by no means satisfactory tribunal, is pro- | tice; yet it is proposed by this Bill to posed by my noble Friend (the Earl of stereotype these fees, and to make the Shaftesbury) when he suggests an equal whole machinery for the administration proportion of clergymen and of justices of one branch of the law dependent upon of the peace, who shall be obliged under their punctual payment. I also submit penalties to assist in the administration that fees on marriage licenses form a of the law. Has it occurred to my noble very precarious revenue indeed; and if Friend that some of these justices may they should be abolished, as is extremely be Nonconformists? Not only would it likely, I ask my noble Friend what bebe unwise in the interests of the Church comes of the Bill? The very pillars on to submit ecclesiastical matters to their which it stands are cut away. For these judgment, but they might with reason reasons I much doubt whether the Bill complain you were obliging them to do would be found practicable; and I hope violence to their consciences. More than we shall not be regarded as having sancthis the system would inevitably be tioned, by sending the Bill before a abused by appeals to the passions of in- Select Committee, the few points to which dividuals. No subject more sways the I have alluded, and in respect of which judgment of men and more excites their the Bill is, in my opinion, radically depassions than religion; and men would fective. be convicted, not because they had violated a particular law, but because they happened to belong to this or that section of the Church. Surely, if it was inadvisable to apply the machinery of trial by jury to cases of election petitions, by reason of the political passions by which their judgment might be based, it would be most improper to decide ecclesiastical cases by such a process. These, my Lords, are all objections to the principle of the measure; I have now to put a question to my noble Friend. Does he think his Bill really practicable? He proposes to constitute a fresh tribunal and a fresh Judge; indeed, a fresh machinery altogether, which he has pointed out must in the nature of things be superior; but the sources of revenue upon which he relies for the maintenance of this new Court are very precarious. These sources are, as I understand it, made up entirely of fees, which are thrown into a sort of hotch-potch, and then distributed as the requirements of the Court may suggest. But what are these fees? As far as I could follow my noble Friend, these fees are those for consecration, for conveyances on the admission of clergy to their livings, and, lastly, fees on marriage licenses. Now, one set of these fees are most objectionable; I have never been able to understand upon what principle of justice or public expediency a man who has built a church, and perhaps given the land upon which the building stands, should be made to pay a large amount in fees upon the conveyance of the property to the Church. This has always seemed to be a monstrous injus

THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, the most rev. Primate had referred to a clause which had emanated from the Ritual Commission. No doubt the clause referred to had its root in the Report of the Commission; but it had been altered and was now materially different from what it originally was. The Report referred to specific acts connected with rites which were entirely new to the habit of the Church, if not new to its laws, and which involved points of doctrine not recognized by the Church. The Commission had decided that in respect of these-namely, vestments, lights, and incense-as contrary to the uniform practice of the Church, whether legal or not, they ought to be prohibited; and with regard to these, and these only, the Commission recommended that three householders should have, not the power of calling the attention of the Bishop to them, but of calling upon the Bishop to put them down without leaving him a discretion. The provisions of the Bill now before them were different in two respects. They authorized the parishioners to call the Bishop's attention to any points of Ritual, but gave him a discretion as the mode of dealing with them. They enlarged the area and diminished the stringency of the recommendations of the Commission. It was important this should be understood.

LORD CAIRNS: I feel sure your Lordships will agree with me in saying that the noble Earl who moved the second reading of this Bill (the Earl of Shaftes bury) did not require to offer to you any justification for addressing himself to a subject so important as the legislation

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said, he did not take credit to himself for being the inventor of the jury system, which was mentioned to him thirty years ago by the Duke of Wellington, and of course a jury was not intended to decide questions of doctrine so much as questions of fact. Although seventy-eight of his clauses had been appropriated by the most rev. Primate, others had been added to which he had altogether objected. He had said Ritualism was a bad thing and ought to be put down; but false doctrine was a much worse thing.

to

Motion agreed to.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred a Select Committee.

which this Bill proposes; and certainly such evidence is taken on a question as no apology was required from him for to which a conflict of opinion prevails, the able and comprehensive manner in I see little chance of legislation this which he has dealt with the subject, the Session. Right rev. Prelates know pretty mastery of which has occupied so much well how the Act has operated; and I of his time, and must have occasioned think, on the whole, it will be much safer much trouble and anxiety. I think we to refer the two Bills to a Select Commitmay rejoice that two Bills on this subject tee without requiring such evidence to have been laid on the table, because, be taken. proceeding as they do from minds that have looked at the subject from different points of view, it must be a matter of great satisfaction to find that the Bills, travelling to a large extent over the same ground, agree in substance as to the provisions they recommend. As to the points on which the authors of the two Bills are at issue, I own nothing more satisfactory could be proposed than that they should be referred to the same Select Committee to consider those differences. The two Bills seem to differ to a great extent in respect to the sources from which the finances are to be drawn; the source indicated by the Bill of my noble Friend seems to be of the most transitory and evanescent description; and I think your Lordships will be of opinion that nothing ought to be done to maintain the fees as taxes upon the Church and those connected with it. I doubt extremely the propriety of introducing what is called a jury system-but which is not a jury system-into the trial of offences of the kind contemplated by these Bills. The jury system, as we are accustomed to it, has great advantages in certain cases which it is applied to, but you are proposing now to apply it to cases of the greatest delicacy and nicety, requiring the most peculiar handling. I must say, from the experience I have had of cases of that peculiar kind to which I refer, I think that, on the whole, the best mode of trying them is to have them tried by a single Judge who is under an obligation, which you cannot put a jury under, to state in detail the grounds upon which he arrives at the conclusion he announces. A jury may be influenced by passion or prejudice, but they have to give no reason for their verdict; whereas a Judge must give reasons and show that he is master of the evidence. My noble Friend who has just sat down (the Earl of Carnarvon) expressed a hope that the Select Committee would take evidence as to the working of the Clergy Discipline Act. I hope my noble Friend will not be disposed to assent to that suggestion. If

V. Halifax.
L. Bp. Oxford.
L. Bp. Ripon.
L. Bp. Gloucester and
Bristol.

And, on April 26, the Lords following were
named of the Committee :-
L. Abp. Canterbury.
L. Abp. York.
Ld. President.
M. Salisbury.
E. Shaftesbury.
E. Portsmouth.
E. Carnarvon.
E. Beauchamp.

L. Portman.
L. Westbury.
L. Cairns.

CLERGY DISCIPLINE AND ECCLESIASTICAL

COURTS BILL [H.L.]

Bill read 2 (according to order), and referred to the Select Committee on Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.

House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Thursday, 15th April, 1869.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-First
Reading Municipal Franchise* [85]; Mines
Regulation [84]; Militia [82]; Water
Supply [83].
Second Reading-Newspapers, &c. * [66].
Committee-Irish Church [27]—R.P.

MR. J. G. TALBOT said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is his intention to recommend the dissolution of the Kensington Sick Asylum District; and, if not, how soon it is likely that the plans for that Asylum, which were submitted to the Poor Law Board for their approval in December last, will be ap-carried out if it was found that it would proved?

He

Whether it is true that a pension or gra- | thorized to deduct it out of the rent then tuity has been refused to Mr. W. Barnes, coming due whenever it was paid. who has served for upwards of twenty-might point out that under the present five years as Admiralty Pilot at Wool- arrangement tenants who paid their rent wich, and, if so, for what reason; and half-yearly were called upon in April to what steps are being taken to secure the advance this payment on behalf of their occupation of the Dockyard at Woolwich landlord, which they did not recover till as soon as possible after the Govern- Michaelmas, and again in October, which ment Establishment there is closed? they did not recover till March; whereas MR. CHILDERS said, in reply, that by his proposal the tax would be collecan Order in Council, passed in 1819, de- ted in January or February, and the prived the Admiralty of the power to tenant would recover it out of the rent grant such a pension, on the ground he paid in March. After all, the sum that the payment of full rate as Admi- involved was very trifling; taking the ralty pilot, which Mr. Barnes had re-income tax at 4d., the amount on £100 ceived, was sufficient. A pension was would be £1 138. 4d., and the interest applied for by Mr. Barnes on the ground on that, at 5 per cent, in three months that, in 1847, he fell down the hold of a was only five pence. ship, but the application was not acceded

to.

With regard to Woolwich Dockyard, no eligible offers had been made for it, but the Admiralty would take means to let their intentions be known.

METROPOLIS-BATTERSEA PARK,

QUESTION.

MR. PEEK said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there would be any objection to allow the Public to bathe in the concreted water in Battersea Park before 8 a.m., in consequence of the risk of life that arose from bathing in the Thames? MR. LAYARD said, in reply, that the ornamental water in Battersea Park was comparatively small in extent and was shallow, and public bathing would be objectionable unless a bathing-house was erected, which would spoil the appearance of the water. He did not

think, therefore, it would be desirable to allow bathing.

PAYMENT OF THE INCOME TAX.
QUESTION.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Out of what rent will a tenant paying his landlord's Income Tax under Schedule (A), in January 1870, be entitled to deduct the amount?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, in reply, that the answer to this Question was contained in the words of the Act of Parliament imposing the income tax, which authorized the deduction to be made "out of the first payment thereafter made on account of the rent;" that was, the tenant was au

CORN DUTY.-QUESTION.

MR. A. JOHNSTON said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to comply with the wishes of a large number of eminent firms in the City of London, by giving orders to the Custom House auceive all Duties from this day forward thorities throughout the kingdom to reunder Custom House Certificates that

such amount paid as Import Duties shall be returned to the parties who shall have paid them after this day, provided the House shall eventually decide to take off the said Duty?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, in reply, that the question had been carefully considered, and the Government thought that they would best discharge their duty by adhering to the determination he had announced, that the duty should be collected for the purpose of revenue up to the 1st of June, and after that date that it should cease, if the House gave its consent to the proposals of the Government.

REGULATION OF COAL MINES.

QUESTION.

MR. KINNAIRD said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the numerous and serious accidents that have recently occurred, he is prepared this Session to introduce a Bill for the better regulation of Coal Mines?

MR. BRUCE said, in reply, that he had given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the regulation and inspection of mines.

TELEGRAPHS BILL.-QUESTION. MR. BAINES said, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, If he can inform the House whether the Telegraphs Bill will be prosecuted; and, if so, whether he can state when?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, in reply, that he was afraid he could add nothing to the answer he had given on this subject a few weeks ago. The fact was, the arbitrations between the Government and the various companies as to the sums to be paid for the purchase and compensation were in progress. Some were completed, but the larger number were still incomplete. When the arrangements had made more progress it might be possible to form some estimate of the total sum that

would have to be paid, and he would then state what were the intentions of the Government. He might add that notice would be given in the London Gazette to-morrow of the intention of the Government to move for leave to bring in Bill to enable the Government, in the event of their obtaining the property of the telegraph companies, also to obtain a monopoly of the transmission of telegraph messages throughout the country.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.

QUESTION.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any, and what steps have been taken by the Government of this Country to re-open diplomatic relations with Mexico?

desirous Her Majesty's Government might be to maintain amicable relations with all Governments, it did not seem, under these circumstances, that the first step towards re-opening diplomatic relations with Mexico should be taken by this country.

PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE

HOUSE.-OBSERVATIONS.

MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, that the House will probably share the opinion of the Government that the approaching discussion of the Bill on the Irish Church should be proceeded with with as much consecutiveness as may be consistent with the convenience of hon. Members to abate their individual rights to bring forward Motions of which they had given notice. I have already had communication with some of those Gentlemen, and have received from several the courteous answer that they will not stand in our way. I think it would be advantageous to all parties if we could now know whether it is likely that there will be any material delay to-morrow before we could move the continuation of the Committee on the Bill, presuming we get into Committee to-night. The hon. Baronet the Member for North

Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) stands first on the list of Notices. I understand he is not disposed to bring on his Motion, provided it be the general intention of Members having similar Notices to give way. I do not see the hon. Baronet in his place; but, perhaps, I have already done as much as may be necessary by suggesting what is probably the general wish, that Members will abstain as much as possible from bringing forward Motions, unless there be some immediate and positive pressure, so that we may be enabled to go forward with the Irish Church Bill.

CAPTAIN GROSVENOR said, he would not persevere with the Motion of which he had given notice.

MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, he did not know whether the hon. Member was aware of the circumstances under which the rupture of diplomatic relations between this country and Mexico took place. On the re-establishment of the present Republican Government President Juarez intimated that it was the decision of his Government not to hold communication with the agents of any of the Powers who had recognized the MR. HUNT said, he had placed a preceding and de facto Government of Notice on the Paper for a statement reMexico. Mr. Glenny, our Consul in garding Exchequer balances, payments, the City of Mexico, was not allowed to and receipts, and unless the Chancellor fulfil his consular jurisdiction, and under of the Exchequer allowed the Return to those circumstances the Government of be given unopposed it would be necesLord Derby instructed Her Majesty's sary for him to make the Motion. He Charge d'Affaires at Mexico to with- could not postpone it, as he wished the draw, taking with him all the other Return to illustrate the operation of the members of the Legation. However Budget.