slight—very slight, indeed. There was a district in his own county where he found some of the boroughs would actually receive, though others would pay. The change would be very slight; and really the whole principle of rates was that the whole community in the county ought to contribute. If they had an opportunity of working the Bill, very probably, in a short time, a course would be found which would facilitate the question to be decided. It really appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman ought to say whether, under the circumstances, he would postpone the clause, or would reserve this Amendment for later decision. It was really only a question whether it could be introduced now or not.

said, the towns had no objection to pay their share for the roads which brought traffic into them, provided that the county paid their share of the main roads within the towns. All the towns objected to was that the county charge should be put upon them without any such provision. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman provided for this reciprocal contribution, although the towns might have to pay something more they would not object; but they did object to these charges being thrown upon them without any counter charges being considered at all. Liverpool now paid £16,000 to the county expenditure. All they wished for was that the question should be considered as a whole, and that the matter should be put upon a fair footing.

remarked that the difficulty in which the Committee now found itself was not a new one, but was a difficulty which was continually occurring in the ordinary course of rating in the country. Wherever the property was partly urban and partly rural, and when the rate for gas or other matters had to be levied, those outside the towns paid one-fourth of the rate; and he would venture to suggest that that principle ought to be considered in the present case, and some modified or mitigated rate might be derived from it.

said, it was clear that the cost of the roads outside the boundaries of towns was defrayed by the parishes through which they ran; and he had no doubt that the towns ought to contribute something. But, on the other hand, the argument of the towns was this. There were main roads in their towns which were used by the county as arterial or through roads; and they contended that if they contributed to the maintenance of the roads outside, those outside ought to contribute to the cost of maintenance of the arterial roads inside the borough boundaries. It really came to this—what were main or arterial roads? He did not think that any solution would be arrived at until they had an uniform system of county government. What he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was, that he was proposing this as a stop-gap until he could go more fully into the matter by the County Government Bill. It seemed to him it would be better to pass the clause as it stood, and leave the right hon. Gentleman to bring up a new clause, or Amendments to this, on the Report, and then take a final decision upon it. It would be a pity if, after having gone so far, they did not go on with the matter.

was sorry to speak so often; but so many questions on this interesting subject naturally arose, that he was obliged to address the Committee somewhat frequently. He should, of course, have no objection to accepting the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory); but whether they would have much effect, he thought was doubtful. It would appear to be an indication that some contribution must hereafter be made from these towns. What he wanted to put before the Committee was the fact that there were many kinds of towns. There were 95 quarter sessions boroughs, and these were boroughs where the county magistrates had no right to go in and levy a county rate. Whether that was for the general interest, or not, was another question. He did not go into that; but as the magistrates had now no authority, if Parliament did put them into these towns for these purposes, representation must be given to the towns for county purposes. Besides these 95 quarter sessions boroughs, there were more than 100 having separate petty sessional jurisdiction, and there were, also, local board districts. The whole of these would come in, for better, or for worse; and thus an enormous majority of the towns populations of the Kingdom would come in. By this Amendment of the clause, he was endeavouring to draw a clear line between them. He did not think there was much justice or injustice on either side. Many quarter sessional boroughs would pay more than they gained if they were brought in. Others would gain more than they paid. Difficult questions as regarded main roads would arise; and he did not think it would be well to add to the difficulties of the Bill by including these quarter sessional boroughs, which were not included at the present time. He thought it would be well to accept the Amendment with the words of the hon. Member; and if, in the course of discussion, it should appear that the opinion of the Committee was different, words could be added on the Report. With regard to remarks by an hon. Gentleman opposite, it never was his intention that anything in the language of this Amendment should restrict the operation of the clause to which he gave his assent the other day. If the hon. Member thought that would be the effect of his Amendment, he must add the words "notwithstanding anything in the previous part of this Act contained."

said, he saw no reason why, if exemptions were made in the case of any particular class of boroughs, similar exemptions should not be made in the case of towns which were under the management of local Boards of Health, and which maintained their own local roads. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that as there was at present a difficulty in the way of rating quarter sessions boroughs where no rate was now levied, he should omit the latter part of the clause, so as to give power to levy a contribution upon quarter sessions boroughs on a basis to be fixed by representatives of the boroughs and of the counties in which they were situate. He thought this would get over the difficulty of rating boroughs which had never before been subject to the payment of rates.

thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would not meet the difficulty, as there was no such institution as an order on the Council in the case of a municipal borough, and the Amendment would not therefore agree with the clause. He admitted the cogency of the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), and was perfectly willing to undertake that he would, on the Report, provide, if possible, some limitation on the amount to be contributed by the boroughs generally towards the maintenance of the county roads.

pointed out that the county rate levied in municipal boroughs was raised by means of a precept addressed by the county authorities to the overseers, and by them passed on to the representatives of the municipalities; therefore, the order on the Council was an order made by the overseers to cover the purposes, or one of them, of the Act—namely, to maintain the roads within the county.

rejoined, that the order referred to was not an order under the particular Act referred to.

said, he felt some hesitation in moving that the clause be altogether omitted after it had been discussed at length and amended by the Committee. He felt it his duty, however, to move his Resolution, and in so doing he should keep within the narrowest limits the reasons which he had to urge. The clause defined two things. In the first place, it stated that main roads were to be roads which ceased to be turnpike roads in the year 1870. On this point he wished for a little information. He should like to know the mileage of the roads in England which would be affected by this provision; and particularly how, in the different counties, the highway districts and parishes would be pecuniarily affected by the changes which were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Up to the present time no information had been given on this point; and in saying this he did not complain of any discourtesy on the part of his right hon. Friend, because he did not believe that it was in the power of the President of the Local Government Board to give any information. In the case of one county he had taken the trouble to ascertain what would be the effect of the proposed legislation. He had taken the case of two highway districts in the county, 20 miles apart, and having no community of traffic. He found that in one district the main roads cost for maintenance £45 per mile, and in the other £23 per mile. There being, as he had said, no community of traffic between these two districts, and no common us or of the roads, the spendthrifts of one district would be benefited by the economists of the other if the Bill were passed with the clause to which he objected included in it. He, therefore, thought there ought to be included in the Bill a clause which should make an allocation of rating or contribution between the different highway districts in each county, where the cost of maintaining the roads in those counties differed. If the provision was a good one as far as highway districts were concerned, how much more necessary did it become, and how much more grievous and frequent would the injustice become, when the whole areas of counties had to be dealt with. The example he had given was illustrative of the difficulties which would arise in a greater or less degree in every county affected by the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament. There being some highway districts which had no main roads, and others which contained main roads of considerable length, he could see no fairness in asking the first-named class to pay towards the maintenance of the roads which traversed the districts he had mentioned last. For instance, there was the great Watling Street, which had been a main road for over 1,000 years; but which, under the condition which had been put into the Bill by his right hon. Friend, would become, technically, a highway. It was no answer to him to say that anomalies of this kind would be remedied by subsequent clauses in the Bill; for the old axiom that "prevention is better than cure" was based on common sense, and an anomaly ought not to be included in one clause in order that it might be cured in another. It was a poor excuse to say that the cure of a hardship which might he inflicted by a clause of the Bill would be left in the hands of those to whom the administration of the provisions of the Bill, which involved great changes, would be intrusted. Another objection he had to the Bill was that, so far from giving a single half-penny of relief to the ratepayers, it would increase the rates. The rates in the highway districts would continue; the county rates would be increased, and the money to meet both imposts would come out of the same pockets. In many cases where the turnpikes no longer existed, the Bill would inflict great hardship upon the parishes, and no attempt had been made by his right ton. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to remove or alleviate those hardships, although, as far as he knew, no one attempted to deny their existence. All that his right hon. Friend had done had been to make the grievance common to all the rural districts, so that no one of them could say it had been exceptionally treated. This was all very well; but community in suffering was not likely to induce the sufferers to hold their tongues. Under the provisions of the Bill the county rates would be increased by, he believed, about one-half, and the highway rates would not be diminished in anything like the same proportion. The courts of quarter sessions would have to double, treble, and perhaps quadruple, the staffs in the departments of the county surveyors, and the highway boards would have to maintain their staffs of officials at the number they at present employed. So much for the financial part of the question. He would next deal, briefly, with the administrative part of the Bill, which was, in his opinion, open to even more severe censure. The administrative portion of the scheme amounted to this—that every main road was in future to be governed by two authorities. The Government was going to oust the old and ancient power of the parish officers; to oust the discretion of that more newly created power, the highway district authority, and to place the superintendence of the main roads in the hands of the courts of quarter sessions. There were even now sometimes strained relations between the courts of quarter sessions and the other local authorities, with respect to the repair of the county roads over bridges; and he asked the Committee whether it was wise to open wide the door for further conflicts at a time when the Government was proposing to consolidate all the local authorities? It must not be supposed that under the provisions of the present Bill the sole duty of the courts of quarter sessions would be to pay the bills which the highway boards sent in to them. He felt certain that the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Cavendish), as the Chairman of the Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee, would bear him out in saying that this was not the idea of the Committee. That Committee had said, over and over again, that as the main roads in the country were deteriorating, some controlling and superintending authority should be placed over the district local authorities. That most unpopular and disagreeable work was proposed to be put in the hands of the courts of quarter sessions. They would have frequently to come down upon the parish authorities and the way wardens, and to refuse them money raised by means of the rates whenever, in their opinion, the roads were out of repair. He could not see that there was sufficient ground for making so great a local disturbance for the sake of effecting a merely temporary arrangement—in other words, until his right hon. Friend could succeed in passing the Bill for county government. As far as the present clause was concerned, it was not asked for by the courts of quarter sessions, the highway boards, the Chambers of Agriculture, the parishes, the landowners, the farmers, or, indeed, anyone directly interested in the subject. Even the Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee did not ask for it in the form proposed. He would put it most seriously to the Government and the Committee, whether this Bill was to be the only legislative out-come of the Resolution which was passed unanimously last year—that the control of the quarter sessions over the rates should be placed in the hands of a more representative authority? It seemed to him that it would be a most satirical commentary upon good Resolutions if, in the face of that Resolution, they were to place in the hands of the quarter sessions the administration of £250,000 more of rates than they had at present; and to take from every highway board, and every parish, that measure of self-government which they had at present, of which they were especially jealous, in respect of roads for which, before the law, they were alone responsible, and for the repair of which they found the money. He thought the House could hardly pass this measure without passing a Vote of Censure upon their own Resolution; and, therefore, he moved the rejection of the clause.

objected to the speech of the hon. Member, on the ground that it went to the principle of the Bill, and ought to have been delivered, if at all, on the Motion for second reading. No Bills were more easy to be talked out than Bills of this class; and therefore the principle of the Bill having been affirmed on the second reading, he deprecated long discussions of its principles in Committee. The substance of the plan contained in the Bill was proposed by him two years ago—long before the Resolution of last Session, to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and with which it had nothing whatever to do. The principle of the Bill was to charge half the expense of the main roads upon the counties; and although this was analogous to, it was not identical with, the Resolution to which the hon. Member had referred.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to fix a period for the purposes of this clause more nearly approximating to the year in which turnpikes were abolished. Otherwise, to take an instance, those of his constituents who lived near Malvern would have to bear all thy expenses of their own roads, and also half the cost of less important roads in a distant part of the county. If the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to alter the year, perhaps he would consent to allow the local authorities to define what really were main roads.

said, the proposed Amendment was unnecessary, and would disturb an arrangement which had seemed satisfactory to the Committee. If the roads to which the hon. Baronet referred were chargeable to the district, they would come within the category of main roads.

objected to the clause, for the reason that it would give to the county authorities very exceptional powers without any guarantees that the authorities would possess a representative character.

, who had proposed, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "seventy," and insert "sixty," said, that after the discussion on the 11th clause he should withdraw his proposition.

also moved to insert in the same clause, page 6, line 3—

"The Local Government Board, if of opinion that there is probable cause for an application under this section, shall cause the road to be inspected, and if satisfied that it ought to cease to be a main road and become an ordinary highway, shall make an order accordingly"—

inquired if there were any provision in the Bill for the repair of roads dividing two counties? There was a case in his own county and Warwickshire, and the question had arisen as to who should repair it? The consequence was, the road was impassable?

said, that the question was one which would be considered hereafter.

had no objection to the insertion of the words.

said, that as he gathered from the words proposed to be inserted, "extraordinary expenses" meant "expenses extraordinary," arising from exceptional circumstances, or exceptional causes.

said, that the words were in the Scotch Bill, and if his hon. Friend would defer his question until the Report, his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would explain why such words had been inserted.

said, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, that he had no objection to alteration in the wording, though he did not think that "considerable" would meet the case. It was a question whether the word "excessive" would not apply.

thought "extraordinary" the better word.

inquired if the carriage of materials for the erection of farm buildings or cottages would come under the word "extraordinary?"

thought the county authorities should be guided by their own common sense.

said, that "extraordinary" would, of course, mean something beyond the "ordinary" expenses incurred in repairing the highway, by reason of the damage caused by extraordinary traffic.

thought the Amendment unnecessary. Highway meant a main road.

said, that the same objection was applicable to this Amendment as to the word "extraordinary." If extraordinary traffic caused the damage, it must be by excessive weight. The words "extraordinary damage" required no further explanation. He would consider whether the words proposed should be inserted in the clause.

would like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman intended to define "extraordinary" in the sense of excessive weight, excessive traffic, or traffic from pits, quarries, or any particular industry which must necessarily give rise to considerable traffic?

said, that the meaning of the word "extraordinary" would be properly considered when they came to it.

did not see how they could schedule the words "extraordinary traffic" in the Bill. The carriage of materials for the erection of farm buildings, cottages, and the like, would be ordinary traffic. Where there were large works—such as the construction of cotton-mills—it might be taken as extraordinary traffic. However, the local authorities must use their own common sense in the matter.

said, that the clause, as it stood, referred to extraordinary traffic, although the works mentioned therein might only be considered as ordinary traffic—"building operations, construction of works, or other exceptional causes." He took it that the words "exceptional causes" would be governed by the preceding words, "building operations," and that might be held to refer to extraordinary traffic. If so, he thought the Amendment should not be accepted.

objected to the words proposed being inserted in the Bill. There might be extraordinary traffic in one part of a county and ordinary in another—a difference in agricultural and mining districts. It might be ordinary traffic in an agricultural, and extraordinary in a mining district. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. The authorities who had jurisdiction in the matter must be trusted to use their common sense, guided by the light of their experience.

thought it desirable that some such words should be inserted. In his district, nothing damaged the roads so much as the carriage of heavy stones from the quarries. He was informed that in his neighbourhood these quarries caused damage to the roads to the extent of £200 a-year. There were other works of a similar character contiguous, and immense traffic was carried on between them and the railway stations. It was important, therefore, that some steps should be taken to make the heavy stone traffic pay its fair proportion to the repair of the roads.

said, that the words proposed might act pretty well in a district such as the noble Lord represented; but he believed they would create a great deal of confusion in mining districts. It would be said that the traffic was extraordinary, and differences of opinion might exist. The words inserted would be dangerous. Where there were quarries such as the noble Lord described, the word "extraordinary" might follow; but in a mining district a different state of things might prevail.

thought the word "extraordinary" pointed to something very temporary in the clause. The clause referred to building operations, which certainly did not go on for ever. Those were exceptional causes, and he thought the word "excessive" would meet the case.

said, that the question was not a simple one. There was a provision in the County Bill for dealing with traffic of the kind through the agency of the turnpike system. If persons owning quarries, mines, and pits, and whose works actually tended towards the destruction of the roads, could be placed under some contribution, it might work very well in some parishes; but in other parishes a different state of things might exist. He would not object to the insertion of the words, but would rather consider them on the Report. The worst cases that had been laid before him were cases in which the roads had been destroyed by the construction of great buildings, and the carriage of minerals and stone.

considered it would be a great injustice to deprive the owners of mines of the facilities which they had for years enjoyed. It would be great injustice to place a new charge upon property of that kind, for in no sense could it be justified by the circumstances of the case. Of course, if there were any exceptional traffic, or traffic of an extraordinary nature, arising out of extraordinary circumstances, it would be perfectly right that it should be recognized in the provisions of the Bill, and the parties should be charged for it who took it over the roads. But if the House were going to upset arrangements which had existed for years, they would be introducing a principle of a novel character, and not at all a satisfactory one. Litigation and annoyance would arise in consequence, for it would be impossible to draw any distinct line. He protested against the way in which the Bill had been altered, first on one principle and then on another.

said, that great damage was undoubtedly done to the roads by the carriage of heavy traffic, and some provision was needed to meet the expense. It was only fair and reasonable that those who caused the damage should contribute some proportion of the cost of repairing it.

thought a good deal of the objection arose from the word "exceptional" in the clause. Some such addition as "any other exceptional cause whatsoever" might be advantageously made. It would then be of a general character, and would not be confined to the class of subjects to which they had referred.

said, that if it was intended to provide for occasional traffic the nature of such traffic should be clearly defined in the Bill. It was a very considerable power which was proposed to be given to the auditor, a power to decide whether an outlay was proper or not.

said, he had not yet received an answer to the question he had asked, whether the words "extraordinary traffic" in the clause meant "extraordinary and temporary traffic?" He understood, however, that the right hon. Gentleman meant that the traffic should be extraordinary and temporary, and if that was so, he had made a mistake in accepting the Amendment which he had, because that extended the clause in a manner which was likely to cause much inconvenience and litigation. As far, therefore, as he could at present see, he should have not only to vote against the Amendment, but against the clause itself. The point which had been raised was a very serious one, and the power which was going to be given was very exceptional and extraordinary. He had not hitherto opposed it, because he knew the necessity of something being done; and he would not now oppose it, provided they confined the matter to cases of an exceptional character. It was not, however, within the true principles of legislation that they should confer this great power on the surveyor and the justices of the peace unless the case could not be otherwise met.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way. This Amendment was one of the most valuable portions of the Bill. No doubt, as originally laid down, the cases of extraordinary traffic were confined to those which were of an entirely temporary character; and it was perfectly true that the Amendment introduced a distinct and different principle, which would make habitual and incessant traffic extraordinary traffic. It was only right and fair this should be done; because he knew many cases where roads were ruined and enormous expenses incurred by such traffic. The clause, as amended, would only maintain the old principle, that those who used the roads should pay for them. It would have to be established to the satisfaction of the county authorities, upon the certificate of the surveyor, that the traffic had been extraordinary.

said, any hon. Member reading the Bill, as it originally stood, must have come to the conclusion that the Government meant that the extraordinary traffic referred to in this section should be confined to traffic of a temporary character. He had no objection to the clause as it stood, especially as the person against whom the order was made would have the power of appeal against the county authority. When the hon. Member opposite talked of mines, quarries, and pits destroying the roads, he should have remembered that mines, quarries, and pits brought in people who contributed to the expenses, by increasing the number of persons liable to be rated for the repairs of the roads.

hoped the Government would not yield to the Amendment, because its adoption would only create confusion.

said, they would entirely alter the clause if they inserted the words of the Amendment. Some hon. Members appeared to think that all agricultural traffic was ordinary, while any traffic which did not belong to the farmers was extraordinary traffic; and they got hold of mines, pits, and quarries, and proposed that they should be mulcted. After all, farmers had heavy traffic as well as the owners of pits and quarries; and a farmer who farmed agricultural land might require to use the road a great deal more than the man who had a farm of grass land. "Extraordinary" was said to mean that one man had more traffic than another; but how were they to define that? It was difficult to stop at mines, pits, and quarries. Take the case of a great brewer, who sent his vans all over the country with loads quite as heavy as those of any pitmen. Were they going to treat the traffic of the brewer as extraordinary and exceptional? It was most unfair to say to a mining district that the traffic from their pits and quarries was extraordinary, when it was really only ordinary traffic. Why they should pick out the mining districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and say their traffic was extraordinary, while the traffic of the farmer was only to be looked upon as ordinary, passed his comprehension.

thought, when a change was being made in the law, a concession of this kind might be made to those who used the roads but little, but who paid largely to them.

said, that in the recent discussion on the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill the same difficulty arose as to defining what was extraordinary traffic, and it was there found that something must be left to the discretion of the local authorities. He would, therefore, suggest that they should adopt the words of the Scotch Bill, and that this clause should be made to read—

"Where extraordinary expenses have been incurred by such authority in repairing such highway by reason of the damage caused by extraordinary traffic thereon, such authority may recover in summary manner."

If this suggestion were approved, they would have no difficulty in defining whether the extraordinary damage arose from a pit or mine, or any other cause. This would be a simple solution of the point; and if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, he would move the one he had just suggested.

said, it was quite evident, from the number of Amendments which had been put on the Paper on this subject, a great deal of interest was felt in the question, and that some means should be provided in regard to excessive and outrageous damage to roads. He did not go so far as to say that those who used the roads had alone an interest in them. The ratepayers, as a body, were interested in good roads in their locality, and it was quite a fallacy to say that the old turnpike system was instituted for the purpose of making those who used the roads alone pay for them. He thought they might trust the Scotch Members to have made the alteration which they had done in their Bill after great consideration; and, for his part, he should be willing for the clause to be amended in some such way as that which had just been suggested.

hoped the insiduous Amendment which had been suggested would not be agreed to, because there were antecedent words in the Scotch Bill which gave the word "extraordinary" a different meaning to that which it would have in this Bill. If the whole of the Scotch clause was embodied in the English Bill, it might, perhaps, answer the object in view—not otherwise.

considered that, in a matter of this kind, they must give and take a little, because it was very difficult to make a law which would suit everybody. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the proprietors of large mineral works and quarries abused the roads; but that was not so. He had had to pay large sums for roads in which he had no interest whatever, and which he never used, because he had made his own roads. He had no objection to the clause as it stood, and he thought there should be a right of appeal. It would be a great hardship to put the Amendment into the clause; because it might have the effect of stopping these kinds of works, the profits from which were not at present very large.

wished to point out that there was a great deal of difference between permanent and temporary traffic. What was ordinary traffic in one part of the country was extraordinary in other places. When a new waterworks or railway came into a neighbourhood they used the roads largely, and they left them in a bad state of repair. That would come under extraordinary traffic, and he thought the clause was sufficient to meet it. But where new mines were opened the traffic was no longer extraordinary, but ordinary, when the works of construction were completed, and the regular business was being carried on. The Amendment would be very dangerous, indeed, because under it they would be able to rate mines and quarries in an extraordinary manner.

confessed he did not very much like the clause as it stood, and every Amendment hitherto proposed seemed to make it worse than it was. The first thing they must be perfectly clear on was this—Did they, in any way, mean in the words extraordinary and exceptional to include traffic of a permanent character? He entirely objected to any traffic of a permanent character being included under those words, because it would open the door to any amount of jobbery. He saw no reason why it should be left to the discretion—the summary jurisdiction, in fact—of one man to determine what was and what was not exceptional and extraordinary traffic, and what, therefore, ought to pay a specially high rate. If any provision of this sort was to be introduced at all, it ought to be strictly confined to exceptional and extraordinary traffic in the sense of temporary traffic. To adopt the Amendment would be to depart from this principle; because in districts where quarrying and mining operations were carried on, the traffic to and from the quarries and pits would be part of the ordinary and regular traffic of the district. His hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had laid down the principle that in fixing the rates regard should be had to the amount a man contributed to the rates, and to the quantity of traffic he put upon the roads. This was much too vague and fine a distinction to be satisfactorily made. If a man was to be charged an exceptionally high rate who carried stones, or flints, or iron, over the roads, what was to be said to the man who carried timber? To make rules of this kind would lead to endless litigation; more money would be spent in law than would be saved in rates, and any number of conflicting decisions would be given in different parts of the country. He would rather not have this clause at all; but if it must be adopted, it should be adopted in such a form as that it would be expressly limited to such extraordinary traffic as was purely temporary. He should, therefore, suggest that the Amendment before the Committee be negatived, and that in line 37, after the word "exceptional," the words "and temporary" be inserted. Subject to some such Amendment, he might be induced to agree to the clause; otherwise, he should certainly oppose it.

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman meant that if an evil were temporary it must be paid for; but if it was permanent, the person or persons responsible were to get off scot-free. This was a line of argument which he could not understand. As a member of the Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee, he might say that they had frequently continued trusts on account of this "extraordinary" traffic from mines, quarries, and other works, the owners of which, in the absence of turnpikes, would contribute very little to the maintenance of the roads. He therefore hoped the Committee would adopt the sense, if not the words, of the proposal.

said, it seemed to him that the hon. Members for Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) and Mid-Somersetshire (Mr. Paget) had lost sight of the main object of the Bill, which was not that the persons using the roads should pay for them, but that they should be paid for by those who derived benefit from their use. The ratepayers in a district were more largely benefited by excessive traffic than were those by whom the traffic was created. In the county from which he came there were extensive collieries and other works, and the ratepayers gladly paid for the maintenance of the roads, being amply compensated by the existence of large industries in their midst. He, therefore, hoped they would proceed on the principle which he had described, and not adopt that which had been suggested by the hon. Member.

, in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, said, his objection was to any limitation of the word "extraordinary" in reference to traffic by any special definition. He therefore thought the working of the clause would be greatly assisted by the Amendments of the hon. Members for Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) and Mid-Somersetshire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had expressed his willingness to deal with exceptional cases; but he had made no practical suggestions to that end. To throw the whole of these burdens upon the ratepayers would be to saddle them with a very heavy responsibility, and he did not think it would be fair to do this. If any Minister was to propose an income tax of 1s. or 2s. in the pound, there would be a great outcry in the country about it; but to put these dues upon the ratepayers was, practically, to do something of the kind.

said, the hon. Member was wrong in supposing that though he objected to the Amendment he had suggested any other means of dealing with the question. At the same time, he might say that, in his opinion, the 20th clause of the Bill was very much to the point. That would protect the ratepayers against excessive damage, which did not result from fair wear and tear, but from the roads in hilly districts being torn up by the scorched wheels of waggons carrying heavy loads down hills. It was to meet cases of this kind that the clause in question was put into the Bill, and he thought this was all that needed to be done.

thought that the ratepayers in any locality had a right to compensation for exceptional and temporary damage done to the roads by reason of the construction of works, the building of houses, or any other cause from which such damage might result. But if a clause was put into the Bill defining only certain kinds of damage as exceptional, it would lead to no end of litigation, and would put no limit to the favouritism which might be practised by those who had charge of the roads. He thought the case would be met by adding the word "temporary" after "exceptional" in the clause.

thought endless difficulty would be occasioned by making the clause apply to other than "temporary" obstruction of the roads. He would, therefore, urge the propriety of allowing the clause to pass in its original form. There must, in a matter of this kind, be a little give and take. There were, within his own knowledge, heavily-rated collieries which did not use the public roads at all, but carried their produce by railways, which they themselves had constructed and maintained at much cost. In illustration of what he had called the give and take-principle, he might mention the case of a proprietor of woodlands, who for many years had paid rates for the maintenance of roads without using them. Suppose such a man had a heavy fall of timber on his estate, and had to send it along the roads, would it be fair to call upon him to pay for the temporary and exceptional damage, when he had during the whole time the trees were growing paid rates towards the cost of the roads without using them?

said, he quite agreed that the clause ought not to be diverted from its original intention, so far as to convert an extraordinary into an ordinary traffic; but he thought the use of the word "extraordinary" in the clause would protect alike the ratepayers and those who used the roads. He repudiated the notion of specially taxing any particular trades, and suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, promising on the Report to bring up words which would embody the spirit of the Amendment which had been proposed.

said, it would be much better to omit the whole clause, as the right hon. Gentleman had promised to amend it, and to bring up a new clause at a later period.

said, he had no objection to that; but he thought the proper course would be to pass the clause as it stood, and then he would undertake to amend it.

entirely objected to the proposal that the clause relating to extraordinary traffic should be adopted from the Scotch Bill, inasmuch as the latter was drawn upon lines entirely different to those of the English Bill, and did not, moreover, levy the rates on property in the same incidence. The Scotch Bill, which should be looked upon as totally distinct, expressly excluded from its operation all places of above 5,000 inhabitants. ["No, no!"]

asked if the hon. Member for Burnley was in Order in criticizing the provisions of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill?

said, the hon. Member was out of Order in discussing the provisions of a Bill other than that before the Committee.

said, his intention was to compare the two Bills, and to point out to the Committee that under the Scotch Bill large trading and manufacturing places, and towns of upwards of 5,000 inhabitants, were absolutely exempt from the rate. He thought the clause should be withdrawn. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), he ventured to suggest that the Committee should allow the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to negative the clause and bring up a fresh one, to be discussed as an Amendment in Committee, an arrangement which, he thought, would be better than a discussion on the Report.

said, he would withdraw the clause, and bring the matter, subsequently, before the Committee. He thought the Scotch clause which, with the addition of certain words, was originally taken out of the present Bill, would be found, on the whole, more nearly to convey the opinion that the extraordinary traffic contemplated should be occasional and temporary; while, by the present clause, the limits as to building or occasional use of the roads were too narrow, and might be extended without departing from the intention of the Bill.

wished to submit to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of introducing an arbitration clause, which should apply to cases of extraordinary damage. This suggestion had been made to him by many persons, and was, in his opinion, of considerable value.

, in moving to leave out from the word "that," in page 7, line 11, to the end of the clause, and to insert the words—

"Such highway is unnecessary for public use, such authority may place notices at both ends of the said highway declaring the same to be unnecessary. The said notices shall remain for six months, during which time any person may appeal to the court of quarter sessions against the said declaration. If there be no appeal, or if the appeal be dismissed, then, at the end of the aforesaid period, the expenses of repairing such highway shall cease to be defrayed out of any public rate. Notice of appeal shall be given to the clerk of the highway board within reasonable time,"

said, that his reason for placing that Amendment on the Paper was that the mode of dealing with useless highways was found not to work well. It was necessary to ensure to the public proper notice of any intended change in the maintenance of highways supposed to be useless. And it was also necessary to afford sufficient facilities to the Board or authority who had charge of the highways to enable them to act. He believed that the clause which he had put on the Paper would undoubtedly meet these requirements. Under the existing law, notices and advertisements had to be inserted in the county papers, and a number of technical formalities complied with; but, besides the heavy cost of these, persons who used the roads were not likely to read advertisements, and the consequence was that the notices were practically of no use. He believed the clause would sufficiently guard the public against the shutting up of roads which ought to be maintained.

said, he must point out to the hon. Member, that the Amendment which he proposed to move was, in effect, a new clause, and that there was another Amendment on the clause to be proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) which, under such circumstances, should be first considered.

said, he would, then, move to leave out all the words of the clause.

pointed out that there were many pit-falls in the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member, that would render it unacceptable to the Committee. He, therefore, hoped it would be withdrawn.

remarked, that the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill provided that when a road had been proved to be unnecessary as a public highway, its use might be discontinued and the road itself shut up. It was, in his opinion, desirable that the present Bill should make a similar provision for the shutting up of those roads in England which were also proved to be unnecessary as public highways; inasmuch as by continued use, after the means of maintaining them were taken away, they would become so many "Sloughs of Despond," and the sources of much danger and inconvenience. It was his intention to bring up a clause on the Report, providing for the shutting up, with the consent of the Highway Board, of certain roads proved to be unnecessary for the public use, if it were decided that they should not be repaired at the public expense. He did not wish to retard the progress of the Bill; but he should also have to deal with the shutting up of footpaths at the same time, by a clause providing that "no footpath should be entirely closed without the consent of the Highway Board." He believed there were many cases of footpaths being shut up solely by the influence of the vestry; which meant, perhaps, the action of a single squire and a few people living around him.

thought that the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Leighton) was extremely reasonable; and although the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his Amendment, he proposed, in page 8, line 4, after the word "affixed," to add the words—

"And by placing notices at both ends of the said highway, declaring the same to be unnecessary."

pointed out to the hon. Member that it was not competent to him to move that Amendment.

said, that a great evil would be created by giving to courts of petty sessions the power of shutting up a road. In his opinion, the closing of a road should not take place until the court of quarter sessions had decided that it should be shut up.

said that the sub-section 1, to which his Amendment related, empowered the county authorities to make certain bye-laws, among them that of prohibiting from the use of the roads waggons having wheels the width and number of which they did not approve, and which were not proportioned to the weight carried by the waggon. If that sub-section became law, great inconvenience would result. Under the system, of tolls, every body had fair warning, and if a person transgressed the law he could be amerced on the spot by the cart and load being placed on the weighbridge, and the driver being made to pay the extra toll. Under the present section of the clause, if it became law, one county authority might say that a waggon should carry only three tons, whilst the authority of another county could fix the weight to be carried at four tons. The consequence would be that in passing through different counties one's waggon, horse, and man, might be taken nobody knew where, perhaps to the county town, put upon weigh-bridges, and then sent home. The proper way to meet the question of weight and the size of wheels was to make the roads themselves fit to carry them; and the best roads throughout the country, as well as the London roads, afforded a proof that this would be quite practicable. He was inclined to think that the operation of the subsection would be extremely inconvenient, and would have the effect of rather encouraging the county authorities to sanction the public roads being left in a bad state.

could not accept the Amendment. The sub-section which gave to the county authority, power to make bye-laws, had been deliberately inserted, because this power had always been possessed by the turnpike trustees. It was necessary that some authority should exercise the power to determine what weights should be allowed on the roads; and if that had not been left to the local authorities, the Government would have been charged with attempting to carry out a system of centralization. The object of the bye-laws was that the local authorities should form their own opinions as to what was reasonable; but he might remark that they would not become operative until they had been sanctioned by the Local Government Board.

confessed that the reference made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to the 28th clause of the Bill, under which it appeared that the byelaws were not to be of any validity until they had been submitted to and confirmed by the Local Government Board, went a long way to remove his objection to the sub-section. He, however, desired to know what was to become of the man who happened to live on the borders of two counties? He presumed that this difficulty would be adjusted.

thought the restriction as to weight was unnecessary. Exactly the same argument was used with regard to the railways, when it was said that "if you put heavy engines on the roads you will never be able to carry them." If the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) chose to divide on this sub-section, which he (Sir Harcourt John stone) considered to press harshly on all who used the roads for the purpose of traffic, he should be happy to go with him into the Lobby.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would take care that the road authorities had no power to make bye-laws of an absurd character.

could not accept the Amendment. Had his hon. Friend desired it, he should have voted in favour of the previous Amendment. He did not know whether he did or not, but he could not accept the Amendment.

said, the Amendments could be taken separately if the hon. Baronet wished.

said, he could not accept all the Amendments of the hon. Baronet.

could not see why timber should not be felled on the side of the highway.

said, he had seen roads on which it would be impossible to cut down trees, except by throwing them across the highway. But the clause, as suggested, was unnecessary, as if an unreasonable obstruction was occasioned, the person causing it was liable at common law.

, in rising to move the following Resolutions:—

"1. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the teaching and practice by Clergy of the Church of England of Doctrines and Ceremonies not authorised by Law, or contrary to the Laws and usages of the Church as by Law established.

"2. That Her Majesty would be pleased to direct that such Commission to inquire, in particular, as to the extent to which Doctrines or Ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church are taught or practised by Clergy of the Church of England which are unauthorised by, or contrary to, the standards and usages of the Church, as declared by Acts of Parliament, the Book of Common Prayer, the Rubric, the Articles of Religion, or other legal or ecclesiastical authority, or which may be inconsistent with the teaching or usage of the Church since the Act of Uniformity in 1662.

"3. That Her Majesty would be pleased to direct that inquiry be made into the formation of fraternities, sisterhoods, guilds, or other religious institutions of a monastic or conventual character, where of Bishops or Clergy of the Church are members or patrons, or associates or spiritual advisers; and as to the nature of the vows assumed by the members of such associations, and of the doctrines, devotions, and ceremonies taught or practised in connection with them,

"4. That Her Majesty would be pleased to direct that such Commission do inquire as to the existence among the Clergy of the Church of any persons or party teaching and avowing in the pulpits of the Church, or through the press, that the reformation of religion was an evil, and that their aim and intention is to restore the relations to the Church of Rome which existed prior to the establishment of the Reformed Church of England.

"5. That Her Majesty would be graciously pleased, in the constitution of the said Commission, to have regard, according to the ancient precedents of similar Commissions, to an adequate representation of the laity as well as of the highest authorities of the Church in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters,"

said^*: Sir, the various Services of the State are established, organized, and conducted upon a fixed principle. That principle is one of absolute subservience to order, and of strict obedience and subordination on the part of inferiors to superiors. In the Army, the Navy, the Diplomatic, Colonial, and Civil Services, this is the universal rule; and, indeed, this is an essential condition of every institution which is established in connection with a free State. I say in connection with a free State, because it is quite conceivable that, under an autocratic Government, the autocrat might establish an institution, to which he would grant the power of conducting its affairs without any interference on the part of the legislative or administrative authority. But I say that, in regard to a free State, it is impossible to conceive of any institution, called a State institution, which would not be subject to the principle I have laid down. In such a Government, the same rule must affect the Prince, the Peer, and the policeman. An Imperium in Imperio is an idea, at all events in this country, since the establishment of free government, which was left behind in the Middle Ages. I begin in this way for the purpose of saying that the Church of England is not exempt from this rule. If so, it were an impossible contract which bound that Church to a free State. It does not need much thought to establish the proposition that an Army maintained by Government could not remain entirely independent of the orders of the Government, or that its officers could not be allowed among themselves to make any regulations and create any discipline which they might deem to be necessary for their comfort, and not simply for carrying out more effectually the objects aimed at by the State in its formation. Nor can we conceive that in the Civil Service a number of Civil servants could be allowed to make their own regulations, to establish their own discipline, and to determine by what rules they would be governed. Now, I would ask the House whether there is anything in the constitution of the State Church which frees it from the necessary conditions of a State service? I am about to-night to pray for a Commission to inquire into the manner in which those whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) calls "State servants" discharge their duties. Is it, or is it not, in conformity with the regulations and prescriptions of the State? or is there a defiance, a continual disregard, of those regulations and prescriptions? Are doctrines taught, are practices prevailing, are secret associations in operation at this moment, which are irreconcilable with the principles of the Protestant Reformation, upon which the Church was established? With regard to the Resolutions which I propose to lay before the House—and technically the first one only is before the House—I apprehend that no one here would be disposed to object to the first branch of the inquiry, which relates simply to the extent to which illegal practices are being carried on in the Church of England. The Church of England is a creature of State establishment, regulation, and control. The compact between the State and the Church is not a compact of co-equal powers. The State may examine whether the Clergy are carrying out the objects for which the Church was established. The State may order the Church to adopt new regulations, and to teach entirely new doctrines. The State may revise the Church's constitution, its canons, its rules, its articles of faith, its rubrics. The State may dismiss all its clerical servants and substitute others totally new, and teaching ideas wholly the reverse of those held by the present tenants. The State has, in effect, exerted her authority in all these respects at various periods of its history. Some hon. Member may say that the result of such large alterations as these would be to create a new Church in relation to the State. That is true in a spiritual sense—that is to say, from the point of view of the existing Church—but it is not correct from a legal and constitutional point of view. Undoubtedly, the State Church, as proved by its history and multitude of Acts of Parliament which still remain on our Statute Books, is liable to constant alteration and revision. It is liable to be brought, from time to time, more strictly into conformity with the views of the majority of the people of this country. I shall await with curiosity, but without misgiving, any arguments which may be advanced by any hon. Member of this House to disprove that theory of the Church's status in England. Whoever proposes to do that will have to dispose of a long series of enactments, from the Act of Submission of the Clergy, 25 Henry VIII., down to the Public Worship Regulation Act, which was passed only a few Sessions since by this very Parliament. When the State established the Church it defined its dogmas, ceremonies, and authority. It did something more than that—it excluded other doctrines, dogmas, and ceremonies of a peculiar character, well known, well defined, and protested against by a vast majority of the people of England. On what possible grounds, then, in a Church so set up—in a Church, the doctrines and dogmas of which are so carefully defined, both in inclusion as well as exclusion—could its Clergy assume that they are entitled at any future period of its history to alter its doctrines, change its ceremonies, and to bring it back again to the adoption and practice of those things which were definitely excluded? I am sure I need not further argue this point in this very House which has passed the Public Worship Regulation Act. Taken for granted, then, what I have attempted in a few words to describe, the only question that now arises for the consideration of the House is, whether it is expedient that the inquiry which I ask for should be pursued? I am sure hon. Members, to whatever Church they may belong, will forgive me for saying that this House has a peculiar traditionary interest in the question which is raised to-night. The House of Commons bore no small, no unimportant, part in the Reformation. It was chiefly owing to its vigour and zeal that the full benefits of the political, and spiritual, and intellectual emancipation, called "the Reformation," was secured to this Kingdom; and the people will ever look to this House as the truest, surest, and most powerful guardian of the Protestant liberties of this great Empire. If, then, I prove—as I shall be able to prove presently—that there exists in this Church a party, organized, indefatigable, increasing in numbers and in influence, and consisting, in a great degree, of the Clergy whom, as I said just now, the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Bradford called the "servants of the State," opposed to the ideas of the Reformation, surely it is time for this House to wake up, and to ask whether this defiance of law, this conspiracy against modern ideas, this attempt to restore to the 19th century the evils, the doctrines, the practices, and the ceremonies of the Middle Ages, shall be allowed to go on under the cover of State authority, and within the State service? I could have wished that this subject had fallen into other hands. I know there are hon. Members opposite who would rather it had been taken up by some consistent Churchman and defender of the Constitution. But, although it may be true that I am not a member of the Church of England, I am, at least, an inheritor of the blessings and privileges of the Reformation. Moreover, I am a Member of this House, to which has, I consider, been confided the duty of watching over those great principles which were established by the combined efforts of the Crown and Parliament in the time of Henry VIII., of Edward VI., and of Elizabeth, and of not suffering them to be subverted by treachery, or by a conspiracy, which seeks to bring back doctrines and practices so long ago repudiated. I have already said that the Church is a State institution, authorized and established by Act of Parliament. By Act of Parliament the Queen is its Head. By Act of Parliament its liturgy, its rubric, its creeds, its articles, its services, its ordination, of Bishops, priests, and deacons, were instituted and re-organized. By Act of Parliament, and the subsequent mind and practice of the Church, it was established as a Protestant Church. In proof of this last position, I need only point to the attitude of Rome towards the Church of England on the one hand, and the attitude of the Church of England towards Rome on the other. But there is another point in connection with the establishment of this Church which I think every Member who has studied history will be prepared to admit. It is this. It was not only a national deliverance from external restraint in matters of religion, it had also an important internal aspect, as much of the legislation of Henry VIII. will show. It was the freeing of the nation from the chain, the fetters, and the rivets of sacerdotalism. All those ingenious theories, by which the priest is elevated to the dignity of the mediator, or the director and controller of men, were set aside by the Reformation. My hon. Friends who are members of the Roman Catholic Church will understand that, in speaking in this way, I am not actuated by any desire to attack any peculiar doctrines of their Church. They must understand that I am in an extremely delicate position. I have to prove that these doctrines were repudiated at the Reformation by the people of England, and that it is not legal to teach them at the present time in the Church of England. Therefore, they will understand that I do not for one moment wish to say a word of an offensive character; and if it were not that I am obliged to define the doctrines for the purpose of proving my case, I should not venture to touch upon them. Now, I say the formularies and theology of the Church of England prove that she was meant to be established on a foundation which excluded the idea of the authority, the power, and the influence of the priest, as a priest. One has only to refer to the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion, and the Homilies, to see how consistently throughout the idea of the priest was excluded, and how entirely the priest—or, as he may be more simply named, the presbyter—was regarded as the mere minister of the Church. It is true that this Establishment did not exclude, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in his essay on Church and State, Catholic consent; but Catholic consent, as everyone will see, is a very different thing from the doctrine of an infallible authority, reposing in a traditional succession, with a sacrificial priesthood and schedule of sacraments, all of which invest that priesthood with supernatural authority and powers. Sir, I find a very admirable statement of the distinctive character of the Anglican and Roman Churches in the book to which I have already referred, and which I now quote, for the purpose of showing what was the view taken by a Member of this House, who belongs, I believe, to a school in the Church which is very much in favour of Catholic authority—I mean, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, whom I am sorry not to see in his place. He says—The State in its Relations with the Church, chap. v. secs. 13, 14, 20. Ed. 1839—

"Much of what most essentially constitutes our life in the sight of God can never be otherwise than very imperfectly explained through the medium of outward signs, and must, therefore, remain for the most part between Him and ourselves.

"Yet it is here that the peculiar genius of Romanism is most wonderful and conspicuous. Everywhere it seems to interpose itself between the man and his God, a divinely transparent medium, allowing only a measured and limited quantity of His light to pierce through the curtain which it spreads. … And now let us review those distinctive tenets which it professed, and see whether they do not tend towards this object as their common point of union—namely, the drawing out from the mind of the individual those processes which concern his salvation, and making him extrinsically dependent on something above himself, yet below God, by removing the control of them from his own command. … To this would tend the crowd of mediators manfully interposed between man and the one Mediator … mediators who are men or angels only, and with whom we have no special relations, do but come in as substitutes, falsely proclaimed to do for us what we are bound to do for ourselves. … Towards the same end would operate the doctrine of purgatory. … In the doctrine of relics, again, we trace a similar tendency. … In them the Church of Rome lodges a virtue the practical effect of which is, we do not say to extinguish, but to limit, free mental action in religion. … But the grand exemplification of the influence of Romanism upon individual agency in religion is to be perceived in a combined view of the doctrines of supererogatory works—indulgences—auricular confession—penance—and absolution. … And how do the remaining doctrines (i.e., auricular confession, penance, and absolution), as they are blended in the Church of Rome, bear upon that primary and most essential of all, that continual pardon which the soul requires, in order to render any acceptable sacrifices? … Here," he says, "the Romanists have infused a poison. … Men will make confession at distant intervals to a priest, discharge the acts of penance which he enjoins, and receive his absolution, and a sacramental character is given to these acts—acts none of them blameworthy, but the reverse; acts, however, taken out of their place by the Roman doctrine."

As I said just now, I read that which may give pain to some hon. Members of this House, simply for the purpose of showing what was the view at that time of the right hon. Gentleman—whose study of these subjects is known to have been somewhat profound—with regard to the distinctive peculiarities between the Anglican and Roman Churches. Well now, Sir, all that is implied in what I have just read, and a good deal more, I state here in my place to-night it is now sought to bring back in our Parliamentary Church, under our authority by our servants, and with our funds; and to do it by practice, by defiance of the law, by evasion of the law, and of the canons and the injunctions of the Bishops, by means of the Confessional, by secret societies, and by unauthorized publications. I do not intend to review the mere details of the differences between Ritualists and what is known as the Evangelical school in the Church of England—quarrels about albs, tunicles, chasubles, patens, incense pots, and the like. These are not the questions with which I would propose to occupy the time of the House, nor do I think them sufficiently important in themselves to demand a Commission of Inquiry. A Commission, whose Report I read with pain, has investigated all these details. It appears that weak-minded persons went before that Commission, and endeavoured to prove that these things had in them some deep spiritual meaning; but they are only important to this House as mere examples of the lawlessness of the clergy who are endeavouring, in the teeth of the law, and in the face of the judgments of the Courts, to introduce these "ornaments" into the Church of England. What I desire to do is, to take a far broader and more serious view of what I cannot help feeling is a very grave question; and that is, the existence within the Church of a grave and serious conspiracy, carefully organized and carried out by secret compacts, guilds, associations, and sisterhoods, against the spirit doctrine, and constitution of the Church of England as by the law of this land it stands—a Protestant Church. The central idea round which all revolves is the doctrine of the Real Presence, the body and blood offered up daily by a sacrificing priest upon an altar in the church; the discretion of the priest to give or withhold this sacrament; the discretion of this priest to absolve from sin as God's agent; the resulting influence and omnipotence of the Confessional; and the interposition between the individual soul and the Deity of a mass of ceremonies and beliefs all contributing to diminish and crush man's responsibility, and to make the Church and priesthood the only machinery of grace. It is against the effort to bring back all this into the Church of England that I am to-night protesting. we are not protesting against what is called mere Ritualism, or against the aim of those who desire, like the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), a decent and even beautiful form of worship in the Church; but we are here to protest against the growth of Sacerdotalism. Now, Sir, these being the premisses, I come to the evidence of the existence of this "conspiracy," as it has been called by the Bishops. First of all, I may refer to the testimony of the Bishops themselves; and, surely, of all men they, who are brought most intimately into contact with the Clergy, must be taken to speak, not only with the highest responsibility, but with the best knowledge. I shall read some of their declarations. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in reply to a Memorial from 60,000 lay members of the Church of England, said—

"There can be no doubt that the danger you apprehend of a considerable minority both of clergy and laity amongst us desiring to subvert the principles of the Reformation, is real."

Bishop Ellicott, in an address to the clergy and laity of his diocese, said—

"It is now really the duty of every sober member of the Church of England to recognize the fact that there does exist nominally within our Church a small, but united, body of men, who are consciously engaged in what the Archbishop of our Province correctly describes as a conspiracy against the teaching and principles of the Reformation, and who retain their place and office in our Church for the express and scarcely concealed purpose of what is called Catholicising the Church of England, and of assimilating its principles and practices to those of the Church of Rome—Papal supremacy and infallibility, perhaps, alone excepted,"

Bishop Fraser condemns—

"The development of mediæval ideas—this materialistic conception of the presence of Christ in His sacraments, and the interposition of the mediation of the creature at every turn;"

and very distinctly points out whither these things are leading. There are other passages which I might read, and which, I have no doubt, are familiar to Members of this House; but I do not think it necessary to trouble them further with evidence from this source. It is, at all events, conclusive about the mind of the Bishops. I now come to the evidence derivable from those who themselves are engaged in this work, and I shall give only one or two specimens from their writings to establish my case. In the first place, I take a work, edited by Dr. F. G. Lee—The Re-Union of Christendom. Here, Dr. Lee says—

"The marvel is that Roman Catholics do not see the wisdom of aiding us to the uttermost."

I am bound to say that this afternoon I met a Roman Catholic Member in the Lobby, and, asking him to come in and help to make a House, he replied that, as a Roman Catholic, he did not see why he should take part with me, because he thought the Church of England was doing the work of his communion very successfully. Now, this is the work of this body, as stated by Dr. Lee—

"Admitting that we are but a lay body, with no pretensions to the name of a Church, we yet, in our belief—however mistaken—that we are one, are doing for England that which they [Roman Catholics] cannot do. We are teaching men that God is to be worshipped under the form of Bread, and they are learning the lesson from us which they have refused to learn from the Roman teachers who have been among us for the last 300 years. We are teaching men to endure willingly the form of Confession, which is an intense trial to the reserved Anglo-Saxon nature, and to believe that a man's 'I absolve thee,' is the voice of God. On any hypothesis we are doing their work."—[p. 180.]

In The Church Times—March 24th, 1872—the following passage occurs:—

"We are contending, as our adversaries know full well, for the extirpation of Protestant opinions and practices, not merely with the Church itself, but throughout all England. What we want is, not to force a Close or a M'Neile into a Popish vestment, but to make Closes and M'Neiles as extinct as the Dodo. We do not care one solitary straw whether a man preaches in surplice, gown, or shirt-sleeves, so long as he does not preach any sort of Protestantism."

Then, again, The Union Review speaks in the following terms—July, 1867:—

"In some of our most popular hymn-books the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is most distinctly implied. We give our people the real doctrine of the Mass; the name will come of itself by-and-by. So with regard to the worship of the Blessed Virgin; we shall only be able to establish this by slow and cautious steps. It is reasonable to hope that 20 years hence Catholicism will have so leavened our Church, that she herself, in her corporate capacity, will be able to say to Rome—'Let the hands which political force, not spiritual choice, have parted these 300 years, be once more joined.' We are one with Rome in faith, and we have a common foe to fight. … The work now going on in England is an earnest and carefully organized attempt, on the part of a rapidly increasing body of priests and laymen, to bring our Church and country up to the full standard of the Catholic faith and practice, and eventually to plead for her union with Rome."—[pp. 402–412.]

Then we have the following statement made by the Rev. Dr. Littledale, at Liverpool, on April 23rd, 1868:—

"Such a set of miscreants as the leading English and Scottish Reformers. … Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, merit quite as much admiration and respect as Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer."

We find the Rev. Mr. Wilmshurst, Vicar of Woodville, Burton-on-Trent, speaking in a similar strain. He says—

"As for Protestantism, I do not know what it is. It appears to me to be a cesspool, into which all opinions contrary to the Catholic faith drain. I would rather avoid it. … God defend us from Protestantism, for it is anything or nothing mixed up together."

Sir, I think these extracts sufficiently indicate the character and intention of this movement. I could occupy hours in reading extracts sent me from all parts of the country; but I think I have adequately shown the aim of this party which is now endeavouring to carry out, by means of secret societies and other organizations, and by means of the Confessional, this system of un-Protestantizing, and, as I may call it, of Romanizing the Church of England, Sir, I think it will be admitted that the effort made by the House a short time ago to grapple with the difficulty has proved extraordinarily unsuccessful. No one can doubt this who has followed with attention the suits that have been reported in the newspapers, arising out of the matters to which I am now inviting attention. I hold in my hand a Return of the various suits instituted under the Public Worship Regulation Act. They give the following results:—

"I. London, St. Vedas, Foster Lane.—Complaint by three churchwardens of 11 illegal practices, including vestments, use of wafer, mixing water with wine, elevation of paten and cup, &c. After two hearings, the proceedings were set aside by the Queen's Bench, on June 29th, 1877, on a point of form. Mr. Dale is going on as before.

"II. Rochester, St. James, Hatcham.—Representation by three parishioners of 17 illegal practices, including the above, and also processions, incense, kneeling, and prostration, Agnus Dei, sacring bells, crucifix, &c. After two hearings and decisions against Mr. Tooth, the proceedings were finally annulled in November, 1877, because the Judge heard the case at Lambeth instead of London or Westminster. In this case, the Act permits cases to be heard anywhere in the 'Province;' but in the rules and orders signed by the Archbishops, and the Lord Chancellor and other legal dignitaries, the word 'Province' was omitted. Things much as usual.

"III. Salisbury, Donhead, St. Andrew's.—Complaints of illegal practices, seven in all. The Bishop refused to allow proceedings, chiefly because he thought it more desirable to settle the matter by peaceful and fatherly methods, Things much as before.

"IV. Lichfield, St. Matthew, Smethwick.—Complaints by churchwarden and parishioners of illegalities; but in consequence of an omission of the Bishop to comply with the Act, the case had to be abandoned in January, 1878, on points of a formal kind. So things went on as before.

"V. St. Matthew, Smethwick.—A second representation was made on April 8th, 1878, by Mr. Fowler. In consequence of the Bishop of Lichfield's illness, the case was sent on to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bishop died on the 11th of April, and the Archbishop, after keeping the papers several days, returned them, saying, as the See was vacant, he could do nothing. All the illegal practices are now going on.

"VI. Gloucester and Bristol, All Saint's, Clifton.—Complaints by several inhabitants of illegal practices, without results. The illegalities are going on.

"VII. Lichfield, St. Andrew's, Wolverhampton.—Proceedings taken under the Act; but after six months they were quashed on a point of form. The illegalities are still going on.

"VIII. With reference to the same, complaint was made by a church warden of twelve breaches of law. On the 19th of November, 1877, the Archbishop declined to allow proceedings, on the ground that he had been privately assured by Mr. Boddington, against whom the proceedings were taken, that he was ready loyally to submit himself to the Bishop of Lichfield. Illegalities are still going on. The Bishop being patron, the Archbishop had to act for him.

"IX. In the same case, on the 22nd of January, 1878, a fresh representative was sent to the Archbishop complaining of continued illegalities; and in a short time the Archbishop vetoed the case, on the ground that the presentment had not been made to the Bishop. On the 1st of March, Mr. Butcher tried again, and sent the presentment to the Bishop; but when the registrar was pressed for a decision, he said the Bishop was too ill to attend to business. On the 11th of April, the Bishop died. Illegalities are still going on.

"X. Christ Church, Wolverhampton.—This was a case similar to the preceding—that is, the Archbishop vetoed the proceedings on the ground that the incumbent promised to be loyal, and it all came to nothing, as illegalities are still going on.

"XI. Oxford, St. Andrew's, Clewer.—In this case, the parishioners had complained without effect; and in August, 1877, three of them submitted a representation complaining of eight illegal practices. The Bishop of Oxford refused to allow proceedings, because a guarantee for the expenses of the suit had been given by persons who were not parishioners. Illegalities still going on."

And with, respect to this last case, there is the convent at Clewer, with which Canon Carter is connected; and it is stated in some papers that I have here, that the Bishop is a visitor of that establishment. It is scarcely convenient that, when complaints of such a grave character are made to Bishops, they should show no anxiety to have them investigated. Now, Sir, these are the cases which have arisen under the Public Worship Regulation Act, and we have seen with what efficacy that legislation has been invoked. I shall now call the attention of the House to something more immediately concerning ourselves, as the chief legislative authority, and that is the persistent, avowed, defiant, and intentional lawlessness of a numerous body of Clergy in the Church of England. Now, Sir, this is a very serious charge to bring, and one which, when proved, this House cannot afford to allow to pass by without taking notice of it. It is to this my first Resolution is directed. Let me, in the first place, quote in confirmation of this assertion the statement of the Rev. Orbey Shipley, one of the most active, and I might also say one of the most blatant, of the gentlemen who are engaged in this crusade. This gentleman says—

"I appeal to members of the Society of the Holy Cross to declare whether or not this Catholic Revival has not as a whole prospered. … not by reason of Episcopal support, but in direct opposition to almost every single Bishop who has unfortunately come across its divine course."

It is unnecessary for me to point out what the significance of that is; but, in passing, I may say that it is evidence that the Bishops, upon the whole, have been opposed to the work in which he and those who think with him are engaged. This gentleman, when he took upon himself the office of a priest in the Church of England, made a promise of a most sacred and solemn character, accepting the obligation of canonical obedience to those placed over him; and yet observe how he speaks of these very authorities. At his ordination he was asked—"Will you reverently obey your ordinary?" And he answered in the prescribed form—"I will so do by the help of the Lord." In the "Four Cardinal Virtues," Mr. Shipley says—

"In a case in which the Church has spoken …. whether the matter be decided definitely by creed or Council, or acted on practically by the equally clear authority of Catholic and universal consent, we are bound, be the consequences what they may, to hold or to deny whatever the Church has declared or has disavowed."

Now this gentleman, when he was ordained, was asked these questions, and gave these replies—

"Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation?—A. I am so persuaded, and have so determined of God's grace. Q. Will you then give your faithful diligence always, so to minister the Doctrine, and Sacraments, and Discipline of the Church as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same according to the commandment of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your cure, and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?—A. I will so do by the help of the Lord."

Such are this gentleman's obligations to the authority set over him, and yet you now find him coming forward with the repudiation of the very authority to which he undertook to submit himself. Here is a specimen, which I take on the authority of a well-known clergyman—the Rev. Bourchier W. Saville, Rector of Shillingford, Exeter—of the manner in which these gentlemen, who are concerned in the work against which the Resolution is directed, regard their duty of obedience—

"We will not obey, and will suffer anything rather than obey, the law as pronounced by Cæsar; because our present Sovereign has proved Herself as great a persecutor as the heathen Emperors Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian; we have to deal with this painful fact—that the supreme Governor of the Church of England is becoming an alien from its faith and discipline."

And again—

"The Bishops have so manifestly proved themselves to be the worst enemies of the Church of England, that we say, in the words of one of our most zealous leaders—'If I could but live to see the traitorous Bishops turned out of their Sees, I would gladly take off my surplice and stole, and say, Nunc Dimittis.'"

Such are the opinions of men like Mr. Mackonochie, as set forth in an address to his congregation of St. Albans; of the Rev. T. W. Mossman, in The Church News of April, 1868; and of Dr. Lee, in Church of England Pulpit of March 18th, 1876. I might readily multiply my proofs. The Rev. E. L. Blenkinsopp, in The Church and the World, p. 205—this gentleman being in favour of Confession, and a member of the Church Union, and other fraternities—says—

"It is only the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, no great authority in the eye of an English ecclesiastic!"

Again, Mr. Tooth refused to plead before the Court, and declined to accept its decisions—

"Because the present case is a Church question, and can, from its nature, only be tried by spiritual authority."

And we have more in the same strain—

"The Public Worship Regulation Act has no claim to obedience, because the priesthood has never given its consent to it."—(Letter to The Times, December 22, 1876.)

And, further, his churchwardens declare—

"We, for principle, are determined to suffer loss of property, and of liberty, if need be, for the maintenance of the Church of England to govern herself in spiritual matters, without interference from secular authority."—(Letter of the Churchwardens of St. James, Hatcham, to The Times, January 18, 1877.)

On October 28th, 1876, an Archdeacon of the Church—Archdeacon Denison—speaking at Bristol, called the Public Worship Act "the foulest and dirtiest thing that ever came out of the Houses of Parliament." A great meeting of the English Church Union was held on January 16th, 1877, at which dignitaries of the Church were present. Archdeacon Denison, Canon Carter, the Hon. and Rev. R. Liddell, and the Rev. Dr. Littledale were among those who were at the meeting. It appears that the Church Union consists of 14,200 members, of whom 2,500 are Clergy, the others being lay communicants; and that this organization represents a still more numerous body, and holds opinions which are spreading among both Clergy and laity. They met in Freemasons' Hall, after Mr. Tooth was committed to prison; and what is the nature of the resolutions proposed by these servants of the State? Canon Carter proposed this resolution—

"That the English Church Union, while it distinctly and expressly acknowledges the authority of all Courts legally constituted in regard to all matters temporal, denies that the secular power has any authority in matters purely spiritual."

Archdeacon Denison said at this meeting—

"Unless we are come here to 'fight the Privy Council to the death,' to use Mr. Keble's words, we had better not to have come here at all… I believe I know what the answer of the priests will be; it will be this—that they will not accept the authority of a Court constituted by Act of Parliament only."

A resolution in these terms was also adopted at the meeting—

"Any Court which is bound to frame its decisions in accordance with the judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does not possess any spiritual authority with respect to such decisions. That suspension a sacris being a purely spiritual act, the English Church Union is prepared to support any priest not guilty of a moral or canonical offence, who refuses to recognize a suspension issued by such a Court."

The casuistry of these persons is rather curious. "Priests not guilty of a moral or canonical offence!" as if men who deliberately disobeyed the solemn vows they undertook when they entered the ministry of the Church of England were not guilty of one of the highest and worst moral offences one can conceive of! Here is the last passage under this head to which I shall invite the attention of the House, as evidence of the spirit of this party. It is from The Church Times of January 2, 1874—

"The Queen's ostentatious Nonconformity, and Her scarcely less ostentatious slights of the Church of England, have deprived Her example of any religious weight with Churchmen."

Now, Sir, what I have adduced will, I think, be sufficient—and, if necessary, I could bring instance after instance—to show to the House that there is a party in the Church of England which is deliberately guilty of breaches of the law, and which is determined to push matters to the utmost extremity. It would, Sir, be impossible for me to review at any length all those deviations from Protestant spirit and doctine of which this party is guilty, or to occupy the attention of the House to the extent which would be necessary in order to show the differences that exist between the views of what I may call this revived school of Romanizers in the Church of England and the doctrines of that Church, as laid down by her authorities, and which I would denominate Protestant doctrines. But it will be necessary that I should read to the House one or two passages, that they may know the character of what is going on. Mr. T. W. Freston, writing to The Manchester Courier, gives a description of what he saw on a visit to Mr. Knox-Little's Church (St. Albans) on the first Sunday of the present year. He says—

"On entering the church I perceived that the chancel was in darkness, but I was directed by the lighted gas to the north aisle, at the east end of which a sort of chapel had been improvised by means of a partition line of iron covered with evergreens. Against the east wall stood a second communion table. …… There were eight lighted candlesticks on this table, three of large dimensions on either side of a brazen cross, and two smaller ones, which only contained lighted candles. At the time appointed, the minister came from the vestry, wearing an alb, with deep, lace-like fringe, a white silk chasuble, with orphreys richly worked in gold, a stole cross upon the breast, the embroidered ends being visible below the chasuble, and a biretta on his head. He was followed by a small boy of about 12 years of age habited in black cassock and cotta. On approaching the table both bowed. …. But I will hasten to describe the consecration of the bread and wine. The minister, standing with his back to the people, murmured the Prayer of Consecration in a voice quite inaudible until he came to the words, 'This is My body,' on uttering which a bell was tolled; so also when he took the cup. He then prostrated himself before the consecrated elements, and raised first the bread and then the wine above his head for a definite moment. My attention was here attracted by one or two women close to me who were fallen upon the floor with their very bonnets on the ground. Nearly all present communicated, and I observed that the minister made the sign of the cross in presenting the bread to each—the same with the cup. In some instances I observed that the partakers put out their tongues to receive the bread from the hands of the minister, and in no case did he place the cup in the hands of any communicant, but put it with his hands to their lips. After all had partaken he proceeded with the service, prostrating himself before the bread and wine on coming to the words, 'We worship Thee.'"

Hon. Members of this House who are true Roman Catholics must feel that there is a horrible profanity and assumption, on the part of men not connected with their Church, in undertaking to perform this awful and solemn office. At all events, they will agree that these services are of the character which it was the aim of the Reformation to alter and to remove; and whether in themselves they be right or wrong, it is not possible that ministers of the Church of England should be allowed thus to persist in their illegal courses, and carry out their unlawful aims. The Rev. Gerald Cobb, in his Kiss of Peace, and Dr. Littledale, in his tract on The Real Presence, set forth the doctrine that—

"The Church of England holds precisely the same view of the Lord's Supper as the Church of Rome."

And they contend that at the Lord's Supper the consecrated elements became

"that same body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which were conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and ascended into Heaven."

This is the doctrine of The Real Presence. The Rev. J. W. Bennett has written a Plea for Toleration in the Church of England, in the preface of which he says, of—

"The Eucharistic sacrifice and of adoring God in the offering, the real, actual, and visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our churches—we adore, and teach the people to adore, the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in them; and the three great doctrines on which the Catholic Church has to take her stand are these:—1st. The real objective presence of our blessed Lord in the Eucharist. 2nd. The sacrifice offered by the priest. 3rd. The adoration due to the presence of our blessed Lord therein."

Now, Sir, I simply quote these for the purpose of showing that the doctrine of the Mass, as believed in the Church of Rome, is held and taught by clergymen in the Protestant Church of England to persons who were brought up in that Church. I need not trouble the House with the declarations made by these clergymen, as made by all who enter the ministry of the Church of England. The doctrine of the Church of England will be found in the 25th and 28th Articles. The reservation of the sacrament is forbidden by the 28th Article, and yet it is notorious that reservation is taught or practised in many of the churches of our land. I do not propose to ask the House to enter any further into this part of the question, and I now come to what I think is its most serious phase. I refer to the great engines of this work, which are two—the Confessional and Secret Societies. I hold in my hand a book lately issued, being dated this year, which is edited by the arch-priest of this so-called movement for the restoration of Catholicism to the Church of England. It is entitled Advice to those who exercise the Ministry of Reconciliation through Confession and Absolution; being the Abbé Gaume's Manual for Confessors, or his extracts from the works of S. Francis de Sales, S. Charles de Borromeo, S. Philip de Neri, S. Francis Xavier, and other spiritual writers; with a Preface, embodying English authorities on Confession, by the Rev. F. B. Pusey, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. This book will give the House some notion of the sort of teaching which priests of the Church of England receive in the guise of Church of England doctrine. I have read the preface with great care, and I find that Dr. Pusey complains very bitterly of the manner in which The Priest in Absolution, brought forward in "another place," and containing passages which he admits were unfortunate, has been used. I cannot but feel that surely Dr. Pusey must know a great deal more of these things than he affects to know. We have the "Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament," the English Church Union, and societies, such as the "Society of the Holy Cross," whose members are in constant communication with each other; and notwithstanding that, when they are brought to book, what do we find? We find them coming forward and prevaricating and denying the existence of things brought home almost to their very doors. The House will recollect a celebrated instance in which an ecclesiastic of the Roman Catholic Church challenged one of these gentlemen with respect to these doctrines in the Church of England; and we can remember what an extraordinary figure was cut by the English ecclesiastic, who had to blush for the manner in which, time after time, matters were brought home to him, to the publication of which he was a party, or which, at all events, he ought to have known. In this book, well worth the attention of the House, Dr. Pusey says—

"In 'some' manuals of Christian practice and devotion, in which the duty of 'self-examination' is incidentally treated of, people have been taught how to examine themselves, with much, greater nakedness of language than I myself think advisable. I remember how, above thirty years ago, a mother complained of having found such a popular Roman Catholic manual among her daughter's books, which she had procured for herself. That manual is one of large circulation among their poor, and, since questions of self-examination are like a large net, which is meant to inclose all sorts of consciences, good or bad, it contained questions which a good conscience would see at a glance were not intended for it. Such a conscience would pass them by unread, just as it does not notice certain words in Holy Scriptures or the Prayer Book."

Certainly Dr. Pusey has a higher idea of human nature than I have, if he thinks good consciences would always be able or willing to pass over these passages only by without danger. In one manual prepared for the use of the laity, but which is also placed in the hands of children, there is a series of questions on the Seventh Commandment, such as no man would care to see in the possession and daily use of his wife or children. Here, again, is a doctrine which the House will be amazed to find coming from the pen of a doctor of the English Church—

"Obvious as it is, it is necessary to say, that by the fact of receiving a confession no priest acquires any right whatsoever. If any should have received confession of a sin which would make him who confessed it amenable to the criminal law (as murder), it is as if the grave closed over it. He is forbidden, under penalty of sin, to allude to it out of confession, even to him who confessed it."

[Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] My hon. and learned Friend says "Hear, hear!" I am delighted to hear that from him. From the members of the Roman Catholic Church that is perfectly right; but the question is, whether a confession of this sort is a thing that should be received by a minister of the Church of England; or whether it would be necessary to take steps to vindicate the law if, upon receiving a confession of murder, a clergyman of the Church of England refused to disclose it upon trial? There are one or two things here which I would rather not read to the House, because they are not necessary for the object I have in view, and because the House will agree that they refer to matters which it is not desirable to bring before the public. But let me point out the manner in which it is suggested that the consciences of unfortunate persons who go to confession should be stimulated. You find this statement—

"Be charitable and discreet with everyone, but especially with women, in helping them to confess shameful sins.

"If you find that your penitent has great difficulty in mentioning these, lead him on by degrees to confess lesser faults, such as thoughts of levity, or pleasure in hearing light conversation, going on through evil thoughts and actions, and encouraging him by saying—'You will be very happy when you have made a good confession. God is showing you great grace. His Holy Spirit is moving you to it; be brave; tell all your griefs; you will feel so thankful when all is confessed that you have not left it undone for all the world.' …. Thus you will gently draw forth a full and profitable confession."

Dr. Pusey tells us in his preface that he does not pursue anything like so close an examination himself; but if he does not pursue it himself, by putting this book into the hands of his friends, he virtually tells them to do it. Then there are passages with reference to the manner in which women and children should be confessed. With regard to children he says—

"Ask children—(1) if they have nourished hatred towards their parents, which is a double sin against charity and piety; (2) if they have disobeyed them in serious and just matters, such as going out at night, gambling, frequenting bad society, &c. I say in 'just' matters, because, as regards the choice of a state of life, children are not bound to obey their parents. In truth, parents sin grievously when they force their children to marry, or to take orders, or domestic vows; or when they deter them by unjust means from the state of life they seek to follow."

You will observe at once what is the effect of this. Here is a person supposed and affecting to be acting by divine authority, who interposes between parents and their children, and who undertakes to decide for any child what it is just or unjust for the child to do. Surely in our English homes it will not be permitted that such things shall be done! It is not the intention of this House—it is not the intention of the constituencies of this country, that we should have these ghostly fathers interposing between ourselves, our wives, and our children, with the power of judging what is right or wrong for them to do. There is another case which is one of conscience—

"Ask the penitent whether he has stolen anything, and from whom? Whether from one or several persons? once or several times? For, if each time he has taken what constitutes a serious matter, he has sinned mortally each time. If, on the other hand, he took but little each time, he only committed mortal sin, when his thefts amounted to a serious matter, supposing that such was not his intention from the first."

The old distinction between venial and mortal sins! This is the kind of teaching that is now emanating from the Church of England. Yet, again, Dr. Pusey tries to draw a distinction between the mere confessor and the director. He does not put himself forward as a director. He states that he is not disposed to assume the responsibility and burden of acting as what is called a director. It is all very well to say this for his own purpose; but when we come to the Abbé Gaume, who speaks as a proper authority, we find that he says—

"Theologians give many rules for the treatment of scrupulous persons; but it is certain, that, after prayer, the best and only remedy is obedience to the Confessor. Seek, then, to inculcate two fundamental maxims upon all the scrupulous—1. To go on securely before God in obedience to his spiritual father, where there is no evident sin. It is not man, but God, whom he obeys—qui vos audit me audit. This is the doctrine of all theologians and all the masters of the spiritual life, &c. S. Philip Neri used to say, that 'he who obeyed his Confessor was sure not to be called to account for his actions by God.'"

Again—

"Those scrupulous persons who desire to advance in perfection must put themselves wholly and irrevocably into the hands of their superiors. Those who do not live under a Rule must voluntarily submit themselves to a learned and wise Confessor, obeying him as God himself, laying all their concerns freely and simply before him, and never coming to any determination without his advice. Such an one, S. Philip said, need not fear being called to account by God."

"Direction" could hardly be more strongly enjoined. I do not wish to trouble the House with many more extracts; but there is one which I should like to read, and which I cannot help feeling is the very strongest reflection upon the whole of this doctrine—

"A little girl once asked her Confessor's leave to make her general confession, and to use a particular book for the purpose. She had leave. She wrote down all the sins which she found in the book, whatever their enormity, to the infinite horror of the priest. 'But my child,' he asked, 'have you really done all this?' 'God forbid, father,' she answered. 'I wrote them down because they were in the book.'"

I should be sorry if any child of mine, any hon. Member would be sorry if child of his, were exposed to so terrible a trial as this! The last point which I would ask the House to consider is, whether an inquiry is not necessary in consequence of the existence of many guilds and secret societies in the Church—societies which are bound together by vows of secrecy. A Royal Commission would discover whether there are any grounds for the statements I have made; and whether, in fact, doctrines are taught, and ceremonies are practised in these societies and by clergymen, which are entirely inconsistent with the spirit and principles of the Church of England. I want to find out whether such things exist in the Church of England among the ministers and "servants of the State." The House will, perhaps, remember that in 1832 there was considerable excitement caused in the country, owing to the secret existence of Orange Lodges in the Army. A Member of the House (Mr. Hume) came down and demanded that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the existence of these Lodges in the Army. An inquiry was ordered by the House, and the result was, that the continuance of these secret societies in the Army was proscribed, and that the Duke of Cumberland broke the whole thing up. That is a case distinctly in point. I am not laying the matter before this House as a religious question. I am laying it before the House simply as a constitutional and legal question; and I ask it, whether it will assent to this persistent attempt to carry on illegal practices by means of secret societies in the Church of England? The ministers of that Church are as much the servants of the State as the officers of the Army; and are they to be allowed, as some of them avow that they are doing, to undermine the Protestant principles of the National Establishment? Sir, I have endeavoured to bring before the House the principal facts which tend to show the necessity, at all events, for inquiry. All that I had to do to-night was to make out a primâ facie case; and I think I have shown, first, that a spirit of lawlessness exists in the Church of England; second, that acts of lawlessness have been committed; and, third, that practices inconsistent with the Protestant feeling and principles of the country have been carried out by what I call improper means. These circumstances having now been brought to the notice of the House, it is not for me to say anything more. I have vindicated my right to intervene in these matters, and the House may be satisfied that if Churchmen do not intervene, the Protestant Dissenters of the country will intervene in another and very different way. I am here, first, as a Protestant. I am here because Protestantism is something worth caring for; because it is identified with the political and religious freedom of the country; because it is to the spirit of Protestantism that we owe our greatness and our liberties as a nation; and because it is through our Protestantism that we have planted the principles of civil and religious liberty in other and distant climes. I cannot but feel that it is something precious to which so much of the liberty we possess is owing. I must say that if the practices to which I refer are to be allowed to go on, the Church of England will become false to its position and history. If the practices and principles to which I have called attention are to be maintained within the Church of England—principles so incompatible with our civil liberty—it will be necessary for the people of this country to rise up, and insist that the union between Church and State shall not continue. I am not here for the purpose of arguing that question to-night. I am here for the purpose of warning those upon whom rests the duty of maintaining those great principles on which the Church of England has been established, that that duty can no longer be neglected. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will appreciate my honesty of purpose in bringing forward this question, and will believe that my aim is simply to vindicate Protestant principles. I earnestly desire and hope that the House will assist me in endeavouring to find out whether the facts which I have stated are true or false. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first of the Resolutions of which he had given Notice.

said, he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment, although he did not, generally speaking, agree with the hon. Gentleman by whom it was proposed. When he first saw it on the Paper, he felt that he could not withhold his assistance in this great cause. The practices to which it related continued, he was sorry to say, despite of the Act of Parliament which had been passed to put them down, and, instead of being checked, were proceeding to greater lengths. He regretted that there was so much apathy on the subject. Parliament was responsible that the Church of England should continue as she was handed down to them at the Reformation. She existed only by the will of Parliament, and they were bound to see that her teaching was in accordance with the doctrines which she professed. They could not conceal from themselves that things were now taught by some of her ministers which were perverting the true character of the Church of England and were insulting to Government. He was not going to pollute the ears of hon. Members by making quotations from utterances which, in his opinion, were a disgrace to society; but they contained references to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, which led him to ask whether clergymen of the Church of England who openly preached such doctrines ought not to be charged with breach of trust, and with something like embezzlement of the funds of the Church? There prevailed, he believed, a sound, honest opinion among the middle classes of this country which would support those who were determined that the Church of England should be maintained in her purity. He himself was a strong supporter of the union of Church and State, because he believed it formed a barrier against Romanism. He knew there were many Members who did not agree with him; but he valued those much higher who openly adopted the Romish doctrines than those who clandestinely attempted to introduce them into the Church of England. On such a subject he felt inclined to use stronger language than the House might think advisable. He would avoid that; but he would refer to the advice given by Dr. Pusey in The Church Times. That advice was that the military organization of the Church's Army should be completed, but that the advanced posts should only be a little in front of those who were behind them. An illustration was then given of a baker who bought a small joint of meat and exchanged it for the next one in size received from his customers, and then continued the process of exchange till he had secured a joint of 201b. weight for his own of 6lb. without any of his customers being able to detect the fraud. A similar process was advised for the introduction of Romish practices into the Church of England. They were asked to consider how obliging and attentive the clergymen were; but would they, because a doctor was obliging and attentive, admit him to their houses, if he were found to administer poison instead of medicine? As to the Bishops, they had not, in his opinion, done their duty in not endeavouring to suppress more firmly than they had done the evil of which he complained. The House was aware that 2,500 clergy, or more than an eighth of the whole number, took part in these proceedings; and there were, besides, numbers who sympathized with them, because clergymen were fond of exercising priestly influence over the minds and consciences of men. It was because he had a desire that the Church of England should be kept in the hearts of the people that he spoke as strongly as he had done. He had been asked, why stir up these things? why not let them go on? He asked, in reply, where were these things to stop? The time had come—and he trusted he should hear from those in power that it was so—when the law could not be broken with impunity, and when it would not be possible that an offender should escape on a technical point when he had had trial after trial. There were, he firmly believed, within the Church of England Jesuits—men who had taken office in it for the express purpose of perverting its doctrines—and there could be to Nonconformists no encouragement to come back within the fold of the Church when they saw it pervaded by so much of error. Holding these views, he gladly supported the Amendment.

said, that he had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), who had brought forward a very long series of quotations, and had read much that he had been pained to hear, and many statements from which he emphatically dissented. Having said that, he would call on the hon. Member to say what he proposed to do? It was very easy to ask the House to address Her Majesty for the appointment of a Royal Commission; but when, and upon what principle, was the Commission to be named, and who were to be Members of it? The hon. Members for Dundee and Bury St. Edmund's had passed a most sweeping condemnation of the Bishops, both in particular and in general; and he wished to know whether or not any of them were to be members of the Commission, or whether, on the contrary, they were to be its victims, and, if Bishops were excluded, whether the Commissioners were to be clergy or laity; whether any lawyers were to be members, and whether they were to be empowered to call unwilling witnesses to give evidence on oath? Was the Commission to be one-sided, and the parties impugned only to appear as culprits, and to be dealt with by Jeddart law, or were they to have their share of representation? The Commission would have to inquire into processes, doctrines, ceremonies, and opinions, and other matters which were alleged to be contrary to the Prayer Book; but who was, first of all, to define either those ceremonies and doctrines, or their relation to the Book which was to test them? Was it not the fact that for 300 years there had been two parties in the Church of England, one turning to the higher and more ancient system of the primitive Church, and the other dwelling more on free thought and private judgment; one looking to England and the other with an eye to Geneva? Was the Commission to begin by arbitrating between these parties, so as to define the true, sound, and acknowledged doctrine of the Church; or, if not, from whom were they to receive it, necessary as such a definition would be to them as their point of departure? Again, the question arose whether the Prayer Book was self-explanatory; for, if it were, he defied anyone to explain the divisions existing in the Church. At all events, the Commission would find itself bound to offer some plausible explanation. The hon. Member had based his demand upon the assumption that the Church was the creation of the State, and had averred that at some unknown period the present Church was established in lieu of another, and a prior one; but could he mention by what Statute or at what time the old Church of England was put down and the new one set up, and could he explain the reason why in all the Courts of Law the Church, before and after the Reformation, was treated as a continuous body? The organization of the Church of England went back for 1,300 years, and any of its prescriptions and canons not specifically or by necessary inference repealed were still valid, not only in the Ecclesiastical but in the Civil Courts. The phrase "old and new Churches" was all very well as a platform for a pamphlet or a newspaper article; but it broke down in the Law Courts. It was the very antipodes of the whole of our ecclesiastical policy; and he might ask whether the Commission that was to be appointed would be compelled to swallow the shibboleth of the hon. Member, and whether it would have to sit in judgment on its author, and not devour its offspring like the god of old, but destroy its parent? Above all things, was the world so idle just now and so completely in want of something to talk about that it must needs plunge into infinity and endeavour to grapple with so large and slippery a question? Chaos must be the upshot of the hon. Member's magnificent Commission, in all the vagueness of its ambiguous and ensnaring scope. No doubt the hon. Member was a man of literary power; in that case, he should refute what had been said by the Ritualists and gather his converts by force of pen. Part of the task which the hon. Member proposed for the general recreation had actually been performed by the Ritual Commission of some little time back, and the years which that body had to consume over its limited work was some warning of the time which this more extensive inquiry must occupy. He could not look back without amusement at the fate of one eminent statesman, then though no longer a Member of this House, who rose at its first meeting to anticipate that a few sittings would conclude its short and easy work, and who then found himself chained for several years to the oar. They had heard a very ingenious plea, founded upon a theory of the hon. Member's, as to the origin and nature of the Church of England, which was contrary to history, experience, and law, and Her Majesty was to be invited to issue a Royal Commission in order that that theory might be ex post facto justified. In fact, to sum up the whole matter, if the hon. Gentleman succeeded in his device, he would simply succeed in putting all parties in the Church, Ritualists and Evangelicals alike, at sixes and sevens, in sowing so much dissension, and in provoking so bewildering an inquiry, that the result would be simply disestablishment of the Church.

wished to make a few remarks on the subject, feeling that it was one with which the House ought to grapple. He frankly owned that he much regretted that the Motion had been brought forward, and he regretted still more the causes which had led to it. For, unless there was at that moment a paramount necessity for bringing it forward, it was likely to do more harm than good; but if that necessity did exist, then they must deal with it in the way which would be best for the maintenance of the Church of England in all its purity. His hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Beresford Hope) had pointed out the reasons for which the Motion should be opposed, and in most of those reasons he entirely concurred. He would remind him, however, that the Commission, appointed by the late Lord Derby's Government with the sanction of all his Colleagues, dealt simply and solely with Ritualism and the changes in the Rubrics which might be deemed desirable; but when he read the Motion before the House, he found that it raised a much more considerable question. According to the terms of this Motion, the Commission was to inquire as to the teaching and practice by the Clergy of the Church of England of doctrines and ceremonies not authorized by law, or contrary to the laws and usages of the Church as by law established; and then the Motion went on to four other distinct propositions, pointing to that which the Mover had described as an attempt to un-Protestantize the Established Church of the country, to the lawlessness of the Clergy belonging to it, and to the conspiracy in which they were alleged to be engaged, by means of the Confessional and Secret Societies, for the purpose of accomplishing their illegal objects. Now, the question was, whether there was a sufficient ground made out for them to inquire into a general allegation—for that was really what the Motion pointed to—that the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England were transgressing the law and neglecting their duty in allowing those things to be carried on within the Church itself? The hon. Member had quoted a variety of recent decisions on the subject, and he had quoted the authority of certain Bishops who had made the strongest declarations—not stronger than the occasion required—and then the hon. Member pointed out the lawlessness of the Clergy and the Secret Societies that existed, by means of which these were things attempted to be done. He thought the hon. Gentleman would see that it would be a very grave matter indeed to issue a Commission of Inquiry into such subjects as these, unless there was an urgent and paramount necessity for bringing them before the House. It would be a very grave matter indeed to inquire into such subjects, unless there was clearly an urgent and paramount necessity for it. The failure of which the hon. Member had spoken did not consist in a failure of the law in dealing with those things; for the question was now before the Court of Appeal, as to whether the law recently passed was not sufficient to grapple with all those matters. If the law was sufficient, they would do wisely by leaving it to take its course. If it proved insufficient, unquestionably the hon. Member would have a strong case in favour of some alteration being made. Then, with regard to the quotations which the hon. Member had made from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. Surely, if they were to understand those words in the sense in which they ought to be understood, those Prelates had shown the strongest possible desire not merely to grapple with those matters, but to grapple with them, as ought to be done, in the most careful and judicial spirit. Therefore, the second reason which might induce the House to support the issue of a Commission at present failed also. With respect to the passages which the hon. Gentleman had read from books, he should be very loth indeed to be convinced that those practices which were alleged to exist in a few cases, and to be carried on by a few persons, were really the practices of the Church of England. His own observation and experience of the Church of England was entirely the other way. Those were cases which applied to a very few persons; and he firmly believed that the great body of the Church of England, and all the authorities of that Church, were not only ready and willing, but anxious to take their part in trying to do their utmost to stop these things. If that was the case, do not let them have all those matters brought more prominently to public notice than they had been already. Much mischief might be done by it—much mischief had been done by it—and unless there was a necessity for again dragging them all to light, he entreated the House to pause before it granted a Commission for such a purpose as that. He was not insensible to the evils which a few persons were likely to bring upon the Church of England; and he must own that, in using the words "on the Church of England" he meant the pure religion of this country as established at the Reformation. He did not use the words in an ecclesiastical sense only; but he used them far more in the highest moral and spiritual sense which was applicable to that pure religion which was founded by our Saviour. And he was thoroughly convinced that the feeling of the Church and of the authorities of the Church was not to allow the purity of that religion to be tampered with in any way if it could possibly be prevented. Believing, therefore, that there was every disposition on the part of those who were in authority in the Church to discountenance all the evils to which the hon. Gentleman had referred—and he did not in the least say improperly referred—he hoped that in the interest of all concerned, and, above all, in the interest of religion, they would at present, at any rate, endeavour to see whether the law was sufficient; and, if not, whether it could not be made sufficient, to deal with those matters in the only wise and effectual manner in which they could be dealt with—that was, by a judicial decision on all the cases which might be brought forward.

agreed to a considerable extent with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; but he could not forget that there was in existence a Society of the Holy Cross, whose practices were contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, and whose publications had been condemned by the House of Lords on account of their tendency to undermine the doctrines of the Church. Then there was the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, the English Church Union, and the Abbey Restoration Society, who were going in the same direction; and he thought it was the duty of the Archbishops and Bishops to consider whether their powers were sufficient to control or put an end to such Societies, which were supported by certain Clergy of the Church of England. It appeared to him that that knot of the Clergy, whether it was large or small, ostentatiously associated itself to overthrow not only the jurisdiction of the Bishops, but also the doctrines of the Church whose bread they were eating. He agreed with the objections which had been raised to the appointment of a Commission, and wished the Motion had been for an Address to the Archbishops and Bishops, expressing the willingness of the House to grant such powers by law as would enable them to put an end to, or to control, those Associations. That was what appeared to him to be needed. It was highly dangerous to the Church of England, established by law, that confraternities and communities formed out of the Clergy of that Church should exist for the purpose of contravening, or of procuring the alteration and abrogation, or, at all events, for evading, the law which had been passed by Parliament, in recognition of the union between the Church and the State; and that Parliament, as the author of those laws, should not receive from the highest authority of the Church of England such advice as would enable that and the other House of Parliament to feel confident that they were proceeding on safe lines in arming the lawful authorities of the Church with the power of putting an end to those Associations, which were avowedly in contravention, and for the contravention, of the law. The facts of the case which had been brought before the House were patent; they were published by a certain section of the Clergy. It was perfectly true that there was in some cases a concealment of the name; and in such cases he thought that the Bishops and Archbishops ought to have power to demand, on pain of suspension, from any particular clergyman who might be suspected, an avowal as to whether he was, or was not, connected with those Societies. That would be a practical measure, and it was one which was needed. It would be idle to recommend the appointment of a Commission without having a definite object in view. If the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) were to recommend an inquiry with a view to the formation of a law, which should thus arm the highest authorities of the Church of England, he, as an adherent and a member of that Church, should thank him; but do not let the House enter upon a vague inquiry. Such an inquiry would be perfectly futile. His belief was that nothing less than an Act of Parliament authorizing an inquiry, under which the Commissioners would be empowered to examine upon oath, would be sufficient for the purpose. He would consent to such an Inquiry, with the distinct understanding that the intended outcome would be that Parliament should pass another Act requiring the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church to demand from the Clergy, under pain of suspension, their abstention from Associations, the object of which was the contravention of the law.

remarked, that those hon. Members who belonged to the Church of England must be interested in a general view of the case rather than in the more technical points which were awaiting protracted decision in the Courts of Law. The right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Spencer Walpole) had said that he did not believe the evil was so great and extended as had been represented. He wished he could join in that belief. Going from place to place throughout the country, he was sorry to say that his conclusion was of a very different character from that of the right hon. Member. It was better, however, to take some decided evidence rather than to rely upon the deductions which any individual Member might draw from his own observations. He held in his hand a list of 470 Clergy of the Church of England, members of one of those Societies—which were quasi-Secret Societies at any rate—showing thorougly the sum of their practices and the tenets which they held. The Societies issued a book of "directions," and in it he found that there was to be intercession for the building of churches; but no such intercession unless the Holy Sacrifice was to be frequently offered in them—and hon. Members must know what was meant by the "Holy Sacrifice"—that there should be prayer made, that the Bishops might be brought to a right opinion on the subject of the Blessed Eucharist; that there should be prayers for the souls of the Clergy who had been members of the confraternity, but who had recently died, and the names of the dead were given. All this went to prove that there were within the Church of England bodies of men who were, by all possible measures they could take, endeavouring to restore those things which the Church at the time of the Reformation left out. Again, these men proposed that the primitive customs of the Blessed Sacrament might be reserved for the dead and dying. The whole of these practices indicated that there was a system going on for the restoration of those doctrines which were denounced by the Prayer Book as being inconsistent with the Church of England. There could be no doubt that the evidence of these practices was strong; and he feared that the longer they delayed the inquiry the more rapidly the disease would spread; and the opinion would also spread, that neither high authorities in the Church, nor the Ministers of State, had much care on the subject. He did not say what form the proposed investigation should take; but he certainly thought that some desired step should be made by the Government as the result of the present proposal.

said, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) had asked the House to take a very strong step—a step which could not be justified at the present moment, unless there was a paramount necessity for it, and unless all other means of checking the practices brought under notice had been completely exhausted. He had listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member; but, temperate and able as was that speech, and strong as were the facts which the hon. Gentleman had brought before the House, the step which he proposed to take was one not justified by existing circumstances and necessities. It was his belief that the enormous proportion of the Clergy evinced a desire to conform to the principles of the Church of England, and he could not admit the any case to the contrary had been made out. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the lawlessness of the large proportion of the Clergy. If that was the case, would not the Public Worship Regulation Act have given some evidence of the fact? How many cases had there been under that Act? The hon. Gentleman asked them to appoint a Royal Commission; but had he proved that the law, as it at present stood, had failed? Was it a fact that the present law had failed? It was only three years next November that the Act had been in operation, and it could not yet be said to have been fully tried. No case had been made out for the appointment of a Royal Commission. He could not see how any hon. Gentleman desirous of maintaining the connection between the Church and the State could for a moment entertain this Motion. It was most inopportune at a time like this, when feelings were excited, and when it was hardly possible to give a calm consideration to the subject.

I think the speeches of my two right hon. Friends the Members for the Universities of Oxford (Mr. Mowbray) and Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole) have gone very far to show the House the nature of the objections which suggest themselves to the minds of many, and, I would venture to hope, the majority of the Members of the House, as to the particular course which is proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee. Undoubtedly, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge placed the matter in the light which I should think very many of us must regard it. My right hon. Friend said that while he regretted very much that this Motion should have been brought forward, he regretted still more the circumstances which had rendered it, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Dundee, necessary to invite the attention of the House to the subject. There can, I think, be but one opinion among us all as to the unfortunate nature of those circumstances which have led to our attention being drawn to this question in the manner it has been; and which, undoubtedly, has caused a great deal of feeling on the part of many of us with regard to the conduct of certain persons whose words and writings have been brought under our notice. I, for one—and I believe I speak the sentiments of this House generally—do deplore, and in the strongest manner reprobate, the conduct of those who, from whatever motives they may be actuated, are using their position in the Church of England in a way so detrimental to the true interests of the Church. But while I am quite prepared to agree with the hon. Member for Dundee—and, indeed, with almost everyone who has spoken—in lamenting and reprobating language and conduct such as he has described, I think we ought to be very cautious as to how we accept the proposal he makes for the appointment of a Royal Commission. We ought to ask ourselves very carefully what are the advantages he thinks he can propose to us by the appointment of such a Commission; and we ought also to consider what are the dangers and inconveniences that may be apprehended from such a step. A very practical suggestion was made by my hon. Friend the junior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). He put some very apposite questions as to the composition of the Commission, the nature of the work it would have to do, and as to the character of its inquiry. Those questions, I think, have been in no way answered, and no reply to them was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Dundee. I think the hon. Gentleman has failed to bring his case properly before the House. Undoubtedly, he has pointed out certain matters which he thinks are deserving of consideration, and he has pointed to certain evils which, in his judgment, demand a remedy; but he has not connected his premisses with his conclusion, and he has not shown us how a Royal Commission is an appropriate mode of dealing with these difficulties. Moreover, he has not shown us how his Royal Commission would work, nor whether there may not be better ways of meeting the evils which are acknowledged to exist. I must take this opportunity of saying that I cannot assent to the fundamental doctrine which he hon. Member for Dundee laid down when he commenced his observations. He began by telling us that the Church of England was an institution of the State, just the same as the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service were institutions of the State. He told us, in fact, that the Church was a creature of the State; and that, therefore, it was in the power and the duty of the State to overhaul, if I may use the word, and regulate the Church, from time to time, just as it may think fit. I dissent from that view of the relation between the two bodies. I do not admit that it is right, or proper, to describe the Church as a creature of the State. I regard the matter rather in this light—the Church, having certain articles and formularies by which its doctrines and discipline are defined, has been accepted and admitted to certain privileges by the State, on the understanding that those doctrines and that discipline are the doctrines and the discipline which the Church is to maintain. Legal power has been given to keep the Church within the limits so laid down, and to confine the obligations and the relations of the State to the Church, on the condition of those limitations being observed on the part of the Church. If any authorities or ministers of the Church violate those conditions, the State has a right to interfere and say—"This is contrary to our contract;" and steps may be taken to restrain what is going on. But I deny that in the first instance the Church is to be treated as a creature of the State. Still, I admit most fully that it may be necessary for the State to arm the Church with power, or to take power itself, to restrain lawlessness and breaches of those conditions. I would remind the hon. Gentleman as to what has occurred in recent years upon those questions. In the first place, there was the issuing of the Royal Commission some years ago. What I understand to have been the meaning of appointing that Commission was this—It being a matter of doubt whether certain practices were legal which had been revived in the Church after having been left dormant for many years, the Commission was appointed very much for the purpose of considering how far those matters were legitimate and appropriate to the Church. It was a Commission strictly of inquiry, and it laid down the rules which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, ought to be followed. Besides that, there has been a wholly different proceeding adopted by the State of late years. After these matters had been so far ascertained by the Commission, the question arose whether sufficient means existed for keeping in order insubordinate ministers of the Church of England who were guilty of lawlessness and of disobeying the law of the Church. On that occasion the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church themselves came forward and said—

"We are intrusted with certain duties for maintaining the law of the Church. We find, however, that we are not armed with sufficient authority, or that, at all events, the authority with which we are armed is clogged with so many inconveniences that we cannot discharge the duties which we ought to perform; and, therefore, Parliament must pass another Act."

Looking at those transactions, and having reference to what has occurred since, we shall find that the bearing of the law has been pretty well ascertained both as regards the doctrine and discipline of the Church on the points called in question, and that the proper ecclesiastical authorities have been armed with power supposed to be sufficient to give due effect to that law. The Bishops or other ecclesiastical authorities do not ask for further powers—they do not say the Act is insufficient; but they are proceeding by a firm, judicious, and temperate exercise of their powers under the law, with a belief that they will be able to regulate and restrain what is amiss in the Church. The House must take the case as so standing. They cannot too earnestly repudiate the conduct of undutiful members of the Church, and it is their duty to support proper authority and restrain those guilty of excesses; but to go beyond that and establish a Roving Commission, inquiring in all parts of the country what doctrines are taught, what practices are followed, and what faults are to be found, would be the most injudicious course which could be pursued. It could do very little good, and would be sure to lead to a great deal of heartburning and evil. No doubt the hon. Member would desire to limit its proceedings to such gross cases as those he has cited, but a great variety of other cases would be certain to be brought before it altogether unconnected possibly with Romanish doctrines and practices; and I do not not see how it would be possible, in these circumstances, for a Commission of a sufficiently representative character to arrive at anything like unanimous conclusions. Considering that the law is already adequate to cope with the state of things depicted by the hon. Member, the House will, I am sure, come to the conclusion that no case has been made out for the Motion. It is true that a certain number of prosecutions have failed owing to some want of appreciation as to the proper course to be pursued; but such incidents are always liable to happen occasionally, and we may hope that as the present state of the law becomes better understood they will cease to recur. Supposing, however, they were likely to continue, it would surely be more appropriate to suggest the necessary amendments in the law than to appoint a Royal Commission? I hope the hon. Member will spare the House the pain of a division on this question. There can be no doubt that there is a general uneasiness and dissatisfaction with regard to such cases as those referred to by the hon. Member, and those who would not vote for a Royal Commission might still be unwilling to give a vote which would seem to approve of the practices complained of. The hon. Member, by his speech, which was of a fair and temperate character, and by the speeches he has elicited in the debate, which have all been of the same stamp, has rendered good service to the country; but I think he would render that service more complete by following the course I have taken the liberty of suggesting.

in obedience, as he believed, to the general feeling of the House, would withdraw his Motion, adding, however, that he would again call attention to the subject next year, or support some other hon. Member in doing so, if the legal methods upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer relied proved ineffectual for remedying the evils complained of.

did not want to offer any opposition to the Motion; but from the short conversation which took place this afternoon at 2 o'clock, he felt certain an impression was produced that the Government would use their influence with the hon. Member not to bring the subject before the House to-night. His right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), who had devoted great attention to this subject, was particularly anxious to make some remarks upon the alterations which had been inserted by the House of Lords; but he had left the House under the impression that the Bill would not be taken to-night. The Amendments of the Lords were carried by the large majority of 20, and his right hon. Friend, while not prepared to go to the extent of saying that they should disagree with the Lords, was very desirous, in the interests of the people connected with friendly societies, to come to some compromise, if possible, which could alike be agreed on between the Government and the hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Mellor); and which would be likely to be accepted by the House of Lords. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be better if the Bill could be postponed until the right hon. Gentleman was in his place.

desired to confirm what had just fallen from the hon. Member as to the impression that the Bill would not be taken to-night. He was entirely taken by surprise on observing that the hon. Member for Ashton rose and moved that the Lords' Amendments be considered; for he had himself told several hon. Gentlemen that it had been definitely settled the matter should be adjourned, and on the faith of that understanding, those hon. Gentlemen had left the House. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member would consent to postpone the Bill, because he would gain nothing by pressing it forward to-night. The object the friendly societies had in view would be best promoted by an adjournment to a future day.

would like to have some assurance from the Government as to the course they intended to pursue in regard to this matter. The Bill passed this House unanimously, and it was the universal wish of the friendly societies of the country that it should pass; but in the House of Lords it had been opposed by a set of Liberal Peers.

repeated that "elsewhere" the Bill had been principally opposed by Peers of Liberal principles; and the Amendments which destroyed the character of the Bill were moved by a Liberal Peer. This was a question upon which there ought to be no trifling. It was the unanimous wish of the House that the Bill should pass as it was sent to the House of Lords, and he hoped they would stand by their previous decision.

joined in the appeal that the Bill might not be proceeded with to-night.

said, what passed at 2 o'clock was this. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen's) Question as to whether the Bill would come on to-night, he said that he had no knowledge that it would come on. Of course, in giving that answer, he was entirely ignorant as to what course his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Mellor) intended to take, and his hon. Friend was not in any way pledged by what he had stated. At the same time, he felt bound to say that there appeared to be a strong desire that this matter should be dealt with in a way that would be agreeable to the friendly societies, without placing themselves in antagonism with the views expressed in the House of Lords. Under these circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend would be perhaps well-advised if he consented to the adjournment which had been suggested, say until Monday, though no doubt it was a hardship at this reasonable hour of the night to forego the chance of proceeding with the Bill.

also considered it would be better not to go on with the Bill to-night. At the same time, it was fair to consider that it had been a very difficult business to carry the Bill through to its present stage, and at this period of the Session the hon. Member could not well afford to lose an opportunity. On the other hand, if there was an understanding that the measure would not be taken to-night, that ought to be honourably adhered to. He also wished to remark, that seeing how strong the Government were in the House of Lords, if they had wished to see this Bill passed in the form it left this House, they could easily have procured its passing. The friendly societies had been misunderstood, and what they wanted to do had been exaggerated. It had gone forth that the Bill was an infraction of the principles of the Poor Law; but this, he considered, was not a true charge, and friendly societies, by the action they had taken, had done more to save the poor rates than anybody else. If the Lords' Amendments were agreed to, it would be a discouragement to thrift in connection with friendly societies in this country.

I think the first object we all ought to have in view is strictly to observe an honourable engagement; and I had not heard until the Bill was called upon of anything having passed in reference to it at 2 o'clock to-day; and from what has since been said, I do not understand that the hon. Member for Ashton is bound by anything which has occurred. At the same time, it has, obviously, had the effect of inducing the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) to absent himself, in the belief that the Bill would not come on. Therefore, it would be inconvenient, and might lead, perhaps, to some complaint, if we proceeded with the Bill to-night, though, as I have already said, I do not think the hon. Member is bound by what took place at 2 o'clock. I supported the Bill in the form in which it left this House; and now it has come back, altered in some material respects, I think the hon. Member is taking a natural and proper course in endeavouring, I will not say to restore the measure absolutely to its original shape, but to consider whether some compromise may not be effected. I understand the hon. Member wishes to re-insert in the Bill the words "pauper or," which have been struck out by the Lords, and the other Amendments he will not object to. Therefore, I would suggest to him, in his own interest, to consider whether it will not be better to postpone the Bill until Monday, in order to see what understanding may be come to? If, however, the hon. Member thinks he ought to take this opportunity of proceeding, I shall support him in whatever he does, as I have previously voted for the Bill.

said, in deference to the views which had been expressed, he had no objection to withdraw the consideration of the Bill from to-night, and he would proceed with it on another occasion.

proposed to amend an Amendment which had been made at the end of Clause 2, by inserting words intended to protect existing leases of property belonging to the London City Companies.

complained that no Notice had been given of the Amendment. He was not aware of its character; and in order that he and other Irish Members should have an opportunity of considering it, he moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) did not seem aware that an agreement had been made, by which, as he understood, all opposition was to be withdrawn.

knew nothing of any compromise on the subject.

was bound to say there was very considerable force in what had fallen from, the hon. and learned Gentleman. He himself was not oven acquainted with the wording of the Amendment now proposed without Notice. The object of the Amendment introduced in Committee with the full assent of the promoters of the Bill, he understood to be the preservation of vested interests. It did not seem to him to effect that object; but if the promoters of the Bill, and also those who had moved Amendments, were satisfied, he should not oppose it. Perhaps, under the circumstances, his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill would not insist upon going on with it at that late hour, in the absence of any means of ascertaining what were really the intentions of those responsible for the measure, or how far the words proposed would effect their ostensible object.

said, there was no doubt that an Amendment had been accepted in Committee. It was, that where there was any special covenant or agreement in a lease with respect to any buildings or improvements, that should be taken into consideration. That was a perfectly right and fair provision, and in a Bill he introduced some years ago there was a similar Proviso. So many objections to the measure were raised in the North of Ireland, that he gave a pledge not to proceed with it, and it would be inconsistent if such a provision were now agreed to. As the Bill had been so long before the House, he trusted the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) would not press his Motion, but would allow the debate to proceed.

confessed that although he had read the Amendment twice over, he could not understand it. He might do so after further consideration; and, therefore, he should support the hon. and learned Gentleman in his Motion.

thought the House should proceed with the Bill. With regard to the words proposed to be added, he thought they would constitute a most injurious provision; because a tenant who took a lease for building was not to be entitled to have the buildings taken into consideration in dealing with his tenant-rights. He thought such a provision would endanger the Bill; whereas, if it were allowed to go through the House in the form in which it was introduced, it would settle points upon which a great grievance had arisen in the North of Ireland. He should suggest that the Motion should be withdrawn.

considered that the House should have a further opportunity of discussing the very important Amendment which had been proposed.

thought there had been some misunderstanding with regard to the Bill. He apprehended that when the Bill was in Committee, an Amendment was moved to add to Clause 2, a Proviso—

"That the Court, in determing the amount of compensation to be awarded to any person claiming under the Bill, should take into consideration in the construction of his lease the rent it which he held, and any stipulation as to erection of buildings or making other improvements."

That was felt by those taking the tenant's view of the question to be rather harsh, as it shut out every leaseholder from the benefit of the Bill. He now understood that an agreement had been made in relation to that provision. The Amendment which he held in his hands had never been printed, and was before no Member of the House who had not a manuscript copy. This mitigated Amendment, which was moved in Committee, limited the reduction of claim that should take place to any express stipulation or covenant for the erection of buildings, or for farming improvements. He thought the Amendment should be made clearer in its provisions, and, as it had not been printed, he should suggest that the debate should be adjourned. In the meantime, it would be well for the Amendment to be more clearly and explicitly drawn.

said, after the speech made by the hon. and learned Member opposite, he thought there would be some difficulty in the matter; and, therefore, he thought the best thing to do would be to ask the House to adjourn the discussion until Monday.

wished to say, that, in the course he had taken, he had not had the slightest wish to obstruct the Bill. The last Amendment was perfectly hostile, and would destroy the whole principle of the Bill. The Committee, to whom the Bill had been referred, ought to take the responsibility of that Amendment on themselves; whereas they allowed that Amendment to come from the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac), who knew as much about tenant-right in Ireland as he (Mr. Butt) did of the municipal affairs of Nottingham. The Amendment ought to be printed before it was discussed; and he thought it a suspicious thing that those who brought in the Bill did not take the responsibility of it.

desired to say a few words why the Amendment accepted in Committee was not brought before the House. That Amendment certainly ought to have been printed, and placed in the hands of Members; but he presumed hon. Members were aware of the fact of the Amendment being accepted when the Bill was in Committee. When the Bill was in Committee, the Amendment was moved, not by one of its promoters, but by the same hon. Gentleman who had proposed it that night, and he was persuaded to modify it and again bring it before the House, which he had done.

said, his position in the matter was a very peculiar one. Although he proposed the Amendments, they were really Amendments of owners of large property in Ulster—because if the Bill passed as it was originally brought in, landlords who had let property on long leases and on favourable terms, as the tenants were to do the improvements, would, at the expiration of those leases, have to pay compensation for improvements practically allowed for in the reduced rents paid and the long leases granted. When the Bill was unexpectedly brought before the Committee in the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone, he moved the Amendment, which was accepted by the promoters, after having been modified. On the Report it was proposed to omit the words added in Committee, which, being opposed, the Report was postponed. In consequence of that, the Bill had stood over, and it was somewhat unfortunate that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) had not been in his place to watch its progress. His Amendment, which had been accepted by the promoters of the Bill, was designed to benefit the owners of large property in the North of Ireland, whose interests the House was bound to protect as well as those of other landlords or tenants.

wished the hon. Member for Nottingham would make himself acquainted with the leases granted by the Landed Companies in the North of Ireland, and then he would not think they would be injured by this Bill. These Companies stood exactly in the same position as other landlords, inasmuch as when a lease expired there was always a re-arrangement of the rent, and if it was considered too low, it was raised. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would pursue his intention of opposing the Bill at this stage. It would be impossible to understand the Amendment until it was printed.

suggested to the hon. Member for Nottingham, whether the Amendment should not be printed in his name, and not in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). The hon. Member for Nottingham had told the House that he represented the Estate Companies in the North of Ireland, and therefore they could only be represented indirectly by the hon. Member for Londonderry.

said, unless the Amendment was printed its effect could not be understood. Before the Report, the Bill, as amended, should be printed.

said, he thought the object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick would be entirely gained, when he said the Amendment would appear in the Notice Paper every day the Bill appeared.

said, he understood that it was now proposed to strike out the Amendment as accepted by the Committee; but he would remind the House that, having been accepted, it was no longer an Amendment.

said, he proposed to deal with that which originally was an Amendment.