Commons Sitting of 29 April 1858

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Registration of County Voters (Scotland).

OATHS BILL—EXPLANATION.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I beg to claim the indulgence of the House. I wish to correct an error in a statement which I made on the 22nd of March, in
1984
moving the omission of the fifth clause of the Oaths Bill. I have been a Member of this House for fourteen years, and I trust that I have always shown that I would not willingly make any statement that could mislead the House, and that I am ready to apologize for any misstatement into which I may be betrayed. I stated on that occasion that Jews were not admitted to the provincial and municipal assemblies of Prussia, because those assemblies retained that Christian character which had been their attribute for years. I made that statement in 1851, and on inquiry I find it as true with respect to these provincial assemblies now as it was at that time. But I went on to say, that Jews were not admitted to the Legislative Chamber of Prussia. Mr. Davidsohn, a person of the Jewish persuasion, has, in a letter which he has published, pointed out that I was mistaken in having denied that such was the case; not liking to accept the contradiction on the authority of Mr. Davidsohn, who has lapsed into several gross errors with respect to the authenticity of works which I quoted, and in other respects, I wrote to Berlin, and am informed that Jews are admissible to the Chamber of Deputies of Prussia. I beg to apologize for my error in this respect, and I hope the House will accept the apology as an earnest that I would not willingly persevere in maintaining any error of which I am cognisant. I trust the House will allow me shortly to refute a charge brought against me. ["Order."]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may make a personal explanation, but this is not the occasion to answer observations made elsewhere or at another time.
MR. NEWDEGATE: A statement has been put into my mouth which I have not uttered. On the occasion referred to I alluded to several matters connected with the Jewish community, particularly with reference to their rabbinical traditions. Statements have been attributed to me which I never made. I will not allude to this further than to show that if there is any privilege of Parliament remaining, the privilege had been but slightly regarded by those who have assailed me. I have seen it stated in the public journals that "at a meeting at Manchester, on the 25th of March, to commemorate the opening of a synagogue, Mr. Theodores, a learned Jew, met the charges brought by Mr. Newdegate against the doctrines of the Jews during the recent debate on the Oaths Bill.

1985
This person said, "that there was not a single assertion accompanied by any historical or geographical datum risked by that hon. Gentleman," that is myself, "the groundlessness of which could not be shown by an appeal to common sense." I do not intend further to notice what was thus said at that public meeting, but cite this passage to show the wholesale nature of the denials and misstatements with which I am assailed. When I spoke on the 22nd of March, I was perfectly aware that whoever dares to lift the dark veil which shrouds the doctrines of rabbinical Judaism will be liable to such attacks. Such wholesale denials of the truth of my statements rendered further comments upon them unnecessary. But another person, while referring to what I said on the occasion in question, has, in another place, made the following statement with respect to myself, which is specific, and which I shall therefore notice; it is couched in the following terms: —
"He has asserted that the Jews wore the originators of the Inquisition—that they were the original Jesuits. And what is his authority for these assertions? He does not refer us to Bernard or to Bayle, or to any such high authority, but says, 'I find this in a romance in a popular novel in circulation, the author of which is a member of the present Government. If you ask the name of the novel, you are told it is Coningsby.' "
That is the statement which Lord Lyndhurst has made of what he supposed that I said. Had I made such a statement, I feel that my conduct would have been discreditable to myself and disrespectful to the House. In self vindication, I will read to the House from Hansard what I said. It is as follows: —
"We have been told that the first Jesuits were Jews; and we have it so in Coningsby. [A laugh.] That is indeed a work of fiction. But when I assert that Jews had been officers of the Inquisition in Spain, I assert it on the authority of the rabbi of the synagogue in Birmingham. And I assert, on the authority of the elder Disraeli, that a close affinity exists between the doctrine, the manner of reasoning, the right of absolution, the dictatorial power claimed, and the universal power aimed at, alike by the Rabbin and the Jesuits. He terms such factors of the Pope as the Jesuits the mere mimics of the Rabbins. He says that the Jesuits derived their system, derived their anti social doctrines, derived their subversive tendency, from the Rabbins."
I thank the House for allowing me to make this explanation in the presence of those who heard the statement in question. I made these assertions, in the first place, on the authority of Dr. Raphall, Rabbi of the synagogue in Birmingham, a town in
1986
which a number of my constituents reside. The statements I have referred to occurred in lectures delivered by Dr. Raphall, and reported in 1847–48. The second authority I cited was that of the elder Disraeli, in his work entitled The Genius of Judaism. I have, Sir, referred to the statement which has been attributed to me by a noble Lord in another place, although I am prepared to respect the rule which prohibits Members of the House from referring to what is spoken by Members of the other House, because I think there ought to be a reciprocal observance of that rule, and that it would be more decent if noble and learned Lords choose to quote expressions as having been used in this House, that they should refer to the recognized records of our debates, and not, without having thus referred, impute to myself or any Member statements made on fictitious authority, of which I am guiltless.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he rose, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to move that, on and after the 13th of May, Orders of the Day on Thursdays should have precedence of Notices of Motion. Last year was an exceptional one with regard to this point, because, there having been a dissolution in the middle of the Session, Parliament did not reassemble till the beginning of May, and Orders of the Day were not directed to take precedence of notices of Motion until some time in June. In previous years, however, it had been usual to move, during the month of May, that this precedence should be allowed. At the present time much business remained to be done in Committee of Supply, and there were some notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply, the discussion of which would occupy a considerable time. The Lord Advocate had to bring forward the Scotch University Bill; there was also the Local Government Bill; and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would submit a measure for extending the principles of Parliamentary titles to unencumbered estates in Ireland. The discussion on these Bills would occupy a considerable time; in addition to which he fund that the Wednesdays, which were the only occasions on which Orders of the Day of independent Members could be brought forward, were all occupied now till the 23rd of June. It would therefore, pro-

1987
bably, be agreeable to hon. Gentlemen that the Resolution which stood on the paper in the name of his right hon. Friend, and which he now begged to move, should take effect from May the 13th next.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had supposed that the Government had many important measures to introduce as a justification of the Motion, whereas it appeared they had nothing but the most commonplace affairs in hand. The 13th of May was the earliest time which he had ever known for superseding Motions on Thursdays. No time would be gained, as hon. Members would make Motions on going into Committee of Supply.
MR. RIDLEYsaid, he wished to know whether the Government intended to lay on the table various consolidation statutes prepared by the Solicitor General of the late Government?
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he also wished to inquire whether it was understood that the House would proceed with the Church Rates Bill on the 13th?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, it had been indicated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the reasons why he wished Orders of the Day to have precedence over notices of Motions was, that the Church Rates Bill as well as the Joint-Stock Companies Liability Bill, alluded to yesterday, might come on at an earlier period than would otherwise be possible. Thursday at first would not be a Government night.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the practice had hitherto been that, when precedence was given to Orders of the Day on Thursdays, it was not open to independent Members to fix Orders at their discretion. Some limit was usually introduced, otherwise much of the day would be thrown away.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the usual practice was for Government Orders of the Day to have precedence on alternate Thursdays. He would have no objection to add at the end of his Motion, "for one month from that time," which would give hon. Members four Thursdays upon which to bring forward their Bills.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) in what he had said respecting the waste of time occasioned by independent Members. He believed that independent Members as seldom threw away the time of the House as Government did.
Ordered,—
That on and after Thursday, the 13th day of May next, Orders of the Day on Thursdays shall have precedence of Notices of Motions.

FRANCHISE AT BELFAST.—QUESTION.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Return relating to the Municipal Franchise at Belfast, ordered on the 28th of August last, and again on Friday the 16th of this month, has not been presented to the House?
LORD NAASsaid, the Motion for these Returns had only been renewed during the present Session in the current month. The Returns would be laid on the table in a short time.

ADMISSION TO THE BAR IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to the circumstance that students who are not graduates of a University are admitted to the Bar in England after three years' attendance at the Inns of Court, but are not admitted to the Bar in Ireland till after five years' attendance, and to ask him whether the Government will have any objection, if the Benchers in Ireland refuse to modify their rules so as to remove this anomaly, to introduce a measure on the subject?
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should call the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland at an early period to the subject; and he would express a hope that the hon. and learned Member would excuse him from answering the question which he had put, inasmuch as it was founded upon the supposition that the Benchers would refuse, upon a representation being made to them, to remove the anomaly of which he complained.

  THE CAGLIARl—QUESTION.
  MR. EVANSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs by whom the French and Italian Papers in the Correspondence respecting the Cagliari were translated, and who is responsible for the accuracy of the translation.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDstated in reply, that there was attached to the Foreign Department an officer who was called

  1989
  "the translator," and whose duty it was to render into English such foreign documents as it might be necessary to lay before Parliament. By that means adequate provision was, under ordinary circumstances, made for the discharge of that duty, and it was, he believed, as a general rule, most satisfactorily performed. He might, however, remind the hon. Gentleman who had put the question that within the last few days, before the particular papers to which he referred had been presented to the House, a vast mass of documents had arrived at the Foreign Office, the translation of which required 150 folio pages; and that if any inaccuracy, therefore, had crept into that translation it was to be attributed to the great pressure of business and the necessity which existed of preparing within the very short period of six or seven days—in consequence of the earnestness with which information in reference to the affair of the Cagliari was sought for by the House—an English version of documents to whose translation, properly speaking, six or seven weeks ought to have been devoted.

  BEER HOUSES.—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether it is his intention to bring in any Bill during the present Session for the Licensing and Regulation of Beer Houses?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was not the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session such a Bill.

HONORARY DISTINCTIONS FOR SERVICES IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Board of Control whether it is the intention of the Government to give honorary distinctions not only to those in India who have distinguished themselves in the field, but to those persons, Natives as well as Europeans, who have through their wisdom and energy prevented mutiny or bloodshed, as, for example, Colonel Herbert Edwards, at Peshawar; Brigadier Sydney Cotton, in the Punjab; General Bell, in Pegu; Major Davidson, at Hyderabad; Brigadier Coffin, at Secunderabad; Mr. H. C. Tucker, at Benares; Mr. Montgomery and Mr. M'Leod, at Lahore; and General Roberts of Bombay.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, it was the intention
  1990
  of Her Majesty's Government to recommend that those Civilians who had distinguished themselves in the field in India should receive honorary distinctions. With respect to the honours to be conferred upon Natives who had distinguished themselves, he could only say that was a subject which must be left in the hands of the Governor General of India, in whom was vested the power of conferring honorary distinctions upon Natives. As to the various distinguished Officers, Civil and Military, whom the hon. Gentleman had mentioned, he might observe that some of them held Military command in the field in conjunction with their Civil appointments, and that, of course, any distinction conferred upon them would be in their Military capacity. He might add, in reference to those Officers who held merely Civil appointments, that they came immediately under the eye of the Governor General, who had the power of promoting them or of conferring upon them any other reward which he might deem proper.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had signified its thanks to those Native Princes who had remained faithful to British rule under the recent and very trying circumstances in India.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, his noble Friend the President of the Board of Control had, about a month ago, written a letter to some of the most distinguished Native Princes who had remained faithful to us, thanking them in the name of Her Majesty for the services which they had rendered this country in a moment of great difficulty.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR
  MR. SPOONERrose, to move that this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Acts for the endowment of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests. He said, I can assure the House that I am not going to inflict on it a long speech. The subject has been so often debated here that I believe everything has been said that can be said on it. There is only one new point, to which I will shortly allude. It will be in the recollection of the House that in 1856 I had four divisions in favour of my proposal, and that I was defeated only by Members talking up to the hour of adjournment on a Wednesday.

  1991
  Last year a somewhat curious circumstance occurred when I brought the question forward. The hon. Member for Birmingham gave notice of an Amendment, but some mesmeric influence was used, and the hon. Member suddenly withdrew it. I believe the more the subject is considered, the more intense will be the Protestant feeling, no matter what Government may be in power, to have the question considered with the view of some arrangement being made which will be satisfactory to the Protestants, and which at the same time will do justice to Roman Catholics. I hope I shall always do my duty in this and all other matters. I bring the question forward from a religious motive. I believe the doctrines taught at Maynooth to be fraught with serious social evils, and to be contrary to the Word of God. I believe the teaching of such doctrines to be a national sin, and so long as I have a seat here I shall protest against the continuance of this grant, no matter who may be Minister or who may lead the Opposition. Will those who persist in paying for the teaching of such doctrines be consistent, and come forward and release the Sovereign from her coronation oath? The Sovereign swears to maintain inviolate the Protestant religion as by law established, and the Articles of the Church declare the doctrines of Popery to be blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. Will you require the Sovereign to take such an oath, and yet consent to pay for the teaching of blasphemous doctrines and dangerous deceits? Reconcile that if you can. If you wish to be consistent, and at the same time to contribute to the support of the College of Maynooth, you must decide that there is no obligation imposed on the Sovereign of this country to maintain any religion whatever. We could all understand that. But you have no right to set aside the terms of that oath by voting money for the use of such an establishment as the College of Maynooth. There is another point to which I must beg leave for a moment to direct the attention of the House. There is a rubric of our Church which declares that the mass is idolatrous; and yet we give public money for the purpose of educating a clergy whose business it is to celebrate the mass. Then, again, I maintain that the doctrines taught at Maynooth are opposed to the best interests of society. I will not now weary the House with quotations upon this subject. I have, on former occasions, adduced ample documentary evidence in support of the views
  1992
  which I maintain upon this question; that evidence may be found in the recognised history of our proceedings; and I do not think it necessary that I should repeat it at this moment. But I wish to cite written evidence in reference to one new point, and one point only. I hold in my hand a document which, perhaps, has reached no other Member of the House, and which, as I believe, deserves general attention. It is entitled, "Acts and Decrees of the Provincial Council passed in Dublin, in June, 1853," and in that document I find the following passage, which is expressly stated to be itself a copy of an order sent from Rome:—
  "But while we ordain these things, we think that the good of religion and the liberty of the Church demand that in every case of the election (quoties cunque agatur de eligendis) of Poor Law Guardians and Members of Parliament, by whose actions (a quorum agendi ratione), or by whose instrumentality (which is a better translation), the faith and safety of the Catholic poor and the rights and liberty of the Church might suffer loss, they (the priests) ought to be anxious that these offices should be conferred on honest men, and by no means on enemies of the Catholic religion. But we think that all these things should be carried on outside of the churches, without tumult, without a violation of charity, and with due subjection to their own Bishop, lest dissensions might arise among the Clergy, leaving to every one, in doubtful matters, liberty of judging freely for himself."
  That decree is signed by Paul Cullen, the titular Archbishop of Dublin, and three other Roman Catholic Bishops, and it was afterwards adopted by the "Provincial Council of Armagh," and signed by Dr. Dixon, the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, so that it was imposed on the Irish Roman Catholics, with the whole authority of their Church. Mr. Spooner then referred to the Secret Statutes of Armagh as laying down the same grounds of interference with the elections, and traced the origin of the instructions for this purpose to the Pope himself, although they purported to proceed from the whole body of the Roman Catholic Prelates. Decree XIX of Armagh was identical with that just quoted from Dublin. Thus was the will of the Pope used to tell, through the Prelates and priests, on the election of Members of Parliament; and this document was clearly traceable to Rome under the certificate of Archbishop Cullen, and thus was unconstitutional interference of a foreign Potentate in the affairs of this country established. A further illustration of the doctrine which it sets forth may be found in the evidence given before the Maynooth Commissioners by Professor O'Hanlon, who said that a

  1993
  priest had no right to refuse the sacraments to a man for a vote given at an election, but who made this important qualification of that statement—that a man might commit a mortal sin by voting for a candidate whose return would be injurious to the Church, and that while he was in that state of mortal sin he ought not to be allowed to receive the sacraments. Now, the people of this country were remarkable for their jealousy of the interference of a foreign Power in their domestic policy; and why should they not be jealous of a Pope who gave directions to his clergy how they should interfere in Parliamentary and other elections? Two priests were prosecuted at Mayo for such interference, but priests are obliged to obey the orders of the heads of their Church. I need hardly quote any evidence in proof of that point. It would be easy to show, that for the interest of their Church there is nothing which they would not be held justified in doing. Some of their books go so far as to say, that a man might distinctly deny that which was true, if he only said, "I say no," because he really did only use the word "no." There are in the Roman Catholic books a hundred quibbles of that kind. The whole system of teaching at Maynooth is designed to show the students how they may evade the truth, while they are to give the most implicit obedience to all orders from Rome. That is to be their first duty, and if their allegiance to the people and their allegiance to the Sovereign of this country should ever come into collision, they are distinctly told that it is to the supreme authority of the Pope they are to defer. Will you allow the education of priests so instructed to go on at your expense? Will you continue to pay for an education so fertile in mischief, so completely subversive of allegiance to the Crown, and destructive of social peace, comfort and happines? We are told, however, that the public faith is pledged to the continuance of this grant. But I have, on former occasions shown, upon the highest authority, that no such pledge was ever given. The noble Lord the Member for London stated in this House that there was nothing to prevent us from reconsidering the grant; and Sir Robert Peel, when he was bringing forward this measure, expressly declared that there was no contract in the matter, and that he made his proposal with a hope that it would ensure a better education for the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, and
  1994
  would contribute to allay angry sectarian feelings in that country. Now, I ask whether the grant has been productive of these results? Has it given us a better class of priests? In order that you may arrive at an accurate conclusion upon that point, I will refer you to what took place in one of your own committee rooms in reference to the Mayo election, and to the proceedings at the trial of one of those priests. I will put it to the late Attorney General for Ireland, whether he can give any satisfactory account of the refusal of some of the jurymen at that trial to enter into any discussion of the merits of the case, while they would not agree in the verdict of Guilty which their colleagues were prepared to pronounce. But we are maintaining an establishment in which young men are taught that where the interests of their Church are at stake, they can refrain from making any statement, or they can make a false statement. Allegiance to the Crown is with these people a secondary consideration, and they must never do anything that can injure their Church. There are two celebrated Roman Catholic authors called Bailly and Scavini. Bailly maintained that a civil marriage might be valid, and that the children of that marriage might be legitimate, although it was unaccompanied by the performance of the religious ceremony; but that doctrine did not suit the views of the ultramontane party, and Bailly's book was therefore set aside as an educational work; and Scavini's book, in which the opposite position was set forth, was substituted in its place. According to the doctrine of Scavini our Most Gracious Sovereign on the Throne is illegitimate, and her children are in the same position, so that they have no right to rule over these realms. I know that no danger can now follow from the inculcation of that doctrine, but a case of disputed succession might arise in which it might be productive of great mischief. I ask you whether you are satisfied with the priests educated at Maynooth? It used formerly to be said that priests educated on the Continent naturally returned home tinged with foreign prejudices, and that it was advisable to remedy that evil by providing a place of education for them in their native country. But has the new system succeeded? Have we got a better class of priests? I do not hesitate to say, in the presence of the Irish Members, who may contradict me, but who, I am sure cannot disprove my statement, that the Maynooth

  1995
  priests in general are, to say the least of it, only half educated, and that they are sent into the world mere tools of the Pope and of the superior clergy. They are not educated as liberal-minded men, such as it was hoped they would be when Maynooth was established. I will not weary the House by any further arguments. But I now abjure them not to refuse to discuss this question. I ask them to give me leave to introduce this Bill. I ask them to extend to me in that respect the favour which is shown to every Member who proposes a measure upon a great and a deeply interesting subject. The question will, I hope, at all events, undergo a full and fair discussion, and if it should be shown that I and those who agree with me entertain an erroneous view of the matter, the most effectual step it would be possible to adopt will be taken for putting an end to that agitation which the continuance of this grant has excited. But let not the House imagine that any mere evasion of this difficulty will lead to its removal. If they were aware of the number and the spirit of the communications which reach me from all parts of the country, or if they had seen the deputation that waited on Lord Derby the other day for the purpose of inducing him to take this subject at least into his consideration, they would, I am convinced, be struck with the deep and earnest opposition to this grant which pervades that great middle class which forms the strength of this nation. I implore of the House not to compel those men to contribute to the maintenance of a religion which they believe to be completely antagonistic to the word of God, and to be the most dangerous form of belief that could be professed in this or in any other country. One word as to the provisions of the Bill. I propose that it should respect vested interests. I propose that the young men who have entered Maynooth under a promise that they would be enabled to complete their education should have the full benefit of that engagement. All those young men will have finished their studies within a period of a few years, so that their number would he annually decreasing; hut I say that we should make complete provision for fulfilling our engagement with them, although I do not pretend to decide how that should be done—whether by continuing the present establishment, or providing some equivalent in its stead. We should, however, let it be known that we pursued this course solely from a desire to
  1996
  maintain the public faith, and that we were at the same time determined on maintaining the Protestant religion as by law establised in this country. Let me remind the House that among those who dissent from us on mere matters of Church discipline as intense a feeling of opposition exists to the continuance of this grant as among churchmen themselves; and Protestant Dissenters, like the members of the Established Church, will never voluntarily consent to contribute to the maintenance of a religion which they feel and know to be idolatrous. I trust that I have said enough to induce the House to assent to this proposition.
  MR. BENTINCKseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Acts for the Endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any Endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests."
  MR. WALPOLE MR. WALPOLE, after a short pause said: Sir, I was anxious to know whether either of the two Members who have given notice of Amendments to this Motion was disposed to address the House; but as neither of them has risen, and as I recorded my vote last year against a similar Motion to that now before the House, without stating my reasons for so doing, I hope I may be allowed briefly to state why I cannot support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. My hon. Friend has told us that Members are usually allowed to introduce their Bills; and I should be ready to adopt that course upon the present occasion if the proposal of my hon. Friend related to a new question, and if its continued discussion were not likely to keep the public mind in a state of unnecessary and undesirable ferment. But in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and in the opinion, I believe, of many Members of this House, the introduction of the Bill would only afford an opportunity for continued agitation and subsequent disappointment; and we therefore think it would be better that the sense of the House should be taken at once upon the subject. There are two principal grounds on which I am opposed to the proposal of my hon. Friend. I give no opinion now as to the propriety or the policy of originating this grant; I give no opinion as to whether it has answered the

  1997
  purpose for which it was made. But I oppose the Motion for its withdrawal—in the first place, because when a great question of this kind has once been settled by Parliament it is not wise to disturb that settlement, unless it be clearly proved that there are great objections to its continuance. I say that the consequence of now withdrawing this grant would be that the advantages you might flatter yourselves you would gain from standing on what is called "high principle" would be more than counterbalanced by the great evils which must necessarily arise from a renewed agitation of the subject. It is one thing to refuse such a grant when proposed for the first time, and it is another and a very different thing to withdraw it after it has been given. And, I must add, in reply to an observation of my hon. Friend, that if it be our duty, on the ground of high principle, to take away this grant, I think it is the duty of my hon. Friend to point out the limits which should be put to a proposition of this character. When you say you are at liberty to put an end to this Parliamentary settlement, I wish to know whether there are not persons who, on similar principles and for equally high considerations, would have a right to seek the repeal of the Act of Roman Catholic emancipation. I would ask whether you can draw a distinction between the withdrawal of this grant to Maynooth and the withdrawal of the grant you make annually to Roman Catholics as well as to the Members of other religious denominations for purposes of education. I can see no distinction in point of principles between these two cases, and I am not prepared to raise an agitation to that extent. That is my first objection to the Motion of my hon. Friend. My second objection to it is this, when the late Sir Robert Peel proposed the perpetuation of the grant, he called it, in emphatic language, "a message of peace to Ireland." Whether it has been a message of peace to Ireland to the full extent Sir Robert Peel desired and anticipated is a point into which I shall not now enter. But of this I am sure, that if my hon. Friend succeeded in repealing the grant, that repeal would be regarded by the people of Ireland as a reversal of the policy of Sir Robert Peel, and as tantamount to a declaration of war. For the sake of the peace of Ireland, for the sake of preserving the religious harmony, which I am happy to say, is gradually gaining ground in that country, and that nothing may be
  1998
  done to impede its social progress, I, for one, cannot assent to this proposal. I can take no part in doing anything, in suggesting anything, in supporting anything that could in the least degree disturb the brighter prospects which are now dawning upon Ireland, or renew the sectarian differences by which she has hitherto been so unfortunately distracted.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I confess I was somewhat disappointed at the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; because, as my right hon. Friend, as I understood him, holds out no hope that any arrangement than that which now exists with regard to Maynooth shall hereafter be effected. I fully agree with my right hon. Friend with respect to the evils that must follow from a continued agitation of the subject; but I wish to remind the House of what took place on the occasion of a former discussion of the grant in this House. Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, then a Member of the House, stated that he viewed, and that all Roman Catholics viewed, the continuance of the grant as a tardy restitution of a portion of the property which had been taken from the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. Mr. Moore held similar language; and Mr. Serjeant Shee stated that he regarded the maintenance of the grant as a first step towards, and a guarantee for, establishing the Church of Rome in its full ecclesiastical polity and authority in Ireland. Now, I believe that while you are seeking to prevent agitation by continuing the grant, you ought to consider whether you are not raising up among the Roman Catholic clergy and part of the laity of Ireland hopes which will be defeated, but which will lead to a still more bitter agitation than that which you are endeavouring to avert. Having been a member of the recent deputation to Lord Derby, I was led to entertain a hope that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to take into their consideration some just and equitable scheme for discontinuing this grant to Maynooth. I, for one, beg to state, that I would never consent to any proposal for the withdrawal of that grant that was not accompanied with a provision for the protection of vested interests. I think you would be bound to provide for the completion of the education of the students at present at Maynooth; and I think you would also be bound to compensate the present professors for

  1999
  the loss of the offices which they hold. I will go further, and say, that it would be wise, and politic, and just to give a liberal compensation for the withdrawal of the grant itself, so as to remove from the minds of the Roman Catholics any suspicion that they were treated harshly and unfairly, while you relieve the consciences of Protestants of the objection which they entertain to contribute towards an education in, and the dissemination of doctrines, and to the maintenance of a hierarchy of which they honestly disapprove. I must protest against the supposition that by rejecting the Motion you will be settling this question; and I warn this House and the Government that they will, by seeming to sanction the permanence of this grant, be laying the foundation for future demands on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy which they will find it most troublesome to resist.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he would only say one word in reply. The right hon. Gentleman asked him if his Motion would have the effect of allaying agitation in Ireland; but why, he asked, should it have the effect of increasing it? No other body of Dissenters were paid by the State in this way, and why should the Roman Catholics? He was perfectly convinced that the course now adopted by Her Majesty's Government would not put a stop to agitation, for as long as this great Protestant grievance continued, so long would agitation go on throughout the country.
  On Question,
  The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 210: Majority 55.

  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE PRINCE OF WALES.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he had a Motion on the paper for Copies of the Correspondence, Papers, and Legal Proceedings in a certain cause wherein Her Majesty's Attorney General was the plaintiff, and the right hon. the Lord Vivian and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales were defendants; as also of all the documents relating to a certain Arbitration of the right hon. Sir John Patteson, wherein the Attorney General was the plaintiff, and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, a defendant; together with copy of such arbitration award. As, however, he understood that the correspondence had already been printed by order of the Woods and Forests Departments, he did not wish to put the country
  2000
  to the expense of printing it over again, it was only his intention to move for the papers relating to the arbitration. This suit affected the great "fore-shore question," in which the whole kingdom was more or less interested. A dispute had arisen between the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown as to whom the rights respecting the fore-shore in the western part of England belonged, and it was agreed that instead of taking the case through the courts of law it should be referred to arbitration. He thought that when the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown had decided to refer their disputes to arbitration, they were entitled to have all the advantages they would have had had the case gone into the ordinary courts of law, and all the benefits of Sir John Patteson's decision fully published, as well as all the papers and documents referred to him. The result of his decision was to give all the rights of the Crown to the Duchy of Cornwall, and it was proposed to bring in an Act of Parliament to affirm that decision. It would be monstrous to call upon Parliament to do so without bringing all the evidence before it. The decision was given in June last. Those Crown rights belonged to the public, to the public they had been made over, and the Heads of that Department ought to consider themselves the guardians of the public rights. It was a great misfortune that the division took place between the Office of Works and the Office of Woods and Forests. It was unnecessary he should go into the case of Lord Vivian; but Gentlemen who felt interested in the question of fore-shore would do well to consider this subject.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, there was not the slightest disposition to withhold information when the proper time arrived for giving it. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall and the then Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth) agreed to refer three matters in dispute to Sir John Patteson, who had given his award upon two heads, and the award upon the third head would be given in the course of a week. When that award was given the papers would be laid before Parliament; but he thought it would be a bad precedent to produce the papers before a complete award bad been given. [Mr. A. SMITH: What is the third head put before Sir John Patteson?] All the information which the hon. Gentleman could have, if the case had been tried in open Court, would be accessible in a few days.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for,—
  "Copy of all the Documents relating to a certain arbitration of the Right honourable Sir John Patteson, wherein the Attorney General is the Plaintiff, and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, a Defendant; and of such Arbitration Award,"
  agreed to.

  MEMBERS' SEATS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. FITZROYmoved, that the Resolution of March 29, 1855, "That any Member having secured a Scat at Prayers shall be entitled to retain the same until the rising of the House," be made a Standing Order.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSobjected, that this would he a very unfair arrangement, because it would enable Members to come in at prayers, secure their seat, then go away until late in the evening, or until some important speaker rose, and then come back and insist upon their right. It was bettor to resort to the old practice, that a Member who was present at prayers should retain the right to the scat until a division took place, and if present at the division, then afterwards until the next division; but that if he was not present at the division that he should lose his right.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought the matter was one which had better be left to be settled by the ordinary courtesy of Gentlemen.
  MR. BENTINCKreminded the House that a similar Resolution, moved by the late lamented Mr. Muntz, had been unanimously agreed to.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYthought the present system had worked well. The hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) apparently-wished to apply to hon. Members the French proverb, "Qui va la chasse perd sa place."
  Ordered, That the said Resolution be made a Standing Order of this House.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committe.
  Clause 1.
  MR. BIGGSmoved the insertion of the words "by which places under local Acts were included in the operation of the Bill."
  Amendment agreed to; Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsuggested that the title of the Bill should be
  2002
  altered to one more in accordance with the real objects which the measure sought to effect. The Bill was called a Poor Law Amendment Bill, a title which was calculated to cause some alarm; but persons interested would be surprised to learn that its only object was to preserve certain municipal rights to persons rated at sums between £6 and £20. He should hereafter object to the title of the Bill, and endeavour to give it one which would more truly describe its objects. It ought to be called a Bill to prevent certain parties from being disfranchised, &c.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he should be happy to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the title of the Bill, he would state the reason for its being required. By an old Act of George III. parish vestries had power to rate the owners of all houses of the value between £6 and £20, instead of the occupiers. Then, by the Municipal Corporation Act, it was enacted that no one should have a vote whoso name was not on the ratebook, and who had paid his rates; 80 that persons who were the occupiers of houses rated between £6 and £20 under Sturges Bourne's Act had no vote. Then came the Small Tenements Act of 13 & 14 Vic, by which the same power was given to parish vestries to rate the owners instead of the occupiers of all houses below the value of £6; but on the last stage of that Bill a clause was brought up by the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, by which it was enacted that the occupiers of houses rated under £6 should be entitled to votes, notwithstanding that the owners were rated and not the occupiers. The consequence was, that when both these Acts were in operation, occupiers of houses under £6 value had votes in municipal elections, but occupiers of houses of a value between £6 and £20 had none. It was to remedy this anomaly that the Bill was introduced.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he should wish to have an explanation as to the effect of the Amendment proposed. They were taken by surprise by the measure itself. Was he to understand the local Acts were to be overridden by the present measure?
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he approved of the object sought to be attained; but he thought that they ought to have had some notice of the objects of the Bill as well as the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) that the question

  2003
  raised by the Amendment was not one whether the present Bill, if passed, was to override the local Acts, but it was to remedy an anomaly in the existing law which they would all admit should not exist, and by which persons in a superior station were deprived of privileges enjoyed by those of an inferior station. It was his (Mr. S. Estcourt's) opinion that occupiers of property who did not pay rates should not be entitled to vote at all; but that was not the question before them.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURThoped that some little interval of time would be allowed to elapse before the next stage was taken.
  MR. CROSSproposed to take the next stage that day fortnight. He begged to state, that in the Bill as he introduced it, there was no mention of local Acts.
  MR. SPOONERasked for further explanation as to the Amendment. It appeared to him somewhat extraordinary how the local Acts got into the clause. The author of the Bill had not introduced them, nor the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board.
  MR. BIGGSsaid, he had suggested the addition, and his object was simply to make the Bill as general as possible. There were thousands of people in different parts of the country who were governed by local Acts, and who would, therefore, be excluded from the operation of this Bill if the words he moved were not inserted in the clause.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, 13th May, and to be printed.

REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill said, that it had been suggested to him to postpone it until after the county meetings on the 30th April; and he certainly had the greatest desire that it should be submitted to the consideration of the county meetings. But the question was not a new one, for it had been before Parliament two years ago, and it was identical with the provisions struck out from a Bill which passed two years ago. But, further, he thought that the House might
  2004
  naturally feel a jealousy in submitting a question affecting the constitutional rights of voters in Scotland to the deliberation of those bodies. He had himself taken part in these deliberations, and he had submitted the matter to a meeting of the county which he had the honour to represent, and the meeting had by a considerable majority decided against the measure. He had, therefore, brought it forward in the teeth of their opinion; but he did it in the full belief that he was supported by the great majority of the electors whom he had the honour to represent. Two years ago the law on this subject, both in boroughs and counties, had been put on the same footing as in England; but by the passing of an Act relating to the valuation of land in Scotland an improved system had been introduced, which rendered an easier system of registration possible. By that Valuation Act lands were valued according to the full value of the subject, and it was only necessary for a clerk to transfer the names of all persons who had a sufficient qualification to the electoral registrar. The measure, as introduced by the late Lord Advocate, had passed a second reading, and, after being referred to a Select Committee, the decision of that Committee was unanimous in its favour; and on a division on going into Committee the principle of the Bill was affirmed by a. large majority. It was not for him to suggest what had been the reason for withdrawing the clauses relating to the counties; but it was supposed that their withdrawal had facilitated the passing of the measure as to boroughs. He wished to know why the principle should not apply to counties also? It was not for him to anticipate objections to the measure; but if there were objections they could not be founded on principle, because the principle had been applied to part of Scotland; and the law was in full operation throughout the whole of Ireland, where, he believed, it worked satisfactorily, and at very little expense. Fortified by these authorities he had little doubt that a similar measure would be adopted throughout England, if the system of property admitted of such a convenient system of registration. The valuation roll would in Scotland operate, nearly without exception, as a perfect electoral roll. There was certainly a limited class of voters who received a small quit rent for their property, but who, as not being liable to taxation, did not appear on the valuation roll. But, even supposing that the system he

  2005
  proposed could not be made to apply to them, that was no reason for debarring others of the benefit of the improved system. If the House would allow this important measure to be introduced, he would name a distant day for the Committee to consider its provisions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. G. DUNDASsaid, this Bill was only printed on Saturday; it contained thirty-nine clauses, many of them requiring consideration, and hon. Members could not have had time to make themselves acquainted with its provisions, before the House was asked to read it a second time. On the 30th of April in every year a county meeting was held in every county in Scotland, and those meetings were attended by the gentry, who had then an opportunity of discussing all matters concerning the public interest. He thought it hardly fair in his hon. Friend to press the second reading of this Bill on the very day preceding all those county meetings. He knew that the gentry of every county in Scotland would feel disgusted that they had not been at all consulted in this matter. The Bill, among other of its provisions, involved a total change in the valuation schedules, which it would be unfortunate to make rashly. It would also entail considerable expense on the counties, which, what with prison boards, police boards, and the rest, were already taxed heavily enough. He moved as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEseconded the Amendment. He was not aware that a single petition had been presented in favour of this measure, and when sometime ago a Bill similar in substance was introduced, it was withdrawn at the almost unanimous request of the counties of Scotland. He objected to the Bill, because the assessors of the counties in Scotland, who had up till this time never mixed themselves up with politics, would be turned into political officers. Of all persons the assessors of the property of a county should be kept clear of every possible suspicion of being actuated by any political motive whatever. Again, there was a just complaint that the property of Scotland was ground down by assessments charged upon it year after year. Of all the assessments, that which this Bill sought to impose was the most useless, uncalled for,
  2006
  and objectionable. He, therefore, entirely opposed the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. COWANsaid, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dundas) state, that it was unfair to propose to read this Bill a second time until the gentry assembled in their county meetings in Scotland gave their opinion upon it. He (Mr. Cowan) would ask on what ground they were to suspend legislation, in order to have the opinion of but a fraction of the electors of Scotland? If the hon. Member was sincere, let him move for leave to bring in a Bill to suspend all legislation relating to Scotland until after the 30th of April in each year. He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. C. Bruce) ground his objections to the Bill on the trifling expense which it would entail on the counties. If the property in Scotland had been charged of late years with additional assessments, it was right to bear in mind, what he had been told was the fact, that the value of land in Scotland had increased 20 or 30 per cent. Again, the state of the rolls in the counties was positively disgraceful; a great number of the persons whose names were upon them, had either no longer any existence or no connection with the property in respect of which they were enrolled. He hoped the House would pass the Bill now under consideration. So far as the experience of a kindred measure passed for the cities and boroughs of Scotland had gone, it was altogether satisfactory.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, it appeared to him that the Bill under consideration was somewhat uncalled for. His hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan) sat for a city in Scotland, and, when he grounded his support of the Bill on what he called the satisfactory operation of a similar measure for cities and boroughs, he (Lord Elcho) was reminded of the fable of the fox that had lost his tail. He should like to know what the expense entailed by the Act relating to cities and boroughs really was, and what its effect had been on the borough rolls. If he was correctly informed that expense had been very considerable, and he did not see any reason for throwing on the counties an unnecessary outlay. They heard a

  2007
  great deal of the value that was attached to the franchise in the present day, but he could not think a man attached very great value to it if he was not inclined to pay the small sum of 2s. 6d. for its exercise. This Bill, indeed, was properly an instalment of Parliamentary Reform; and he therefore thought it would be better to postpone it to next Session when they were sure to have a Reform Bill. All he would say on that point was, that he feared they would obtain from the Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury bench, one of the most radical Reform Bills ever proposed.
  MR. CRAUFURDprotested against the principle, that a man was not to be allowed to exercise the franchise without being called on to pay for it. He thought the payment, small as it was, ought to be abolished. The principle embodied in this Bill had worked well in boroughs, and he did not see why it should not be applied to counties. They ought, at any rate, to give it a second reading, which merely affirmed its principle.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was not without some difficulty he had arrived at the conclusion that it was not necessary, in order to give effect to the objections he had to certain parts of the Bill, to vote against the second reading. There was one objection to the Bill started by the noble Lord the Member for East Lothian (Lord Elcho), which they were not at present in a condition to deal with, because the settlement of that question would depend very much on the experience of the Scotch boroughs—he meant the question of expense. He believed that before they arrived at the other stages of the Bill there would be before the House returns of all the expenses in the different boroughs of Scotland during the two years the present system had been in operation. If those returns showed the expense to be trifling, then the objection to that part of the Bill would be obviated; but he could not help believing that a somewhat different state of things would be the result. Another objection to the Bill was, the manner in which it was proposed to make up the valuation roll. He did not think that would turn out to be a necessary part of the measure, as the object in view could be equally well obtained in making up the registration roll. What he (the Lord Advocate) said on a former occasion had been much misunderstood. He bad then stated that the claims of the Bill of 1856 relative to counties had been given up in deference to the
  2008
  opinion of that House. And he must take that to be the case, because while the portions of the Bill relating to counties were abandoned, those relative to boroughs were agreed to. He must say he did not see any objection to the second reading of the Bill, and therefore would not oppose it; but there were objections which would deserve the consideration of the House in Committee.
  MR. MONCREIFFwished to say, with reference to the last Bill, it passed through both a committee of Scotch Members and a Select Committee of that House in 1856; but when it came to the House, its supporters found that in consequence of the opposition of a few Scotch county Members they were likely to lose the Bill in consequence of the running out of time. No borough opposed the Bill, and it was therefore thought better to try the experiment with respect to boroughs, reserving its application to counties to a future period. They now proposed to do so, and he believed that when the returns that had been moved with respect to boroughs were before the House it would be seen that the success of the measure in regard to boroughs warranted its extension to counties. Before the Bill passed the borough registers were in a most unsatisfactory state, and he must say the county registers were still more so. He had been called on to examine a considerable number of county registers, and he found that hundreds, aye thousands of voters were not on the roll who ought to have been so, and that in one case there were on the roll the names of more persons disqualified than of persons who were qualified.
  MR. G. DUNDASsaid, that after what had fallen from the Lord Advocate, he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday, 3rd June.

JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALD, in moving the second reading, said, that the object of the measure was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to juries in Ireland, in pursuance of the Resolutions of a Select Committee of that House, which sat in 1852. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding to explain the foundation and details of the measure, when
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock.