proceedings and carried out necessary repairs. He believed that the Bill required far greater consideration by competent persons than it had yet received, and that in its present form it would not work.

New Clause (Act not to apply to cases in which freeholder has successfully instituted proceedings and carries out neces sary repairs,)-(Sir Francis Goldsmid,)brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. AYRTON said, that when the Bill was last before the House, the Government promised to examine its provisions and satisfy themselves whether it would work satisfactorily. He would be glad to know from the Attorney General, whether that examination had been made, and if so, what was the result?

the attention of the House at great length. During the whole of this time not the slightest intimation was given that there would by-and-by be such an explosion of legal difficulties. At this stage of the Bill he thought it would be idle to revise and re-consider the whole scope of the clauses. Therefore having done all in his power to carry the Bill, he must now lay upon the Government the responsibility of rejecting it. The Bill had been before the House

for weeks, and he must ask the Government to consider, whether it was to the interest of the community that a large portion of the Session should have been wasted upon the measure, in consequence of their Legal Advisers discovering, at the last moment, invincible objections to it. He was astonished at this sudden change of tactics on the part of the Government; but if the Attorney General would confer with the framers of the Bill, the legal and technical objections which he had raised might yet be overcome.

LORD JOHN MANNERS said, that when this Bill was last discussed the understanding on the part of the Government was that the Law Advisers of the Crown should be requested to consider the particular question then raised. The Attorney General had endeavoured to state the re

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that having spent some time in the examination of the Bill, he had come to the conclusion that its provisions were unworkable. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceed ing to explain, by reference to the interpretation clause and other clauses, the difficulties which would arise with regard to the terms "lessee" and "owner" when-sult of that consideration to-day. The MR. SPEAKER ruled, that the question at present being, whether this particular clause should pass, a general argument could hardly be allowed upon that ques

tion.

MR. AYRTON moved the adjournment of the debate in order that the preliminary question might be considered, whether in its present form this Bill should be allowed to pass? There was an understanding when the Bill was last before the House, that the Government would make inquiry and satisfy themselves whether the Bill would work. The Attorney General ought to be put in order, for the purpose of making that explanation.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS seconded the Motion for adjourning the debate. He thought it a loss of time to discuss the Bill as it stood.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, referring to the clause moved by the hon. Baronet, said, that in the present state of the Bill it only made the confusion in the Bill worse confounded.

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS said, this Bill had passed through a Select Committee, and on two occasions had occupied

pledge given by the Government had therefore been strictly carried out. The Government were really anxious that a Bill of this public importance should pass into law; but of course it could only be on the understanding that it was properly framed to effect the object it had in view. He would suggest that the debate should be adjourned, not with the object of defeating a Bill in which the Government felt an interest, but in order that the Attorney General might confer with the framers of the measure and try to amend it.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, the Bill was a hastily drawn one, which would be likely to do harm instead of good. He begged leave to move the adjournment ol the debate.

MR. POWELL said, that in justice to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he must state it was an entire misconception to suppose that he was hostile to the Bill. At a late hour last night he had had a conference with his hon. and learned Friend, who expressed himself friendly to the general principle of the measure, but raised considerable objections to points of detail. If anyone

imagined that it was possible to accomplish the country were looking forward with the object in view by the use of language great interest. which was not legally and technically cor- MR. LABOUCHERE said, that whatrect he would find himself very much mis- ever the views of the Government were, taken. He had said on many occasions the metropolis was, in the main, opposed that there were objections of a very grave to the Bill. Not that any indifference was nature to be overcome. Some of those ob- felt to the improvement of the dwellings jections had been removed, but others still of artizans, but it was thought that this remained. He thought that the origina- Bill would not effect the object in view. tors of the Bill were under an obligation The parishes had no confidence in the Meto the First Law Officer of the Crown for tropolitan Board of Works, which was the attention he had given to the subject, charged with carrying out the Bill, and because the result would be that a more they did not see why the City of London perfect measure would be passed. He should be excepted from its operation. He hoped that some delay might be allowed in could tell the House that, at the present order that the efforts of those who had in- moment, there was a notorious bill disterested themselves in the measure might counter who was buying up, on speculation, not be attended with disappointment. those houses with which the Bill would have to deal, in order to sell them again. Unless not only legal but substantial alterations were made in the Bill he should vote against it.

MR. CANDLISH said, his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) had misapprehended the object of the Attorney General, who did not wish to defeat the Bill, but only took exception to its machinery. It was most important for the proper working of the measure that its machinery should be as perfect as possible.

MR. AYRTON said, he would beg to remind the House that, very early in the discussions on the Bill, he had pointed out that it was full of technical obscurities affecting the rights of real property, and that it would be absolutely necessary that the clauses which dealt with that subject should be very carefully revised by some competent conveyancer. He thought the Government had only done their duty in the course which they had taken.

MR. BRUCE said, he had no doubt that the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works had strictly redeemed his pledge, and that the Attorney General had correctly stated the defects of the Bill as regarded freeholders and successive leaseholders. He hoped that in any conference which might take place something more than the strict law of the question would be considered, and that policy would be also taken into account. His own opinion was that persons who had allowed their property to get into a state which was detrimental to the health of the population were not entitled to the same consideration as those who had not been guilty of such laches.

MR. KINNAIRD said, that the difficulties connected with the question were so great that if attention was confined to technicalities it would be impossible to pass any Bill at all on the subject. The measure was one to which the people of

MR. GOSCHEN said, he thought it unfortunate that the objections now raised by the Attorney General had not been made at an earlier period, before so much time was bestowed on the consideration of the details of the Bill. He felt bound to say in defence of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) that he was over-ruled in Committee on the point of allowing the parishes to carry out the Bill. The reason why the City was excepted was because in the City the works required had been done, and no less than £84,000 had been spent on the dwellings of the poor. He challenged the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) to point out any district in the metropolis which had done the same. He would say boldly that the parishes were not as competent to deal with the subject as the City; for the parish authorities had been only ten years in existence, while the City authorities had existed for hundreds of years. He hoped if the Bill was to be re-considered its principle would be taken as settled.

MR. GREENE said, he agreed with those who thought that the policy of the Bill should be assumed. The main object was the improvement of the sanitary condition of the poor, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tidfil (Mr. Bruce) in thinking that men who had neglected their property to the injury of the public health were not deserving of the consideration to which others were entitled. He had observed that though the hon. Members for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) and the Tower

was on that understanding only that he agreed to the Amendment of the noble Earl. He would only further say that two points seemed absolutely essential—the one was that the compulsory power for collecting church rates should be abolished, and the other was that the Church of England should have the most convenient means which legislation could afford for collecting the funds necessary for those objects to which church rates were devoted. These were the objects of the Bill, and he hoped they would be carried out by the Bill as it came from the hands of the Select Committee.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill." -(Earl Russell.)

but he thought that it would be much better to enact these regulations by a separate Bill. The main object of the present Bill was the abolition of church rates; and he was glad to see that upon the right rev. Bench there was an altered tone to that which prevailed there in 1860. He himself had always thought that for the sake of the Church, church rates should be abolished. There was no proper objection to the majority taxing the minority-the real objection was on religious grounds; and he thought that the Church had done quite right in consenting to abolish church rates now; for he believed that every contest about church rates made an additional number of Dissenters. The objection on the score of religious feeling once put aside, it would be perfectly easy to make satisfactory regulations for voluntary assessment. But this Bill did not contain clauses such as he should to see passed upon that subject. He thought there was some confusion which would require to be carefully adjusted. He hoped that it was not intended to take evidence before the Committee, but merely to consider the clauses. The Bill had been called a compromise, but it was really no compromise at all; it was a concession made by the Church to the religious feeling of the country. It was much nore likely that it was a compromise in the Cabinet. Lord Stanley had declared his opinion against the levying of church rates, in writing and in speaking, and it might be that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee to get out of any difficulty upon that head. He feared that the delay arising from having a Select Committee might end in the rejection of the Bill-a result which would produce great danger to the Church. It was most desirable that the public should know that there would be no evasion, and that their Lordships would follow the lead of the other House and settle this question at once and for ever.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, that he was obliged to the noble Earl for assenting to the House going into Commit-like tee upstairs; because he was quite sure that they would be more likely to arrive at the object sought on both sides by that means; and that they would thus be able to make a comparatively good measure of it much more easily than could be done in a Committee of the whole House.

LORD LYVEDEN said, he regretted extremely that his noble Friend (Earl Russell) had assented to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee; for he was quite sure that the measure could be properly discussed in a Committee of the Whole House, and indeed that it was necessary for the public excitement that there should be such a discussion. The matter was of great public interest, and there was no subject that would have given the country a more favourable opportunity of judging how their Lordships perform their public duties than this question of church rates. Some of the speeches made on the second reading showed how admirably their Lordships were qualified to discuss such a question; and besides, in the House they had the assistance of all the right rev. Prelates, whilst in a Select Committee they would have but three or four of them. He ventured to say that the course which he suggested to their Lordships in 1860 was the one which it would be most proper to pursue on this subject; and that was to put an end to compulsory church rates-which was the object of this measure -and afterwards to introduce a Bill to regulate such voluntary assessments as should be made in lieu of church rates that was a matter to which neither the Dissenters nor anybody else could object;

The

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, he could not but think that the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden) would have been much more appropriate if made on the second reading of the Bill. noble Lord could not forego the opportunity of drawing a comparison between the Bill which he had himself introduced some years ago-and to which, no doubt, he had a laudable partiality-and the measure now under discussion. But he (the Duke of Richmond) had no doubt the Bill now to be referred to a Select Committee would be found, when it came out of Committee,