Papurau Newydd Cymru
Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru
5 erthygl ar y dudalen hon
S » ii■^"r~—— ffiarUawwtftt*!.
S » ii ^"r~ —— ffiarUawwtftt* FRIDAY. The House of Lords read the Poor Belief (propolis) Ei.l «, second time. Pnwler call'ed attention to tho tsoent In the Commons j. iR;ver Settlement, and eliciteA from Mr the latest reports Monsell the info' oQ the plt.vi0us day, peaec had been ficm Ciin.idii. Company had resamed the posses- restored, the Hud. y tb(i entire community was working sion of their f<c next question was tho motion °^ .llTr nsTon fo? an nddress for a Soyal commission to pf Sir J. Pakrng.on i«^ CTeat arul R..Gwing iosg of life and property at sea during the last few years, and to consider whether a^y and what Ganges can be Kade in existing laws and relations with -resnect to collisions, over-lading, stowage ot and otter Voters, with tka view of giving increased Bofftv to ifassenSei-i »nd merchant ships. Mr Leievre objected to the appointment of a commission, on the ground that sta- in thehR».d9 of the Boafft of Trade disproved the asser- tion that the loss of life and prsperty at sea had lately increased, and that the .(Treat majority e'i shipwrecks had arisen from over- lading. The Government, however, intended to piopa^e certain the of Traàe urveyor to report upon the state of the rtTaiSPty. and omi'OfeT it. Curt,.m. to note th. hmsht c, «,„«« 2s BBS Bills intl-o<1uce,i by the Government, and Rssid in J making them as-•efficient as P°?fi_le_ then call(jd llU,,nH„n szgsssssis « aiid barbarou«ly at the same 'Court have^ TOfferod to be at largo in the neighbourhood of Athens, and asked whether her Majesty's Onvprnmert are able to state what measures will be taken to nhtlin f.orn the Greek Government such satisf iction for this unprece&d outr^e as Her Majesty is entitled to claim, necor to the law of nations, and to ensure the due protec- ting of the lives of diplomatic servants, and other Kiihi'r rV British Crown, within the kingdom of Greece. ^ir R p yis4 W■'> h id given notic of an amendment condemn- inl the ooaduct of the Greek Ministers, and inviting t -cG -veni- ment to concert with its all.es the best means of establishing £ Greece a Government capable of satisfying the requirements of a civilizedS ate, difcuteed the circ;imst; nces of the nffair at length, contending that it was tho mischievous activity of the Greek Government which led to the saci fi e of the prisoners lives. jir Gladsto; e deprecated the expression of any definite opinion in the manner suggested by Sir H. Bulwer; and as to the general principles laid down by Sir Roundel! Palmer he « iefally agreed in f 0 a, h ugh their application must be governed by inform ti .« not yet received by the Government Particularly he concurred in the doctrine that no municipal law could excuse a failure in international law. But, under the present circumstances, and in his responsible position, he 'claimed to speak with great reserve. As to any failure in the nreliminarv protection of the travelers on their journey, the Government was not yet in a position to take legal advice, and the circumstances subsequent to the capture, p-irticularly tnc communications between the brigands arid m Athens—the most critical p irt of the case w- 0I)inion t scure So also it would be necessary, befoie giving an opinion, to obtafn further information as to the good faith and the wisdom of the measures taken for the rescue of the prisoners; but at present rr Gladstone went so far as to say appearances wer, un. satisfactory, and required explanation This eyent-a grievous tragedy for us—must be a serious epoch in the history of Greece; but he hoped that a remedy and a security for the future against th evils of brigandage might be found without laying the re- sponsibility of the disorganization of Greece on her popular institutions. At least it would be the duty of the Government to ponder seriously before coming to this conclusion. Some weeks must elapse before the Government was in full possession of the facts, and then it would be their duty to consider what line they should take, not only as an aggrievedI party,Jbut ias one of the Protecting Powers, which last position, he added, had not been one of unlimited success. There was no reason to believe that there would be cither the will or the power at Athens to ob- struct the fullest inquiry, and he assured the House that the Government was fully sensible of the grave responsibility thrown on it, and wouid net as seemed best for the honour and dignity of the country.-Sir H. Bulwer did not press his amend- ment, and the subject then drol ped.-The other business was disposed of, and the House adjourned at three o clocK. MONDAY. The knowledge that Lord Carnarvon was to call their lord- ships, attention to the circumstances of the recent massacre of British suljects in Greece, and to ask what measures the Government intend to adopt to obtain satisfaction and repara- tion, led to a pretty large attendance both of peers and peeresses in the House of Lords last night. The American minister was present in the diplomatic gallery; Lord Muncasttr was at the bar, and Lady Muucaster was accommodated with a seat among the ladies of distinction upstairs. The Earl of Carnarvon, who addressed their lordships for about an hour and a quarter, as- serted that the Greek Government were responsible for what had occurred. Lord C;arendon deprecated any discussion at this moment, but assured their lordships that whsn the investigation now going on is completed, the Government will take such steps as the circumstances of the case and the honour of England demand. "\T In the House of Commons, in reply to an inquiry by Mr Bouverie with reference to the ministerial Bills before the House, the Premier stated that he did not propose to go further with the University Tests Bill than the second reading prior to the Whitsuntide recess, but to pass the Irish Land Bill and send it to the- House of Lords in the interim. It would also be neces- Sarv to make progress with the estimates, epecially those for the navy, and with the budget proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Ballot Bill would not be taken on Monday next and the committee on the Education Bi,l would be put dow £ for the 16th of June. The second reading of the Uoiveisitj Tests Bill was supported by Lord E. F I z m auncP, Mi Si to lis, and Mr Denman, and opposed by Mr Walpole, Mi H.u dy, Mr Rallies Mr Mowbrav, Mr B. Hope, and Mr Ivevydegate. Mr Gladstone affirmed aiike the justice and policy of the measure, the second reading of which was carried by a majority of 191 to 66. The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers from the miuisterial benches, and some clapping of hands in the strangers' gallery. Some time was spent in committee upon the Irish Land Bill; several new clauses were proposed, but all were either negatived or withdrawn, and about halt an hour after midnight the schedule w&s agreed to, an amendment W&S made in the preamble, and amid loud and hearty cheers from the ministerial benches, the chairman was ordered to re- Ttort the Bill to the House on Thursday next. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned. TUESDAY. Their lordships met at five o'clock. Lord LIFFORD called attention to the numerous petitions presented against the Contagious Diseases Act, many of •which he observed, were signed by women and children who could know nothing of the necessity for the opera- 0 tion of the Act in question. He also complained of the Untruthfulness of statements put forward bythe promoters of these petitions. The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved the second reading of the Railway Powers and Construction Bill, explaining that its object was to confer additional powers on the Board of Trade with the view of simplifying and cheapening legis- lation' authorizing the construction and extension of wail,v,ys. j The Bill was then read a second time. The Norwich Voters' Disfranchisement Bill was read a 86 AfttrTfew remarks from Lord Cairns and the Lord ^Lord HEDESDALE moved the second reading of the Irish Church Bill, the object of which he explained was to give to the church body the proceeds of any benefices falling-vacant until the 1st of January, 1871, when dis- establishment will take effect. Earl GRANVILLE deprecated any legislation upon a question which might raise invidious opposition for an ob- ject which was hardly worth it. o After some remarks from Earl Longford and Lord Cairns in favour, and the Lord Chancellor against the Bill, it was withdrawn. The Poor Relief {Metropolis) Bill was read a third time, and passed. Their lordships adjourned at 5.50 p.m. In the House of Commons, The Speaker t iok the chair at four o clock. In reply to Sir W. Croft, Mr LEFEVRE said that no complaint had been made to the Board of Trade that the Great Western Railway Company was in the habit of running passengertrams through tunnels without lights in the carriages. He be- lieved that the Board of Trade had no power to compel companies to light their carriages when running through tunnels. HORSES EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE. Mr HANBURY-TRACY asked the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer whether his attention had been called to the cir- cumstances that sixty-one farmers, who were carting materials gratuitously for the rebuilding of the Trefeglwys Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Chapel, had been forced by the Excise Office to take out licenses for their horses, amounting in all to B30 10s., and that the building fund of the chapel had had to recoup them to that amount; and whether farmers were liable for horse duty when gratui- tously carting materials for building and repairing churches, chapels, and schools; and, if so, whether it was the in- tion of the Government to take any steps for altering the Jaw in this respect. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-I must answer 4" first branch of the .hon. gentleman's question first. jghter.) With respect to the other part of the question, ? n ay judgment the excise officers were in error if they hMe such a charge. (Hear, hear.) We must put a reasonable construction upon the Act of Parliament. The Act says the exemption is for horses kept solely for the Use of agriculture." It does not say solely used in agri- culture but "kept solely for the use of agriculture." Therefore, the criterion is not the use that is made of a horse, but the purpose for which it is kept, and the use is valuable only as it throws light on the purpose for which the horse is kept. The distinction that we ought to make is whether the use of a horse is gratuitous or otherwise. If a farmer lets out his horse on hire for any purpose, whether drawing stones for a chapel or to mend a road, he forfeits his exemption. But if the horse does the work gratuitously he does not forfeit his exemption. (Hear, tear.) The principle that should guide us is whether the action is gratuitous or not. If it is gratuitous there is a fair ground for exemption, but the moment a man begins to make money out of the horse m any other way than in aoriculture, then the exemption ceases. (Hear, hear). Mr BASS said that in the north ot bcotland great dis- content had existed for some time in consequence of the 1310de in which this tax had been exacted for plough horses Userl in carrying the family to chapel. It was considered as a tax upon. church-going. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The question is ftot whether it is church-going, but whether the service is gratuitous. A horse employed in carrying the owner s family to church comes, of course, within the exemption, wear, hear.) PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL. Mr LEATHAM asked the First Lord of the Treasury "Ilether since the Parliamentary Elections Bill, which stood for second reading on Monday next, had been post- t>°hed, he was able to name a, day after Whitsuntide when second reading of this Bill would be taken. Mr GLADSTONE—I regret it is not in my power to name day after Whitsuntide when the second reading will be t?ken. As our old friend Dogberry says, An two men ride of a horse, one must ride behind." So in this case here are three Bills pressing for precedence-the Educa- ,l0ri Bill, the University Tests Bill, and the Parliamen- tary Elections Bill, and of these we think it our duty to the Education Bill forward. (Hear, hew.)
.::,.--__-THE ESTABLISHED…
THE ESTABLISHED CHtTRijll IN WALES. Mr WATKIN WILLIAMS rose to call attention to the position and state of the Established Church in Wales, and to move resolutions. He said the country had re- cently passed through a storm in z!oiiyte,Q ion with the dis establishment of theChurchin Ireland, but we were now in that proverbial calm after the storm which amounted almost to apathy, and which appeared to furnish a fitting opportunity for calling the attention of the House to the question of the Established Church in Wales, without exciting any angry feelings or passions. The church establishment in Wales was nearly co-extensive I with the four dioceses of St. Asaph, Bangor, St. David's, and Llandaff, and embraced an area. of 4,734,000 acres. The population of Wales according to the census of 1861 I was 1,111,780, and according to the best estimate that could be formed it was now 1,220,000. The total revenue of that church was R350,000 per annum. It had four bishops, four deans, thirteen canons residentiary, ten archdeacons, and numerous minor dignarities. The parochial clergy, as he calculated it from the list of last year, was, in round numbers, 1,000, although he found it put by some authorities at 733. The church established in Wales was an ancient and venerable institution it was not, like the Church of Ireland, an alien church, forced on the people by a conqueror or an oppressor; it was not, he believed, regarded by the people of the Principality with any feeling of hostility in many respects, indeed, it was regarded with affection and veneration. If, therefore, the church establishment in Wales had not succeeded in gaining the affection and confidence of the people, if it was not their trusted and loved teacher of religion, what was the reason for that ? In the true answer to that question lay the solution of the problem he was about to submit to the House for on that answer would depend whether the remedy for the existing state of things was a separation of the church from the State and the application of its en- dowments to other purposes, or a remodelling of the church and an endeavour to constitute it on a different basis. After most anxious and careful study he had come to the conclusion that the reason why the church estab- lishment of Wales had been a failure was the same cause which throughout Europe, and also in Great Britain, was undermining establishments everywhere, and which made people feel that establishment by the State was both un- scriptural and injurious to the true cause of religion. Bjfore coming to the merits of the question, let him say a few words as to the practical difficulty of dealing with it. It was asked, assuming that it was a right thing to take that course, how could they disestablish the church in Wales ?. It was said there was no such corporation as the Welsh Church. That was true enough in one sense. But there was, in fact, no such corporation as the Church of England. The Church of England had no legal entity as such, neither could it sue nor be sued, nor hold property. But if it were thought desirable there could be no real practical difficulty in disestablishing that church in the city of London or in the county of Lancaster. If, as some 'supposed, the church was one single church, established in England and Wales, in that respect differing from the church in Ireland, he should respect the feelings of those who said they could not deal with the church in the Prin- cipality and not deal also with the church in England. But it was not historically correct to speak of that as the Church of England established in Wales. The hon. and learned member then proceeded to quote the authority of the venerable Bede, and of Thierry, the historian of the Norman Conquest, to show that the primitive church in Wales was a separate church, originating in a different time and from a purer source than that of the church in England. The Britons embraced Christianity about the middle of the second century, adhered to it for centuries in all its purity and simplicity, and when driven out of Eng- land it was to be found exclusively in Wales. Towards the end of the sixth century the Anglo-Saxons embraced Christianity in a different form, when St. Au<nistine started what was then called the church of the English— quite a distinct institution from the church of the British which was confined to the Principality of Wales, and the bishops of which were not territorial barons, as they sub- sequently became through the infusion of the feudal ele- ment into the church, but were the true overseers of the people, whose authority was derived from the people, and who acted only in concert with and by the assent of the people. In the resolutions he had to propose he was not actuated by hostility to the church itself, but only to its establishment; and he hoped to be able to show that they had a tradition in Wales, to which the people of the Prin- cipality clung—viz., that the ancient British church was a pure and simple Christian church, independent of and very different indeed from the Church of England, and very analogous to the Nonconformist churches in Wales at the present day. In an ancient synod of the Welsh bishops, when St. Augustine sought to induce them to acknowledge his authority and that of the Pope, they firmly refused to do so, and declared that next after the obedience which they owed to God alone they recognized only that which was due to their own venerable head, the Bishop of Caer- leon. The Welsh church in early times was severely persecuted and in the reign of Henry II. the King, by the assistance and contrivance of the Pope, and by a com- bination of fraud and violence, appointed to the see of St. David's (the archbishopric of Wales) a lawyer and courtier, on the understanding1 that lie should forego the right to be Archbishop of Wales, and would submit to ths authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. From the time of Henry II. down to that of Henry VIII. Bishops ap- pointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury were agreeable enough to acknowledge the authority of that prelate. This state of things was brought about bya combination of fraud and collusion between the Pope and the King of England. The ancient Church of Wales having been in that way subjected to the Church of England in the reign of Henry VIII., an Act of Parliament was passed by which it was er acted that all Acts passed for England should extend to V;- He laid down this proposition- that the church of the British, the church in Wales, was in its origin and inception a separate and totally distinct church; that that Christian church had been organized many cen- turies before the Church of England, and that only by fraud and violence, confirmed by an Act of Henry VllI had it been united to the Church of England. What the Legislature had done, the Legislature could undo. He now came to the present condition of the church in Wales and the failure of the establishment in the Principality. He would endeavour to state the facts simply and without colour, and he trusted to be able to do so without wound- ing the feelings or hurting the religious susceptibilities of any human being. (Hear, hear.) He might observe that the Welsh held by tradition that in the army which brought the Tudors to the throne in the person of Henry VII. three-fourths of the troops were Welshmen. (A laugh.) The Welsh thought it and believed it, though he confessed he was not prepared to give authority for the fact itself. (Renewed laughter.) One might have sup- posed that after the passing of the Act of Henry VIII. a spirit of toleration and conciliation would have been mani- fested by England to Wales, but M. Thierry, in his History of the Norman Conquest, said that while the Government of England gave every encouragement for the translation of the Scriptures into English, it prohibited their translation into Welsh, and ordered the Welsh trans- lations to be burnt. He believing that the adoption of those measures was the turning point, because it was the initiation of a policy that had been continued down to the present day. A legislati ve prohibition of the translation of the Scriptures into the Welsh language was maintained for the best part of a century. In the reign of Elizabeth the statute by which such translation had been forbidden was re- pealed but after a period of oppression and suppression no very marked effects could be expected to immediately follow the passing of an Act permitting the publication of the Scriptures m Welsh. In 1588, for the first time, the Scriptures were translated into Welsh, and in 1606 there was a further publication of the Scriptures in the same language, but as the editions were in folio they had not a very extensive circulation among the people. Up to 1745 no great progress had been made in the circulation of the Scriptures in the Welsh language, and as the en- deavour to teach the people was made in a foreign tongue they retrograded rather than advanced in knowledge. In 1730 several clergymen of the Church of England who were natives of Wales, and small and humble men, set about teaching the people in their own language; and be- tween 1730 and 1777 over 600 schools were established in the Principality, and it was not until that period the wave of the Reformation, which already had passed over Eng- land and the rest of Europe, rose in Wales. So anxious were the people of all ages to learn that persons sixty and seventy years of age availed themselves of the schools. The great progress which commenced in Wales in 1730 continued down to the close of that century. Previously to 1745 the great bulk of the Welsh bishops were native Welshmen. In 1745 the gentry of Wales joined the Jacobite rebellion. Whether it was owing to that fact or not of course it was impossible for him to say but from that period down to the recent appointment of Bishop Hughes not a single Welshman had been appointed to a Welsh bishopric. He must here be permitted to observe that the appointment of Dr. Hughes, which had been made by the great man at the head of the party to which he belonged (Mr Gladstone), was acceptable to all the in- habitants of the Principality, whether churchmen or non- conformists. It was satisfactory that the first Welshman who had been appointed to a Welsh bishopric for 125 years was so generally esteemed by the people that had the matter been put to the vote he would have been elected to the office by a vast majority. The hon. member proceeded to read a long extract from the British.Critical Theological Quarterly of 1832, which animadverted upon the improper appointments to bishoprics that had been made from the time of Walpole downwards, and pointed out the evil re- sults that had flowed from such a degradation of the church. If that had been the case in England, how much greater must the evil have been in Wales. The hon. member further read a petition presented to the House of Commons in 1832 from the Welsh people praying for re- forms in the Church of Wales, and pointing out that the service was invariably read in English, of which language the majority of the Welsh people were totally ignorant. A large proportion of the livings in Wales were in the hands of absentees, and a still greater proportion of the tithes were employed in the repair of English cathedrals. Bishop Luxmoore had received no less a sum than 227,000 per annum from the tithes, and English sinecurists 22,670, and, altogether, E47 556 of the Welsh tithes was applied to purposes outside of the Welsh church, while only i.18,393 went to the Welsh clergy. That was the state of things in 1830. In the meantime what was going on in Wales outside the church ? Owing to the circumstances he had mentioned the establishment in Wales had turned out a failure, and the people resorted to the Bible alone for their religious instruction. It was not long before the I Welsh people discovered that there was no authority in Scripture for an episcopal church supported by State aid, and that conclusion they had come to honestly and sin- cerely. Some of the inferior clergy supported the people f in this conclusion, but they were denounced by their superiors, and turned out of the church. The separation on the part of the people occurred as late as the year 1810. A proposition was made on their part that they should be allowed to ordain their own ministers without episcopal interference; but the .bishops refused their consent, and the people withdrew. Mr Charles, formerly a turner, and Mr Rowlands retired with them and continued to preach the Gospel tn their own way. The great dignarities of the church looked down upon them with contempt, and the people retorted with indignant remonstrance against the flagrant nepotism of the bishops. Thus it had come to pass that the suggestion of a reorganisation of the church came too late. A revolution in thought had come about throughout the whole of the civilized world since this separation had occurred; everybody was destroying every- body else's preconceived notions. (Opposition cheers.)- The revolution he referred to was a determined opposition to church establishments, which, in the language of an able writer, although they may at different times have served the interests of governments and kings, were now shown to have been detrimental to the truth. (Hear, hear.) That was the conclusion to which many of his countrymen had arrived, and the question for the House was whether it would give effect to that opinion. It might be said that if the church were disestablished in Wales it might be dis- established in Cornwall and Yorkshire. As a Welshman he was contented to let Cornwall look after itself but if the people of either county wished for disestablishment they might command his vote. He bad some statistics showing the state of affairs down to 1851 to show what little hold the church had upon the people, but he was o >nstrained to admit that they were somewhat defective. In 1801 75"2 per cent, of the accommodation in places of warship through North Wales was supplied by the church, and 24'8 per cent. was supplied by other denominations. Between 1801 and 1851 the population in North Wales in- creased at the rate of 63 per cent., or, in round numbers, from 250,000 to 400,000. If the same proportion between the different sects had been maintained during those 50 years the church would nave added 60,000 sittings to its supply, but, in fact, it supplied only 16,000; the nonconformists should have added 20,000, but they, in fact, added 217,000. (Hear, hear.) The church during this time had retrograded at the rate of 73 per cent., and the noncon- formists had increased at the rate of 960 per cent. The number of places of worship in Wales was also a test, and statistics of these he found in a work-by the hon. member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr H. Richard). In 1851 the number of places of worship supplied by the church was 1,180, containing 301,897 sittings, and the number supplied by nonconformists was 2,826, containing 692,329 sittings, or by the church 30 per cent., and by the nonconformists 70 per cent. of the whole number. Assuming that 58 per cent. of the population should be supplied with seats, these figures showed that the supply by the church fell short by 387,672 of what it should be, and the noncon- formists exceeded the proper complement by 2,770 the church supplied accommodation for only 25 per cent., and the nonconformists for 59 of the population. He cal- c llated that the population had now increased to 1,220,000. Now, according to the estimate given in the little work written by his hon. friend the member for Merthyr Tydfil, the proportion between the nonconformists and the mem- bers of the church was as eight to one. Many persons, however, who spoke with great authority on this subject' gave the proportion as ten to one but he was content to take an (s i nate which could hardly 'be disputed by the church people-viz., five to one. Taking, then, the pro- portion of five to one, the number of people in Wales who might be considered as belonging to the church was 203,333|, while the number of nonconformists was 1,016,66211; but according to the proportion given in the little work he had quoted, the members of the church numbered 135,555 5-9ths, and the nonconformists 1,084,444 4-9ths. He would leave it to hon. gentlemen to draw their own conclusions from these figures. It might be alleged, however, that We had no trustworthy information on the subject, but, if so, an investigation ought to be in- stituted, and the taking of the census next year would afford an admirable opportunity of testing the accuracy of the statistics he had quoted. (Hear, hear.) Many per- sons, indeed, who favoured his view of the matter said that it was premature to bring it forward. He did not mean to represent to this great assembly that his country- men were eager to press this subject forward without the least delay, for even one of his most sanguine supporters had written a letter to him expressing his opinion that a prior investigation was absolutely necessary. For him- self, he was not so ambitious nor so absurd as to suppose that the House could, bv a motion like the present, carry out legislation on the subject, and his answer to those who said the subject was too large for a private member to take up was that it was they who made it a large one. He was content to bring it forward, and to ask the House and the country to take it into consideration; and his countrymen, although they felt deeply on the subject, were not impatient about it. Judging from the past, from the turn of legislation, and the tone of Ministers, he con- cluded the time had come when justice, equity, and equality would be considered in this great assembly. He did not expect the House would pass the resolutions this evening, nor did he even desire to press them. If subse- quent investigation should confirm his statement, and if legislation followed in the direction he desired, he con- scientiously believed that the cause of God, of religion and of good fellowship, would be promoted in the Princi- pality. He forbore from saying anything about the ap- plication of the funds, and would merely remark that he brought the resolutions forward in order that the House might know the exact point at which he was driving. In conclusion, the hon. gentleman moved :—"That in the opinion of this House, it is right that the establishment of the church and its union with the State should cease to exist in the said Dominion and Principality; that it is just and expedient that the public endowments enjoyed by the church establishment should, after making provi- sion for all vested interests, be applied to the support of a national and undenominational system of education for the said Dominion and Principality of Wales." Mr GLADSTONE—1 am sure that even those who may most widely differ from the opinions and purposes of my hon. friend will be ready to admit that they have nothing to complain of in regard to the spirit and the language with which he has treated a very difficult and intricate subject. (Hear, hear.) And, inaeed, by the character of his admissions he has opened and made ready a way for persons who either differ from him in principle, or who think, as he himself said, that the time and circumstances under which he makes his proposal would not justify the House in entertaining it with a practical view. My hon. friend has entered into an historical discussion of great interest, and I am bound to say that, having been led to give some attention to this aspect of the subject, I am not able to read the history of Wales precisely in the same sense as my hon. friend and yet I do not think that as far as my view varies from his it is likely to offend him because I am disposed to attach even much greater conse- quence to that unwise and un-national policy which was pursued for a great length of time by this country towards Wales, and of which church appointments were unfortu- nately made the medium. But now let us look at the main questions which are raised. I cannot be surprised that my hon. friend is struck, as, indeed, everybody must be struck, with the gravity of the facts which attach to the condition of the church in Wales. There is to a cer- tain extent a resemblance between the case of the church in Wales and the case of the Church of Ireland, but that resemblance ought not to be exaggerated. Let us consider and endeavour to compare them with respect to members. My hon. friend says the churchmen of Wales may be- reckoned at one-sixth of the population. I believe, how ever, that churchmen themselves, and those who write in the interest of the church, are accustomed to claim about one-fourth of the population. Bnt, whichever of these figures may be the nearer to the truth, no doubt the dis- proportion is very remarkable in the case of a church pur- porting to be the church of the nation. It is not, indeed, at all in correspondence with the disproportion which pre- vailed in Ireland, because there one-ninth or one-tenth of the population was the utmost at which the members of the Established Church could be reckoned. There is one other point in regard to which the Welsh church corres- ponds—I use the expression for the sake of convenience- with that of the Irish church. It is that so large a pro- portion of her members belong to the upper "classes of the community, the classes who are most able to provide themselves with the ministrations of religion, and, there- fore, in whose special and peculiar interest it is most diffi- cult to make any effectual appeal for public resources and support. But, sir, with regard to other points of not less -1- ro.' 4-1. 117.11 1 r consequence tnc wc YV eisn caurcn is certainly widely different from that of the Irish church. In the first place, it is impossible to compare the severance be- tween the Established Church and the nonconformists of Wales with the severance between, the members of the Irish Establishment and the Roman Catholics. Not merely upon theological grounds, but also on the ground of actual sympathy or hostility of sentiment, the whole history of the case is entirely different. There was a strong and sharp antagonism between the Established Church and the Roman Catholic Church running through Ireland, and the ecclesiastical antagonism was compli- cated and embittered by intermixture with political ques- tions even graver than the ecclesiastical controversies of the country, so that the effect of the whole was that the several portions of the population were placed almost in an attitude of standing social hostility to each other. Now, whatever view we take of the anomalies of the position of the church in Wales, I am sure my hon. friend will admit it would be a most gross exaggeration to profess that any- thing like a resemblance of the general position exists as between Wales and Ireland, or in the attitude of the mem- bers of the church in Wales on the one hand, or the mem- bers of the nonconforming bodies on the other. Again, the religious differences of Ireland had their root in the ancient history of the country. The religious differences which prevail in Wales are entirely modern. My hon. and learned friend, in the statistics which he has quoted from the year 1801, has marked that which is familiarly known to those who have considered the case of Wales— namely, that tne growtn oi dissent in tnat country has been not less recent than it has been rapid. Even since 1801, which in questions of national history must be con- sidered no very remote date, the figures quoted by my hon. and learned friend show that the position of the church relatively to nonconformity has greatly altered for the worse. These things show that if from any cause the discussion of the question of the Irish church has led to this early discussion of the case of the church in Wales, still it would be a most precipitate and erroneous conclu- sion to assume that there was a substantial identity be- tween them, even if we confine our views strictly to what is between the limits of Ireland in the one case and within the limits of Wales in the other. With regard to the facts, there is no very great difference, perhaps, between my hon. and learned friend and aiyself, because the precise figures and precise proportions are not now at issue, and I own I think It creditable to the discernment and good sense of my hon. and learned friend that he regretted the want of accurate and trustworthy information to enable us to appreciate the real facts of the case as regards the several religious opinions in Wales. I know in some former years there have been sharp differences of opinion in this House in respect to the best mode of getting at these facts. Certainly we must feel that the absence of that information is a misfortune, and if it be possible to devise some methods of obtaining real and accurate infor- mation in this matter-methods attended with no practical difficulties, and not repugnant to the feelings of the people —an object of some importance will have been attained, I (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, my hon. and learned friend says that the cause of Welsh dissent is the conviction of the people, founded upon the study of the Holy Scriptures, that there is no warrant in the Christian religion for the existence of national religious establishments. If my hon. and learned friend will permit me to say so, without in- tending him any disrespect, I must say that my hon. and learned frend has in my opinion entirely failed to prove that such is the case. (Hear, hear.) Sufficient proof of what I say is to be found in this-that although it is true Welsh nonconformity had taken root in the country, and had become the popular religion of the country somewhat more than half a century ago, my hon. and learned friend would have found it most difficult, if not absolutely impossible, at that time to discover the slightest traces of controversy with regard to religious establishments. It has not been a ques- tion with regard to national establishments of religion that has had anything to do with the growth of Welsh dissent. That is an historical challenge whitfh I hold out to my hon. and learned friend, for there is an anachronism in what he has stated. But in my opinion the cause of Welsh dissent is to found in the cruel and irrational policy that was pursued, even for a longer period than has been stated by my hon. and learned friend, in regard to the ecclesiastical appointments in that country. As I understand the matter, the state of things before and after the period of the revolution was this. The accession of the Tudor family to the throne was the epoch at which the sitn of Royal favour began to shine upon Wales. The territory of Wales was defined, the laws of England were extended to Wales, and so far from quoting the case of the translation of the Scriptures into the Welsh tongue as an instance of the un- kind treatment which Wales has suffered at the hands of this country, I should rather feel inclined to quote it in support of an opposite argument. Whatever may have been the case in the time of Henry VIII., in the reign of Elizabeth efforts, and effectual efforts, were made towards the work of translating the Scriptures, but in the reign of James I. that work was satisfactorily accomplished. And here I may remark that I honoured the national feeling and courage of my hon. friend the member for Merthyr Tydfil when, some weeks ago, in a debate on the Educational Bill, referring to the high esteem which Englishmen placed upon the English Bible, he stated that he preferred the Welsh Bible, because it was finer, just in proportion as the Welsh tongue was finer, than the tv-ngue of this country. (Laughter.) It was at this early period that that version, with which I am sorry to say I have no acquaintance, was made, and what was the course that was pursued with regard to appointments in the Welsh Church? Wales contained only four sees, and yet between the reign of Henry VIII. and the Revolution no less than 44 Welshmen were appointed to fill them. Not only, too, were the real Welsh sees occupied by Welshmen, but Welshmen overflowed into this country, and received preferment in England. That was the policy pursued in the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts. And what was the consequence ? Puritanism was pretty rife in England, but it did not exist in Wales; and it is Mr Hallam, I think, who says that Wales was one of the strongholds of the church and of the Royal—or, as it afterwards became, the Jacobite—party in the great struggle during the reign of Charles I. The sympathies of the nation were with it, the Church in Wales was perfectly acceptable to the people of Wales. And so matters continued till the Revolution, for it is that which I regard as the turning point. How many Welsh Bishops have been made since the Revolution? Two. [Mr W. WILLIAMS. Yes."] Not more certainly. But there was a complete change of policy in this respect. William III. looked on Welsh-speaking Welshmen just as he looked on Gaelic-speaking Highlanders and Irish-speaking Irish- men, as no friends to him and his new political system, and one plan towards all was pursued. It was thought good policy and good statesmanship to place every office of weight and influence in the hands of those who it was thought would Anglicize the country. That was the root of the misery. No doubt the rise of dissent in Wales was attributable to this cause, and as my hon. and learned friend said truly, it was among the clergy of Wales themselves that the first indications of a religious move- ment opposed to the chief religious authorities of the coun- try appeared. I believe in the picture my hon. and learned friend has drawn of the gross neglect, corruption, and nepotism, one cannot call it less than plunder, of the Church of Wales through a number of these Anglicizing prelates. On that point I believe it is im- possible to accuse my hon. and learned friend of any exaggeration, but it is a proposition completely sustained by history that the people of Wales were the stoutest churchmen in the country as long as their church was ad- ministered in the spirit of sympathy to their national feel- ings; whereas there is little room left to doubt that Wales is that portion of the country where dissent has the deepest root and firmest organization, and claims the direct allegiance of the largest portion of the people. Whether that is to change or not I cannot say. My hon. and learned friend has done me no more than justice in his allusion to the part which I took in filling up a vacant Welsh see, and I can assure the House that it was with no political view that recommendation was made. (Cheers.) That recommendation was made with a view to the religious interests of the country, and whether the cause of the Church of Wales is capable of being- materially improved or not is a question which I have never asked myself. At any rate, I hope that the policy which has now been adopted for some thirty years will be steadily adhered to, and that the Welsh Church will be administered in a spirit agreeable to the feelings ot the people and of respect and sympathy for their usages and history. But the truth is, except for con- ventional and conversational purposes, there is no Church in Wales, (Hear, hear.) The Welsh sees are simply four sees held by the suffragans of the Archbishop of Can- terbury, and form a portion of that province as much as any four English sees in that province. My hon. friend says, and shows, that there was a time when the Welsh Church was a separate one. No doubt that is perfectly true; but at the same time it is necessary to go back nearly 1,300 years for the purpose of proving that distinct and separate existence, and 1,300 years form a period in which the waves of time effectually efface any footprints that may have been made on the sands. (Hear, hear.) Mr WATKIN WILLTANS-Seven hundred years. Mr GLADSTONE -I think my hon. friend does not wish me to enter upon the point of the real union which occurred at the time of St Augustine? Mr WATKIN WILLIAMS made another observation, which did not reach the gallery. Mr GLADSTONE-I am willing to make my hon. friend a present of those 600 years for the purpose of the present discussion, and to say that as regards the identity of these churches, the whole system of known law, usage, and history has made them completely one. My hon. friend should reflect that it was not by the action of Rome that the whole of England was converted after the Saxon invasion. The history of Christianity has shown that a very large portion of England was converted not by action of Roman missionaries, but from the North; and my hon. friend might just as well set up the doctrine of a separate church for the northern portion of England as for Wales. There is a complete ecclesiastical, constitutional, legal, and I may add (for every practical purpose), historical, identity between the Church in Wales and the rest of the Church of England. After hearing the latter sentences of my hon. friend's speech. I can hardly say for what he recommends us to vote; but he entertains the opinion that it is right that the establishment of the church and its union with the State should cease to exist in the said Dominion and Principality." I will not say what it weuld be right to do, provided Wales were separ- ated from England in the same way that Ireland is, and provided that the case of Wales stood in full and complete analogy to that of Ireland in regard to religious differences. But the direct contrary of this is the truth. (Hear, hear.) It is not practically possible to separate the case of Wales from that of England. (Hear, hear.) That is not my assertion alone: it is evidently the belief of my hon. friend himself. He has not said that we can disestablish the Church in Wales and leave the Church of England es- tablished. Nay, more, he has gone very far indeed towards saying the reverse, uecause ne saia, I may be reproached with the answer that I ought to disestablish the Church in Cornwall and Yorkshire, but I say that Cornwall and Yorkshire must shift for themselves, and when they make the effrrt here am I ready to support them." I am not making any unfair assumption, or endeavouring to entrap my hon. friend into an admission that he does not intend to ponvey, when I say that the real question which he en- deavoured to raise was the disestablishment of the Church of England. (Hear, hear.) The candour of my hon. friend is not less remarkable than the clearness with which he has treated the subject, and he has stated frankly and fairly that which, even if it had not been stated, would have been sufficiently obvious. We are not prepared to enter upon any crusade for that purpose. (Hear, hear.) We do not think it is our duty, in the first place, to endeavour to determine that question by any abstract arguments about national establishments. If there are those who consider that national establishments are opposed, under all circum- stances, to the principle of the Christian religion, we do not belong to the number of such persons. (Hear, hear.) It is our duty to look at the case of the Church of England as we find it. It is our duty to look at the facts and principles of the case, and to the feelings and convictions of the people with regard to it. We are encountered at the threshold of the question by the old statistical controversy, with regard to which we seem to have been thus far rather too much in the condition of men who are determined to keep themselves in the dark; but we look to such communications as we have at our command, such as the returns of marriages in the country—(hear, hear)—for I take them to be a not un- fair indication of the relative amount of strength of the religious communities in zealous, intelligent, and attached members, and it is their strength in that sort of vague adhesion which is all that in many cases a national Church is likely to command and to retain, which is one of the purposes for which it exists. (Heaj, hear.) I am bound to say that my belief is that the Established Church of England is the religion of a con- siderable majority of the people of this country. I can onlv say that, independently of that which appears to establish a good primd facie ground for remaining where we are, I do not envy my hon. and learned friend or the hon. member for Merthyr Tydfil, or any other man who ever takes in hand the work of disestablishing the Church of England. (Laughter.) Even if it were as fit to be done as I think it unfit, there is difficulty before which the boldest man would recoil. It is all very well so long as we deal with abstract declarations put upon the notice paper of this House, of what might be done or ought to be done; but only go up to the walls and gates, and look at the way in which stone is built upon stone, on the way in which the foundations have been dug, and the way they go down into the earth, and consider by what tools, what artillery you can bring that fabric to the ground. I know the difficulties, and I am not prepared, in any shape or form, to encourage—by dealing with my hon. friend's motion in any way except the simple mode of negative—the creation of expectations which it would be most guilty, mest un- worthy, most dishonourable on our part to entertain, lest I we should convey a virtual pledge. We cannot go in that direction; we do not intend to do so; we deprecate it, and we should regard it as a national mischief. Under these circumstances I hope the House will be prepared to meet with a negative the motion of my hon. friend, and without the slightest reproach to him or to those whom he repre- sents, because we believe it is neither called for by the cir- cumstances nor agreeable to the desires and convictions of the people of this country. (Loud cheers, chiefly from the OJ p isitionbenches.) Mr OSBORNE MORGAN avowed himself to be one of those who believed that the time was coming, surely though slowly, when such a measure of disestablishment as had already been appled to the Church in Ireland would have to be extended not only to Wales, but to every part of the kingdom. Leaving, however, the wider field of discussion, he undertook to show that this year, in which the Irish Church ceased to exist as an establishment, the Church in Wales was the greatest anomaly to be found in the whole world, Applying a numerical test to the subject he found that the number of people who attended Divine service on a particular Sunday in 1851 was—in churches 10'10 and in chapels 42-10 of the population. Since then there were no official statistics, but he had been furnished wthngurtS which showed that since then dissent had gained ground in Wales, and that many more se vices took place in c lapels than in churches. The Prime Minister, in stating that dissenters in Wales were to churchmen in the proportion of four to one, had considerably understated the fact; the proportion, he believed, was much more, nearly seven to one. Churchmen in Wales were composed almost ex- clusively of the richer portions of society. Every squire, every gentleman, every large farmer, and almost every professional man and large tradesman went to church, while every small farmer, small tradesman, and the whole of the labouring classes went to chapel. Precisely the same thing, therefore, existed in Wales which had been -1 I- so loudly complained ot m -Lreiana-Tne kjnurcn was I maintained for the benefit of a wealthy minority. Differences of religion, again, were perpetuated by differ- ences of language, and the same boundary lines which divided churchmen from dissenters practically divided Englishmen and Welshmen. The case for the disestablish- ment of the Church in Wales was just as strong as it had been for the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland; and conservative members, to do them justice, and notably the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, had pointed this out clearly in last-year's de- bates. The advocates of disestablishment would, con- sequently, be fighting the Opposition this year with weapons forged in their own smithy. The argun trts, in fact, were driven so home last year that it became neces- sary for liberal members to distinguish, if they could, between the cases of England and Ireland. The President of the Board of Trade made great use of the, badge of Conquest" argument; but to him, he confessed, that had always seemed a very weak ground to take up. He could not understand the force of an appeal for legislation in the present day based upon the fact that several hundreds of years ago his ancestors-if he had any- might have gone to Ireland and conquered the ancestors of hon. gentlemen who sat for Irish constituencies in the pre- sent day. The right hon. gentleman at the head of the Government supposed that there wr s not the same hostility existing towards the English Church on the part of the dissenters in Wales which existed on the part of Roman Catholics to the Irish Church. The right hon. gentleman certainly must have been more pleasantly occupied in 1868 than in canvassing a Welsh constituency, or he would have known better-he would have found an amount of bitterness and hostility which was deeply to be regretted, but which hardly existed to the same extent in any other country. Dissent in Wales was undoubtedly a plant of modern growth, such a thing as a dissenter having hardly existed there 150 years ago; b it the causes of Welsh dissent might be stated in two words-English bishops. For where there was an English bishop there speedily fol- lowed English deans, English archdeacons, English vicars- choral, and English rectors. Nowhere had the English Church been more disgraced by the selfish disposition of the English holders of offices. During the reigns of the Tudors and the Stuarts several Welshmen had been mitred; but since the accession of the House of Bruns- wick, not a single office had been so conferred. The con- sequence was that the services in the church had been changed into English, but the churches themselves were deserted. And to such a point had these preferments of Englishmen been carried that until quite recently, m the largest towns, such as Cardiff and Swansea, the most important preferments were held by men who could not understand one word of the language of the people among whom they ministered. The attempt to suppress the Welsh language had failed, as similar attempts had failed in Poland and Hungary, and the English churches being deserted, dissent rushed-like air into a vacuunt-to supply the religious needs of the people. He would not say, as an hon. member had done, that but for the efforts of the dissenters, his Satanic Majesty might have had the whole of Wales for his peculiar province; but the religious life which the people now professed was, without doubt, mainly owing to the exertions of the Welsh preachers. His right hon. friend appeared to think that by undoing the causes which led to dissent, dissenters would be restored to the church. But it is one thing to scatter the flock and quite another to bring them back to the fold. These were not tha days for conversions to church prin- ciples; and although it might be true according to Sidney Smith's witty remark that carriage horses always drove to the church, and social considerations might continue to exert their influences in favour of establishments, these influences were very limited and very superficial, especially in Wales; they did not touch the hearts of the people. The Welsh had been made what they were by Noncon- formist preachers, and Nonconformists they would remain to the end of the chapter. Of one thing he was quite sure, when the day for the attack on the Church of England came, as come it must, the weakest part of the fortress would be found to be that which was located in Wales. He did not altogether approve abstract resolutions; they were like shots fired in the air, and did not hit anything. He was strongly in favour of disestablishment, but he did not like the long agony of piecemeal disestablishment. It was like putting a man to death by tearing him limb from limb. A much larger question was involved, and sooner or later they must be prepared to deal with it-the question of no Established Church at all. The fruit was not yet ripe; but ?there were powerful influences at work. He spoke not so much of the pressure from without, of which honourable gentlemen opposite were so much afraid, as of the feeling which was steadily growing up in the. minds of some of the most earnest and far-seeing members of the Church of England, that the time was coming when religion in this country must stand on its own ground and its own merits, and he believed that the truest friends of the church were not those who like the right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr Hardy) were afraid of taking away from the church the stick on which she leaned lest she should fall flat upon her face," but those who, like his honourable and learned friend, believed that she would walk forward with freeer and firmer tread when she had ceased to lean on the crutches of an establishment. (Hear, hear.) After some remarks from Mr SCOURFIELD, the House divided, with the following result:-For the motion, 45; against, 209; majority against, 164. In reply to Sir H. Ibbetson, Mr W. E FQRSTER said he had seen a report in the papers of an outbreak of cattle plague in one of the departments in France, but that inquiries he had instituted did not verify the report. Mr Fowler, having presented certain petitions against the Contagious Diseases Act, was about to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Contagious Diseases Act, when Mr Crawford (Ayr Burghs), called attention to the fact that there were strangers in the gallery. The Speaker asked if the hon. member persevered in the intimation. Mr Bouverie said it was an undoubted rule of the House that strangers should withdraw on such intimation. Mr Crawford having told the Speaker he persisted in the intimation he had given, the House was cleared at twenty-five minutes past seven. On the re-admission of strangers at 11.30, The debate on the Bill to repeal the Contagious Dis- eases Act was adjourned for a month, after a division, in which the numbers were—For. 229; against, 88. Mr T. HUGHES was moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to horse racing. (There were cheers from all parts of the house as the representatives of the press re-entered the gallery.) Mr Hughes gave a history of the legislation upon this subject, and stated that his Bill proposed first to abolish two year old races; secondly, to return to the state of the law as it stood be- "fore 1833, when no three year old horse could run for a Queen's Plate; and thirdly, with regard to betting, he proposed that any person taking a money deposit tor the purpose of a bet, on the understanding that it was to be returned upon a certain event, should be amenable to the penalties of the Betting Act, viz., a fine of thirty pounds—one-third of which should go to the poor of the parish, and the other two-thirds to the prosecutor. Sir H. HOARE seconded the motion after some discus- sion, in which Sir H. Williamson, Mr W. Guest, Mr Hambro, Mr Gregory, Lord Royston, and Mr Osborne took part. Mr BRUCE said he did not like to be guilty ot the dis- courtesy of proposing the rejection of the Bill on its first reading, but that he thought the question of the ages at which horses should run races was hardly a matter to be dealt with by ths House. Sir L. PALK having offered a few observations, the House divided with the following result-For leave to in- troduce, 132; against, 44; ma3^nty, 88. Leave was then given, and the Bill was subsequently read a first time. A discussion arose on the motion of Mr Ayrton for the nomination of the select committee on the Kensington Road Improvement Bill. ] It is understood that the debate on the Bill to repeal the Contagious Diseases Act was adjourned for a month, after a division in which, the numbers were 229 against 88. The other business was disposed of and the House adionrned at 2 5, WEDNESDAY. The early part of the sitting of the House of Commons was occupied with a discussion, or more properly speaking a con- versation, upon the Clerical Disabilities Bill. The second reading of the measure, the object of which is to enable clergy- men, under certain circumstances, to relieve themselves from their orders, was moved by Mr Hibbert, and seconded by Mr J. D. Lewis. There was no proposal to reject the Bill, but Mr Walpole Mr Hope, and Mr Newdegate expressed considerable anxiety 'as to its probable results and urged the necessity of introducing in committee safeguards against its possible em effects. Mr Bouverie warmly supported the measure; while Mr Henley maintained that under no circumstances ought a clergy- _.i][!I TTn.-1. +1. "rj!1 man to be allowed to put oit nis sacreu he might cast it off and resume it like a suit of clothes. He might put on a red coat in the country for the hunting season, and replace it in town by a black one for the preaching season. On the part of the Government, Mr Bruce recommended the House to read the Bill a second time, but intimated that in committee it would require very careful consideration. A remark which dropped from the right honourable gentleman, that there appeared to be no opposition to the principle of the measure elicited emphatic expressions of hostility from Sir H. Croft and Mr Cross, but when the House divided the second reading was carried by a majority of 81-137 to 5C,In moving tie second reading of his Ciame Laws Abolition Bill, Mr Taylor eltered at length into a statement of the injustice which had been worked, and the mischiefs which had been occasioned by tlie existing statutes for the protection of game. He recom- mended his proposal for the absolute abolition of these laws as a really effective and truly conservative measure; one that would do away with battue shooting and abolish poaching, and I condemned the method of dealing with the question which had been adopted by the Government in the Bill introduced by the Lord Advocate as below criticism. Mr Dickenson, in seconding the motion, asserted that by maintaining the game laws Parlia- ment was responsible for all the poaching in the country, and indirectly therefore for all the crime to which it was the first step and likened the conduct of the owner of overstocked covers to that of a man who scattered half-crowns over his lawn and then gave notice that the police had instructions to look after them. Mr Hardcastle, who moved the previous question, characterised the statements of Mr Taylor as very much 'exaggerated, and suggested that, while attacking many sorts of wild animals, he had not spared another species, which he probably regarded as only half-civilized—the country gentle- man. The spe ch in which Mr H. G. Sturt opposed the second reading of the Bill abounded in amusing anecdote aud felicitous illustration, and drew peals of laughter from all parts of the House but the merriment speedily disappeared under the in- fluence of Mr M'Combie's correspondence wfth tenant formers, with numerous selections from which he favoured the House. The remarks of the member for Aberdeenshire appeared to be directed rather against the Bill of the Lord Advocate than in favour of that of Mr Taylor, which was ultimately talked out" by Mr M 'Lagan, another Scotch member.—After disposing of some other business, the House adjourned. THURSDAY. The House of Lords did not sit, it being Ascension Day. In the House of Commons, when the House was asked to con- sider the amendments in the Irish Land Bill, Sir F. Hoygate proposed that the measure should be recommitted, in order that a clause might be introduced fixing the increased amount of salary which should be given to the judges and officers of the Civil Bill Courts for the additional duties to be imposed upon them: and in this request he was supoitad by several Irish members on both sides of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook that the salaries of these judges should be increased, and that the addition should be charged not upon sums to be voted bv the House of Commons, but upon the con- solidated fund. The only noticeable feature of this discussion was that Mr Brodrick repeated his attack upon the character of t'le judges of the Civil Bill Courts, which, on a previous occa- sion, drew from Mr Gladstone the remark that he had abused his privilege as a member of parliament. Of that observation the member for Mid Surrey complained that it was neither generous nor just, to which the Premier replied that his words were not intended to be generous, but were certainly just. A very hearty cheer indicated that the majority of the House was disposed to aequiesce in this description. A couple of hours were spent in discussing a clause proposed by Air Gregory, with a view to defining the conditions under which labourers cot- tages should be erected by tenants; but in the end it was re- jected by a majority of 17-59 to 42. Some of its provisions were, however, afterwards adopted by the Government. There were also divisions upon some other proposals of minor import- ance but the most important change which was made in the Bill was the introduction, at the instance of Sir R. Palmer, of a provision that if a landlord has been willing to permit a tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding, upon just and reasonable terms, the tenant shall have no claim to compensa- tion under the third section of the Bill. About midnight the last amendment was disposed of, and amid general cheers, the third reading of the Bill was fixed for Monday next. Mr Loch gave notice that he would shortly call attention to the present position of the Game Laws, and propose the appointment of a committee of the House to consider the operation of the Game Laws.
OSWESTRY.
OSWESTRY. IMPORTANT REPORT ON VAGRANCY. At the last meeting of the Oswestry Incorporation, Mr Fulcher read the following reporr on the .state of vagrancy in the district during the past twelvemonth Having been directed to obtain information as to the state of vagrancy in this district during the past year, chioflj with a view of ascertaining whether the decrease in the number of vagrants was confined to this Incorporation, or extended gene- rally to the neighbouring Unions, I sent printed circulars to the undermentioned twenty-six Unions, viz., Atcham, Ellesmere, Whitchurch, Wem, Market Drayton, Wrexham, Shrewsbury Clun, Wellington, Ludlow, Church Stretton, Bridgnorth, Cleo- bury Mortimer, N intwich, Chester, Shiffnal, Stafford, Carnar- von, Ruthin, St. Asaph, Corwen, Bala, Dolgelley, tin, Newtown and Llanidloes, Knighton, asking for the following pa,rticulars:-I. What is your labour test ? 2. Is it rigidly en- forced ? 3. Do the vagrants occupy one common ward (each sex) or are they separated ? 4. Are they compelled to submit to the bath ? 5. Is the imposed task optional on leaving without food I 6. Is the task compulsory ? 7. If optional what propor- tion leave without working ? 8. State the number of vagrants relieved during the year ended Lady Day, 1869 9. State the number of vagrants relieved during the year ended Lady Day, 1870 10. State the number of tear-ups during the last year. 11. Also the number of cases taken before the justices for refusing work, or other acts of insubordination under the Vagrant Acts. I Sreceived replies from twenty Unions, the masters having kindly filled in the information required. The remaining six have not yet come to hand. From these returns I glean the following facts: -1. The labour test varies as follows Stone breaking exclusively, the quantity varying from two to six cwt. each, in eight Unions; water-pumping ditto, for from two to three hours, in three; stone breaking or water carrying two hours, or gardening three hours, in one; water-pumping three hours or picking lib. of oakum, in one; picking oakum exclu- sively, from lb. to lib., in three; wheeling clay or manure, in one; no labour, but detained until twelve o'clock a.m., in one; no labour test at all, in two total, 20. 2. Where there was a labour test it was said to be rigidly enforced in fourteen Unions; not very rigidlv enforced, one Union enforced as far as practi- cable, one generally enforced, there being exceptional cases, one not rigidly enforced, one no work enforced at all, two. 3. As to the separation of males it appears to be practised in three Unions only in the district besides our own, viz., at Elles- mere, and partially at Cleobury Mortimer and Market Drayton the remaining seventeen are placed in one common ward each for males and females. 4. The use of the bath is compulsory in six Unions. 5. In answer to the question, Is the task optional on leaving without food?" the replies were as followNoes, 13; yes, 5; no reply to the question, 2; total, 20. 6. If optional what proportion leave without food ? The five answers were respectively "two-thirds," "three-fifths," "20 per cent. "1 per cent. and "about one half." 7. The total number of admis- sions in the twenty Unions during the year ending Lady Day, 1869, was 62,297, and that of the corresponding period of 1870, 43,460 being a total decrease of 18,837 admissions, or an. average decrease of 28.7 upon twenty Unions, there being only one case where the number of admissions increased 3 per cent. The number of vagrants taken before justices for tearing-up and for other acts of insubordination was ninety. Appended to the report was the following tabular state- ment :— Name ;v Ammnwri9H™ Bathing Task optional on Task If optional what Ntimbers Numbers Total De- Decrease or Tear ? >{ of Labour Test. w# ™ u compulsory leaving without compul- proportion leave relieved, relieved, crease or In-Increase per Union. Enforced. Separate or not. or not. food. sory. without food. 189B. 1870. crease. cent. JuHUces. .Separate. Men. Non- « Oswestry To break 4 cwt stone. Cleaning wards Yes separate, Female Yes No Yes 3351 2303 1048 31.27 Ateham Wheeling clay or manure Yes Non-separate No No Yes 193 186 7 3.6 4 Elleamere Men-break 4 ewt stones Yes Separate M. Non-sep.F Yes No Yes 4718 2034 2684 56.88 6 M. Pumping 3 hours. W. Picking 1A Whitchurch Jib of Oakum. Cleaning wards. Yes Each (one common ward) No No Yes 2702 2010 692 -Jjj.o Wem .None No reply. No reply. No reply. 3480 1844 1636 47.0 1 Market Drayton None, but kept till 12 a.m Yes 2 wards for M., l for W. Yes* No Yes 1620 611 1109 68.45 Wrexham Pumping water— Not very Each (one com. ward) No Yes No Two Thirds 7957 5789 2168 Shrewsbury. To break 4 cwt of stone Yes Each (one com. ward) No No Yes 708 564 144 Clun — Breaking stones Yes Each (one com. ward) No No Yes 1958 1338 626 ? Wellington M. Break 6 cwt of rock Yes Each (one com. ward) No No Yes 1645 1666 79 4-8 M. Break 24 cwt stone. F. Pick 41b ,onn Ludlow.. fibre Yes Each (one com. ward) No No Yes 1436 1235 201 13.99 „ ChurchStretton Breaking stone 2 hours No reply Each (one com. ward) No Yes No Three fifths 1645 1598 47 2.85 Nnn Bridgnorth None Each (one com. ward) No No reply. No 629 450 179 28.4J Stone breaking or water carrying 2 K 6 Cleob'ry Mortimer.. hours. Gardening 3 hours Yesf Separated No No Yes 1363 1406 43 J; ♦* Chester To pick £ lb Oakum before breakfast Yesi Each, one com. ward Yes§ Yes No 20 per cent. 18,602 8546 5056 37.17 Nantwich M. Break 2 cwt of stones Yes Each, one com. ward No No Yes 2837 2056 781 m Stafford To pull lib of Oakum each Yes Each, one com. ward No No Yes 6764 6473 291 4.3 Picking lib Oakam, or three hours Carnarvon pumping water Yes Each, one com. ward Yes No Yes 641 421 St. Asaph Water pumping Yes Each, one com. ward No Yes No 1 per cent (about) 1537 943 694 38.6 Dolgelley To break 2 cwt stones YesH Each, one ccm. ward No No YesK 1559 1261 278 18-0 Newtown and Llan- KO „ idloes IPicking Oakum No Some are separated Yes Yes Yes|| l About half. 1952 I 931 1021 5^-J rso •
[No title]
No workhouse at present. No replies to any of the questions from Shiffnal, Ruthin, Cor- wen Llanfyllin, or Knighton. if in a fit state. t As far as practicable, t Generally s0_ § Cold, except there being no means of warming it. All A.B. males, il If they have food. Very few tear-ups; none taken before justices.
[No title]
The North German Parliament has again discussed the new penal code, and after some observations from Count Bismarck rescinded its former vote for the abolition of the death penalty.