I am sorry pelled to collect this amount. ceived it. This Bill, therefore, is no mere crotchet of my own. It is a measure which is approved of by men of the highest authority, though their names I am not at liberty to mention. It is a Bill that in their opinion will furnish a substitute; that will render the abolition of church rates just, expedient, and consistent with sound policy; whilst the abolition of church rates without some such substitute would manifestly strike directly at the parochial system of the country-that system upon which all other institutions, and particularly our representative institutions, are based. I believe that you could inflict no greater injury than some ill-considered measure (such as I think the abolition of church rates without compensation would be) must entail upon the parochial system of England. Suppose that the Abolition of Church Rates Bill passes without the provision of a substitute. Take the case of some poor country parish, the property of which belongs to indifferent absentee landlords. The Churchwardens meet and lament that they have no longer the sanction of the law to levy this ancient payment. It may be that the owners of the property in the parish are not members of the Church of England. They may be Dissenters, or they may be Roman Catholics. The Churchwardens do not like to go about asking for contributions. But some wealthy man comes to them and says, you need not go about begging; I will make a proposal to you that will have the effect of relieving you from all difficulty. Then he says, "If you can get such a curate employed I will give a sum sufficient to relieve you from begging for money to keep up the fabric and the services "-or, perhaps, the instead of raising the old cry about first year he makes no condition, but the Church being in danger-he now had the next says, "Yes, I'll give you the represented the interests of the laity as same sum as last year if the services are those which were liable to injury. After conducted in the way I think most edify the decision which the House had arrived ing"-and thus services, alien to the feel-at, he could not see how the hon. Gentleings of the parishioners, might be introman could expect his Bill to be read a seduced. The adults might refrain from cond time, and he therefore moved its attending the church; but the school chil-second reading that day six months. dren must attend. Need I comment further upon the mischief that might ensue? I say, Sir, that if the House has any respect for the independence of the vestries in many of the country parishes in this country, it will not, by depriving them of the means they have had for centuries of providing for and regulating the services and maintaining the fabric of the Church, render them mere begging institutions. It would be hard upon the clergy to be com Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Newdegate.) MR. SERJEANT GASELEE said, that the hon. Gentleman had raised a new cry Onslow, G. Otway, A. J. Padmore, R. Pease, J. W. Hardcastle, J. A, Pelham, Lord Harris, J. D. Potter, E. Hartington, Marquess of Potter, T. B. Hodgkinson, G. Hughes, T. Jervoise, Sir J. C. Kendall, N. Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Knatchbull-Hugessen, E Laing, S. Lawson, rt. hon. J. A. Leatham, W. H. Leeman, G. Wise, H. C. TELLERS. Newdegate, C. N. Locke, J. Lusk, A. Mackie, J. M'Laren, D. Barrow, W. H. Cowen, J. Craufurd, E. H. J. Crossley, Sir F. Davey, R. Dawson, R. P. Dillwyn, L. L. Doulton, F. Dundas, F. Majorribanks, D. C. Martin, C. W. Meller, Colonel Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. Egerton, Sir P. G. Enfield, Viscount Moffatt, G. Milbank, F. A. Mitchell, A. Montgomery, Sir G. Morris, W. Barnes, T. Morrison, W. Barron, Sir H. W. Murphy, N. D. Barry, C. R. Erskine, Vice-Ad. J. E. Neate, C. Bass, A. Evans, T. W. Nicol, J. D. Baxter, W. E. Ewart, W. Norwood, C. M. Bazley, T. Ewing, H. E. Crum O'Beirne, J. L. Beaumont, W. B. Berkeley, hon. H. F. Eykyn, R. O'Conor Don, The Fawcett, II. Blake, J. A. Fildes, J. Ogilvy, Sir J. Oliphant, L. Bonham-Carter, J. Finlay, A. S. Brady, J. Fitzwilliam, hn.C.W.W. Brand, hon. H. Foley, II. W. Bright, J. Briscoe, J. I. Forster, C. Bruce, Lord C. Bruce, rt. hon. H. A. Bryan, G. L. Butler, C. S. Cavendish, Lord G. Chambers, T. Cheetham, J. Childers, II. C. E. Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B. Foljambe, F. J. S. Forster, W. E. Fortescue, rt. hon. C. S. Goldsmid, Sir F. H. CHURCH RATES REGULATION BILL. (Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Beresford Hope.) [BILL 42.] SECOND READING postponed. Order for Second Reading read. MR. HUBBARD said, in order to enable hon. Members to make themselves better acquainted with the provision of his Bill, he would postpone the second reading till that day week. Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next. SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES BILL. [BILL 38.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 (Contracts for Sale, &c., of Shares to be void unless the Numbers by which such Shares are distinguished are set forth in the Contract). MR. LEEMAN moved the insertion of other words in the same clause, requiring that the numbers of the shares sold should be designated in writing or printing in the token or contract of sale. Amendment proposed, in line 19, after the word "designate," to insert the words "in writing."(Mr. Leeman.) MR. FILDES said, the Amendment would prevent any business being done by telegraph. MR. LEEMAN answered that a man could make his bargain by telegraph, and the message would be followed by a letter with the token next morning. MR. TURNER said, the offence which it was proposed to create by the Bill would be completed on the moment the telegraph was acknowledged, and the parties concerned would be liable to punishment. MR. C. WYKEHAM-MARTIN said, the numbers of the shares could be sent by telegraph. MR. TURNER replied that the numbers would make the message too expensive, and stop sales in that way. MR. LEEMAN insisted that agreement by telegraph did not constitute a contract, and that therefore the offence contemplated could not be committed by telegraph. Question put, "That those words be there inserted.' TRADES UNIONS BILL-(No. 44.) COMMITTEE ON RE-COMMITMENT. House in Committee on Re-commitment (according to Order). Clause 2 (Limits of Inquiry under Act). EARL DE GREY AND RIPON said, that as the Bill was one of considerable importance, he wished to obtain from the Government such explanation as it was in their power to give as to the exact scope and nature of the inquiry. An alteration had been made in this clause when the Bill was committed pro formâ, and as it now stood Assistant Commissioners, independent of the Commission, might be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to conduct the Sheffield inquiry. If he could rely upon the information that had reached him, there was no prebability of the inquiry with respect to the outrages at Sheffield being undertaken by the members of the Commission, and in that case it would fall into the hands of the barristers to be appointed under this clause, over whom the Commission would have no control. In that case he thought the Sheffield inquiry should be kept quite distinct from that intrusted to the Commission. He wished to know, also, what was the interpretation placed by Her Majesty's Government on the scope of the inquiry? The noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) on the side Woolsack, The Committec divided:-Ayes 109; while admitting that the Bill conferred Noes 20 Majority 89. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next. Ilouse adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock. powers of an arbitrary character, justified that circumstance on the ground of the necessity that existed to search into the outrages that had been committed. But the words of this clause seemed of wider scope than was thus intended, and the machinery provided was of an unusual character. The words of this clause were that the Commissioners were to— These words were of a very wide nature, and might cover matters of a very different kind from what was first intended. He should be glad to know whether Her Majesty's Government had any reason to suppose that outrages had been perpetrated in consequence of the association of employers? Their Lordships should bear in mind that this clause applied to the town of Sheffield generally, and the Commissioners might be called upon by those who came before them to go into many questions between employers and employed, of a very delicate character, and which might establish a very bad precedent. He would suggest that the Government were bound to define the scope of the inquiry. He wished to know also how the barristers appointed under this clause, which had been introduced in their Lordships' House, were to be paid? As the Bill came before them at first the inquiry was to be carried on by unpaid Commissioners; but if they substituted for them special Commissioners, it was evident that if men of firstrate ability were not appointed the confidence of those interested in the inquiry would be shaken, while, on the other hand, men of eminent ability would have to be liberally compensated. THE LORD CHANCELLOR explained that the Commission which had been issued defined the limits of the inquiry, which were described in the preamble of the Bill. These terms were "To inquire into and report on the organization and rules of Trades Unions and other Associations, whether of workmen or employers." And "To investigate any recent acts of intimidation, outrage, or wrong, alleged to have been promoted, encouraged, or connived at by such Trades Unions or other Associations." These words showed the extent and the limit of the inquiry, and the Bill only provided for the mode in which the inquiry should be carried on. LORD CRANWORTH said, the powers of the Commission must depend upon the wording of the clause, and if the Commissioners exercised any powers which were not authorized by the clause, they would be inoperative, and he thought the scope of the inquiry was not sufficiently definite. The clause gave the Commissioners power to inquire into "any acts of intimidation, outrage, or wrong." These words were so general that they might include the crime of murder; and by a subsequent clause the Commissioners possessed what was in reality the power of giving pardon to those who had been engaged in any act of intimidation, outrage, or wrong, and whom they might feel it necessary to examine. If in the course of the inquiry before the Assistant Commissioners such acts were alleged and inquired into, would that be a valid act? THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, ho did not understand his noble and learned Friend's objection to the clause. EARL DE GREY AND RIPON asked why the inquiry should extend to associations of employers as well as of workmen ? LORD ST. LEONARDS pointed out that the object of the inquiry was to ascertain the state of the relations between workmen and employers, out of which the outrages arose. THE EARL OF BELMORE said, it was alleged by persons who professed to know that these outrages did not arise out of the working of trades unions, and the object of the Commission was to inquire whether that was true or not. It had been granted on the application not only of the inhabitants of Sheffield, but also on that of members of trades unions, who said they could prove that the allegations made against them were false, and that the trades unions were quite innocent. With reference to outrages having been promoted or committed by employers, an instance had been adduced in which a man was knocked down by a foreman because he admitted having attended a trades union meeting; and it was evident that the inquiry, the scope of which embraced the whole question of the relations of employers and employed, must extend to the means adopted by the masters to promote their own interests as against the men. The barristers, appointed members of the Commission, he supposed, would be paid in the same way as the Commissioners who conducted inquiries into bribery at elections; but that was a matter which exclusively rested with the Treasury. EARL GRANVILLE said, he perfectly understood the historical part of the question and the pressure put upon the Goverument; but he had never heard a real defence of the extraordinary measures taken, nor a practical explanation of how that was to be effected by this inquiry which the ordinary processes of the law had failed to accomplish. The other day he suggested that it would be desirable to consult Sir William Erle, the Chairman of the Commission; and if Sir William Erle really approved the proposed arrangements he would bow to such authority. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, his right hon. and learned Friend had consented to act on the Commission, and, of course, he would be guided by the powers conferred on the Commission. Clause agreed to. upon a workman in Sheffield unless he were in some way obnoxious to the trades unions. He did not charge these outrages upon the general body of workmen; but he believed that some small and secret executive was mainly responsible for them. He thought it would be as well to put the Bill in the fire as to strike out this clause. LORD CRANWORTH thought there was danger of a great wrong being done to Clause 3 (Powers of Commissioners in parties falsely accused by witnesses before respect of Evidence). Clause amended, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Indemnity to Witnesses). LORD HOUGHTON said, the effect of this clause was to prejudge the whole question of the connection of the trades unions with the outrages at Sheffield. It appeared to him that when a matter was to be inquired into nothing should be done which might prejudge the case on one side or the other. By this clause they permitted the man who had committed the outrage to come forward and explain how he did it, and they gave him full indemnity. This implied that they would treat the principal as an accomplice, and the trades unions as the real perpetrators of the outrage. He would move the omission of the clause. LORD WHARNCLIFFE said, the clause, he believed, represented a simple desire to arrive at the truth of a muchvexed question. The noble Lord seemed to think that the trades unions were in no way connected with outrages at Sheffield. But it certainly was remarkable that these outrages should take place in a town known to be more under the control of trades unions than any other in England, and that there had never been a case of outrage the Commission of having instigated them to commit an outrage. Such a person could not be convicted of perjury, because the clause enacted that no evidence taken under this Act shall be "admissible against any person in any civil or criminal proceeding whatever." THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the indemnity only extended so far as to the acts confessed to by the witness as having been committed by himself. It did not secure him against an action for giving false evidence or against an indictment for perjury. EARL GREY thought the clause might words. He would suggest the addition of be made clear by the insertion of a few the following words at the end of the clause: THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that the discussion which had taken place only proved the inconvenience of confounding the general inquiry into the working of trades unions with an inquiry into the particular outrages at Sheffield. The former question was one which ought to be entered upon in the most impartial and philosophical spirit, and it was unwise to appear to prejudge it by connecting it with the Sheffield outrages. He regarded those associations as perfectly legitimate; for workmen had a perfect right to combine with a view to raise the price of their labour, and he believed the result of a fair inquiry would be to show that their operation had been beneficial both to the labouring classes and to the interests of the country at large. The mixing up the Sheffield outrages with the general inquiry would create an impression in the minds of the working classes that the case was prejudiced; and, as the Commissioners were allowed to delegate the local investigation to others, he did not see why that |