SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH moved, in page 5, line 5, after "union," to insert "Provided always, That in case it is proved to the satisfaction of said Chief or Under Secretary that any animal in respect of which com pensation has been paid by the treasurer of any union was, within seven days immediately preceding its slaughter, brought into such union solely for the purpose of being shipped to some place out of Ireland, or sold at a fair, and that the owner or person in charge of such animal has not been guilty in relation to such animal of any act in contravention of any order, regulation, or licence made or granted under the principal Act or this Act, then such Chief or Under Secretary shall, by order, direct payment to such treasurer out of the moneys for the time being in the Bank of Ireland, to the credit of the Cattle Plague Account, of the whole of the moneys certified to have been paid by way of compensation in respect of such animal." Clause 13 (Mode of payment of com- | Bill, but as affecting private interests, pensation). it has been dealt with as a quasi-private or hybrid Bill. It cannot be questioned that the Amendments are of a very extensive character; for the Preamble and the clauses have been completely changed, and both in form and substance it is a new Bill. But the circumstances under which this Bill has been considered by the Committee are peculiar. Early in the Session a Bill was introduced for throwing open the Metropolitan Toll Bridges. But the second reading of this Bill was postponed to a later period; and, in the meantime, the whole subject-matter of the Bill was referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. When that Committee had reported its recommendations to the House, the Bill was read a second time and committed to a Select Committee, nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection. To this Committee were referred the Reports of several Committees on the subject, including the Report of the present Session recently made to the House. These circumstances are certainly exceptional. House deferred the second reading of the Bill until it had received the Report of its Committee, and in committing the Bill to a Select Committee seemed to indicate the scope of the Amendments to be considered by a reference to previous Reports. This proceeding was Proviso agreed to. SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH promised to consider before Report the subject of the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Butt's) clauses, providing that the Bill should not extend to animals brought into Irish ports for being again exported therefrom, and for the regulations as to exportation of animals. Preamble agreed to. House resumed. The Bill reported; as amended, to be con- indeed in the nature of an instruction sidered upon Monday next. TOLL-BRIDGES (RIVER THAMES) (re-committed) BILL-(BILL 219.) (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur, Sir James Clarke Lawrence, Mr. Forsyth, Sir Henry Peek, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Sir Charles Russell.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. to the Committee, which permitted a greater latitude of Amendments than is generally allowable. In view of these special circumstances, the House may probably not consider that the Committee has so far exceeded its powers as to require the withdrawal of the Bill. There is, however, a question affecting the Standing Orders which ought not to be overlooked. After the first reading the Examiner reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with. The Committee has since inade Amendments affecting private rights and interests, and I would suggest, for the consideration of the House, whether the Bill as amended should not be re MR. SPEAKER: My opinion having been asked whether this Bill could properly be proceeded with, seeing the extent of the alterations made in the Bill by a Select Committee, I have to state, for the information of the House, that it has been held that the Amend-ferred to the Examiners to inquire how ments made to a Private Bill by a Select Committee ought not to be so extensive as to constitute a different Bill from that which has been read a second time by the House. This is not a private far the Standing Orders have been complied with in the Amendments made by the Committee. Order discharged. Leave given to the Examiner to sit and proceed forthwith. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (IRELAND) BILL. HENRY SMITH and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. CIVIL SERVANTS SUPERANNUATION (UN Bill, as amended, referred to the Exa- | Lordships for bringing before them a miners of Petitions for Private Bills to subject not altogether agreeable to some inquire whether the Amendments in- Members of their Lordships' House, but volve any infraction of the Standing he thought that as most of the Members Orders of the House. of the Upper House of Convocation were Members also of their Lordships' House, that was a fitting place in which to bring the subject forward. The subject was not only a complicated one, but it was terest in which was augmenting every one of the greatest importance, the inday, for it touched the question of habitual confession-a practice which had been condemned as contrary to the practice and teaching of the Church of England by the highest authority of the Church. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that he brought this question before the House in 1873, and his Motion was followed by considerable debate in the Upper House of ConVocation. Considerable difficulty was expressed as to how the matter should be dealt with, but the purport of the debate was to condemn compulsory confession, and to show that habitual, compulsory, or sacramental confession was contrary to the practices of the Established Church. Notwithstanding this condemnation the practice had increased rather than diminished. As to the Public Worship Regulation Act, it did not give any greater facility in dealing with the practice than existed before the passing of that Act. He had himself attempted to introduce a clause into the Bill in reference to it, but failed. The conse HEALTHY CLIMATES) BILL. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 263.] House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, 21st July, 1876. MINUTES.]—SELECT COMMITTEE-Intemper-quence was that habitual confession ance, nominated. PUBLIC BILLS-Second Reading-Notices to Quit was spreading, and there were now scattered over the country several thousand clergymen who practised it; and he might refer in proof of that statement to the Charges from the Bishops of several dioceses speaking of it and lamenting it. There were at that time notices in several churches of the diocese of London one of which he had himself seen -to the effect that the church would be open for two hours three days a-week for the purpose of confession and absolution. It was perfectly vain for the Bishops to condemn these practices in their Charges, if they permitted the practices in their churches. They had all recently read in the public Press a very unfortunate case, and they all sympathized with the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto). He had recently been talking to a lady who said no doubt they all sympathized with the noble Earl, age, and that she had come to him unknown to either of her parents, and that if they knew of it they would be very angry." The letter went on to state that this clergyman's church was open every Friday from 3 to 5; that he sat in his surplice in a small room screened from the church, and that one went in at a time, knelt down beside him, and received absolution by his putting his hand on the head. Such was the result of this miserable system that a graduate of the University, a clergyman of the English Church, an English gentleman, being carried away by sacerdotal zeal, acted contrary to all rules of honour or good feeling, and deliberately encouraged filial disobedience and systematic deceit. That case was well known in the neigh but there was not one family among the classes in life which had not to reupper gret somes imilar case. It wasa very significant fact that in a recent sermon the Bishop of Manchester said that although no one had a greater dread of the introduction of confession than himself, yet he had been unable to forbid it, as one of his most earnest and most gifted clergymen represented that he could use it to keep young men pure. It did not appear, however, that the existence of the Confessional kept the youth of France and Italy pure, and he contended that the right rev. Prelate, in publicly accepting habitual confession, had acted ultra vires, and done a grievous wrong to the National Church. As to the literature of confession, which consisted of works of very questionable morality-bourhood where it occurred. The clergy some indeed worthy of Holywell Street -they purported to be religious works, instructing the young how to examine themselves; but there was one point especially on which they constantly insisted-namely, that if a person felt inclined to confess, he ought not to allow himself to be influenced in a contrary direction by even his nearest and dearest friends. With regard to this evil, he might mention two typical cases. One was furnished by a letter which was written by a clergyman to a young lady, and which was to the following effect: 66 My dear Child,-I tried to see you after evensong to tell you you should use your own judgment as to whether you should communicate without previous confession. .. I should not say anything unkind; but it seems to me that if you leave off coming to a sacrament which our Lord has ordained for the forgiveness of sins done after baptism, you are running a great risk. I know no other way by which mortal sin committed after baptism is forgiven except by sacramental confession and absolution. If you are living and dying without again being absolved, it is only right you should see clearly the risk you are running." The same clergyman, he understood, had since forwarded to a young lady a small book, entitled Absolution, and How it is to be obtained, containing questions for self-examination on the Seventh Commandment. The second case was described by a letter which had been addressed to him by a father "About two months ago," his correspondent wrote, "I discovered that my daughter had for about 18 months been almost monthly confessing to a clergyman. She tells me that, when she first went there, she told him she was not of Lord Oranmore and Browne felt their cloth assailed, the laity asked whether their children were to be thus decoyed from them; but they knew that they were safe in the hands of the most rev. Prelate; they knew that he had stated that sacramental confession had no place in the Church of England; they knew he had promised to use all the power and influence of his high position and his high character to suppress it; and, therefore, they were assured that his Grace would publicly visit with the gravest censure one whose conduct was unbecoming a clergyman or a gentleman. He would say one word more. None of them were free from attacks so treacherous, but they were more dangerous in regard to the poor than the rich. The latter could avoid any church in which such practices were carried on; they could, if necessary, change their residence or remove their children from schools; but the poor in agricultural districts must go to one church, or stay away altogether, nor could they avoid the abominable system when introduced into the schools. Had they not a right to expect that Parliament would protect them by seeing that the parish clergyman of the National Church conformed to the practice and teaching of that Church? That habitual confession was gaining daily a stronger hold on the English Church he had shown; he believed that confession was the corner stone of Sacerdotalism, and that no greater evil ever afflicted society. Nationally, it robbed men of self-reliance; in England it would divide class from class. Socially, it would destroy our English homes, by interposing a stranger | at Croydon, because it gave him an opbetween husband and wife, between portunity of stating that case, as it father and child. Religiously, it would rob us of pure Christianity by creating many mediators instead of one. If a contagious disease threatened man or beast, Parliament interfered to protect them. He prayed now those who had the power to endeavour to stay the advance of that deadly moral malady. The noble Lord concluded by proposing his Motion. "Moved, "That there be laid before this House Copy of Report of the Committee of the Upper House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with regard to confession, agreed to in the Session of 1874."-(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.) was brought under his notice. That gentleman complained in his letter that his daughter had been induced to go to habitual confession by a clergyman, against her father's will and without his knowledge, and also, he might add, against the opinion expressed and laid down in that decision of the Upper House of Convocation. As soon as he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) received that letter he immediately communicated with the clergyman in question to hear what he had to state in his defence. He was not satisfied with what the clergyman said, and he expressed his dissatisfaction in what he considered very strong terms. The particular circumstances which the noble Lord had brought under his notice that evening were not reported to him in the letter which that gentleman addressed to him in the first instance, but in another letter to which, owing to his being absent from that part of his diocese and from pressing business, he had not yet been able to give the attention it deserved; and, the case being one in his diocese, he thought it better that he should inquire into it when public business allowed him to be present in that particular locality. Turning to the general remarks of the noble Lord, he hoped that the noble Lord had exaggerated the extent to which the evil of which he complained was carried. He could not believe that there was no family in the upper ranks of society which was not suffering under this evil: he was loth to believe that the evil was of that magnitude which the noble Lord had described THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY said, he did not understand that the noble Lord made any formal complaint against the right rev. Bench for the mode in which they had dealt with this question. On the contrary, by moving that the House should approach Her Majesty with a request that their formal decision on that subject should be printed and circulated for the benefit of their Lordships, he presumed that the noble Lord rather wished to declare that the formal utterances of the Bishops in the Convocation of the Southern Province were what they ought to be in this matter. He had to state that he offered no opposition whatever to the Address which the noble Lord had moved. He would be very glad that the Report of the United Bishops of the Upper House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury on that subject should be in their Lordships' hands if Her Ma--namely, that whereas the Bishops of jesty was pleased to accede to the Address, and order the Bishop's Judgment to be printed; and he believed the reading of that Report by the clergy would be likely to cure many of the evils of which the noble Lord had not unnaturally complained. The only point on which he understood the noble Lord to complain against any Member of the right rev. Bench was that he did not think they had been able in practice to carry into effect their deliberate and recorded opinion and judgment on that subject, as given in the year 1873. He was glad that the noble Lord had alluded to the correspondence which had passed between himself (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and a gentleman living the Church had pronounced a very distinct utterance on that subject, many of the clergy had thought themselves at liberty to ignore and set aside that decided and clear utterance of the rulers of the Church. No doubt there were instances in which what the noble Lord complained of did exist. It was true, no doubt, that there were instances when clergymen with more zeal than discretion were unwilling to be guided by those who were their authorized teachers. No doubt, also, the noble Lord had some ground of complaint if notices were placed on church doors inviting persons to do that which the Bishops had very distinctly said they ought not to do. But, of course, before such a violation of the laws of the Church as the putting | that time he had heard nothing more of up of those notices could be taken any that clergyman teaching the doctrine of cognizance of, there must be some formal confession; nor was he aware that the complaint made; and he had no doubt practice prevailed to any extent, until he that if such a formal complaint were was informed by some clergymen that made the Bishop of the diocese would young persons had stated to them that immediately inquire into the matter and they had been confessed by a certain do his best to prevent a repetition of the curate; but that they had been warned evil. As to the utterances attributed to against doing so in future. So far as he his right rev. Brother who was absent, himself was concerned he had never knowing that his right rev. Brother was concealed his opinion, and he had in his able to defend himself, and as, after all, Charges entered into the whole subject, the utterances in question were recorded and he had endeavoured to impress upon in newspaper reports of the accuracy of his clergy the observance of the doctrine which they could not be absolutely cer- of the Church of England. He did not tain, he need not enter on that matter. think that cases of this kind, when they However, the question to which the occurred, could be usefully dealt with in noble Lord had alluded was a very diffi- public-the best way of counteracting cult and delicate one. As long as there the evil was by fatherly advice and a were persons who were weak enough to prudent forbearance. Such offences could think they would receive benefit from only be proceeded against in the Eccleplacing themselves more than the Church siastical Courts on charges of teaching required or enjoined under the guidance false doctrines, and he thought few things and direction of a clergyman, whatever were more inexpedient than prosecution his sentiments might be, it was not un- for false doctrine. No doubt, the Bishops natural that some mischief should arise could interfere in a summary way with to those who so acted. No doubt in this curates who offended in this respect by country a great number of Roman Ca- revoking their licences; but if the intholics works which did not bear on the cumbents themselves pursued an objecface of them any distinctive characteris- tionable course and could not be intertics of that faith were circulated from fered with except by judicial procedure, house to house, and fell into the hands he could not with justice take away the of young persons who were incapable of licence of the curate who did the incumdistinguishing the parts that were sound bent's bidding-that was to say, if the and those parts which were distinctly Ro- Bishop was unable to suspend an incumman Catholic in their teaching, and upon bent it was not right to suspend his curate them they frequently had a mischievous by summary process. These things must effect. He was certain that if the noble be cured by patience. Lord could so influence public opinion Motion agreed to. in this matter as to prevent booksellers from selling such works, and young persons from buying them, he would do much good by preventing literature of this kind, which had a deleterious effect, not only upon the faith but upon the manly character of those who put themselves under its guidance, from being circulated. THE BISHOP OF LONDON (who was very little audible) said, that in the case referred to by the noble Lord, which occurred in 1874, he had written to the clergyman informing him of the charge that had been brought against him and calling on him to explain his conduct. He received in reply a letter from that clergyman admitting that he had misinterpreted the teaching of the Church of England on the subject, and promising obedience to his spiritual ruler. Since The Archbishop of Canterbury FIJI.-ADDRESS FOR PAPERS. VISCOUNT CANTERBURY asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Why the "Correspondence respecting the colony of Fiji," presented by command on the 6th August, 1875, and the "Further Correspondence respecting the colony of Fiji" (in continuation of the above-mentioned correspondence), presented by command on the 17th February, 1876, had not been distributed, and complained that the Rules and Orders of Parliament had not been pursued, inasmuch as certain Returns had been made to Parliament in blank, and that consequently Parliament was ignorant of what had taken place in regard to the colony of Fiji. In fact, since the 20th October, 1874, the date of Sir Hercules |