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

TAN SUN, tONDON, 111] SDAY EVENING, JUNE 26, 1860.

bique would do any good at all. TO entertain such anotion was •
only deceiving ourselves. We could not touch vessels under
the Ameriptn or French flags; the .paptaies of those vessels
kneW that thy openlir 4110 US., The east coast
WAS nearky as bad as the west; the gave trade *its now as
rife tiibie as it was once at Sierra Leone. A fatal blow
could only be struck at that trade by stopping it at Cuba.
At present vessels under the French or American flag mightfire upon our trittseiii, if any interference were attempted.
The slave ships might not be French or American, but they
hoisted those flags to protect them in their horrible traffic.
As long as this went on, it was quite idle to attach any inma
pettatabe sending a consul to Mozambique. Whether
there was one there or not was quite immaterial, regard be:
ing had to the much greater importance of other questions.
The best hope that he entertained was froth the co4opera-
tienvet the Americans. They had latterly sent some steamers
expressing an earnest desire to co-operate with us inputting
down the traffic on the West Coast of Afribtt, and if they
co-onerate with us eacilaily, great advantage Would result.
Lord BROUGHAM said it had come to his knowledge
that a captain of one of the Cunard steainers—.4 serVice
which was assisted by the goVernitent to the extent of
S.s,ooo—had reeetitly acted tipon the rifle establiF hed by the
"bred Scott;' case, aid had refused to receive as a first-
class passenger any person having the slightest tinge of
colour. He had heard of a lady being refused a passage
under these cireiiiiishineeS.

Earl GRANVILLE said he thought after what had
fallen from the noble lord, their lordships would prefer to
leave it to the executive to decide at what time a consul
should be sent to Mozambique. After the declaration
which had fallen from the Under-Secretary of the Foreign-
office, the government would perhaps be justified in resist-
ing the motion, but as such a course might lead-to a false
impression as to the lukewarmness of the government on
the subject of the slave trade, he was unwilling to adopt it.
No one could doubt the sincerity of the motives of the noble
lord, the Under-Secretary, and as the house would proba-
bly think that the time for sending the consul had better be
left to the executive he would appeal to his noble friend not

to press his motion.
The Bishop of OXFORD said he hoped his noble friend
would not assent to the proposal of the noble earl. The ut-
most that the house could do was to express its opinion on
the question, and if they did so, the country would be con-
vinced that they had taken the only step which was open
to them. He, therefore, trusted that the noble lord would
press his motion.
Lord STRATHEDEN said it would only be necessary
for him to detain the house sufficiently long to indicate the
court e he intended to take. He protested, however, against
the version which the noble lord the Under-Secretary had
given of his (Lord Stratheden's) decision when he endea-
voured to treat this as a question of the merit or demerit of
our former consul at Mozambique. He had never raised
that question. There was not one remark of the noble lord
which did not point to the dispersion of our naval squadron,
and the withdrawal of our consular establishment on the
African coast, and he could not help expressing his aston-
ishment at the language which had fallen from the noble
lord. He felt that he had no course left to him but to divide
the house.
Their lordships then divided, and the numbers were—
Contents
Non-corttents -5

The motion for as address was consequently carried.
Their lordships adjourned at ten minutes to 8.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the following bills were con-
sidered and agreed to, and the bills were ordered for third
reading :—Disley and Hayfield Railway; London and
Blackwell Railway; North British and Peebles and Jed-

burgh Railway Companies; Salisbury and Yeovil Rail.

- .
way ; and Upper Mersey Dues.
The Kilkenny Junction Railway Bill, and Kilrush and
Kilkee Railway and Poulnasherry Embankment Bill were
considered and ordered for third reading.

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against the alleged ag•

gression of the Lords on the privileges of the House of
Commons; against the Sunday Trading Bill ; from St.
Olaves, Southwark, in favour of the Metropolitan Local
Management Amendment Act (No. 2), against the High-
ways Bill, &c.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.
Mr. A. SMITH moved for returns of the particulars of
the sum of £3,541 16s. paid for knights of the several
orders, giving the names of the several knights, the par-
ticular order, the special expenses incurred on behalf of
each, and date of the same.—Ordered.

It was proposed to lend £20,000 on, this harbour, which
would be a waste of public m ney. He moved that the six-
teenth clause which gave power to grant this public money
tie struck oi►t of the Dili: .
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
wottla hate heard It fttlly 00141=1 that there was in fact
no advance of public money. The object of the hilt was, to
enable the commissioners of the port of Anstruther to int:
pose certain rates and tolls, and the Exchequer Loan Com-
missioners were empowered to lend a certain sum of money
on security of Aide rates and tolls. The other portion of
the money consisted of a sum advanced 14 the fishery
Board of Scotland out of a grant of £3,000 a year from par •
liement, 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 sin persons each, who fished oft the coast of Vile, to
whom this harbour would be of the greatest use.
Mr. STEUART supported the motion. He said he had
received a statement frortt 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 14toVement of this harbour. No doubt
if the Exchequer LOan Commissioners advanced any money
on this project the money would be lost.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the house might to be much
obliged to the two hon. gentlemen opposite for calling at-
tention to this matter, which 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
here was a lamentable loss of life. It was to provide

against this that memorials had 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 67
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
passed.

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 them 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-
lowances 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. •

the fabric. The Ecclesiastical Cominiigioneri odtteltded they
had nothing to do with the fabric, but what could niore
proper than for them to keep the church in repair ? He had
lately received a letter from Mr. Penrose, the surveyor of
Si. tiatilf6; Xll vt.fhich that gentleman stated the total income
for keeping -that vast bundffig frt repair in the trying
atmosphere of London was £827, and fiat ft, was
_ _ _

only by the most painful economy the building
bould he maintained in even telerable condition. No one

6outl deny the utility of our cathedrals at the present day,
for whereht."...—.l-red/Ifointorl, worshipped in them there were

now thousands; yet the icciezie-siieal Commissioners re-

fused to recognise the claims made for the restoration and

maintenance of these ancient edifices. Again the cathedrdi

aclioo throtighotit the country, whose usefulness it was
so desirable to extend, itceicied no assistance from the com-

missimers, 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 borne 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 errors of omis-
sion, but for its errors of commission, and if it were net 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 at bill of such importance
should have been pressed on 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 trpoif 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 pthe.
ciple what objection could there be to the plan, for were
not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed for the pur-
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 not being
able to lira 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 eto 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 leases at 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 courts threw obligations upon those who became
entitled to it. What was the rublic 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. Ho 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
he objected 10 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.
Feriterly the Bishop of Durham had an income of £23;000
a year. - The ecclesiastical commissioners considered £B,OOO
a year suticiont ; 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 £13,000 a year. Then the principle
of the bill as it stood gave this alternative, that the £21,000
aryear—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
bo- 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 the 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 applied. 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 new 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 certainly inconsistent that
when these duties were imposed upon them the property
out of which the means were to came 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
freeholi 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 'fright 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. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman knew tha
by an abuse of his power 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