hensive principles at the time of the Refor- | alone, there was good cause for alteramation, though differences soon grew up in tion. But his objections were materially her bosom; and he deprecated any mea- strengthened when that law was one which sure by which those differences would be invaded that religious liberty which of natuembittered. By this Bill the various sec- ral right belonged to every man and to tions within the Church would find them- every family in the kingdom; and it was selves put in possession of weapons far upon this ground principally that he mainstronger than any they had ever before tained it was desirable to repeal the prepossessed. Whatever room there had sent law. It had been said that the noble hitherto been for a division of opinion, Earl who introduced this measure had exthere had always been a neutral ground aggerated the evils that existed. It was on which men of all parties within the quite possible that he might have somepale of the Church had met, and that was what overstrained the interpretation of the the Prayer Book; but the essence and particular clause in the Act to which he intention of this Bill was the mutilation referred; but that did not affect the great of the Prayer Book. Modifications and point in debate. The question was, whealterations, perhaps slight in themselves, ther it was right to impose these restricwould at first be made, but by degrees tions upon meetings for religious purposes? new prayers would be introduced and old The first clause of the statute now in force ones expunged-changes of the most vital recited another Act which related to Nonimportance would be made, and the re- conformists and conventicles, so that apsult would be that we should see many parently the intention of the statute had not merely with their own places of no reference to the Church of England, worship, but with their separate forms. but only to Dissenters. The statute, howThe Prayer Book, which was the pledge ever, in subsequent clauses applied to "all of the continuity of the Church and its meetings for the religious worship of Probond of unity, would retain its name; but testants,"-very large words, which cerfor that reason it would be all the more tainly might be interpreted to include dangerous, and their Lordships would, members of the Church of England. The perhaps, find themselves at last driven to right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) the alteration of the Prayer Book itself. had expressed his opinion that the clergy He would therefore oppose the Bill, be- of his diocese, when they called together cause he was satisfied that, while it would more than twenty persons for religious infringe on the rights and privileges of the worship in an unlicensed house, with his Church, it would give no additional liberty permission, did not violate the law. It to Dissent. was quite clear, however, if the statute referred to the Church of England, that all members of that Church worshipping under an unlicensed roof did violate the law. If, on the other hand, this Bill did not refer to the Church of England, but only to Dissenters, the argument of the right rev. Prelate fell to the ground, for they had rested their opposition to the the measure, not upon the increased liberty which it would give to Dissenters, but upon the increased licence which would be afforded to members of the Church of England. It appeared from the speeches of the right rev. Prelates that the evil they dreaded from this measure was that a layman in any parish might, from feelings of hostility to his clergyman, or from disapproving his doctrine, call together persons for religious worship in his own house, and so establish what a right rev. Prelate had called "an order of his own." There was, however, nothing in the present state of the law to prevent a man from adopting such a course, for he might go, not to the THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, he had entered the House in the belief that the main objections to the Bill would be objections having reference to the discipline of the Church of England rather than to the great principle of religious liberty. He should most decidedly object to any measure that would relax the discipline of the Church of England, because, instead of the power of the Bishops being too great in matters of discipline, he was of opinion that it was by far too weak. But he had listened to the arguments of his right rev. Friend, who, with his usual ability, and with more than his usual dexterity, had addressod the House against this measure, and he must say he had not heard from him one argument of the slightest value. There was not one of their Lordships who would not admit that it was an evil to have on the statute book a law which they could not and dared not enforce; and that was the case with the law in this instance, and on that ground bishop of the diocese, but the justices of the peace, and obtain a licence for his own house, or for any other house, where he might collect persons and read to them any religious service he pleased. It appeared to him that the only practical effect of the existing law was to prevent clergymen and laymen of the Church of England, as well as Dissenters, from calling together persons for religious worship in unlicensed houses. He had heard no argument which convinced him that the existing law either ought to be or could be enforced, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would give their assent to the Bill of his noble Friend. THE BISHOP OF LONDON observed that, he had not stated that clergymen who collected persons for religious service in unlicensed houses acted legally; but that there was great doubt whether they acted illegally. THE EARL OF CHICHESTER said, this Bill involved a question of very considerable importance, and in its present shape he could not vote in its favour. He was not prepared to say that the Act of William III., with respect to the registration of places of worship, ought to be repealed, without the adoption of some other regulation on the subject. He agreed, however, in the statement of his noble Friend (The Earl of Shaftesbury) that, though considerable improvement might be necessary with respect to the discipline of the Church of England, it was also requisite that a much greater degree of liberty should be given for the exercise of those Christian duties which it was the object of his noble Friend's Bill to enable clergymen and laymen to perform. On that account he regretted the course the right rev. Prelates had taken in opposing this measure, without making any attempt to modify it in a manner which might have rendered it beneficial to the Church. If such modifications had been effected, he believed the Bill might have been safely adopted, and he was satisfied it would have been accept ed with deep gratitude by many members of the Established Church. without any such notice, and that he and his right rev. Brethren were attacked because they did not at once suggest such modifications as in their opinion would render the measure unobjectionable. The Bill professed only to affect the Church of England. [The Duke of ARGYLL, No, no!] Well, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill told me so himself. [The Earl of SHAFTESBURY: No.] He asked the noble Earl whether the Bill was intended for Dissenters, or for members of the Church of England, and the noble Earl said at once, with the frankness which distinguished him-" For the Church of England, and we will have our liberty." THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said, the right rev. Prelate spoke to him some time ago on the subject, and asked whether the Bill was intended to affect the Church of England? He (The Earl of Shaftesbury) said that undoubtedly it was intended for the Church of England. The right rev. Prelate was then walking away, when he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) called him back and said-"Recollect it is for Dissenters too, and especially for the London City Mission." The right rev. Prelate had very much misrepresented what he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had stated. He had never made any allusion to Exeterhall, but what he said was, that four great meetings had been held at Freemasons'hall for religious worship, especially in reference to the state of the war in the Crimea, and that they were constituted in a great measure of those who had relations at the field of battle, who attended to supplicate the goodness of Almighty God in protecting their relatives from the sword or bullet of the enemy. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that after reading the Bill with care, and listening to the objections urged by his two right rev. Friends against it, he must confess that they had wholly failed to satisfy him that there was anything in the Bill that was dangerous to the Established Church or the religious institutions of the country; and he could not but think that if their Lordships looked calmly and dispassionTHE BISHOP OF OXFORD, in explana-ately at its provisions they would see that tion, said, that if a judicious and well they were as remote from anything which weighed measure had been prepared, and would tend to create the evils described by the intention to propose it had been com- the right rev. Prelates as could well be municated privately to his right rev. Bre-imagined. There were two enactments in thren and himself, he was satisfied they would readily have given their most earnest attention to the subject; but he must complain that this Bill had been introduced it-the first relating to a provision contained in the celebrated Toleration Act. The effect of the Toleration Act was to relieve their Majesties' Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England | could hold cottage meetings, which had from the penalties of certain statutes which been found of great use in the parochial had been passed in the reign of Charles II., ministrations. This was a point which and in preceding reigns; but in its last ought to be cleared up. section it was stated that the Act should THE EARL OF RODEN could not help not authorise any person to attend assem- expressing his sincere regret that the opblies for religious worship, unless the position to this Bill should have originated places in which they met should have been with the bench of Bishops. He regretted previously registered. Now, the first sec-it the more, inasmuch as a right rev. Pretion of the Bill before their Lordships late had stated, that the opinion he exenacted that this provision in the Tolera- pressed was that of the whole episcopal tion Act should be repealed, and that the bench; but if their Lordships came to a other provisions of the Act should be ex-division, he trusted it would be seen that tended to persons who met for worship the whole of the right rev. Bench did not either in registered places or in private houses. The next Act which the Bill was intended to repeal was the Act of 1812; and what was the nature of that Act? Although the Toleration Act had repealed many of the offensive statutes of Charles II., it did not repeal them all; and in 1812 an Act was passed repealing in toto the Five Mile Act, as it was termed, which prevented any Dissenter from residing within five miles of a corporate town; and another Act, termed the Conventicle Act, but by way of rider to that Act, its second section provided nevertheless that no persons should assemble in private houses for religious worship in a larger number than twenty persons besides the family. That provision, he believed, was intended to apply only to Dissenters; but he assumed that, in point of fact, and contrary to what was intended, it did apply to the parochial clergy also. If this provision were repealed the law would be left in precisely the same state as it existed from 1689 to 1812. Nothing could be further from his wish than to impair the beneficial influence exercised by the clergy of the Church of England under the parochial system; and it was only because he was convinced that the Bill contained nothing calculated to impair it that he was ready to give it his support. He was satisfied that the Bill would not have a tendency to injure the Established Church, and should therefore give it his support. THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH said, that as the law now stood, no members of the Church of England could open new places of worship without the consent of the parochial clergyman. He feared that the effect of the change would be to enable members of the Church to act as Dissenters in this respect. LORD LYTTELTON thought the state of things could not be satisfactory which left it in doubt whether the clergyman VOL. CXXXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.] entertain that opinion. In considering the measure they must inquire what was best calculated to produce the great end which, as Christians, they all had in view. To his mind the question was, whether the continuance of fines upon certain individuals for allowing persons to assemble in their houses to a number above twenty for the purposes of religious worship was likely to forward the knowledge of the truth among the people. He conceived that the law, as at present existing, was a blot upon the Statute-book that ought to be immediately removed, and he trusted that the decision of the House that night, in spite of what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), who had, in his mind, given no answer whatever to the arguments of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), would be in favour of adopting the Bill. He could not help expressing his sincere regret, also, at the effect which would be produced in the country by what had fallen from the right rev. Bench, and by the line of conduct which they had determined upon taking on this occasion. He believed that a strong feeling would arise amongst a majority of the people, members of the Church of England, at finding that in the attempt to repeal such a law as this, which was directly opposed to the propagation of religious truth, the foremost supporters of that law were the members of the right rev. Bench. As an individual sincerely attached to the Church of England, he (the Earl of Roden) regretted extremely that this should be the case; for one of the great benefits of holding such meetings in private houses was, that by their means Dissenters and members of the Church of England were associated together, and that the good feeling which ought to exist amongst all classes of people in this country was thereby greatly promoted. He hoped his noble Friend would persevere in taking their Lordships' 30 Resolved in the Affirmative: Amendments reported accordingly: Further Amendments made: Bill to be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next. EDUCATION OF POOR CHILDREN BILL. On the Motion for going into Committee on this Bill, LORD REDESDALE said, that he intended to propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to enable the boards of guardians to extend the benefit of education not merely to the pauper children, but to those poor persons who were on the verge of pauperism. But of course, as he could not move such an Amendment himself when in the chair, he must only leave it to the noble Earl and to the House to deal with it. THE EARL OF BURLINGTON said, he should not object to such an Amendment himself; but as it would alter the character of the Bill, and might endanger its passing elsewhere, he thought it better not to adopt it. House in Committee: Bill reported without further Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL. Order of the Day for the Third Reading read. THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. LORD ABINGER said, that he thought the Bill was one of too extensive an opera tion and involved a question of too much importance to be passed in the hasty manner proposed. The measure could only be properly understood by those who had studied the statutes connected with the subject. The measure was well calculated to excite the apprehensions of Protestants that it would legalise certain Roman Catholic charities, which by former statutes were declared illegal. He thought that a system of registration in respect to those charities should be adopted, in order that the nature of them should be publicly known before the title became absolute. He moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Amendment moved, to leave out from "Bill" to the end of the Motion, and insert "be referred to a Select Committee." THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the object of the Bill was simply to remove the doubts at present existing as to the legality of Roman Catholic charities created prior to the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, and to place those charities upon the same footing as those of Protestant Dissenters. LORD CAMPBELL said, there was na turally much anxiety abroad, lest the measure should be perverted to the relaxation of the provisions of the Relief Act, for the purpose of setting up convents, or similar religious houses, within the United Kingdom. Now, when we saw so strong a desire manifested to put down convents and monasteries, even in Italy itself, it was not to be wondered at that the people of this country should feel alarmed at the announcement of any measure which they believed would encourage the establishment of such institutions within this kingdom. Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn; then the original Motion was agreed to; Bill read 3 accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons, House adjourned to Thursday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTE.] PUBLIC BILL. -2° Validity of Proceedings (House of Commons). METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT Order for Committee read, amendments. Clause 69 to 75 agreed to, with verbal | MR. W. WILLIAMS said, a case had occurred in the parish of Marylebone simiIn Clause 76 an Amendment was intro-lar to the one supposed by the right hon. duced on the Motion of Sir Benjamin Hall, Baronet. There was a gas company, and requiring the owners of property or the parties wishing to compete with it estabuilders, in laying out new streets, to bear blished another gas company, but that the expense of paving them in the first in- company wished to select particular streets stance, instead of leaving the charge to be for lighting. The vestry opposed them borne by the parish. When the streets and said, If you will carry your pipes were once paved, the keeping in repair through the adjacent streets, we will allow would be transferred to the hands of the you to break up the pavement, otherwise local authorities, and the expense defrayed not." The company refused, and the confrom the rates in the ordinary way. sequence was that they were deprived of the power of supplying gas to the streets they had selected. MR. LLOYD DAVIES suggested that it would be unjust when an owner expended a large sum in paving a new street, and when, consequently, no charge for repairs would be incurred probably for eight or ten years, to make him liable by charging the whole of the houses in the street with the repair of the paving in the other parts of the parish. SIR WILLIAM CLAY made a remark to the same effect. MR. CHARLES BUTLER said, that in some parishes arrangements existed whereby exemptions were allowed from the paving rates in such cases as had been referred to. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he would introduce words to define the meaning of the word "paving" in this clause which would meet the objection. 66 Clause agreed to. Clause 80 struck out. On Clause 97, which imposes a penalty on persons interfering with the scavengers in the execution of their duty, MR. CHARLES BUTLER thought that penalties ought also to be imposed on the scavengers themselves for neglecting their duty, as was very often the case. MR. HENLEY said, that the scavengers were only the servants of the vestry, who were bound to see that they did their duty, and the defect in the law was that the public had no remedy against the vestries. There was no remedy against vestries or local boards for neglect of duty in removing nuisances-a duty which they Clause as amended agreed to. Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to. On Clause 79, which gives power to ves-undertook voluntarily to perform. tries to regulate the taking up pavements for laying down water pipes or gas pipes. MR. HENLEY expressed an opinion that the gas companies were subjected by the clause to restrictions which he did not consider just. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that the gas companies obtained Parliamentary powers to light whole parishes, but they were in the habit of picking out certain portions of a parish the lighting of which would pay them well, and of refusing to light other portions of the parish which would not yield them any profit. For instance, take the thoroughfare of Piccadilly, they would lay down pipes to light that street and the shops that were in Piccadilly, but they would not light the streets running out of Piccadilly. This clause would enable the local authorities to say to the gas companies, "You shall not pick out any particular part of the district to light; but you shall be required to extend your pipes to all the streets in the district." SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that he was always in favour of giving local authorities great powers, and thought that where persons voluntarily undertook duties they should be compelled to perform them. In the Nuisances Removal Bill he had introduced a very stringent clause, which had been unanimously carried in the Select Committee, which compelled local authorities, under a penalty of 5l., to perform their duties; and, in addition to this clause, he would most willingly, if it was thought necessary, introduce a clause imposing a further penalty on the local authorities if they did not perform their duties. Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses to 102 inclusive. Clause 103 struck out. Clauses 104 to 111 agreed to. On clause 112, which relates to the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, MR. B. BARING objected to the clause, because the powers given under it were too large, as they empowered the commission |