The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-15 00:00:00

TRADES UNIONS.

Mr. MELLY asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department whether he proposed to bring forward the
promised measure for the regulation of trades unions
during the present session ; or, if not, whether he intended
to bring in a bill extending the operation of the 32 and 33
Viet., c. 61, being an Act to Protect the Funds of Trades
Unions from Embezzlement and Misappropriation, and
which expires on the 31st August next.

Mr. BRUCE said if he should be unable to introduce the
bill during the present session, it would be his duty to
move an extension of the act referred to.
BEVERLEY COMMISSION.
Mr. BOURKE asked the Attorney-General whether he
had any objection to produce the interim reports of the
Beverley Commissioners, to which he had alluded in the
House.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had only spoken of one
report, and there would be na objection to lay a copy of
that on the table.
FLOGGING IN DURHAM GAOL.

Mr. PEASE a,slzed the Secretary of State for the Home
Department if his attention had been called to the case
of George Maw, a prisoner in Durham County Gaol, who
whilst undergoing a term of fourteen days' imprisonment
for assault was, on the 30th of April last, flogged for an
alleged assault upon the officers of the prison.

Mr. BRUCE said no official information had been received
on the matter, but he had directed inquiry to be made.

THE WINE DUTIES.
Mr. BASS asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether the expression attributed to him " supposing the
Wine Duties to be reduced, which is:very likely," had been
correctly attributed.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the expression had been ascribed
to him through error. He never used the words that the
wine duties were likely to be reduced, nor had he given any
opinion on the subject. It was desirable that the contra-
diction should go forth, as great mischief might follow
such a statement.

REVISION OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF

THE BIBLE.

Mr. BUXTON moved that an humble address be
presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be
graciously pleased to invite the President of the United
States to concur with her Majesty in appointing commis-
sioners to revise the authorised version of the Bible.
He argued that although the matter had been taken
in hand very promptly by Convocation, yet that body had
no legal or legitimate right to act on behalf of the
Established Church or the nation. The work ought, in
his opinion, to be taken up by Her Majesty's Government.
The opinion was widely held that Convocation was not
the body to which the enterprise ought to be entrusted, al-
though he admitted that it had shewn a liberal spirit
far beyond what might have been expected. At the same
time the work of revision did not belong to any one party
or nation, but it concerned the whole English speaking
race throughout the world. Speaking in reference to the
composition of the Committee of Convocation appointed
to conduct the work, he said that the clergymen of the
NorthernProvince,forming a large proportion of the Church
of England had been excluded owing to an unfortunate
misunderstanding between the two Convocations. He
also pointed out that in Scotland great disappointment
was felt that a selection had not been made of Scotch
scholars. The question was whether they intended to
regard Convocation as the representative and governing
body of the Church of • England. He held that it was a
usurpation of power on the part of Convocation to put
itself forward in that character, and remarked that since
the Reformation it had had no legal right to act as the
representative and governing body of the Church. He
referred to the exclusively priestly character of Convoca-
tion, the laity being entirely excluded. It had been said
that the matter was not so ripe that it was desirable it
should be taken in hand as a national under-
. taking, but the fact was that the case W 94,9 as
strong as it could be. The hon. gentleman
then alluded to the prodigious strides which scholarships
in England had made during the last fifty years, and to
the recognition of the errors of the authorised version,
The hon. gentleman also called attention to the sources of
errors in the Bible. It was admitted, he said, that the
authorised version gave a distorted image of the original
Scripture, and the question was whether they preferred
the false translations, or would have the Scriptures
as originally written. He noticed the objections which
had been raised to a revision of the authorised version.
He trusted that a translation might bemade which should
contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, and free from every blemish presented to the Eng-
lish speaking nations throughout the world, so that there
should no longer be anything to mar the beauty of the
Bible or its force.
Mr. P. WYNDHAM seconded the motion. He believed
that the work if undertaken either by a Royal Commis-
sion or Convocation, would end in disappointment. It
might be true that these men would act under criticism,
but the question was, where would criticism be brought to
bear? The initiation of so great a work should come from
the highest power in the kingdom, namely, the Crown.
The authorised version, he remarked, was not the pro-

perty of the Church of England, but of the country at
large.

Mr. GLADSTONE reviewed the speech of Mr. Buxton,
and alluded to the hon. gentleman's remarks about the
power of Convocation. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed that
the character of Convocation wholly lay beyond the scope of
the present discussion. If Convocation, being simply
what it was, composed simply of bishops and a number
of the leading clergy of the southern portion of the
island, thought fit to acquire public authority by the dis-
charge of useful labours on the part of the Church, he did
not think any one would grudge them authority of that
kind, however much they might be disposed to contest
any claim to authority in a a more precise and
rigid sense. With regard to expense, he said he
did not think the expense should be borne by the public
purse. If the Government were to ask for a vote in com-
mittee of supply, it might tend to prejudice the work,
and under certain contingencies the vote might become a
subject of painful discussion, such as they had always
witnessed, and the number of which it had been attempted
to reduce. The hon. member thought it would be best
that the work should be initiated by the public and civil
authorities. The Government, on the contrary, were of
opinion that it would be most safely, most satisfac-
torily, and most effectually initiated by those efforts which
could not pretend to public authority. They believed
that it would be a wise course to allow persons who were
willing to go to work in that very important field of labour,
to produce their results, which results ought to be
subject to the action of public opinion.
Mr. Scourfield, Mr. Henley, Mr. R. N. Fowler, Mr,
Beresford-Hope, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Macfie, and Mr.
Newdegate having addressed the House, Mr. Buxton
briefly replied to certain observations, and withdrew his
motion.