of parishes. With regard to the exclusion | Lord on the Woolsack, would do more for of all those who did not pay rates he the benefit of the Church than any other doubted the policy of ticketing them as they could have taken. The willingness defaulters in this way when their non-pay- to concede would be gladly welcomed by ment might have arisen from want of those who hitherto had said, "I will give money. There, again, he thought the gene- nothing to the Church under compulsion; rous policy was the right one. To admit but I will gladly do anything I can for the defaulters to the vestry and abide by any Church if the matter be left to my own little exceptional trouble they might thus free-will." There were many Dissenters occasion would, he thought, be a smaller who were in the habit of regarding the evil on the whole than to adopt this rate- church as part of the parish, and who paying qualification as a test of being a would not let it go down if their free-will Churchman, and to recognize Churchmen offerings could sustain it. Everyone would only from the fact of their going to the acknowledge that compulsion and provestry. Looking at the clauses in the secution in favour of religion had always Bill he thought them an improvement upon done most for the compelled and persethe House of Commons' clauses, and as to cuted. On the other hand, religion gained the first clause they were precluded now by concession, as the Church would do in from discussing it. Upon the whole, the this instance. It was a concession on the Bill was, in his opinion, much improved; part of the Church. He did not think and instead of launching into an unknown Dissenters had a right to complain as sea and creating new arrangements and against the Church, for they were taxed new machinery, the measure did the mini- by the majority, and it was by a majority mum of mischief, for it left the whole that taxation must always be be imposed. Church system, which had been in prac. He hoped that the same change that had tice for centuries, quite unimpaired. occurred upon this question would occur upon others, and that their Lordships would upon them exhibit the same readiness to accept the opinions of their fellowsubjects that they had shown in this instance. He congratulated their Lordships upon having done their duty without offer ing an obstructive opposition to this Bill, and he believed the result would be, that which their Lordships and the Bench of Bishops especially desired, increased vene ration for the Church and increased con tributions to her funds. LORD LYVEDEN said, that when it was proposed to refer this Bill to a Select Committee he felt that there were objections to such a course on the ground of the delay which it would entail; but he was bound now to acknowledge that this delay had been useful, and that the consideration bestowed upon the Bill in the Committee had effected great improvement on it as it originally stood. He could not understand how any Bill could more effectually abolish compulsory church rates than this did; and for that reason he was glad to observe the spirit in which it had been received and discussed by many noble Lords, and particularly by those who sat on the Episcopal Benches. If their Lordships had passed the Bill as it came up from the other House they would have got rid of Church rates, but they would also have established a system so complicated that it would have occasioned as much offence to Dissenters as the existing law. He was glad to compare the altered tone of many of their Lordships now with that manifested when he brought forward a Bill in 1864. He was then met by cries of "No surrender!" and "The Church in danger!" which had not been raised on the present occasion. The attitude of many noble Lords was completely changed, and he could not help thinking that the tone adopted by the right rev. and most rev. Prelates, as well as by the noble and learned THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, I cannot admit that the alternative to concession in this case is persecution. I believe there was no persecution whatever on the part of the Church. Church rates were a legal tax upon property, and persons who held it bought it or inherited it subject to the payment of them. It was therefore no more persecution in asking persons to pay them, and they were no more victims of persecution if compelled to pay, than was the ordinary householder who had to submit to periodical visits from the tax collectors. A person who dislikes paying a tax always feels persecuted if he is made to pay. I do not think a bystander will readily admit that a man who refuses his assessed taxes is a virtuous object of pity for being made to pay them. But that is not now the question. It is admitted that the compulsory payment of church rates is to be given up, nd the question before us is the Bill. Although Considerable improvements have been made in it, especially in its earlier portions, I confess I think that in one or two of its principal provisions it has been seriously injured, and I shall feel bound to propose Amendments upon the Report. First, as to the question concerning the settling of future rates by those who have not paid the last. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seemed to think that it would be a provocation to Dissenters to go and object to a voluntary church rate being made if those who have not paid the rates would not be parties to settling the way in which a new voluntary rate should be made. The Bill that contained that clause was a compromise and a compact between the Dissenters and the House of Commons and the representatives of the Church of England there. It was most thoroughly considered by the Dissenting Members of the House of Commons, who, I must say, in this matter seem to have kept faith in the most praiseworthy manner with those who had the management of this Bill, and they agreed that it was a clause to which Dissenters had not any right to object. Neither do I think it is possible to say they have. Any person can come again into the voluntary church rate vestry by paying his own share of the rate for the year past; he does not lose any right; it is not that he must pay it now or never. At any time he can join that body which settles whether there shall or shall not be a voluntary rate by paying a subscription equal to the amount of the last rate. The main objection always taken to church rates has been the compulsion and not the amount. Those who objected to pay them have often said they would willingly give double the amount as a free gift, but they objected to the power to compel them to pay anything. That is entirely taken away by the Bill, and therefore there is no temptation to come the first time and object to the starting of the machinery. On the contrary, their representatives in Parliament have agreed to start it, and I think the probability is that, receiving this as a sacrifice on the part of the Church, and gratified that it has given up the power of compulsion, they will be even more ready than others to start the new machinery fairly. But the objection that it is new machinery I deny, for in nineteen cases out of twenty the vestry will be precisely the same, and the rate will be made as before, with this one difference, that the payment of it cannot be enforced. The transition from the existing to the future legal state is, therefore, a simple matter. I believe the vestry will be an increasing rather than a dying away constituency, especially in country parishes, where farmers will not like to be left out. But suppose the number of payers diminishes every year you will realize a state of inanition just as you would if opponents prevented the starting of the machinery. It does seem to me it is a fundamental error in the Bill, as altered by the Select Committe, that it takes away the one thing which would work well. Whilst in the country parishes there would be very little change, how would the Bill work in the towns where the rate has been refused? If the Bill passes through Committee, I shall feel bound to move several Amendments on the Report being brought up. First of all, I shall move an Amendment to restore Clause 8 to its original shape. Then, after the clause which makes the church wardens the sole administrators, I shall propose to insert a new clause, containing a proviso that in the event of one of the churchwardens being a person who refuses to pay the rate a treasurer may be substituted in his place. I propose further to move that this Bill shall not come into force till a fortnight after Easter in next year; and also that a provision shall be inserted empowering the churchwardens to recover by legal process the various amounts which persons have promised to contribute. He thought it impossible to allow the churchwardens to incur expenses on the faith of promises and give them no remedy against the persons who failed to perform their undertakings. VISCOUNT HALIFAX thought that, owing mainly to the exertions of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the Bill had been greatly improved since it left the House of Commons. THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE said, that when the original Bill came up from the Commons he would gladly have concurred in its rejection; but both sides of the House having sanctioned its principle by consenting to the second reading, he felt it his duty to make the best of it; and acting on that conviction he had consented to sit on the Select Committee. He thought that the Bill as it had come out of the Committee was a great improvement on the original measure; but it was susceptible of further amendment; and with this view he would give Notice of an Amendment which his right rev. Brother the Bishop of London had proposed to move-the effect of which would be to set district chapelries and parishes free from all obliga. tion to contribute to the church rate-or, as it must now be called, the voluntary rate -for the service of the mother churches. Most of their Lordships were aware what a fruitful source of irritation that obligation had hitherto been. Considered as amended - Registration [190]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners [168]; Clerks of Third Reading-Land Writs Registration (Scot the Peace, &c. (Ireland) [194]. land) [111]; Burials (Ireland) * [204], and passed. The House met at Two of the clock. COUNCIL ON EDUCATION REPORT. QUESTION. MR. POWELL said, he wished to ask Motion agreed to; House in Committee the Vice President of the Committee of accordingly. Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to. Clause 9 (Power to appoint Church Trustees). THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following: "The trustees shall once at the least in every year lay before the vestry an account of their receipts and expenditure during the preceding year, and of the mode in which such receipts have been derived and expenditure incurred; together with a statement of the amount, if any, of funds remaining in their hands at the date of such account." Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 211.) House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, July 3, 1868. MINUTES.-SUPPLY-considered in Committee -CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES-Class V. Resolutions [July 2] reported-NAVY ESTIMATES. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) [210]. * * Second Reading-Indorsing of Warrants [208]; Investment of Trust Funds Supplemental [164]. Special Report of Select Committee-Petit Juries (Ireland) [No. 390]. Committee-Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market (re-comm.) [25], Adjourned Debate further adjourned; Metropolitan Police Funds [132]; Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland)* [183]; Fairs (Metropolis)* [205]. Report - Petit Juries (Ireland) [209]; Metro politan Police Funds [132]; Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland) [183]; Fairs (Metropolis) [205]. Council on Education, Whether the Reports for 1868 of (1.) Committee of Council on Education; (2.) Science and Art Department; (3.) Medical Officer of Privy Coun cil, are to be published during this Session; and, if so, when; and, whether he can assign any reason why the publication of after the Votes to which they have referthese Reports have been thus delayed until ence? LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, in reply, said, that the reason why the Report for 1868 of the Committee of Council on Education had not been published until after the Education Vote was asked for was that earlier than usual. the Vote was taken this year many weeks The Report of the Science and Art Department would be published in a few days. The Report the Medical Officer of Privy Council had been delayed in consequence of the coloured engravings, but it would shortly be in the hands of Members. ARMY-NON-COMBATANT OFFICERS. QUESTION. CAPTAIN VIVIAN said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why non-combatant Officers when appointed to mounted corps are compelled to pay ration stoppages, although they received no mounted pay? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, in reply, that it was impossible to deny that with reference to non-combatant officers, especially with respect to the medical officers, there was a great inconsistency of in their pay. Some years ago the pay the medical officers in the Army was reconsidered, and the pay of the Infantry medical officers was raised to the level of the Cavalry officers' pay, thereby leaving the Cavalry officers at some disadvantage however, constantly found that medical with respect to forage deductions. It was, officers in the Army were desirous of obtaining commissions in Cavalry regiments. MEDICO-LEGAL INQUIRIES. QUESTION. MR. CLIVE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government have determined to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to report on the mode of conducting medicolegal inquiries as to the operation of the Sanitary Laws? MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that an influential deputation had waited upon him to urge the appointment of a Royal Commission, and the subject would not be lost sight of. Some docu ments were about to be laid before the Government with a view of seeing what steps should be taken in the matter. CATTLE PLAGUE-RINDERPEST IN AUSTRIA.-QUESTION. MR. MOFFATT said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House what course has been adopted by the Austrian Government for preventing the introduction of rinderpest from Hungary or Galicia into Austria? Ridings, with divisions in them, and two assizes. It would not be necessary, he thought, to appoint a Sheriff for each Riding. It would be sufficient to have a Sheriff for the West Riding, to attend the assizes at Leeds, and another for the East and North Ridings, who should attend the assizes at York. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. QUESTION. MR. OTWAY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the state of Public Business, and the period of the Session, he would object to substitute a measure havCouncil in this Country is concerned, ing a temporary effect so far as the Indian for the proposed Government of India Amendment Bill? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, there would be four vacancies would be great difficulty in inducing genin the Council of India this year, and there tlemen to accept the office, unless they knew the nature of the tenure by which they would hold their offices, and the The amount of their salaries. The Govern. ment of India Amendment Bill only conLORD STANLEY said, he regretted through Committee. tained six clauses. The 1st had passed that he was not in a position to answer and 6th there was no objection. To the 3rd, 5th, the Question of the hon. Member satis- 4th related to the appointment of the factorily. A Bill had passed the Lower House of the Austrian Legislature to Governor General's Council in India, which prevent the introduction of the cattle might give rise to some discussion, and he plague, but he had not seen a copy of proposed to withdraw it from the Bill and transfer it to the Governor General of India it. He had, however, written to Vienna Bill. The last clause referred to the salaat the request of the Privy Council Office ries of future Members of the Council. to obtain a copy, which he hoped to receive The Bill stood for Committee that day, in a few days. and if he was allowed to pass it through Committee at the unopposed hour hon. Members might move any new clauses on the Report, and the field of discussion would thus be much narrowed. SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK. QUESTION. VISCOUNT MILTON said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he sees any objection to the appointment of a High Sheriff for each of the Ridings of the county of York-namely, one for the East, one for the West, and one for the North Riding, and, if he does see any difficulty or objections, if he will state the same to the House? MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, in reply, that he had already stated his opinion that it was a very objectionable state of things that any one High Sheriff should have elections to conduct for the three VOL. CXCIII. [THIRD SERIES.] Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed. Cattle Plague into this Country from abroad, all | principle from which I do not dissentforeign cattle and other animals imported into that all legislation upon this matter should the Port of London shall be landed at one pre- be of a general and comprehensive claes. scribed spot, and shall not be removed thence alive, ought not to be considered apart from the Well, is it not so up to this point? Why general policy of imposing legal restrictions on this is the view I have always held, and the foreign cattle trade in other ports of the which I advocated last year in this House. United Kingdom,”—(Mr. Milner Gibson,) Let us look back. In pursuance of this -instead thereof. principle, I urged the adoption of the slaughter clause at all the ports, which by an act of Privy Council was carried out. In accordance with this principle the restrictions then existing upon the home traffic was relaxed, to the immediate benefit of the consumers of meat. The separation of the metropolitan market was urged to the same effect, and this again to be followed by other measures of a consistent class. But the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with this, and he wants legislation of a more comprehensive class, not consecutive measures such as this. Now, our differences begin at that point. Does he really think that we could carry such a measure as this, and can he really throw much blame upon Government for this? The right hon. Member was part of an Administration once; and what took place? A few years since our cattle were dying by scores; meat at famine price; farmers at their wits' end; consumers unconsuming; and what took place? If my memory serves me Her Majesty's Government preserved a most majestic attitude, but they did not move in the least. It was a vindication of a great policy, a policy which had a French name. Is this the policy the right hon. Member admires? He did not explain himself quite fully upon that point. The laissez faire did not cure the plague nevertheless. I will not impute it as a fault, for it is, and must be, as far as I can see, a characteristic of the legislation of this House, and Government, such as ours, cannot move until public opinion is expressed. In this then the right hon. Gentleman has blamed the action of the Government, rashly as I think; and there is some heedless rhetoric even on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman may see the errors of that course, but that he himself would take such prompt and decisive measures is what, from these antecedents, I should not expect. But, if such be the case, what next? What is the next step upon our path? A separate market we think. I leave the question of the absolute slaugh ter apart, and whether this should be discontinued or not. The necessity is cer tainly very great. Without it no effectual MR. CORRANCE*: During the long and able address of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson), he referred to me as one partially responsible for the Bill which is now before the House. He has some right to do so, I admit; for on several occasions I have both urged its adoption, and advocated the principle upon which it rests. At the commencement of this Session I expressed my satisfaction at its introduction, in a paragraph in the Queen's Speech. Upon Committee I have given its main provisions my support, both personally and as President of one of those Chambers to which he alludes, he asks me to show cause for this in my place. As far as my humble powers go, he shall have no cause to complain of my reticence in such respect. Nevertheless, in re-opening a debate of so much importance, there are some considerations which press upon me with unusual weight. It seems to me that I have undertaken too much, at least if it is held necessary that I should follow in detail all the arguments the hou. Member has put forth. The ground he covered was immense- -Spain, France, Portugal, Denmark and Barking Creek, with accompanying statistics, facts and figures appropriate to each. The right hon. Member for the City of London tells us that a lengthy statement must be answered at length. Why then I pity the House; but, as far as I am concerned, let the House be re-assured my remarks on each topic shall be brief. I shall impose limits on myself. I will not go to Spain or Portugal, or Denmark, or Barking Creek. I will not go into the details of this Bill, nor follow my right hon. Friend into the technical objections he takes. I leave this to more able hands than myself. It is always more pleasant to agree than to differ with my right hon. Friend, and I do agree with him up to a certain point. What is the nature of the Amendment he makes? He affirms a |