The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-26 00:00:00

ORANGE PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND.

passed.

Mr MAGUIItE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland,
if it be true that a large body of persons, styling themselves
and known as Orangemen, and amounting to at least one
thousand in number, marched in procession into the town
of Cookstown, county Tyrone, on the evening of the 15th
instant, accompanied by drums and fifes, and playing party
tunes.

Mr. CAItDWELL said he had received no official ac-
count of any such outrage as that alluded to having taken
place at Cookstown, but he understood that some disturb-
ances similar in character had occurred in the neighbour-
hood. However, steps had been adopted to preserve the
peace, and from the report ho had received from the local
magistrate and the constabulary there was every reason to
believe that such arrangements had been made as to render
the recurrence of such outrages in future more improbable.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SALA-
RIES, &c.)

On the report of the committee on this subject being
brought up,
Sir IL WILLOUGHBY moved as an amendment to the
resolution of the committee that the word " compensations"
should be omitted. The amount of compensation money
charged on the Consolidated Fund of late years was most
excessive, and very unjust in its operation on the tax-
payers. As regarded Chancery, in the year 1856 there
was no less than £92,000 paid in compensation to
the officers connected with that branch of the
law courts, and with reference to bankruptcy there was
paid in compensation more than £20,000.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Attorney-General if it
was intended to fill up the vacancy amongst the com-
missioners in bankruptcy caused by the death of Mr. Com-
missioner Murphy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not in-
tended to fill up the vacancy in question, but arrangements
had been made for the business of the court being trans-
acted until such time as the bill to be founded on the reso-
lutiois of the committee was passed. With regard
to the question of compensation, there was no doubt the
amount already granted was very large. However, it was
not proposed to create any new compensations, but merely
to discharge those granted in 1836. When the alteration was
made in the bankruptcy law, it was expected that there would
be a large increase in the amount of business transacted in
the bankruptcy courts, but that expectation had been dis-
appointed, as the public were not satisfied with these
courts, and the business decreased from year to year.
Mr. BARROW supported the views of Sir H. Wil-
loughby.
Colonel FRENCH called on the country gentlemen pre-
sent not to vote for this measure, which deeply affected
their interests, and was one of the most monstrous bills
ever introduced.

The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment lll
Against
Majority —l3
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that this bill was
founded on the resolution which -the house, by their vote,
had set aside, and therefore he felt bound to postpone the
bill. (" Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.")
Mr. MALINS said that from questions which ht;d been
asked him, it was evident that several hon members were
not acquainted with the subject on which they had just
voted. The proposed bill did credit to the Government,
but he thought when hon. members took on themselves
the responsibility they did by their recent vote, that the
Government was perfectly right in declining to legislate
on the subject.
Mr. BRIGHT recommended the right hon. gentleman
the Attorney-General to reconsider his decision, and allow
a day to elapse before he decided on postponing the bill,
which was very favourably regarded by the mercantile
community. At the same time, however, it was considered
that it was proposed to create new compensations, and that
the amount was too large.
Mr. BOUVERI LS, as ore of those members who had
voted in favour of the amendment, defended his conduct.

Mr. MOWBRAY also vindicated his conduct.

After s me further discussion on the order of the day for
the house goitig into committee on the bill, the debate was
adjourned until Thursday next.
EXCISE AND ASSESSED TAXES ACT.

The, house resolved itself into committee on this bill.
Mr. LAING moved the nov resolutions on the game
certificates.

Mr. CAIRD moved an amendment, to the effect that the
words "conies" and "cony" be omitted from the resolu-
tions.

After some discussion,

Mr. LAING said that it would be necessary to have an
Act of Parliament to give validity to these resolutions, so
that ho trusted they would not be opposed. He explained
that the object of the Government was merely ti,,ancial,
and he defended the resolutions as being calculated to work
beneficially, and increase to some email extent the revenue.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said that as he understood the reso-
lutions, their object was to protect the rights of landowners,
who were not deprived by them of the power to allow any
persons to kill rabbits on their lands.
Some discussion ensued, in the course of which

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no intention to alter the law as regarded rabbits, as
would be seen when the bill founded on the resolutions was
introduced.

Ultimately the resolutions were agreed to.
AN;TRUTHER UNION HARBOUR BILL.

On the order of the day that the amendments in this bill
be considered.

➢lr. BLACKBURN said tk.e port of Anstruthcr was so
small and insignificant that in one week only one vessel
entered it, and that was a coal vessel of 50 tons burden.

It was proposed to lend £20,000 on this harbour, which
would be a waste of public m hey. He moved that the six-
teenth clause which gave power to grant this public money
be; struck out of the bill.

Mr. LAING said it was unfortunate that the hon. mem-
ber was not present during the two somewhat lengthy dis •
cussions they had had on this bill. If he had been he
would have heard it fully explained that there was in fact
no advance of public money. The object of the bill was to
enable the commissioners of the port of Anstruther to im-
pose certain rates and tolls, and the Exchequer Loan Com-
missioners were empowered to lend a certain sum of money
on security of those rates and tolls. The other portion of
the money consisted of a sum advanced by the Fishery
Board of Scotland out of a grant of £3,000 a year from par •
liament, which
.had been given ever since the reign of
George 111. So far from the port of Anstruther being in-
significant, there were 400 fishing boats, carrying on an
average six persons each, who fished off the coast of Fife, to
whom this harbour would be of the greatest use.
Mr. STEUART supported the motion. He said he had
received a statement from certain inhabitants of the Cupar
burghs, constituents of the hon. member for St. Andrews,
who denied his statement that they were willing to tax
themselves for the improvement of this harbour. No doubt
if the Exchequer Loan Commissioners advanced any money
on this project the money wou'd be lost. .
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the house ought to be much
obliged to the two hon. gentlemen opposite for calling at-
tention to this matter, whilch was evidently a gross job.
He hoped the house would not sanction a bill putting any
such charge on the public revenue.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., defended the bill, which he said
was requisite to enable the parties who were to borrow this
money to transfer, as security for it, the municipal funds
which they held in trust. There were about 400 boats em-
ployed in the fishery at that place, and from the want of
protection on the coast they were exposed to the greatest
danger whenever they went out to sea, and every winter
there was a lamentable loss of life. It was to provide
against this that memorials bad repeatedly been presented
to the Treasury and Admiralty Boards for such moderate
assistance as would be afforded by the present bill.
The house then divided on the question whether clause
16, the omission of which had been moved, should form
part of the bill—
For the clause 142
Against it
Majority —7s

The bill, with its other amendments, was therefore con-
sidered and agreed to, and the third reading fixed for this
day.

The Tithe Commutation Bill was read a third time, and

SPIRITS BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and the seve
ral clauses were agreed to up to the 23d, upon which

Mr. CRAUFURD called the attention of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to the propriety of allowing the distillers
of British spirits a drawback of the import duty on foreign
grain employed for distillation, a similar privilege having
been admitted in the case of molasses. The duty was only
is. a quarter ; but foreign grain was used by distillers to a
very large extent, and after what had been said about it
when the duty on foreign spirits was fixed, he hoped this
boon would be granted to them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
quite correct that when the details of the import duty to
be imposed on foreign spirits were under the consideration
of the house, the question was raised, at the desire of the
distillers, who wished to have a drawback or compensation
allowed thorn for the duty they paid on foreign grain. It

had been found, however, that there would be considerable
difficulty in distinguishing between other foreign grain and
the foreign grain intended for that purpose ; and as the ob-
ject to be gained by it, in the interest of the distillers, was
but a very small one, he thought the question, as regarded
them, had been substantially disposed of by the other al-
lowancei which had been made, and the advantages granted
to the distiller of British spirits.
The remainder of the bill was agreed to, and the house
resumed.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY (No. 2) BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
object of this bill was to confer certain powers respecting
the amendment of the statutes relating to professorships,
similar to the powers which had been granted to the Uni-
versity of Cambridge. It had received the sanction of the
authorities at Oxford.

The bill was read a second time.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
(IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. HENNESSY expressed a hope that the bill would
not be proceeded with at that moment, especially as no copy
of the bill had yet reached Ireland. It had been under-
stood that it was confined to England, and there was the
greatest objection in Ireland to its extension to that country.
Mr. M'CANN had heard of no objection to the bill ex•
cept from the Alliance, and he thought it would be an ex-
cellent measure to extend it to Ireland.

Mr. MAGUIRE had certainly understood that it was not
to be extended to Ireland, and he thought it would be as
well to try the experiment first in England.

Col. DUNNE had also understood that the bill was to
be confined to England ; but he must confess that he had
never put much trust in that statement, for he knew that
towards the end of the session, when many Irish members
were out of town, a bill was sure to be brought in for its
extension.

Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
aware of the existence of any great aversion to the bill in
Ireland, and denied that any pledge had been given that it
should not be extended to the whole of the United King-
dom. As regarded Scotland there might indeed have been
some reason for not immediately proceeding with a bill for
that purpose, inasmuch as a commission was sitting on the
subject of public-houses ; but that re won no longer existed,
as the commissioners had reported in fav our of the measure,
and their report would be almost immediately accessible to
hon. members. As for the statement of the gallant colonel,
that the Government had given a pledge but that he knew
they would break it, he really thought that the gallant
member ought to be a little more supported by facts before
he gave himself credit for such foresight.
Mr. BRADY hoped that the laws of Ireland would be
assimilated to those of England as regarded the sale of
liquor, for at present no one could obtain refreshments in
the former country before nine in the morning.
Mr. WMATION hoped that, at all events, a delay of a
week or ten days would be allowed before the committal of
the bill, so that Irish members might have an opportunity
of making themselves acquainted with the feelings of their
constituents on the subject.
Mr. SULLIVAN felt sure that the introduction of the
measure into Ireland would be received by the people as a
great boon. He trusted, however, the Government would
preserve the same principles as were carried out in the Eng-
lish bill, and that the excise should have the privilege of
granting the license. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MONSELL agreed with the hon. gentleman that
the bill ought to be extended to Ireland, and at the earliest
opportunity.

The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed that day week.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.
Upon the order of the day, that the adjourned debate on
amendment on the second reading of this bill should be
resumed,

Mr. G C. BENTINCK said that he principally objected
to the bill because it proposed to transfer all chapter pro-
perty to the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with •
out making any provision for those whose claims were con-
demned unheard in 1840. He thought those claims most
just, and that the bill ought not to pass without their recog-
nition, especially after what had taken place before the Ca-
thedral Commission issued in 1852, under Lord Derby's Go-
vernment, when those claims were fully considered and
their equity satisfactorily established. A great number of
the cathedrals of this country were not like those of the old
foundation, but were Protestant establishments founded by
Henry VIII. for three distinct purposes—first, for religious
instruction and the celebration of divine worship ; secondly,
for purely educational purposes; and, thirdly, for works of
charity, and also for public works. For the purpose of con-
ducting the religious services there were deans, canons, pre -
bends, minor canons, and lay clerks; fur the second pur-
pose, there wore head-masters, under-masters, and scholar-
ships, and for the purposes of charity, old men were to be
maintained, and large sums to be expended for public works.
What did they find under existing circumstances? That
the deans and canons, although they had been reformed,
still received very large stipends, whereas the minor canons
and others below them received scarcely anything at all.
Before the act of 1840 the minor canons had been stripped
of so much of their emoluments that they had barely the
income of a curate, and the consequence was that many were
compelled to subsist en the money taken for showing the
church. After the act of 1810 their position was to a certain
extent improved, but since then the cathedral services had
very much multiplied, and a larger share of duties had de-
volved upon them. He was persuaded, however, that if they
laid their case before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, their
application would meet with a direct refusal. The next body
of men who were entitled to consideration were the lay
clerks, who had been ill-treated and plundered to such an
extent that hitherto their pay had not exceeded that of a
domestic servant or journeyman tradesmen, and yet under
the present system they had no chance of getting any addi-
tion to their miserable stipend. Then there was the case of
the choristers, who had been still worse treated than the lay
clerks, and he thought that, before the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners attempted to divert the sums of money
belonging to the foundation, they should provide for the
maintenance of those poor boys. All those cathedrals of
the new foundation were to maintain 40 or 50 boys entirely
free of expense, and a certain proportion of them were after-
wards to be sent to the university, but in many cases those
schools had almost ceased to exist. He maintained these
cathedral schools would be of very great use, especially in the
poorer cathedral towns. Nobody could deny that if the bless-
ings of education were diffused throughout the country by
means of such cathedral schools, the public generally would
be very much benefited. In every one of these cathedrals
provision had been made for altnsmen, but in many in-
stances the ahnsmen had altogether vanished. Then cans
the question of the fabric. Hon. gentlemen might have seen
a touching appeal which had recently been put forth by the
dean and chapter of St. Paul's to the public to subscribe to

the fabric. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners contended they
had nothing to do with the fabric, but what could be more
proper than for them to keep the church in repair ? He had
lately received a letter from Mr. Penrose, the surveyor of
St. Paul's, in which that gentleman stated the total income
for keeping that vast building in repair in the trying
atmosphere of London was £827, and that it was
only by the. most painful , economy the building
could be maintained in even tolerable condition. No one
could deny the utility of our cathedrals at the present day,
for wherehundreds formerly worshipped in them there were
now thousands; yet' the Ecclesiastical Commissioners re-
fused to recognise the claims made for the restoration and
maintenance of these ancient edifices. Again the cathedral
schools throughout the country, whose usefulness it was
so desirable to extend, received no assistance from the com-
missioners, and these and other disregarded claims to which
he could allude showed that the more they adopted the
principle of centralisation the more they destroyed all local
sympathy. The hon. member concluded by stating that he
would support the amendment.
Mr. HOWES corroborated the statement of the hon.and
learned member for the University of Cambridge (Mr.
Selwyn) with respect to the expenses of the Ecclesiastical
Commission, and denied that his hon. and learned friend
had attacked the commissioners, observing that, on the con-
trary, he had bdrne ample testimony to their honour and
ability. The question before the house was a very large
one, and it was injurious to the interests both of the Church
and State to deal with it as this bill did, by piecemeal. The
measure was objectionable not only for its 4rrorsof omis-
sion, but for its errors of commission, and if it were not re-
ferred to a select committee, he trusted that the Home Sec-
retary would take the whole subject into his consideration,
with a view if possible to remedy those defects.

Mr. MALINS regretted that a bill of such importance
should have been pressed nn that evening, which, it was in-
tended, should be devoted to other business, and when very
few members who took an interest in the question were pre-
sent. With regared to the provisions of the bill, he entirely
concurred with his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Selwyn),
who made a very remarkable speech upon a former occa-
sion. He could not conceive a more clumsy and ridiculous
piece of machinery than had been provided by this bill.
The plan to be pursued ought to be that of separating the
lands according to their value, and then to hand over the
proportion set apart for the deans and chapters, and let the
Ecclesiastical commissioners take the remainder. In prin-
ciple what objection could there be to the plan, for were,
not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed for the per..
pose of distributing all the church property ? He would ask
the house to consider whether it would be possible under
this bill to have any of the advantages which ought to
exist as between landlord and tenant. Generally speaking,
the deans and chapters had not large property, and they
easily became acquainted with their estates, and selected

men who could and did properly attend to them, and if the
lessees wished to communicate with the lessors there was
no difficulty in the way of their doing so. But they would
find great difficulty in commun eating with the commis-
sioners, who would never be able to visit and inspect a
tithe of their estates. He was one of those who held that
there were great disadvantages in having such large proper-
ties that the possessors could not know all about them. He
had been recently engaged in a cause where it turned out
that the landlord had not visited his estate for 25 years.
Now there was a great disadvantage in a man n t being
able to visit his estate for a quarter of a century. How was
the relation of landlord to stand in such cases ? Why it
became a mere question of local agents—surveyor and land
stewards ; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would ne-
cessarily from the very nature of the case be mere strangers
to the properties they would hay e to deal with. (Hear.)
Well, then, what were the advantages of this system of
centralisation ? What benefit would the public gain by it ?
None whatever. There was another objectionable feature
in the bill. It provided that after 1884 the leasesrat pre-
sent in existence should not be renewed. Would that be
justifiable ? and was that a clause which the house
ought to sanction ? The present renewable right was
recognised by the law of the land as property, and
the conrts threw obligations upon those who became
entitled to it. What was the r üblic necessity for making
the alteration contemplated ? Convenient it might be, but
it was no more convenient than the confiscation of property
generally, and the house might just as well confiscate the
property of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the
Home Department. Certainly there were some objections to
the present leases in regard to building, and for other pur-
poses, but would that be a reason why they should take this
property away from the lessees after 24 years had elapsed,
and perhaps by so - doing place them and their families in
beggary ? He admitted that something ought to be done
to improve the holdings of this kind of property, but that
was no reason why they should confiscate it. He would sug-
gest that there should be a compulsory obligation on the
lessors to sell their interests to the lessees, or upon the
lessees to sell their interests to the lessors, one or the other.
What objection could there be to that plan ? None. For all
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners could desire was that the
property they might become possessed of for religious and
sacred purposes should come to them by means which would
not beggar families and be obtained unjustly. He was sorry
to see that Parliament year after year proposed to confiscate
property,-either belonging to individuals or public bodies,
and if this bill passed the commissioners would, 24 years
hence, take all this property absolutely. What present effect
would that have upon the property ? Why it would dimi-
nish the value of it by one-third. Now in passing such a
measure they should take care that they did not commit an
injustice, but dealt fairly by all parties. For these reasons
ho objected to the second reading of the bill, and should
therefore vote against it.
Lord J. RUSSELL should not have taken part in the
debate, and would not now go into any discussion of the
details of the bill, the right hon. gentleman the member for
Oxford having completely answered the objection of the
hon. and learned member for Cambridge University during
the previous debate ; but there had been certain principles
put forward by the hon. and learned gentleman who had
just spoken from which he could not forbear expressing his
entire dissent. The hon. and learned gentleman had put
altogether out of sight the original object of these measures,
which was that out of the large incomes the bishops for-
merly enjoyed, and the estates of the deans and chapters,
some provision should be made for the augmentation of
small livings, and some provision for the spiritual destitu-
tion of church property left insufficient or oftentimes no
provision at all. For that purpose it became necessary to
take into consideration the manner in which the property
was distributed, and how that distribution might be im-
proved. For instance, as the hon. and learned gentleman
said, first, that they might give what was proper to the
bishops and the chapters for their support, and take the
rest and apply it to such ecclesiastical purposes as he had
mentioned. Now, take the case of the bishopric of Durham.
Formerly the Bishop of Durham had an income of £23,000
a year. The ecclesiastical commissioners considered £B,OOO
a year sufficient; but it would have been obviously an ab-
surd arrangement, when they reduced his income to £BOOO,
that he should have the management of the whole of the
property, producing £23,000 a year. Then the principle
of the bill as itstood gave this alternative, that the £21,000
a-ycar—for he ought to have stated that £2,000 a year
had been taken away previously—should in- the first in-
stance go to the ecclesiastical commissioners, and that a
portion of the lands, to the extent of £B,OOO a year should
be settled upon the bishop, the remainder of the estates
being disposed of by the commissioners. (Hear, hear.) In
the same way with regard to the chapters. The hon.
and learned member had referred to the case of Ely, in
which 4-sths remained with the chapter; but in Durham,
where there were formerly 12 canons, only four of whom
were to remain, 8-12ths were taken away for the increase of
small livings and the relief of spiritual destitution. While,
therefore, 8-12ths or 2-3ds, were to be paid over to the
ecclesiastical commissioners, it would be absurd to leave the
management of tho entire property in the dean and chapter.
The hon. and learned gentleman, however, objected to the
control of this property being left to this centralised body.
They had to consider for what purpose was the property to
be Lpplied. There were some clergymen whose livings pro-
duced £75 or £BO a year ; one of the purposes was to add to
these £7O a year, so as to raise them to £l5O. Then there
was £2OO a year, perhaps, to be provided in certain cases as
a provision for the endowment of now benefices. These were
to be supplied by the ecclesiastical commissioners out of
the surplus funds in their hands arising from the sources
referred to; and it would be certaiely inconsistent that
when these duties were imposed upon them the property
out of which the means were to come should be left in the
hands of those ecclesiastical bodies who had now only a
limited interest in it. But then came the question raised
by the honourable and learned gentleman—was it just to
make an alteration in the tenure of this kind of property,
and instead of granting leases for a certain number of lives,
they should be granted for a fixed term not exceeding for
the present twenty-two years ? Upon this point he would
not say that the honourable and learned gentleman mis-
represented, but that he misunderstood the principle of
the bill. The hon. and learned gentleman said that the re-
presentatives of the Church—viz., the bishops, deans, and
chapters, had no other right in this ecclesiastical property
than that of receiving fines on the renewal of the leases.
But if he had looked into the matter he would know that
formerly, in the time of Elizabeth, it was by a mistake
thought three lives or 21 years were equivalent, and it was
the habit to leave the property for three lives, on the fal-
ling in of which the lease expired. The lessee had no right
to put in a life—on the contrary, the absolute right was
with the lessor; and it depended often on the merest acci-
dent whether the lessee had a property almost equivalent to
freehol I property or a property his right in which would
altogether expire in a certain number of years. Take the
case of an old bishop dying—he might possibly be'succeeded
by a young man of 30 or 31 years of age, and on succeeding
to the see he might find a particular property dependent
upon three very old lives. He might refuse all applications
to put in a new life, choosing to run his life against the
lives named in the lease, and thus securing to himself the
disposal of a valuable lease, which he might give to his own
family. Or when the two first lives dropped, he might set
his life against the third, and refuse to renew under some
enormous fine, which he knew could not be paid. This
proved that the right was not in the lessee, but in the les-
sor. (Hoar.) The hon. and learned gentleman knew the
by an abuse of his poor a bishop Once allowed all the lives
to expire in the case of a certain property, and by putting
in three young lives, secured in his own hands a valuable

property for what was equivalent to a term of 60 years, and
afterwards obtained an Act of Parliament by which that
property was transferred to his own family, thus depriving
the Church of what belonged to it. Did the hon. and

learned gentleman desire that state of things to be restored ?
The hon. and learned gentleman said he did .not. (Hear.)
But the hon. and learned gentleman proposed that instead
of the right being in the lessee it should be transferred to

the lessee, and instead of the lessee being at the mercy of
the bishops and of the dean and chapter he should have

an absolute right which should be as good as freehold pro-
perty. Now that was what he should call confiscation, for
it was taking away the right from that body in which it
existed, and transferring it to another who had only a
limited right which a.l; a certain period must expire. The
hon and learned gentleman's plan, therefore, was to confis-
cate the property of the church for the benefit of the lessee.
But what had been done in the case of the landed property
of the crown ? It was said, in the same way as the hon.
and learned gentleman said with regard to the interest
which the church had in the property leased under the or-
dinary tenure, that very little was paid to the crown on ac •
count of its property leased in the same way. What was
the course taken by Mr. Pitt as to that properly ? Did he
give the whole to the lessees, or transfer the whole right
over them ? No, on the contrary, ho took the whole bene-
fit for the lessor. He gave to the lessee no more than was
his right, and gave to the crown, by what he—(Lord J
Russell)—thought was a beneficial act, the whole income
arising from the rack rents of those lands. With regard
to the church not being as powerful as the crown and
having no such patron as Mr. Pitt, ho held that the arrange-
ments made on behalf of the church were in the same way
as beneficial to the lessor, and were generally in the spirit
of the petition which had been read. The effect of that ar-
rangement was, that the lessor said to the lessee, "You
take your choice of one of two courses, either sell to the
church all your remaining interest in the lease, or else buy
the property and pay to the church that which is the value
of the lease to us when it expires, viz., the reversion." He
thought the proposal made in the House of Lords was the
fair one—he need not enter into the precise terms, for they
had nothing to do with the present bill—but he re-
garded it as a fair proposal on the whole, under
which much of this class of property would be re-
leased from its present disadvantage—that disadvantage
being, that those who held it could not build or
plant, or dispose of it as they wished, as
they could do if the property were their own, or held under
a more certain tenure. A great extent of this kind of pro-
perty had in this way become freehold, and was held by
farmers, yeomen, and other proprietors, who had improved
it in a manner they could not otherwise have been justified
in doing. Generally then this was the purport and object of
the bill. He believed it was in principle perfectly fair, and
with regard to its provisions, he thought that they were such
as ought to receive the sanction of the house. With regard
to the particular clause alluded to by the hon. and learned
gentleman, that was not the time for discussing his objec-
tions, but when the bill was in committee the hon. and
learned gentleman's suggestions would receive every atten •
tion. For his own part, he thought it was in every way de-
sirable that bishops and chapters should hold landed pro-
perty. If they were to dispose of their property and invest
the proceeds in the funds, the bishops and chapters would
perhaps have a more certain income for a time, but they
would not have suoh a dependence on the landed interest of
the country as he thought they ought to have, and there-
fore he should be sorry to see any change in that direction;
and with regard to the ecclesiastical commissioners, it was
no doubt possible that a body managing landed property to
the extent of £200,000 a year might commit mistakes occa-
sionally by not being able to visit the whole of thatproperty
and superintend it personally in every part, but that was
an inconvenience inseparable from any great scheme of
management, or from the management of any great pro-
perty. The hon. and learned gentleman had himself referred
to the case of a landed proprietor who had not seen some
portions of his property for 25 years, but he would hardly
on that ground say he ought not to be allowed to hold the
property at all.
Mr. MALINS—I said it was an inconvenience to be re-
gretted.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The same might be said in the pre-
sent case, that it was in some respects an inconvenience to
be regretted that the ecclesiastical commissioners could not
personally visit the whole of this church property, but they
must bear with that inconvenience in any large scheme of
this kind involving property so widely spread and so exten-
sive.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought the noble lord had placed
the bill in as fair a light as it was capable of bearing. , At
the same time he was sorry that a measure of so much im-
portance should have been accidentally, and in consequence
of an unexpected alteration in the proceedings of the house
for the evening, brought forward while many hon. members
who were interested in the question were absent. The ills-
portance of the bill was great, whether the amount of pro-
perty involved in it or the mode in which it was proposed to
deal with that property were considered. They were not
dealing with the whole amount of the property which had
at any time belonged to the Church, but the only point
raised by the bill was whether they should deal with the
estates held by the different capitular bodies in the same
manner as they had already dealt with those held by the
bishops. For thefirat tine they were about to deal with the
estates of gentlemen who had not been consulted upon the
matter ; and one of his objections to the measure—if it could
be called an objection—was that these persons had no op-
portunity afforded them of making out their case. An-
other objection was that the bill proposed to make use
of the machinery of the ecclesiastical commission not
merely for, the sale but for the future management and
possession of these estates. He could not but acknow-
ledge the force of the noble lord's remarks with regard
to landed property. There was no doubt a greater stability
in the possession of land than in the possession of funded
property, ebut he complained that not only was the land
taken, but tho manner in which it was proposed to take
it was objectionable. How, for instance, were they to dis-
tinguish between a lessee who held property under a capi-
tular body, and a lessee who held under any college at
Oxford ? (Hear, hear.) He preferred the old mode under
which ecclesiastical property had been held, and viewed in
a less favourable light the holding of land in mortmain by a
capitular body than the holding of land in mortmain by the
bishops. He considered it objectionable that any body con-
stituted as the ecclesiastical commission was should have
the management and control of the large estate which would
fall into their hands if this bill passed. No doubt the ques-
tion of the bishops had been already dealt with, but the
result of legislative interference in their case gave him no
confidence in the future. Individually he had the highest
respect for the ecclesiastical commission, but if Parliament
granted to them not only the prolongation of their powers,
but the extension of those powers, he thought it was not
too much to ask for some explanation of the exact terms
and conditions upon . which the concession was made. He
hoped that that which had been shadowed forth by the
noble lord in reference to the mode in which the Govern-
ment intended to deal with the details of the measure would
be carried out ; and under these circumstances perhaps it
would not be desirable to press the amendment to a division.
Mr. SELWYN said the house had been taken by sur-
prise in the bill being proceeded with that evening, and he
felt that under the circumstances it would be useless to
press the amendment. He would therefore withdraw it.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the
bill was read a second time.
MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr. RIDLEY said several hon. members who were inter-
ested in the bill were absent, not having had the most remote
idea that it would 'erne on. Under those circumstances he
appealed to the Home Secretary whether it was fair to go
on with the committee that evening.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he should be ready to postpone
the bill if the house were unprepared to proceed with it, but
he did not believe any inconvenience would result from
taking the discussion upon the clauses now.
Mr. RICARDO expressed a hope that the right hon.
gentleman would consent to report progress.
Lord PALMERSXON remarked that he had been asked
at an early period of the evening by an hon. member oppo •
site what the course of business during the evening would
be, and he had then stated distinctly that the orders of the
day would be gone through, and hon. members who were
interested in any of the bills which stood upon the orders
ought therefore not to have left the house.
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought it would be unfair to the
Government to require them to postpone the committee. If
such a course were taken upon all occasions the Government
would, never be able to get through the public business.
After some conversation, the committee proceeded with
the discussion of the bill, and clauses 4 to 6 inclusive were
agreed to without amendment.
On clause 7,
Mr. H. A. BRUCE moved an amendment to the effect to..
limit the inspection to mines connected with coal. There
had been no necessity shown for extending inspection to
iron mines. In a mine with which he was connected there
had been only one death to 498,000 tons of ore raised, and
the deaths that did occur in iron mines were not caused by
want of ventilation, but by the accidents inseparable from
such work. It might be taken generally that the removal
of one ton of ironstone necessitated the removal of five
tons of rubbish, and looking at it in that way there was not
more, than one death caused by the removal of 235,000 tons
of ironstone separated from the rubbish. He thought there-
fore there was no Case for the inspection of iron mines.
Mr. CLIVE said the hon. gentleman seemed to think that
inspection was good for everybody's case but his own, The
unanimous opinion of the inspectors was that inspection
should be applied to iron mines. He could assure the com-
mittee that the inspectors of coal mines were unanimously
of opinion that inspection should also be extended to iron
mines, at d the great majority of coal-owners were of the
same opinion.
Mr. CAYLEY thought the clause was exactly framed to
meet the case suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Taylor).
After a few remarks in explanation from Mr. TAYLOR,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. AYRTON suggested that power should be also taken
for the appointment of sub-inspectors,
Sir G. C. LEWIS observed that he did not object to the
suggestion, but could not agree to the appointment of sub-
inspectors unless in cases where it was shown to be *bee-
lutely necessary.

INWIAM urged that without sub-inspectors it

wc 'uld be impossible to carry out the provision sof the act.
Sit • G. LEWIS said the difficulty he felt wa, s how to de-
fine the
difference between the inspectevg an d the sub-
inspectors:• Perhaps the best course would het to postpone
the question : till the next stage of the bill.
This was agreed to, and the clause passed.
On clause 10,
Mr. AYRI `ON moved to add after the word places, "and
all other accessible places." The object of this amendment
was to compel the owner either to ventilate or shut off dise
used workings.
Mr. CLIVT. ,said this was one of the most disputed por-
tions of the bill. He was bound to say that the commis-
sioners had reco •err mended the amendment, but he was told
that there would be a difficulty in applying it in all in-
stances. He had therefore thought it best to make the
clause run as it dirt
Mr, AYRTON st tggested that it must surely be possible
to stop off those plac es which were difficult to ventilate, and
which if left open might admit gas in quantities large
enough to endanger the miners.
Mr. CAYLL' Y cu, e•gested that the words " where pos-
sible"
epted this p•Oposal.
mAiyghßtTgoTAN, ia,d,stx. of the difficulty.
Mr. BRUCE said th ere were circumstances in which an
attempt to ventilate mib. lit be dangerous, because. the gas
was only explosive when; 'nixed with more than three times
and less than 14 times its own bulk.
After some furtherconve, -cation, the committee divided—
For the amendment , ......
Against it
Majority
Mr. AYRTON said that accidents were frequently 7
caused through the tramways in mines being too narrow.
He proposed as an amendment that: places of refuge should
be provided at intervals of not less thazt ten yards, or that
the tramways should be made so wide as to• allow room for
men to pa'Bl3 the trucks, which ran down with great ra-
pidity.
Mr. VIVIA N thought it undesirable to take the respon-
sibility of avoidill Skeidents off the owners or workers of
g
mines. Serious ac
•eidents had to be reported to the Se ore-
tary of State, and tillat, of itself was a great safeguard. If
the drifts were widened there would be great danger of the
fall of the roof—a. most fruitful source of accident. He
thought it desirable Ih've places of refuge, but not at
shorter intervals than 20 roll. A wide drift without re-
fuges would be highly danger ms.
After a conversation the araondment was withdrawn.
After some discussion the am endment, fixing " tW 'enty"
ins'ead of " thirty" yards as the loize of the place of re, (age,
was adopted without a division.
Upon page 5, line 2,
Mr. AYRTON moved to leave ota the words "cove ir
overhead," and to insert " covered safety rage."
Mr. VIVIAN said he had found from riveted experi-..
ments that " safety cages" were a fertile sauce of danger...
Every mechanical contrivance of this sort wag likely togot.;
out of order. He believed all cases of this kind to be im-
practicable, but, even if they were practicable, they would
probably lead to a false security, arising from mistaken-
economy. Less attention would be paid to the due ingpee-
lion of the state of the ropes. He thought to pass a law in.
favour of safety cages would lead to an increased injury,
and loss of life.
- Mr. CLIVE said that the question of the safety cages had
been very carefully considered, aril he hoped the committee
would consent to adopt the use of the overhead cover.
Mr. RICARDO said it was not advisable to lay down
any particular rule about the apparatus to be employed,
but the coalowners should be considered responsible for the
lives of those whom they employed, and left to adopt. the
best means for their safety. He therefore thought. the
clause was sufficient as it stood.
After a few words more from Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. BR :emu,
and other hon. members,
Mr. CROSSLEY advised his hon. friend who had -n toyed
this amendment to give way to the opinion of other • mem-
bers with greater practical knowledge, and not atten rpt to
enforce on all parts of the country a contrivance i v hich
might perhaps answer in a certain district, lest the i arsult
should be to destroy life instead of saving it.
Mr. AYRTON said that he believed safety cages were
used in the majority of mines throughout the coo Lritry.
(No, no.) - '
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. BRUCE moved the addition of certain words tor pro-
vide that the cage should not beused on all occasions waren
men were lowered.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BRUCE then moved the insertion of the wi ords
"except upon occasions when repairs were being effecfe d."
After some discussion,
The committee divided :
For the amendment 47
Against it
Majority .. . ..
Mr. AYRTON moved an amendment to clause 10, to the
effect that a proper weighing machine should be promided
for each pit, for weighing c)al and ironstone.
Mr. H. BRUCE had no objection to a machine being
provided, but he could not see of what use it would be for
the purpose of iron mines.
Mr. AYRTON explained that his object was to secure to
the workmen payment for all the ore or coal that al as
brought to the bank.
Mr. CAYLEY hoped the claim would not be objected to
by the Government. In the two committees which had sat
on the subject, no point was more insisted upon than the,
necessity of having weighing machines as between the
workmen and Vre employers.
Mr. CLIVE had no objection to the claim if it wets un-
derstood that it was to be permissive only, but recom-
mended that it should be deferred to the report, ire order
that the wording might be considered, so as to make the
claim practical in its object.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGA.TE,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the comeseittee
obtained leave to sit again.
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES B:(LL.
The amendments to this bill were brought up and agreed
to.

The London Corporation Bill was postponed for a mondb
The Iceland Bonding Bill was read a third time said
passed.
The Union of Benefices Bill was read a second time.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) ACT