been raised, yet he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had treated the question not as one pertaining to any particular Government, but as one that ought to be decided by the House itself, and in a sense favourable to the principle of the measure which he (Mr. Newdegate) had introduced. With reference to the transfer of this charge from the occupiers to the owners, he begged to remind the House that that was supported by the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1843, by the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel and the late Sir James Graham. He would never consent, seeing that church rates were a charge really upon the land, to alienate the right of the parishioners to that portion of the produce of the land. The proposal of the hon. Member for Leicester, if adopted, would hand over the whole control of a parish in some cases to the landlord, being one person who might not be a member of the Church of England. The hon. Member was perhaps aware of one case in which a Roman Catholic landlord, owning the parish, induced his tenants to vote against church rates. He (Mr. Newdegate) believed that there were other similar cases. He had therefore in his measure endeavoured to secure for the parish vestry the right not only to the means for maintaining, but the management of the church which belonged to them. he did not think the House could be better LORD ROBERT CECIL said, that the surprised that so much enthusiasm for such a proposal should have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey), who seemed to imagine, that if they cut off a certain number of seats in a church, and made them free by Act of Parliament, they would have done all that could be required, and the poor would have ample opportunity of attending religious worship. If there were seats enough at present, the proposed system might be an admirable one, but there were not. Professing to be the Church of the nation, and wishing to be the Church of the nation, the Church was able to find room for only 29 per cent of the population, though 58 per cent belonged to her communion. That being the case, if they kept a certain number of seats for the rich parishioners exclusively, the poor would be in a far worse condition than they were at present. No one who had been in a parish church which was carved out into pews, and where the seats were kept for those who rented them, whether they were present or not, could have failed to observe how the poor man was treated, how he was shown to a seat in the gallery or in a corner where he could hear and see nothing, and where, perhaps, he might catch his death. And then hon. Members reproached Churchmen by saying that was not a proper state of things for the Church of the nation. He quite agreed with those who thought that the present state of many parish churches, where the poor were excluded, was a positive disgrace to a Church which called itself national. He longed for the day when that reproach should be wiped away. He believed that public opinion and the sympathy which was growing up between the rich and poor would before long sweep away that great abuse and reproach from the Church of England. But what he deprecated was the interference of that House in perpetuating by Act of Parliament what was only a pernicious custom, and thus deferring the day when the evil would be swept away by public opinion. He thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Heygate) had offered what really deserved the name of a compromise -a give and take on both sides. If the Dissenters, and those who impugned the present state of the law, refused the proposition of his hon. Friend, they would lay themselves open to the charge that they did not desire the amendment of the law, but aimed at ulterior objects. A proposition was now offered which, if carried into effect, would banish absolutely this question from the parishes, would prevent it from ever disturbing the vestry again, or ever again setting the people against their parish priest. He trusted that they should have frequent discussions of this proposition, until the mind of the country was habituated to it-a proposition which had the advantage of having been approved by the House of Lords, and of having thus got over one of the main difficulties in the way of a solution, and a proposition which would remove in a satisfactory manner the disgrace of the question not being settled before. LORD HENLEY said, that he did not think there was the least chance of coming to a settlement of the question if such settlement would take everything for one party, and would give nothing to the other side. The proposition before the House would place the opponents of the rate in a worse, and the supporters of the rate in a better position than they were in at present, because it would enable the owners by their proxies to swamp occupiers when the subject came to be discussed in the vestry. He did not see any provision in the proposed Resolutions for allowing church rates to cease in those parishes where they had already ceased to be levied for a great number of years. The practical consequence, therefore, of the owners of property being allowed to vote would be that in a great many towns and parishes, where the rate had ceased to be collected, a new struggle would be commenced, and war would again ensue. He was anxious to see a settlement of this question. He did not desire to see it continued either as a party cry or as a grievance, but he asked whether any settlement such as now proposed was likely to prove satisfactory? He thought it utterly out of the question, because it would place the opponents of church rates in a worse position than they are in at present. Still, he did not see why one day or another some plan might not be originated in which both parties should agree. Such a plan must proceed from one of two quarters. It must come from the Nonconformists and be accepted by the party opposite, or else the Government in some future year might take up the question, and by their influence and with the desire of all parties for a settlement of the question, might carry a measure which, bringing about a compromise alike satisfactory to the members of the Church of England and to the Dissenters, would do good not only to the cause of the Church, but of religion generally. MR. HEYGATE said, that it was not his intention to divide the House upon his Amendment, and therefore he begged to withdraw it. before long a satisfactory settlement would be arrived at by mutual concessions. He begged to withdraw his Resolution. Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn. HULL CITADEL. SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. MR. DILLWYN said, that when the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) taunted the Ministerial side of the House with not being able to settle the question of church rates, he should have remembered that his own side of the House was not in a more happy position, for during that evening the House had had MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, that placed before them two or three Amend- he was compelled to bring forward the Moments, all emanating from Members sitting tion, of which he had given notice, for a on the Opposition benches. The advocates Select Committee to inquire into the transof the unconditional abolition of church fer of Hull Citadel and adjoining premises rates had long ago given up all idea of from the War Department to the Woods compromise, not from an unwillingness to and Forests, owing to the refusal of the look the question in the face, but from Government to produce the case agreed to the conviction that no satisfactory proposal by the two departments and the opinion of could be made short of entire abolition. the Law Officers thereon. From the time of Henry VIII. it had always been deemed an important fortification, and during the Civil Wars was used as a fortification. The language of numerous Acts of Parliament, from the beginning of the reign of George III. down to the 5 & 6 Vict., uniformly declared that such property was vested in the Government as trustees for the public. The foundation of doubt seemed to be laid in the 39th section of the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 94, and upon that section was based the claim of the Woods and Forests to this considerable property, as belonging to the hereditary possessions of the Crown. A part of that very property had, a few years ago, been made over to the town of Hull for the purpose of forming docks, having ceased to be useful for military purposes; and if any one but the War Department had a right to it, it was the town of Hull. The Woods and Forests, however, claimed it, and the Law Officers by their opinion confirmed that claim. No one knew whether, in the case laid before them, the facts had been fairly stated, and the House was in equal ignorance of the grounds of their opinion. It was said to be unusual to publish the opinion of the Law Officers; but the public had a right to know how this property, upon which large sums had been laid out by the War Department, had been filched from them. It was the more incomprehensible, because an opinion had been given by two very eminent gentlemen in the legal profession that Hull Citadel never was part or parcel of the hereditary possessions of the Crown, and that it was vested by the 18 & 19 Vict. in the Secretary of State for War. With regard to Crown property, he maintained that it was held by the Crown for public purposes, Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, that it was only because no plan had proceeded from the Nonconformists or from the Government that individual Members of Parliament now came forward with plans for the settlement of the question. Because the Government would take no steps in the matter, was there any reason why all others should wait with folded arms? The only reason could be that the country had not yet made up its mind, and in order that it might consider both sides of the question, and come to a judgment upon it, it was desirable that independent Members should occasionally call attention to it. It was a mistake to suppose that his proposal was that one class should vote and another should pay the tax. What he intended was that, except where owners and occupiers jointly paid, owners alone should determine whether the rate should be enforced. A distinction had been drawn by the Home Secretary between the first and second divisions of his Resolution; but he did not mean that there should be any distinction. He had divided the Resolution merely to render it more plain and intelligible. On the whole, he was gratified with the course of the debate, because, to a certain extent, a modified assent had been given to his Resolution. He had no desire to carry his proposal by a bare majority, because a settlement of the question could never be accomplished by that means. It was not in the House so much as in the country that he desired to elicit an opinion, and hence his wish to agitate the question. At present the Government had, perhaps, a right to say that they could do nothing until the mind of the country was more decided on the subject; but he trusted that AFFIRMATIONS BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. SIR JOHN TRELAWNY said, that he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to allow certain persons to make affirmations in all cases where an oath is or shall be required. He observed that last year a Bill received the sanction of Parliament altering in a certain degree the law of oaths, and he was anxious that the same principle should be carried a little further, to include jurors and others who were placed at a disadvantage as regarded the present state of the law. The Bill proposed also to enable persons not at present competent according to the English law to give evidence, to be heard upon making simple affirmations in the place of solemn affirmations, adopting in this respect a principle which already prevailed in India. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My noble | might enter. Therefore, knowing that his Friend has stated the case with great noble Friend at the head of the Governclearness and great fidelity in his recital of ment was quite incapable of violating any what took place on this subject on former promise which he gave, he was perfectly occasions, and I have nothing to remark willing to wait till the beginning of next upon either the form or the substance of week for the answer of the Government. his statement. It is quite true, as he Motion, by leave, withdrawn. says, that some time ago-I think in the month of May-a deputation did me the honour of coming to me on the subject of this contract. That which they stated, as I understood it, was not with regard to their present ability to carry into effect any contract which might be entered into with them, but referred to their expectation that at a future time, not far distant, they would be in a condition to execute any engagement into which they might enter. Her Majesty's Government has not had from them, after that, a statement that they were in that condition. A letter was addressed to them last week, to which I understand an answer was received at the Treasury this morning expressing their view as to their ability to fulfil any contract which they might undertake. I can assure my noble Friend that it will be the duty of the Government to give the earliest attention to that answer; and we feel, for the reasons stated by my noble Friend bearing on the period of the Session, that it is due to the company and due also to the Government that a definite answer should, founded on the statement which has been sent in, be given at the earliest possible moment. And I do not doubt that in the early part of next week we shall be able to communicate to them our decision. It would not, I think, be useful or convenient for me to anticipate, one way or the other, the conclusion at which we may arrive. I can only assure my noble Friend, and those interested in this subject, that nothing which tends to promote the interests of Ireland can be a matter of indifference to Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, the House must perceive that we have duties to perform as the guardians of the public purse, and that there are therefore these mixed considerations to be taken into account with the view of giving a final answer to the application which we have received. COLONEL FRENCH said, that he understood that the Government were prepared to give the most favourable consideration to the claims of the company, provided it could prove itself to be in a position to carry out the engagements into which it MR. DILLWYN begged to second the Motion. MR. M'MAHON said, that he should have felt disposed to oppose the Bill, were it not for the lateness of the Session, and the improbability of its passing into law. At the same time he could not help stating his objections to the measure. It seemed monstrous to ask the House of Commons to abrogate a rule of the law of England and of every other civilized country merely because it was not part of the law of India. He affirmed that by the law of India perjury was permissible, and, in fact, was one of the institutions of the country. He did not like to move the rejection of the Bill on the first reading; but, in truth, the principle of the Bill might as well be discussed then as at any other time; and without wishing any discourtesy to the hon. Baronet, as he should not probably have the opportunity of addressing the House again upon it, he should move that leave be not given to the introduction of the Bill. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, that his objections to the Bill were wholly of a practical nature. The object of judicial procedure was to discover the truth; and it was notorious, as a matter of experience, that many witnesses who would not scruple to tell a lie hesitated before they committed perjury. That principle had been affirmed by the practice before Committees of the House. He could not agree in thinking that the law of India sanctioned perjury; but he opposed the Bill simply because it would remove a principal means of obtaining the truth from a large class of witnesses. MR. LOCKE said, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) had used the most extraordinary argument. He was ready to admit into the courts of India witnesses amongst whom, he said, perjury was an institution, and yet he would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, which rendered the violation of an oath, impossible. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had omitted altogether the circumstance that administration of an oath subjected the witness to the penalties of perjury, if he deposed to what was false. It was not the oath, but the penalty for perjury, that induced witnesses before Parliamentary Committees to be more careful than they were before. He hoped that the House would enable the hon. Baronet to bring in his Bill, in order that they might see how the measure was worded, because a great deal depended upon the verbiage employed. MR. ROEBUCK said, that he wished to look on the question merely as a practical one-merely as a mode of arriving at the truth in the administration of justice. Now, if they doubted the truth of a witness, what was the first thing they did? They examined him on the voir dire. If the witness was a truth-telling man, he might say that he did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments, although he might know that it would tell against him. The witness, having thus given proof of his love for truth, would be ordered at once to stand down. But suppose he lied, and said that he believed in a future state when he did not, he was allowed to give his evidence. There were three motives which would restrain a person from bearing false witness. One was the fear of punishment, another was public opinion, and the third was religion. Now, what was the value of this last standing alone? The university oaths were an example in point. In that case there was no fear of punishment or dread of public opinion. There was no thing but the fear that Almighty God would punish them if they did not speak VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] the truth. Well, persons took those oaths and broke them immediately. Such being the value of the religious sanction by itself, his hon. Friend asked that a person who professed not to be influenced by it might be allowed to get into the box and tell his story. He asked the House to put aside the poor little petty feeling about civilized nations aiding and assisting perjury. Had not the whole of the people of India been indignant at the assertion of a judge, who said that perjury was the common system of evidence in their courts. At present truth was dragged out of lying witnesses by cross-examination, and it was most ridiculous that they should reject the evidence of a man whose very first answer showed that he had a regard for the truth, and yet admit a witness who had no such regard for it. He trusted that the House would offer no objection to the introduction of the measure. MR. SCULLY said, that he hoped. there would be no division, and that the hon. Baronet would be allowed to bring in his Bill, in order that the House might see what it was like. His own impression was that there were very few persons who would tell a falsehood that would not also swear to the truth of it. Motion made, and Question put, allow certain Persons to make Affirmations in all "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to cases where an Oath is or shall be required." The House divided:-Ayes 88; Noes 59: Majority 29. Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN TRELAWNY and Mr. DILLWYN. Bill presented, and read 1o; to be read 2° on Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 166]. ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL. MR. DILLWYN said, that it was not his intention to proceed with the Bill this Session, nor was it his intention to trouble the House by raising a discussion or dividing upon it, but he would state the principles of the Bill. Having endeavoured to improve the law relating to grammar schools, he found that all his attempts at conciliation had been in vain; he had therefore drawn this Bill so as to embody the principles which he wished to carry 2 L |