of the eighteen chapters, the former transfers had been made. In order to remedy any inconveniences that might have arisen, Parliament passed an Act during the present Session which gave validity to those transactions. But it was evident that unless Parliament gave more distinct powers the process hitherto so salutary must be brought to a stand-still. This Bill, therefore, had been brought in for the purpose of enabling the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to carry on arrangements with other chapters which were desirous of entering into them. The provisions of the Bill were of a simple character; they enabled transfers to be made of the property of deans and chapters, the latter to receive a money payment, and provided that a certain sum should be set apart for cathedral repairs. Farms were to be let without fines at the best annual rent that could be obtained. These were the main provisions of the Bill. There was nothing compulsory in the powers it sought to confer; it simply enacted that voluntary arrangements were to be permitted between the chapter on one side and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the other. Whatever arrangements lessees might have made previous to the transfer of property, these arrangements the Commissioners would be able to carry out if they saw fit, and, if they did not, they would be bound, if the lessees required them, to purchase the outstanding terms of the leases. to the applicants, and send a copy to the Bishop of the diocese, who should send it to the Lord Lieutenant. The author of the Bill said that his intention was that it should be regarded as a mandate, and that while he thought it possible that some wrong-headed clergyman might refuse his permission, he believed the Act would be found a remedy for the evils complained of. Unfortunately that had not been found to be the case; there had been several instances of refusal ; and they were not confined to Roman Catholics, but had occurred in several instances to Presbyterians and Wesleyans. He was told that the feeling of the Presbyterians and of the Wesleyans in relation to the necessity for a Bill like the present was even stronger than that of the Roman Catholics. The Bill was short and simple, and provided that, instead of permission being asked, the clergyman should have no right to refuse the request, when made, for a priest or minister to read the burial service. Many of the Irish population were now buried without any service being read at their graves-buried like dogs, as Lord Plunket said in 1824. Yet the feeling in Ireland in regard to the sanctity of burial was greater than it was in most countries, and to outrage this feeling could have anything but a conciliatory effect upon the people. In the greater part of Ireland there were no separate graveyards for those who did not belong to the Established Church, and therefore a large part of the population were buried in the churchyard without having a service read over them. The priests of the Roman Catholic Church had a natural dislike to asking the clergyman for permission to read the Roman Catholic service; and Presbyterians and Wesleyans, although they did not share that dislike, had preferred requests which had unforOrder of the Day for the Second Read-tunately been refused. This was a state of ing read. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 accord ingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next. BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL.-(No. 212.) (The Earl of Kimberley.) SECOND READING. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would briefly explain its provisions and those of the present law. The latter depended upon an Act carried by Mr., afterwards Lord, Plunket, and it provided that, in the event of the burial of a person not a member of the Established Church in one of its graveyards, his relatives might ask permission of the clergyman to have the service read by a priest or Dissenting minister, and if the clergyman refused such permission he should give his reasons in writing things which it was desirable to put an end to, and he therefore hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading of the Bill. The Primate of Ireland had given notice of a Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee; and he could not help regarding that Motion as an attempt to get rid of the Bill, which was resorted to under some apprehension as to the result of direct opposition, seeing that it proposed to relieve not only Roman Catholics but Protestant Dissenters. The Bill was so short and simple that any Amendments could easily be discussed in Committee of the Whole House; and he should therefore feel it to be his duty to oppose the Motion | be that when the sexton was not present for referring it to a Select Committee with the key the churchyard would be Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accord-broken into. At present the sexton took ingly. Then it was moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. THE ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH said, he felt it to be his duty to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He did this, not to oppose the principle of the Bill, but in the hope that its deficiencies might be supplied, and that some Amendments might be made in parts of the Bill that were objectionable. The subject was a large and extensive one; it involved arrangements as to the burial in the same churchyard of persons of four or five different religions. This was a matter of very considerable delicacy, too much so to be dealt with in a single clause. The noble Earl had stated the present law correctly, with one exception; he had forgotten to say that the clergyman, when applied to for his consent, must give it in writing, and state the time for the burial. On the face of it the object was to prevent the interruption of divine service. The churchyard was the freehold of the incumbent, whose position was fully recognized in Lord Plunket's Bill; but this Bill treated him as a nullity, a defect he hoped to remedy in the Select Committee. The fixing of the hour gave mutual notice of the time of the funeral, but the Bill provided for no such arrangement, and the consequence might be the simultaneous arrival at the churchyard of two or more funerals of persons of different religious persuasions, and the clergyman might have to wait in his own churchyard until lengthy addresses had been delivered by those previously in possession. It was not necessary that the clergyman should be entirely disregarded in this way. The absence of any provision fixing the time was a practical inconvenience, for those constituting a funeral cortége could not know that they would clash with another, and a funeral party from a remote part of a parish might have to wait at the churchyard for an hour, on a wet day, owing to the omission of a desirable arrangement. Under the proposed arrangement there would be nothing but confusion and collisions. Then, it should be borne in mind that the sexton had care of the churchyard, but there was no provision in the Bill that he should receive notice of intended funerals, and the consequence would frequently The Earl of Kimberley no fees, and was only entitled to a small tical Commissioners; but if he had addisalary, which was settled by the Ecclesiastional labours imposed upon him he ought in fairness to receive additional remuneration. Then, again, the clergyman's jurisdiction. over the tombs and monuments ought to be maintained, and it would be the duty of the Select Committee to take into consideration the circumstance that in Ireland there were eight different kinds of churchyards. For instance, there were the public and poorhouse burial grounds, Roman Catholic cemeteries, places of sepulture surrounding Dissenting chapels, those around the old monasteries, those on sites where Protestant churches formerly stood, and in which both Roman Catholics and Protestants had the right of sepulture; burialgrounds surrounding existing Protestant churches, and burial grounds near churches recently erected. With regard to the last, he might remark that since the Union a great number of churches had been built in Ireland. Indeed, he believed that no fewer than 550 had been erected since 1806. These were, for the most part, surrounded by small churchyards which were only suited for the interment of the Protestants in the district, and which would soon be overcrowded if the right to be interred there were claimed by the Roman Catholics. In his opinion, these burial grounds ought to continue to be appropriated to the uses for which they were originally intended. There would, indeed, be no objection to allow Dissenters to be interred there, but if Roman Catholics were admitted overcrowding would be the inevitable result. There was a strong reason why this Bill should not be passed at the present time. It was pretty generally understood that an attempt would be made next year to disestablish and disendow the Established Church in Ireland, and to reduce it to the position of a sect. Well, if that were done, it was only fair that the Church should enjoy the benefit of its new position. If, as was possible, the Bill did not pass this Session, it might be brought forward again next year, with the addition of such safeguards as would render it acceptable to the members of the Church in Ireland. An Amendment moved to leave out from ("Bill") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("be referred to a Select Committee.")-(The Archbishop of Armagh.) EARL GRANVILLE said, that although the most rev. Prelate had declared his assent to the principle of the Bill, he had, in fact, argued against the only principle it contained, and at the end of his speech had stated explicitly that the measure ought not to be passed. As to the various Amendments suggested by the most rev. Prelate, there was not one of them which required in the slightest degree the intervention of a Select Committee. Every one of the proposed Amendments might be satisfactorily dealt with, and in a very short space of time, in Committee of the Whole House. The most rev. Prelate had spoken of different classes of churchyards in Ireland; but, as the present Bill had reference to one class only, the objection had no force. As to the objection raised with respect to certain churchyards of very limited size, he wished to point out that the Bill in no way affected the right of burial, but simply provided that in church yards where, by the present law, Catholics and Dissenters had a right to be buried, the burial services might be read by the clergymen of their respective denominations. On the whole, he thought their Lordships would come to the conclusion that the most rev. Prelate had not advanced sufficient reasons for the appointment of a Select Committee. THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH said, he thought the present was a very unfit time for bringing forward a measure of this kind, which would, in all probability lead to unseemly collisions in churchyards. LORD LYTTELTON said, he could not see that there was the slightest ground for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, and he hoped the most rev. Prelate would not press his Motion. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, he could not concur with his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) that no case had been made out for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, but at the same time he felt that the adoption of such a course at this late period of the Session would have the appearance of an attempt to burke the Bill. He was sure, however, that that was not the object of the most rev. Prelate. The Bill, it must be admitted, was very faulty in its details, and he, for one, should be extremely sorry to support it in its present shape. Greater safeguards ought, for instance, to be provided in order to prevent those collisions which he was afraid were more likely to occur in the sister country than in England. This was a part of the subject which his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Kimberley) did not appear to have sufficiently considered. Under all the circumstances, perhaps the best course would be for the most rev. Prelate to give his attention to the matter during the next two or three days, and at a future stage of the Bill to bring forward such Amendments as he might deem necessary. The House would be quite competent to decide upon those Amendments, and also upon any which his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) might think fit to bring forward. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he wished to express his readiness to confer in the most friendly spirit with the most rev. Prelate on the subject of any Amendments which he might deem it necessary to move. THE ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH said, he would adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal. Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the original Motion was agreed to: and Bill committed to a Com. mittee of the Whole House on Friday next. COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLI- Bill read 3 (according to Order), with the Amendments. THE BISHOP OF LONDON said, he had given Notice of an Amendment by way of addition to Clause 6; but in consequence of some suggestions made to him by the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government he had made certain modifications in that Amendment. His Amendment, as he should now propose it, provided that the inhabitants of any ecclesiastical district constituted out of a portion of an ancient parish should not be entitled to vote in that parish in matters relating to church rates; but might, subject to the other provisions in this Bill, assemble and make a rate for their own ecclesiastical district. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving his Amendment. THE EARL OF DERBY said, he had apprehended that the Amendment as framed originally would have prevented persons from voting in respect of church rates for the payment of which they were liable. | Lastly he would make bold to say that For twenty years after separation from simple and unconditional abolition of the ancient parish the inhabitants of an ecclesiastical district continued to be liable for a proportion of the rates imposed for the maintenance of the fabric of the mother church. To relieve them of that obligation would be to throw a new tax on the ancient parish. It was not easy to gather the exact effect of an Amendment from hearing it read; but if the clause, as now worded, would only go the length of depriving persons of the right of voting in respect of rates for no part of which they would be liable, he could have no objection to it. Amendment agreed to; Further Amendmends made. church rates was to be preferred to the present measure. If injustice were to be done, better far that it should be clear and patent rather than masked under what many may be led to speak of as adjustment and compromise. If church rates were unconditionally abolished, the church would fall back upon herself and her own real strength. She would rely not on scaffolding, but on free hearts and free offerings, and she would not rely in vain. He thanked their Lordships for the consideration with which they had lis tened, and reiterated temperate but firmly his protest. LORD LYTTELTON said, he should have been glad to have an opportunity of Then it was moved, That the Bill do saying a few words on the general ques pass. THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL said, he did not at this time oppose the passing of the Bill, as such a course would be now alike fruitless and unusual; but he did feel it to be his duty formally and deliberately to enter his protest against it. He would ask their permission to state briefly why he must firmly say "Not-content" when the proper time arrives. He would not thus trouble their Lordships, if he were not conscious that he was now expressing the sentiments of several other Members of the right rev. Bench, and if he had not reason to believe that in his protest the voices of others more influential were really joined with his own. He protested in the first place against the scope and principle of the Bill. He protested against thus giving up a portion of the heritage of the Church and of the just liabilities of the land to clamour, and that too to a clamour that year by year was becoming less reasonable and less justified by the facts of the case. A principle had been almost gratuitously surrendered, and they were brought face to face with the true beginning of the end. He protested then against the general substance and tenor of the Bill. He protested further and in the second place against the Bill, when compared with the Bill that came up from the Commons. In that Bill there were at any rate some few safeguards; there were provisions that tended to put the Church in a better and safer position than she could occupy when the present measure should become law. Of two measures the worst had been chosen. tion of church rates, but could not think of presuming to do so at that moment. But when many of their Lordships hoped rather than expected that that Bill would enable them to hear no more of that question for a long time to come, he must express his entire conviction that the whole agitation against church rates and the proposal for their total abolition were as totally unfounded in justice as any movement that ever occurred in this country, except upon a ground that would go a great deal further, and that would extend even to the abolition of the Established Church. The repeal of church rates had been advocated on considerations of expediency, with a view to conciliate the Dissenters; but he doubted whether it would have that result. He had very slight hope indeed that this Bill would lead to any good, yet, as it had been agreed to by both sides, he could not offer any opposition to it. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he disagreed both with the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) and the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) as regarded the comparative disadvantage of that Bill as it stood and a measure for the complete abolition of church rates. He thought that measure very much better than one for the complete abolition of church rates; and he had a sanguine hope that in many parishes in the country it would work very satisfactorily. If there was a parish in the country which thought it had got a better machinery of its own than that provided by the Bill, it would be perfectly at liberty to employ that machinery; and that he deemed a merit in the Bill. On Question? Resolved in the Affirmamative; Bill passed accordingly, and sent to the Commons. WEST INDIES BILL-(No. 135). COMMITTEE. House in Committee (according to Order). render. There was a proviso that in the event of the surrender of the Company's rights being agreed to, yet that the surrender should not take effect unless within one month the Canadian Parliament passed an Address embodying the terms of the agreement, and unless the Imperial Government by an Order in Council within one month agreed to the transfer of the said powers and rights to the Ca LORD LYTTELTON moved an Amend-nadian Parliament. ment relating to the remuneration of the coadjutor Bishop of Kingston in Jamaica. THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM said, the Bill had been prepared with the intention of saving all vested rights; but it could not on that footing have met the particular case to which the noble Lord's Amendment referred. All the work of the Bishop of Jamaica had been done by the coadjutor Bishop of Kingston, who received a certain portion of the funds applicable to the bishopric of Jamaica. It seemed equitable that while he discharged the duties the coadjutor Bishop should receive some remuneration; and, therefore, he could not think of opposing the Amendment. The last two lines of the Amendment, however, went rather too far. The noble Duke moved a proviso that while the coadjutor Bishop was in the receipt of his salary no payment should be made from the Consolidated Fund in respect to his archdeaconry. Motion agreed to. Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow. House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Ilalf-past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, July 13, 1868. MINUTES.]- SELECT COMMITTEE Report- MATES. - After a few words from Lord CRAN First Reading THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that an Act was passed two years ago to annex the Hudson's Bay territory to the Canadian Dominion. It was, however, found that that Act did not give all the necessary powers. The present Bill enacted that power should be given to the Crown to accept the surrender of the lands and rights enjoyed by the Hudson's Bay Company under their charter, and it gave power on the other hand to the Company to make such a sur PUBLIC BILLS Resolutions in Committee. - Sir Committee Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c." * Sanitary Act (1866) Third Reading-Court of Session (Scotland) VAGRANCY.-QUESTION. MR. FLOYER said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether, in pursuance of the intimation given in the last Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, it is intended to issue any further regulations for the administration of relief to Vagrants? |