facts of Mr. Bignold's case, and propose a clause on the subject. Mr. Bignold stated that he was not, and never had been, a voter for the city of Norwich; but his name was included in the Schedule, and that he would then be prevented from ever becoming a voter for the city. Mr. Bignold admitted that he was engaged in the transaction mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners, and which led to his name being put in the Schedule, together with those of Mr. Stracey and Mr. Allen. But when it became the duty of the Attorney General to institute prosecutions there was no evidence sufficient to proceed upon against Mr. Bignold. There was evidence against Mr. Stracey; he was put upon his trial and acquitted. In consequence of the acquittal a clause had been introduced into the Bill exempting Mr. Stracey from its operation; and Mr. Bignold felt that it was hard that Mr. Stracey, against whom there was a certain amount of evidence, should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, whereas, his (Mr. Bignold's) name was retained in the Schedule. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the facts on which the Bill was founded were simply these In February, 1869, Mr. Baron Martin, after trying an Election Petition, reported pursuant to the Act, that bribery had extensively prevailed among certain persons at the Norwich election, though he acquitted the candidates of all complicity in it. A Commission was subsequently issued, which reported, last February, and they added to the Report a Schedule of three distinct classes of offenders-46 persons were reported as bribers, 119 as bribed, and 50 as guilty of treating. The Bill provided that these persons should not hereafter have a right to vote at any future election for Norwich; but a second clause enacted that any person against whom criminal proceedings had been instituted by the Attorney General should not be so disqualified unless and until he were adjudged guilty. He would not, at present, enter into the question raised by his noble and learned Friend. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next. Lord Cairns IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869) AMEND- (The Lord Redesdale). SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. LORD REDESDALE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that this measure had been some time before their Lordships, and that, being simple, reasonable, and just, he could see no possible objection to it. Under the Act of last Session the Irish Church continued an Establishment until the 1st of January next, and it was provided that the proceeds of any preferment which might in the interim become vacant should be left in the hands of the Commissioners, and that those proceeds should be paid up to that date to any person who might be appointed to such benefice. No provision, however, was made for the case of a vacancy which might not be filled up, and the proceeds of such a preferment would, therefore, remain in the hands of the Commissioners, and swell the General Fund. Now, the provision securing payment of the income to any person appointed before disestablishment was a manifest admission that the income during that period belonged to the Church; and it was only just that if a benefice was kept open it should be paid to the Church Body, constituted for the purpose of taking charge of the temporalities of the Church. To correct this no doubt unintentional oversight was the object of his Bill, and the correction to be of any good must be made this year. It did not disturb the principle of the Act; and the Church Convention, while declining to recommend the proceeding with other suggested amendments of the Act, deeming it expedient to moot the subject of a general Amending Bill, had resolved that it would be for the benefit of the Church if this measure were carried. Moved, 2."-(The Lord Redesdale.) "That the Bill be now read EARL GRANVILLE hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion. It was somewhat difficult, even in answering the noble Lord to avoid saying things which, in all probability, would provoke the expression of a different opinion from other quarters. It was most un. desirable, unless urgent necessity ex-vide for a contingency which, after all, isted, to enter on the delicate questions might not occur. The arrangement, connected with the Irish Church. Con- moreover, was not that Parliament set sidering how infinitesimal the advantage to the Church would be from this proposal, he was sure their Lordships would not think it desirable to send it down to the House of Commons with the chance of exciting all kinds of angry feeling. The patrons had power to fill up vacancies if they thought proper, and in a matter of a very few hundred pounds it was unadvisable to re-open the question. If some great flaw or serious hardship had existed the Government would have fairly considered it. aside these particular benefices and left them untouched till the 1st of January; but that as soon as any vacancy arose the income merged into the general fund, the Commissioners being directed to provide adequate payment for any person appointed to fill it up to that date. The intention evidently was that vacancies should be filled up. He hoped his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) would not call on the House to divide on such a question, for votes might be greatly misunderstood, and those unable to support the Bill might be unfairly represented as hostile to the Church. THE EARL OF LONGFORD said, the speech of the noble Earl reminded him of the virtuous indignation of the man THE LORD CHANCELLOR remarked who cut off his eldest son with 18. and that the provision as to paying incumdesired that his name should never be bents up to the 1st of January was inmentioned to him again. He would serted with a view to respecting vested rather the noble Lord had introduced a interests, even down to the last moment. Bill for the entire repeal of the Act Compensation was fully intended; but which unfortunately passed last year; there was a strong feeling among many but he was willing to support this mea-supporters of the Bill against anything sure, such as it was, having been a in the shape of future endowment. In member of the Convention which ap- endeavouring to convert compensation proved it. into endowment the noble Lord would be departing from the principle of the Act. LORD REDESDALE said, he was not disposed to withdraw the Bill, for he thought it was important to show who were prepared to deal fairly with the Irish Church and who were not. No doubt it was a small matter; but with regard to the endowments of the Church very small matters were of great importance. Where any living fell vacant before 1871 the gain from commutation was lost, and therefore the only way of commencing an endowment was that the income should go to the Church. LORD REDESDALE insisted that he was not disturbing the principle of the Act. It would, of course, be useless for him to divide if he had not the support of noble Lords behind him; but he regretted the reception the Bill had met with. Motion and Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn. APPOINTMENT OF LANCASHIRE MA- LORD CAIRNS said, he would be glad to support anything which would add to the resources of a Church which THE EARL OF DEVON asked the would not be very largely endowed; but Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he could not quite understand what the Whether any change has recently taken practical evil was which called for this place in the mode of appointment to the Bill. He was not aware that any va- Commission of the Peace in the County cancy had occurred which had not been of Lancaster; and, if so, the nature of filled up so that the matter was one such change? He understood that an affecting less than eight months. A alteration had been made, by which, in bishopric had become vacant and had future, appointments to the Commission been filled up; and if a person were of the Peace would emanate, as in other appointed to any vacant preferment he counties, from the Lord Lieutenant, inwould be paid by the Commissioners. stead of, as hitherto, from the Chancellor He agreed with the noble Earl opposite of the Duchy. He hoped that such a (Earl Granville) that unless some crying change had been made, for the Lord evil could be shown, it was undesirable Lieutenant was the best judge of the to re-open the question in order to pro- qualifications of persons for the magis tracy, while the Chancellor frequently possessed no local knowledge. LORD DUFFERIN stated that from the 1st of May the appointments had been, and would continue to be, made by the Chancellor of the Duchy on the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant, instead of directly by the Chancellor. This was but reverting to the old practice; which, he believed, was altered on account of some misunderstanding between the Lord Lieutenant and Chancellor of the day. He was glad the measure had the approval of the noble Earl, whose experience of the Duchy rendered his opinion of double value. The Lord Lieutenant did not change with every change of Government; he was superior to party influences, and, from his local knowledge, was a much better judge than the Chancellor as to what persons were qualified for the Commis sion of the Peace. COLONEL BERESFORD said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it be the case that the two ships the "Active" and "Volage "have been constructed of iron and have been covered with wood merely to enable copper sheathing to be used, involving an additional cost of about from £6 to £7 per ton ? MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the Volage and Active are corvette frigates built for great speed. They have iron frames and are plated with thin iron, with The Earl of Devon wooden casing, and are copper sheathed. If they had had no wooden casing the iron plating must have been thicker, and more expensively fastened, and the difference in cost would have been, not £6 to £7 a ton, as suggested by the hon. Member, but £2 to £3 a ton. On the other hand, they could not have been copper sheathed, and not only would have constantly lost speed by fouling, but would have annually cost more for docking and cleaning. NAVY-PRIVATE FIRMS AND THE ROYAL DOCKYARDS.—QUESTION. SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, What are the reasons for the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, on Friday last— "That it was not advisable that a private firm should have the use of portions of the Royal Dockyard for the purpose of breaking up two ships for which they had made offers;" and, whether, had that offer been accepted, it would not have been the means of giving employment to many men who have been discharged without compensation or employment? MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I am a good deal surprised at the Question of the hon. Member. I will undertake to say-and I am not without reason for so saying— that if we had admitted workmen employed by private persons to work in the dockyard he would, I have little doubt, been the first to object. However, as he has asked the Question, I may say that the reasons against such a course are obvious. It would be most difficult to maintain the discipline and business of a dockyard if a large number of workmen were employed in it by private persons not under the control of the Government, and it would have led to questions about hours, wages, and discipline which would have been very inconvenient. It is quite impossible to give any reply to the second Question. Whether the two ships were broken up inside or outside, the dockyard labour would be employed, and I have no means of knowing in either case how many labourers might have been formerly in the dockyard. SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE said, he wished to ask why the Admiralty did not break up the ships themselves? LICENCE ON FARM HORSES. QUESTION. MR. CHILDERS: It is quite impos- be said in all fairness to be kept for the sible to answer such a Question off hand. purpose of agriculture, and he does not Ships are broken up in the dockyards forfeit his exemption. We must make as well as by contract; but the extent of some rule. It is manifest that we canwork at each place or time is a matter of not enforce a forfeiture of exemption careful arrangement. merely because a man drives his wife and children to church upon a rainy Sunday; and, if so, the principle seems to me to be that gratuitous action cannot be said to influence the purpose for which driver makes money by the use of his the horse is kept. The moment the any other than in agriculture, then he forfeits his exemption. North of Scotland great discontent had MR. M. T. BASS said, that in the the mode in which this tax had been existed for some time in consequence of exacted for horses which had been used for carrying families to church. It was regarded as a tax upon church-going. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to state whether that would longer be insisted on. MR. HANBURY TRACY said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the circumstance that sixty-one Farmers, who were carting materials gratuitously for the rebuilding of the Trefeglwys Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Chapel, have been forced by the Excise Office to take out Licences for their Horses, amounting in all to £30 108., and that the Building Fund of the Chapel has had to recoup to them that amount; and, whether Farmers are liable for Horse Duty when gratuitously carting materials for building and repairing churches, chapels, and schools; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps for altering the Law in this respect? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My answer, Sir, to the first Question of my hon. Friend must be in the affirmative. My attention has been called to it by my hon. Friend himself. But my answer is, that, in my judgment, the Excise officers were in error if they made such a charge. I think we must put a reasonable construction upon this Act. The Act says that the exemption is-" for horses kept solely for use in agriculture." It does not say solely used in agriculture. Therefore, the criterion is not the use that is made of the horse exactly, but the purpose for which it is kept; and the use is valuable as determining whether the duty ought to be charged or not only as it throws light upon what purpose the horse is kept for. The principle I have always insisted upon, and which I hope the Inland Revenue will take notice of and act on as far as they can, is, that the distinction we ought to make is, whether the use of the horse other than for agricultural purposes be a gratuitous use or otherwise. If a farmer makes money by it; if he lets out his horse to hire for any purpose, carting stones to a chapel, or for mending a road, I think he forfeits his exemption. But if he does the work gratuitously I think the horse may still horse in way THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER: The question is not whether it is church-going, but whether the service is gratuitous. A horse employed in carrying the owner's family to church comes, of course, within the exemption. ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES.) RESOLUTION. MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence and forbearance of the House, I have now, as shortly as the nature of the subject will admit, to call their attention to the state of the Established Church in the Principality of Wales, and to move, for the consideration of the House, Resolutions to the effect that it is right and just that the Church Establishment in the Principality should, as such, cease to exist; that its union with the State should be put an end to; and that the endowments at present enjoyed by the Establishment should be appropriated to the advancement of secular education in the Principality. Sir, this country has quite recently passed through a storm, and I may even say a tempest, upon the subject of disestablishment in connection with the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland; and we are at present, I think I may say without misrepresentation, in the proverbial state of calm, almost amounting to apathy, which follows a storm; and it has appeared to me, I hope not wrongly, that this is a fitting opportunity to call the attention what is the reason why the Church Esof the House to the subject of the Es-tablishment in the Principality of Wales tablished Church in the Principality of has not won the confidence of the people? Wales, and for this reason that it can will naturally give us the solution of be done and I hope, so far as I am the problem which I propose to put concerned, that course will be followed before the House. For upon the true -without appealing to angry feelings answer to that question will it depend or passions; and it may be considered whether the remedy for the existing in that calm and dispassionate manner state of things is a separation of the which becomes so grave a subject. The Church from the State, and a reChurch Establishment in the Princi- moval of its endowments to other purpality of Wales is comprised in, al- poses, or a remodelling of the Establishthough it is not precisely co-extensive ment, with an endeavour to constitute it with, the four dioceses of St. Asaph, upon a different and more practical Bangor, St. David's, and Llandaff. It basis. Sir, after an anxious and careful extends over an area of 4,734,000 acres. study of this subject for some years, I The population of Wales, according to have myself come to the conclusion that the Census of 1861, within these dioceses, the true reason why the Established was 1,111,780; and according to an es- Church in the Principality of Wales has timate, which is the best I can form, been a failure, is to be found in the same the population at the present time is cause that not only in Great Britain, 1,220,000. The total revenue of this but, in fact, throughout all Europe is Church, according to the best estimate undermining State Establishments of I can make of it, is £350,000 per an- religion everywhere. The feeling is num. It has four Bishops, four deans, everywhere gaining ground that Estab13 canons residentiary, 10 archdeacons, lishments of religion by the State are and numerous minor dignitaries. The both unscriptural and injurious to the parochial clergy, as I calculated from the cause of true religion, and that, as De Clergy List of this year, amount in Tocqueville wrote 30 years ago, State round numbers to 1,000; although I religions, if they are sometimes of mofind that some authorities-I cannot as-mentary service to the interests of policertain where the discrepancy arises-tical power, always become, sooner or put the number down at 733. The later, fatal to the Church. In dealing with Church Establishment in the Principality of Wales is an ancient and venerable institution. It is not like the Church in Ireland, an alien Church forced upon the people by a conqueror and by an oppressor. It is not, I think I am right in saying, regarded by the people with any feelings of hostility. Indeed, in many cases, it is regarded with affection and veneration. If, therefore, as I believe I shall be able to show is the case, the Church established in Wales has not succeeded in gaining the affection and confidence of the people, if it is not trusted as a teacher of religion, the question naturally arises-What is the cause of this failure? It cannot be from want of opportunity-it has not been, in fact, from want of the most favourable opportunity; it has not been It can neither hold nor does because the Church has been regarded it hold property. The Church of Engwith the hostility which was felt towards land is a general term representing the the Church in Ireland. The question, body of people belonging to the Church of course, is a most serious one- -What and the various corporations in whom is the cause? And I think I am putting the property enjoyed by the Church is the matter with perfect fairness when I vested. In that sense it is true there is say that the answer to that question-no Welsh Church. For myself I see Mr. Watkin Williams this question I am met, before proceeding to consider its merits, with a technical difficulty; and I propose to consider that in the first instance, before I go to what I may call the merits of the question. It is said, even assuming this to be a right course to take, how can you disestablish the Church in Wales, as there is no such thing as 'the Welsh Church"; no such corporation as 'the Welsh Church?" Well, in one sense, that is true enough. There is no such corporation; in fact, there is no such corporation as the Church of England. The Church of England consists only of the Church body and a number of corporations in whom the property is vested. The Church of England has no legal entity as such, and can neither sue nor be sued. |