respect of the occupation of any house, lands, tenements, or hereditaments in such parish.

Clause (Repealing Section 6 of 18 & 19 Vict., c. 120) brought up, and read 1o.

MR. LOCKE said, he should take the sense of the Committee on the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: :Noes 48: Majority 19.

Ayes 29

MR. AYRTON said, he could not but express his surprise at the opposition of the hon. Member for Bath. He would do better to carry out the wishes of the parent of the Bill, Mr. Bristow, and support the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Noes 47: Majority 23.

Ayes 24;

VISCOUNT ENFIELD said, that on behalf of his hon. Friend Sir J. Paxton, he had to move a clause for re-apportioning the sum of £28,111, charged on the late Fulham and Hammersmith districts, among the parishes in that district.

MR. TITE said, that he saw no reason why a measure should be passed in favour of two districts only, which had been rejected on behalf of the metropolitan districts generally.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. LOCKE said, he wished to move a clause rendering persons in receipt of fees or poundage, or other emolument by way of salary, out of the rates and taxes, ineligible to be elected as vestrymen.

Clause (Persons in receipt of Fees or Poundage not to be eligible to be elected as Vestryman, &c.) brought up, and read 1o.

MR. LAYARD said, he was sorry to oppose his hon. and learned Colleague, but he had received very strong representations from many of his constituents against the clause. Its effect would be to exclude many most competent persons from the board.

MR. AYRTON said, he hoped that the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) would not be pressed as it stood, although it might be valuable in a modified shape.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he did not think sufficient grounds had been stated for making a change in the law on the subject.

of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which provided that the chairman of the board should be elected only for the day, unless in the case where a clergyman or churchwarden, otherwise qualified, was present; and enabling a vestry or district board to elect its chairman, who should continue in office for one year.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, he knew very little about the practice of the vestries and district boards, but he thought it would be undesirable to change the existing practice, without cause shown.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that the practical working of the clause would relieve the rectors of parishes, who felt themselves bound to preside over vestry meetings, from a very unpleasant duty.

no

COLONEL FRENCH said, he saw ground for the innovation, and he should oppose the clause.

MR. TITE said, he must oppose the clause.

Clause negatived.

LORD FERMOY said, he wished to move the addition of a clause giving power to vestry and district boards to contract for the removal of manure from stables and cowhouses.

MR. TITE said, as the clause was entirely permissive, he would not oppose it. Clause added to the Bill.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 181].

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES BILL. [BILL NO. 72.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill. He proposed, in case the House assented to the second reading, to go into Committee pro formá on the following day, with the view of making in it certain alterations.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, that under

the second reading, but he had objections to the Bill as it stood.

Bill read 2o, and committed for To-mor

row.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL NO. 170.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read LORD FERMOY said, the Motion was unprecedented. The Bill had been before a Select Committee, and the evidence taken before it had not been printed, and it was unusual to press a Bill on in the absence of the evidence. The Government officials, who had put forward the hon. Member for Wexford, were anxious to push on the Bill unfairly. The measure affected property in Ireland to the value of nearly £100,000,000 a year, the owners of which had not had an opportunity of being heard before the Select Committee. He contended that there was a good case for sending back the Bill to the same Committee for further inquiry, or submitting it to a new Committee. The measure was a mere job, for the purpose of enriching a few private owners of fisheries in Ireland.

MR. M'MAHON intimated his intention to postpone his Motion.

COLONEL FRENCH objected to the postponement. Charges had been made against the members of the Committee which they ought to be allowed to answer. The Bill was an important one, and every opportunity of pressing it ought to be seized.

Committee deferred till Friday.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL-[BILL No. 20.]

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, he wished to take that opportunity of stating to the House, that in consequence of the very late period of the Session at which they had arrived, together with the difficulty that had arisen as to the persons who should undertake the duties to be created by the measure-a great difference of opinion existing as to the propriety of intrusting them to the constabulary, or to the medical officers of districts-and seeing also that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns) had withdrawn his Bill on the Marriage Law of Ireland, the Government did not intend to proceed fur

Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

[BILL NO. 162.] OBSERVATIONS. MR. AYRTON said, that as the Bill stood for discussion on the following evening, he wished to point out to the First Commissioner of Works that hon. Members had not received the plans and papers, without which it was impossible for them to comprehend the bearing of the evidence that had been taken by the Select Committee.

MR. COWPER said, he had been assured by the printer that the documents would be in the hands of hon. Members on the following morning. A rapid glance would enable hon. Gentlemen to understand their bearing.

PRESENTED. FIRST READING.

LORD CHELMSFORD presented a Bill to amend the Settled Estates Act, 1856. The noble and learned Lord stated that by the 21st section of that Act, it was provided that no leases of a settled estate should be authorized by the Court of Chancery in cases in which application had been made to Parliament for a private Bill to effect the same or a similar object, and such application had been refused on the merits. The principal object of this amending Bill was to meet the case of Sir Thomas Wil

COURTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL-[BILL No. 141.]

COMMITTEE.

House in Committee (on Re-commitment), according to Order.

Clause 1 (When a Libel found relevant against a Minister, Presbytery may require and enjoin him to abstain from the Discharge of his Functions).

THE EARL OF DALIIOUSIE said, that no explanation was given of the objects of this Bill on the Motion for its second reading. Yet it was a Bill which seemed to him to be one of the most extraordinary proposed within his experience. It was in every respect a most objectionable measure. In the first clauses it applied for powers purely spiritual, and in the latter for clauses purely civil. Individually speaking, it was of little moment to him whether they established courts of justice with spiritual powers or not; but he altogether protested against the application for temporal powers. As the law now stood, if a clergyman was guilty of any fault for which a charge, or what in Scotland was called a libel, was brought against him, the presbytery to which he belonged, if they considered that a prima facie case had been made out for carrying that libel to a prosecution, could do so; but they now asked Parliament to give them power to suspend him from the exercise of his spiritual functions pendente lite. It might be that they had such a power already; but if such a power was not already vested in them, it was a question with which they had no right to interfere. It touched nothing temporal; it was a spiritual proceeding, and therefore the Established Church had the power of improving herself in this respect without coming to Parliament. He was astonished that the Established Church should have so far forgotten its own dignity, and he believed its own power, as to come to the Legislature on a subject like this. If there was any chance of healing the unhappy religious division which existed in Scotland, such a procceding as this was enough to put an end to such an expectation. Then the Bill proposed to invest the Established Church with a power which had never yet been intrusted to her. From the time of the Reformation in 1560 to the present day, all matters in controversy before the Church courts had been carried on by witnesses who appeared there voluntarily and

If

spoke as their consciences dictated. they refused to appear, their scruples had heretofore been respected. But now, by the 4th clause of this Bill, the attendance of such persons as witnesses, no matter what might be the conscientious objections, was made compulsory. If the Church of Scotland still remained what it formerly was, the Church of the great majority of the people, there might have been some ground for asking that this power should be given to her courts. But it was not so; the Established Church of Scotland did not number among its adherents one-third of the people of Scotland. To compel witnesses belonging to other sects to come into her courts was not the plan the Established Church should adopt to reconcile herself to the people of Scotland. He did not make these remarks from any hostility to an Established Church, for he did not believe that Scotland would thrive unless the Church was to some extent patronized by the State, but because he believed the Bill was one which would not promote peace, but enmity between the Churches. He should have opposed the second reading of the Bill had he been present when it was moved.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK said, it was indispensable to the conduct of judicial or quasi judicial proceedings that there should be a power of compelling witnesses to attend. If witnesses were to appear at all, they should come forward in a legal and proper way.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that his noble Friend partly admitted that with regard to the first clause of the Bill the power already existed, and yet he complained that the Established Church now came to Parliament to ask for such power. It was more than doubtful whether any legal action would arise if it was exercised now. The members of any body who were governed by rules and regulations, if dealt with unjustly according to those rules, could have recourse to the civil law, and that applied to the Free Church as well as to the Established Church. With regard to the power of calling witnesses, there was no doubt that as the Presbyters were a legal tribunal, it was right they should have the ordinary powers of ascertaining facts. He questioned whether it was worth while to persevere in the opposition to these clauses. There could be no doubt that they did not confer upon the Church courts any civil power.