Commons Sitting of 10 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Metropolitan Police Force (Dockyards); Naval Discipline.
2° Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment; Party Emblems (Ireland).

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee, Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £100,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c, and other Charges connected therewith, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to give notice that he should early next Session call the attention of the House to the system of taxing the nation at large for Metropolitan improvements, as he thought

1099
it was an unjust one, and one that pressed peculiarly heavy upon Ireland. His observation did not apply so much to improvements in Royal Parks and national institutions—though he thought Ireland paid more than her proportion towards those—as to purely local improvements, in the benefits of which the nation at large did not participate. To record his opinion on the subject, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £18,000, which he calculated was about the portion of it devoted to those purely local works.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he should decline to enter into a discussion on the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, at that late period of the Session, and in so thin a House; but he could not allow the attack made by the right lion. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works on the Metropolitan vestries, in the course of his observations on the subject of the new ride through Kensington Gardens the day before, to pass unnoticed. He (Sir John Shelley) was prevented from performing that duty then in consequence of the impatience of the House to come to a division. It was easy for the right hon. Gentleman to get up a cheer in that House by sneering at the vestries of the Metropolis but he (Sir John Shelley) must protest against the statement made by that right hon. Gentleman, that the Metropolitan vestries were agitating for popularity. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect that so long as the Metropolis was situated as at present, and was without any corporate action, the vestry boards must be looked upon as the local authorities and the exponents of the opinions of the inhabitants of the parishes for which they were elected. What would the right hon. Gentleman think if the Town Council of Hertford, with which he was intimately connected, were to petition against a measure similar to this, and be told that they had no right to interfere? Yet the vestries of the Metropolis quite as fully represented the people of their respective parishes as the Town Council of Hertford did the people of that borough. The right hon. Gentleman talked of agitation on this question, but was the agitation confined to one side? On the contrary, those who were in favour of the scheme had given notice that signatures to a memorial in behalf of the ride would be received up to a certain day, and those who could not personally sign were requested to give authority to a Committee to put their
1100
names to the memorial. He protested against this mode of getting signatures to a memorial. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he persisted in this ride, which was now known by the name of "Cowper's folly," he might expect formidable opposition to it in future. If he made it a permanent ride, it would be absolutely necessary to widen it, and he would be under the necessity of coming down to the House for another Vote. He believed that if the Vote of the previous day had been for £1,000 instead of £250 the result might have been different from what it was; and if the right hon. Gentleman at a future time came down for a large Vote to make the ride permanent, he would probably find that the House was wholly indisposed to go along with him. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would abide by what he said in the first instance, that the ride was merely a temporary arrangement, and that he would wait till he ascertained what was the real and deliberate opinions of the public generally on the subject. Leaving that point, however, he wished to know what was to be got for the money now being expended at Kensington for the purpose of obtaining a pure supply of water for the Serpentine. He wished for information on this subject. He also wished to know something about the Vote of £1,800 for draining Richmond Park—what number of acres were to be drained? at what expense? and for whose advantage? He also desired to know whether the works were to be carried out by contract, and it would depend upon the answer he received to those questions whether or not he would move the reduction or omission of some of these items.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he desired to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any objection to open Storey's Gate, leading to St. James's Park, as especially in the case of hon. Members leaving the House, it would prevent a great detour which had now to be made.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHobjected to the mode in which the Estimates were arranged, as well as to the expenditure of £2,300 for supplying Battersea Park with water by means of a steam engine, and also to the item of £300 for "propagating pits" in Kensington Gardens. He expressed a hope that his hon. and gallant Friend would limit his Amendment to the omission of those two items, and he should have his support.
MR. BARROWcomplained of the enormous increase that was taking place year by year in the Miscellaneous Estimates, With regard to the expenditure for the Metropolis, he thought it discreditable in the extreme that the inhabitants should owe the luxuries of their Parks and rides to the general taxation of the country. He had no wish to revive the subject of the ride debated the day before, but he could not help thinking that when the people had enjoyed from time immemorial the privilege of walking in Kensington Gardens to send equestrians among them was an encroachment that could not be defended. He had no doubt that when the attention of the public was fully directed to this subject there would be an expression of public opinion against it very different from that popular outcry of which they had heard so much. He should like to know what was the object of draining Richmond Park, and who were to be benefited by it. He thought those who were to derive the advantage should be at the expense.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not wish to revive the discussion on the ride in Kensington Gardens, but would simply remark that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would find that in the end the question was a costly one for himself. The hon. and gallant Colonel complained of the charge for the Parks of the Metropolis, and raised the question as to the bearing of the expense on the taxation of the country. He (Mr. Ayrton) intended next Session to move for a Committee to consider the question of an extended municipality for the Metropolis, and the proper distribution and adjustment of the sums laid out on the Metropolis. He was in favour of an entirely new arrangement with regard to these questions, and he hoped he should have the support of the hon. and gallant Colonel when ho came to move for a Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think of opening Storey's Gate for horsemen, as it would naturally interfere with what was a common playground for women and children. He thought that if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets succeeded in getting the extended municipality for which he asked that body would become most unpopular the moment they began to tax the citizens.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he thought that equestrians enjoyed great pri-
1102
vileges at present, and he was opposed to any further encroachment on the rights of the million. The throwing open of Storey's Gate would deprive a large number of poor children of their daily play-ground, and under these circumstances he hoped the right hon. First Commissioner would not yield to the requests made to him in favour of the project. As to Richmond Park, he should like to have some information. A few days previous his carriage was stopped after he had entered one of the gates of that park, because he was not going to visit the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
LORD PERMOYsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment, because the Parks were the resort of the labouring classes of the Metropolis, and as such must be maintained; and until some more just or bettor means for doing that was pointed out, the House should be satisfied to take the Vote for that purpose in the Supplies of the year. With regard to Storey's Gate, he joined with the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord opposite in beseeching the First Commissioner of Works not to open Storey's Gate for the use of horsemen. He was one of those who felt that too much consideration had already been shown for those who were fortunate enough to have a horse to ride upon in London. He asked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) not to allow himself to be carried away too much by the Vote passed in Committee the day before on the subject of the ride through Kensington Gardens. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about agitation amongst the Metropolitan vestries on the question; but if there were any agitation on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman himself had originated it, because he was breaking through the old-established custom of people not rich enough to ride being-allowed to recreate themselves on foot in Kensington Gardens. His right hon. Friend was playing a game at which two could play, lie had seen the servants of the Board of Works, better known as the "Green Men," canvassing for names to be appended to a memorial in favour of his scheme, and notices were put on the trees of the gardens that the memorial lay for signature at the lodge. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he compelled those who opposed his scheme to have resort to agitation, they might appeal to popular sympathies throughout the Metropolis in such a way as would produce one of those great demonstrations in the Park

1103
which would make him regret that he had moved in this subject. The right hon. Gentleman sneered at the vestries; but he forgot that those vestries were the emanations of popular suffrage, and were, therefore, entitled to respect. When a general election occurred, there were none so ready as the leaders of the great Whig party to take off their hats and humbly acknowledge the value and importance of these parochial bodies. The vestries had a strong feeling that the health and comfort of the people belonging to their respective parishes were involved in this question, and they therefore protested against the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said the riders were a portion of the public, and had a right to the indulgence he provided for them; but he (Lord Fermoy) denied that they had a right to break in upon the privileges enjoyed from time immemorial by the people on foot. If these riders wanted to see the beauties of Kensington Gardens, let them get off their horses and walk. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his original statement, and regard this as merely a temporary ride. Let him consider the matter seriously during the recess. He presumed the ride would be shut up during the winter, for then it would be little better than a bog, and he hoped that by next Session the right hon. Gentleman would have come to the conclusion altogether to abandon the scheme.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, he must join with hon. Members who had preceded him in asking for further information on the subject of the expenditure on Richmond Park. He objected to the item of £150 for improving the breed of the deer in the park. Surely with so many herds of deer in other Royal parks and forests, an outlay for improving the breed of those in Richmond Park could not be necessary.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he believed one of the items proposed in the reduction was for Battersea Park. The expenditure on that park arose from its not being yet finished. He had been frequently taunted with regard to Battersea Park, and it had been hinted that it belonged to his borough. Now Battersea Park had nothing whatever to do with the borough he represented. Again, the alterations made in the Regent's Park had placed it in an admirable condition in respect of drainage, seats, and every other desirable matter, and he could not understand now how £7,600 would be required for the further improvement of that park.
He hoped some explanation of that item would be given.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, there was much want of a building in Regent's Park in which on Sundays, and at other times, the public might be able to take innocent refreshments. He was not surprised that the subject of the new ride had again been brought up that clay; but he did not mean to continue the discussion. There was only one statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner to which he would call the attention of the House. He argued that Kensington Gardens were opened to equestrians as a part of the public; but if every part of the public were to be admitted, then it followed that people with carriages and cabs should be admitted among others. Reference had been made to the works for purifying the Serpentine. A sum of £1,700 had been voted for that purpose last year; but a Committee of the House had decided against the system of filtration for which that sum was last year voted. Then what was the use of the works now going on at such a great expense? He had to complain of the changes that had taken place in the appearance of the Serpentine in consequence of the works that had been carried out, and hoped that it would be found possible to restore things to their old condition, and yet have the Serpentine supplied with pure water.
MR. COWPERsaid he regretted that it should have been supposed that he had said anything of disrespectful intention towards the vestries. He was speaking at the time with his eyes fixed on the minute hand of the clock, and therefore hurriedly. What he intended to say yesterday was, that though the vestries of St. George and St. Marylebone were entitled to respect when they were deciding about rates and the management of their streets, but they might be disregarded when they assumed jurisdiction over the Royal Parks. Local representation was an excellent thing, and much to be admired when it kept within its proper sphere; but it was likely to fall in public estimation when local representative bodies assumed an authority that did not belong to them. He admitted that the subject of the ride was one on which there might very reasonably be a difference of opinion; but he complained that it had been represented as a question of antagonism between classes. It was not a question between the rider and the walker, for many who walked

1105
often rode, while those who rode often walked in the Gardens. When he spoke of admitting all the public to the Gardens, of course he meant riders in addition to pedestrians, and could not have contemplated carriages. Then, when he spoke of securing publicity as distinguished from privacy, he did not mean the riders only, but the walkers also, who obtained amusement from looking at the riders. The objections to the scheme seemed all to come to this:—that, whereas formerly this avenue was very quiet and unfrequented, it was now crowded with horses and pedestrians, and that which used to be a scene of quiet and seclusion was now one of noise and bustle and animation. Now, he contended that it was most unfair that any portion of the public should be shut out from this place of recreation, because there were a few people who wished to go and muse there in solitude. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone complained that this was an innovation, but it was not a rare innovation. Most of his predecessors had made important innovations for the purpose of improving the means of recreation enjoyed by the people, and some of those had been opposed with as much pertinacity as the present measure; such, for example, as the opening of Regent's Park to the public in 1841 and of its lake during the present year.
With regard to the Serpentine, he had to state that, a Committee of that House having reported against the scheme of filtration, he had in the contract superseded the filtering scheme, and substituted for it a well, for which, by means of an engine, would be pumped up a sufficiency of water daily to supply the Serpentine with pure water, and cure it of the evils so long complained of. By this process 2,000,000 of gallons would be circulated daily from one end of the Serpentine to the other. The drainage of Richmond Park, for which a Vote of £1,800 was asked, was resolved on under the advice of Mr. J. Parkes, who in 1857 examined the herbage, and reported that it was very much impoverished, and required to be improved by drainage. The expense would be at an average rate of £6 10 s. an acre, and Mr. Parkes calculated that two-thirds of the park would require draining. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne), he might state that the Parks had been under special arrangement ever since the agreement made with the Crown, and that this could not now be departed from. Votes were
1106
also given for the Phoenix Park and for parks in Scotland. The expense incurred at Battersea was for a supply of water from a well, and lie thought it was an expense which the House would not object to, as it would ultimately produce economy. He could not consent to the proposal for opening up the parade at St. James's Park to equestrians, as he thought that was the last place through which horses should be allowed to pass.
MR. SPOONERsaid he should support his hon. and gallant Friend in his Motion, because he believed the money of the public should not be voted for the improvement or decoration of any locality whatever. Let the inhabitants of each locality tax themselves for such a purpose.
MR. LONGFIELDsaid he should support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. He could not but think it most unfair that £95,000 should be proposed to be voted for improvement of Parks in the Metropolis, while only £4,500 was to be voted for Ireland. That was like the proposal for devoting £11,000,000 to the defences of the country, of which about £100,000 was to be expended in Ireland, while Ireland would have to contribute about £2,000,000 of the sum that was to be raised.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he could not see the necessity for having a well at Battersea Park, and an engine to pump up the water, when water could be so easily obtained from the Thames.
MR. COWPERexplained, that by sinking a well at Battersea Park an annual expense of £300 would be saved for watering the gardens, for water for the lodges,&c As to the deer in Richmond Park, he had acted under the advice of the keeper, and he believed the measures taken would be found extremely useful. With respect to the Regent's Park, £1,000—part of the estimate—was for re-instating the fence on the north of the Park, which was getting out of repair.
LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that when the Parks were established, the Metropolis had no special voice in the matter. The Legislature made them, and consequently the public had to pay for them. Now, however, the improvement of the Metropolis had been taken out of the hands of Government and that House, and been confided to the Metropolitan Board of Works. That he considered a wholesome system, seeing that the Board of Works was a popularly elected body.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he did not agree with the noble Lord in his estimate of the benefit to be derived from the Metropolitan Board of Works. That Board had lately pulled down several houses in High Street, Southwark, in order to make a new street, but he was quite sure that the new line of railway from London Bridge to Hungerford, and the railway bridge across the Thames, would be completed before the Board of Works would turn round to determine how the new street was to be made. He wished to take that opportunity of calling attention to the great inconvenience of maintaining the toll over Chelsea Bridge, or, indeed, of any bridge whatever. The state of the approaches of Vauxhall Bridge, for which a toll was also charged, was an example of the injury caused by such a toll. The railway bridge near Chelsea Bridge would soon be completed, and that would make it less necessary than ever for persons to cross Chelsea Bridge. The consequence of the toll was, that building land, which otherwise would be occupied, was left totally bare of houses, and would continues so as long as the toll was maintained. He thought, then, that was a good opportunity for the removal of the toll.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he certainly would support the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, if he were to bring forward next Session the Motion he proposed for a Committee.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £82,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c, and other Charges connected therewith, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 66: Majority 51.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHobjected to the expenditure of £2,300 for lakes and a steam-engine in Battersea Park, and also to that of £300 for a propagating house in the same park. It was a mistake to have anything beyond shrubberies in the public Parks. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote of £9,629 for Battersea Park by the sum of £2,600, the total of the two items to which he objected.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the item of £9,629 0s. 7d. for Batter-sea Park, be reduced by the amount of £2,600."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, it might
1108
enliven the conversation if his right hon. Friend would explain what was meant by a "propagating apparatus."
MR. COWPERsaid, that a propagating apparatus was intended for the raising of plants and flowers, and he thought if there were no flowers in the garden next year great complaint would be made.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEfelt it his duty to endeavour to arrest the proposed expenditure on Battersea Park. He was not disposed to go into the flower question; but he objected to the expenditure for the well and the steam-engine. Again, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state what the expense of the well would be.
MR. BAZLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would reject that Vote for the steam-engine. It would he a great nuisance. Here, in fact, was both the bane, in the shape of the steam-engine, and the antidote, in the form of flowers.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsupported the same view. It seemed as though enormous expense was being incurred to bring to the garden what was to be had close by—namely, water in the river Thames.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHamended his Amendment by moving for the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £2,300 instead of £2,600.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he should vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) for reduction of the Vote by this trifling sum. He thought the experiment should be tried.
MR. COWPERsaid, that it would cost just as much money to got water from the river as from a well; and he thought that if Thames water were used in the gardens, Battersea Park was likely to be a very disagreeable place.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the said item of £9,629 0s. 7d. be reduced by the amount of £2,300.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 55: Majority 34.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, with reference to the drainage of Richmond Park, that a far greater expense was being incurred than was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the drainage was to be at the rate of £6 10 s. an acre, and that it was to be under the management of Mr. Josiah Parkes. He did not wish to put the screw on with too much

1109
severity; but this rate of drainage was manifestly too high, and he should, therefore, move that the sum of £1,800 should be reduced by £400.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it might not he absolutely necessary to expend the whole amount voted, and if they would allow the item to pass, his right hon. Friend would inquire into the matter, and see that such sum only as was necessary should be expended.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the item of £1,800, for Draining Land in Richmond Park, be reduced by the amount of £400,"
Put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2) £5,000. Probate Court and Registries.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYcalled attention to the necessity that existed for providing better accommodation for the persons connected with the Probate Court. If ever there was a case of cruelty to animals, it was exhibited in the treatment of those gentlemen who were cooped up in most uncomfortable and crowded rooms to transact the business of the court.
MR. COWPERsaid, additional room would soon be provided for the persons connected with the Probate Court, till accommodation could be found for them under the great plan which was one day to embrace all the law courts. But with that question the present vote had nothing to do. It was merely to defray the expenses of local Courts of Probate and registries in the country.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,635, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses, &c, Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
MR. CHILDERSasked whether the sum voted in 1858 for this purpose was yet wholly expended?
MR. AYRTONasked why two embassy houses at Constantinople were still kept up?
MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved to reduce the Vote by £650, the amount asked for the repairs of the Ambassador's house at Therapia. The house was originally taken on account of a fire which took place some I time ago, and burnt down the Ambassador's former residence. But that residence had been rebuilt, and there could be no occasion for keeping on the residence at Therapia.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the item of £650, for Casual and Ordinary Repairs and Painting, Repairs of Furniture, Fittings, and Contingencies of the British Embassy House at Therapia, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to refer to a subject of great importance that called for explanation— he meant the subject of unexpended balances. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had told them on a former occasion that the matter was so complicated that with all his experience he could not fully understand it. It was not wonderful, therefore, that he (Sir James Graham) was at a loss to know how the practice stood with regard to these unexpended balances. He found that with regard to harbours of refuge, parks, Ambassadors' palaces, and other Votes there were large unexpended balances that might be applied without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. The Government had promised to endeavour, during the recess, to apply a remedy to this evil, in conformity with the advice of a most competent Committee; but, pending that decision of the Government, he wished to know with reference to the current year what was the opinion of the Treasury with regard to the appropriation of these unexpended balances.
MR. LAINGsaid the system with regard to these balances was this:—A certain sum was estimated as required for a certain service; supposing the whole sum was not expended within the year, a balance of course, remained on hand. An account was established at the bankers, and the subsequent Vote taken was used to feed, as it were, the balance, and keep it up for purposes of expenditure. It would be seen, however, that no expenditure could take place without being sanctioned by Parliament. The balance that stood over could only be expended as a Vote sanctioned by the House. If the balances were found to accumulate to an excessive amount at the end of three years they were then paid into the Exchequer.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid that in the great departments of the army and navy the balances at the end of the year must be paid over into the Exchequer, but the Committee would see how different the practice was with regard to the civil service, for three years' balances might accumulate; and even at the expiration of three years it was at the option of the Treasury whether payment over to the Exchequer

1111
should take place. On the Vote now before them the Committee might suppose that they were only voting £650 for repairs and works at the Ambassador's palace at Therapia; but if there were—as he had no doubt there was—a balance on the Vote generally, and it turned out that the expense of the palace of Therapia should be a great deal more than £650—say £2,000, instead of £650—then £1,400 of additional expenditure might take place, and the House have no knowledge of it until the annual accounts were in the hands of hon. Members, which would not be till the year 1861. He could not exaggerate the importance which he attached to the subject of balances.
And it being ten minutes before Four of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress."
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day, at Six of the clock, after the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland) Bill.

LOSS OF PROPERTY AT GREYTOWN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps had been taken, or were intended to be taken, by Government to induce the Government of the United States to compensate Mr. Geddes, Her Majesty's Consul, for the loss of property at Greytown?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLstated in reply, that it was the opinion of the Government, formed on legal advice, that in the case of regular hostilities by a Foreign Power, no compensation could be demanded for any loss of property which might be occasioned thereby. It was impossible, therefore, to make any official application to the Government of the United States in favour of Mr. Geddes.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—QUESTION.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would beg-to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Sir Charles Eastlake, the President of the Royal Academy, has been this year re-appointed to the Directorship of the National Gallery?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the appointment in question expired on the 5th of the present month. Some weeks
1112
ago the trustees of the National Gallery informed him that the office would soon be vacant and recommended the re-appointment of Sir Charles Eastlake. It seemed to him, from his knowledge of Sir Charles Eastlake, that there could not be a fitter man for the post, and, as he did not think it expedient that the office should be vacant, he took the Queen's pleasure that Sir Charles should be re-appointed for the same period as before. The re-appointment of Sir Charles Eastlake, however, would not preclude the action of Parliament upon any portion of the National Gallery.
Afterwards,
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, considering the lateness of the Session and the length of time which must elapse before the Vote for the proposed alterations in the National Gallery will come before the House, he will agree to take no further steps on the question during the recess of Parliament? The Vote in question was in No. 7 of the Civil Service Estimates. The House had not yet got further than No. 1, and, judging from the present rate of progress, when the House got to No. 7 there would be no one left in it but those on the Treasury Bench. He trusted that good faith would be kept with the public, and that the Report of the Select Committee would be carried out.
MR. COWPERsaid, he was sorry the noble Lord had been put to the inconvenience of waiting in the House until the Estimates came on; but it was an inconvenience which every hon. Member was subject to. He did not think he would be justified in putting off a matter of urgency, because parties who wished to take part in it could not conveniently attend. There was not sufficient accommodation in the National Gallery at present, and if fresh pictures came in there would be no place for them. He was sorry he could not accede to the proposition that had been made.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, it might be urgent to obtain more space for the National Gallery, but it did not follow that the Royal Academy should he also retained in that building, since additional space would be obtained by their removal.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that after the assurance given last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the tenure of office of the Director of the National Gallery would not be renewed until the House had had an

1113
opportunity of reconsidering the question, he was greatly surprised to hear that the President of the Royal Academy had been reappointed to that office. Circumstances had occurred since last year which strengthened the objections then urged against that appointment. A collection of paintings which a gentleman in Paris had purchased at various auction rooms for about £5,000 had recently been sold to the National Gallery for between £9,000 and £10,000. The officials of the Gallery had a most objectionable practice of purchasing a mass of worthless pictures for the sake of two or three good ones, and then of selling off the rubbish at Christie's. It was obvious that such a system afforded wide scope for jobbery of the worst description. One of the gems of the recently acquired collection, which was entitled the "Portrait of Ariosto," painted by Titian, had formerly been known as a portrait of Torquato Tasso, by Giorgione, and was altogether worthless. Certain pictures attributed to Giulio Romano in the same collection were, he asserted, not by that master, and did not even belong to his school. In the face of such proceedings he thought he had good ground for complaining of the renewal of the Director's tenure of office before the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. He regretted, also, the statement which had been made that evening as to the removal of the National Gallery. He need hardly remind the House that the Committee had reported in favour of Trafalgar Square as the site of the National Gallery; and that without a shilling of expense the simple removal of the Royal Academy would afford ample room for all the pictures in the collection which were worthy of exhibition. He had no hesitation in saying that one-half of those pictures ought to be expelled from the Gallery, as calculated to do injury rather than good to the public taste. He believed there was a deliberate intention of forming, under the Privy Council, a vast department which should exercise a despotic influence in all questions of science and art. An attempt had already been made to tamper with the scientific and art collections of the Metropolis. Under the pretence of economy there had been an endeavour to break up the magnificent collections in the British Museum, and Cabinet Ministers, Gentlemen who were not in the habit of attending the meetings of the trustees, had been induced to vote for the removal of a considerable portion
1114
of those collections to Kensington, an operation which would entail an expenditure of something like half a million of money. He trusted that the House would take this matter seriously in hand, and insist upon the postponement of the question relative to the National Gallery until next Session. The intrigues of the superintendents of the galleries at Kensington, who were at the bottom of all these extraordinary movements in our scientific and artistic collections, would be paralyzed if the House did its duty on the present occasion.
On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday,

MR. BRIGHT AND THE PAPER DUTIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I gave notice last night that I should take an opportunity, before the House separated, and on this evening, to call the attention of the House to the position in which we stand with regard to a matter which has excited great interest during the Session—to the question of the Excise duties on paper, and the effect which the course taken upon that measure has had upon the position and privileges of the House. I cannot say that I have any very definite question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I want rather is to make two or three suggestions to the Government and to the House. I have abstained, since the discussion on the Resolutions proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, from taking any part in this matter, because I did not think it wise for an independent Member to submit to the House a Resolution, or to ask the House to come to any decision or division upon a Resolution, as I was sensible that unless the Government took part in such a division, and in favour of such Resolution, in all probability the division—if the House were to divide—might place the House in a worse position, with regard to this question, than it occupied after having accepted unanimously the three Resolutions which were proposed by the noble Lord. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) is in the House, but if he had been here I should have suggested to him that he should not persevere in the proposition he has given notice of, or ask the House to divide upon it, unless, at any rate, he had

  1115
  the consent and support of the Government, which would enable that Resolution to be carried. I am myself so conscious of the delicacy of the position in which we are placed that I would much rather stay where we are, awkward as is the position, than do anything to make it worse, and therefore I have come forward with a view of making two or three suggestions, which, I think, if the Government and the House were willing, might still lie adopted with a view to save us from the painful and perilous predicament in which we have been placed during the Session.
  Now, I think it is worth while for a moment to advert to the two parties who may be said to be damaged by the present state of things. Those persons throughout the country who are engaged in a most important trade—the manufacture of paper—have themselves suffered grievously from the transactions of this Session, and I think the House of Commons itself has suffered not less. When the Session commenced—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget—his proposition was this, that the Excise duties upon paper should be entirely abolished, and the import duties on paper also abolished. Papermakers, therefore, would by that proposition have got rid of the grievance of the excise, and would have been of course deprived, for the future, of whatever advantage they had in the protection they enjoyed in an import duty over and above the amount of Excise duty. Well, what have we done? The conjoint action—it was not exactly a conjoint action of Parliament—is this, that the papermakers are left with the grievance of the excise; but they have been deprived of whatever advantage they enjoyed from what they considered to be a compensating protection. Now, I am of opinion that an excise—that the grievance of an excise—cannot well be measured in so many farthings per lb. in respect to paper, or anything else. I think it one of those tyrannies which never ought to have been established, and never should be tolerated in a free country. Men in the pursuit of their daily and honest industry should not be tracked about, interfered with, overlooked—and, I will say, damaged in a very large degree—by officers of Government, who have no natural right whatever to he upon their premises or take any part whatever in their transactions. But these paper manufacturers are in this unfortunate position at this moment. I have heard
  1116
  some people say, "Serve them right, for they have not shown themselves very wise during this Session." I admit they have not been very wise, but I am afraid men are very seldom wise in their own affairs, and also not willing generally to take good advice. The papermakers committed this unfortunate mistake. To maintain their protection they went into partnership with The Times newspaper. The Times was afraid of the cheap papers, and the papermakers were afraid of free trade in paper, so they clubbed their interests together. There has been nothing for many years which has been so obnoxious and so worrying—I will undertake to say—for Members of Parliament as this partnership action of The Times newspaper and the paper manufacturers. No Member could get into the House or out of the House without having them upon him, and I am told that hon. Members on this side of the House—there may have been some on the other side—have been canvassed by persons connected with the staff of The Times newspaper, even from the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) down through all the ranks of its editors, and I do not know-that there is anybody connected with the paper that has not been canvassing with regard to this matter. We have had, at the same time, as the House knows, in the columns of that journal, the most violent and malignant attacks on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as if the right hon. Gentleman were about to do something contrary to the public interest in abolishing the paper excise, and in allowing foreign paper to be introduced. That, I have no doubt, is the secret of the abundant malice with which the right hon. Gentleman has been attacked during the whole of this Session by the writers in the columns of The Times. But passing all this by—and I am willing to forgive and forget it all—there remains this fact; that this large industry—these 300 or 400 firms in the United Kingdom—are at this moment suffering, or will be after the 15th of this month, from an excise which is kept on solely by the authority of the House of Lords, under circumstances most grievous, because it is admitted on all hands that the excise cannot, and will not, be fairly levied. There are exemptions which act with great injustice to persons who are not exempt, and there are certain articles which the courts in one case have decided to be paper, and in another case have de-

  1117
  cided not to be paper; and it is extremely difficult for the Inland Revenue officers to know whether certain articles ought to be charged with excise or not. Well, that being so, I say that these paper manufacturers have a real and solid complaint to make to Parliament on account of the position in which they are placed. The Inland Revenue Department has condemned this tax; the House of Commons has passed a Resolution—and I call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government especially to this—the House of Commons passed a Resolution two years ago that this Excise duty on paper was not a fit matter from which to raise a permanent revenue. Therefore, it has been condemned in a most emphatic manner, even before this Session commenced. This Session has seen it not only condemned by the House of Commons, but a Bill has passed through all its stages in this House abolishing the excise, and on the 15th of August—some day next week—that excise was to have terminated, 'and so it would have terminated but for that which has not happened before in this country for 500 years past. But for the interference of a branch of the Legislature which has never heretofore, within historic period, done such an act as this—but for that interference, unexpected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hardly to be credited throughout the country, this excise would have been abolished. Now, however, instead of that, from those papermakers, after next week, will be collected about £30,000 per week, or £1,500,000 per annum in the shape of a tax for the public Exchequer—a tax which this House has not only not sanctioned, but which it has condemned emphatically, and has passed a Bill to repeal, and they will be paying it solely by the authority of a vote of the other House of Parliament. I say, then, that we ought, as the House of Commons, to take into consideration the grievous nature of the injustice which is inflicted upon this important industry, and it is partly on this account that I have risen for the purpose of asking the House if it is not worth while to consider whether a course might not he taken even now, before the Session of Parliament ends, to put an end to what I think is a monstrous injury to a most important class of manufacturers in this country.
  But then conies the other and I admit a much greater evil—one in which we ought to take more interest—and that is the
  1118
  damage which this House has suffered by the course which this affair has taken. Now, let me appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because they, from their silence, are supposed to have approved what has been done—I appeal to them as Members of this House, and as representatives, at least, of some portions of the English people—do they not feel that the House of Commons, now, within a fortnight, it may be, of the end of the Session, is in a very different position with regard to its rights and its power over the taxation of the country, from that which it occupied when the Session opened? I think it is impossible, whatever any man may say, as to the paper excise, as to the Government, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the House of Lords—I think it impossible for any man to conceal from himself the fact that the House of Commons at this moment is shorn of a portion of its power, and that it has permitted itself to be hustled out of—if I may use the expression—and deprived of an authority which for 500 years past our predecessors in this House have exercised without contradiction and without control. Now, your Chancellor of the Exchequer—and hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown sometimes not a very favourable feeling towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer this Session—but your Chancellor of the Exchequer, be he the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else, is an officer now, at this moment, in a position inferior to that which he occupied at the commencement of the Session. Both the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been subjected to a new authority, and an authority, I will undertake to say, which, if it be permitted to work, and be not manfully resisted, is one which will bring not only this House, but itself—before any very long period—into great difficulty, and it may be, into serious disasters. I will ask hon. Gentlemen, whether they believe that a majority of the House of Lords is likely to work well in financial questions with the majority of the House of Commons? There has been no Liberal majority in the House of Lords since the Reform Bill, or long before. There is no probability of there being such a Liberal majority. There is every probability that the majority of this House, whatever it call itself, will not be of the same political complexion as the majority of the other House of Parliament. Therefore you are establishing, in this respect, a permanent, a chronic dissension between

  1119
  the two Houses, which may lead to difficulties that every man in the House, I think, would wish to be avoided.
  If any hon. Gentleman here thinks I am at this period calling the attention of the House to a subject which is not worthy of attention, or which is absolutely settled, I would refer them to the language of Ministers of the Crown in the last discussion, if I am not out of order in so doing. I am, indeed, afraid it is not sufficiently in order, and, therefore, I will not refer to the discussion, but will simply refer to expressions which Ministers of the Crown have used on this subject. The noble Lord at the head of the Government told us that if he thought that course, that is, the course pursued by the House of Lords, was the beginning of a new practice on these questions, he would advise the House to resist it by every constitutional and legal means in its power. But if the noble Lord were to turn back to a man to whose authority he will probably pay some respect—I mean Lord Chatham—he would see that Lord Chatham declared if you admit a principle like this, you may rely upon it that that principle will be constantly put in practice so soon as it can be supported by power. That is precisely the dread which now I have before me, that if this be permitted, so hungry is the appetite for power in all bodies of men, we shall before long have this pleaded as a precedent, and that we shall have the principle supported by power, and that unfortunate state of things which Lord Chatham hoped might never arise will arise under the Government of the noble Lord and by the permission of the Parliament in which we are now sitting. Well, the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, who is a great authority on questions of this nature, told us that he believed no question so grave had happened in his life time; and he said on one occasion, he considered it equal to a total change in our system of government. It must be a matter of some importance that would draw from the noble Lord—from one so cautious and so experienced—words so grave as those. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently held the same opinion, for he said this was a gigantic and dangerous innovation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is out of order to quote words used in a previous debate during the present Session.
  MR. BRIGHT: I thank you, Sir, for the intimation; I have no other reference
  1120
  to make to those speeches; and I thought I was not trespassing upon the rules of the House in bringing the evidence of Her Majesty's Ministers to bear in favour of a conclusion at which I wish the Ministers and the House to arrive. The question is what, under the circumstances, have we done? We have passed three Resolutions, very harmless, it may be; but they were introduced in a speech which was far from harmless. If in the search which we made in that Precedents Committee, we had found, within the last fifty years, three cases like this, I will undertake to say that the Committee would have been forced to admit that there were precedents of a very overwhelming description regarding the power of the Lords to deal with questions of this nature. Well, fifty or twenty years hence, if this matter remain as it now stands, there may be another Committee, there may be partisans of the policy of the Lords upon that Committee; they will light upon the Resolutions which the noble Lord has proposed and the House agreed to; but they will say, what matter these Resolutions? The Resolutions of this House or the other do not make a precedent—but the thing done, the final conclusion—where the matter rests—that is the precedent as to the action of the two Houses; and, therefore, they will look upon this as a precedent a hundred times more fatal to the powers of the House of Commons than any of those that were produced by the diligent researches of the officers of this House, and which have been laid upon the table. Now, I may be asked what would I have done in this matter. There are several things which might have been done. If the noble Lord had been a man of the spirit of Chatham, or of the spirit of Canning, in a matter of this nature, he would have come down the day after the rejection of the Paper Duty Abolition Bill, and he would have asked the House—not because the Excise duty on paper was a great question, hut because the rights of the House were something of still greater value—immediately to have suspended its Standing Orders, in order to permit him to pass a new Bill, re-affirming that which had been declared in the Bill just rejected. But the noble Lord was afraid to do this. I am told that there were great doubts whether it could be done. It was said that more money was wanted for the China war, and that you could not ask the House to do this. But after all the money was a mere bagatelle in the

  1121
  £70,000,000 you are voting and spending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, says it is only £700,000 up to the commencement of the next financial year, and, therefore, it is perfectly idle to say that it was worth while for the sake of that sum to put in jeopardy the rights of the House of Commons, and to resign that authority over the taxation of the country into the hands of the other House, which this House has exercised, without question, for a period of not less than five hundred years.
  But there was another course, and it is still open, which the noble Lord might take, and for which he could find a most conclusive precedent if he were anxious for it. In the year 1734 there was a case in which the Government of the time wished to save the country gentlemen from the pressure of a heavier land tax, and they agreed to take not less than £1,200,000 for the service of the year out of the Sinking Fund, and apply it to purposes for which, of course, it was not originally intended. When they brought that Bill into the House it consisted only of two clauses. They moved, on going into Committee, that the Committee should be instructed to receive clauses of appropriation; and they hound up the appropriation clause of the year with those two clauses. They took £1,200,000 from the Sinking Fund and appropriated it to the service of the year, and the two matters together in one Bill went up to the House of Lords, and were passed by that House. Well, there is an appropriation Bill to be yet passed by the House of Commons this Session; and I say the House of Commons itself, if it possesses, as Mr. Canning said in 1827, a spark of spirit left in it to maintain its own privileges and rights, will avail itself of that, or of some other equally proper mode, for the purpose of restoring itself, at the end of the Session, to the independent position which it occupied when we met. But there is another mode which I would recommend to the noble Lord. He will see that I am merely offering suggestions for his consideration and for that of his Colleagues in the Cabinet. There is a mode, nearly resembling that which Mr. Canning adopted in 1827. On that occasion the House of Lords rejected, by a substantial alteration, a Bill which modified the duties leviable upon foreign corn. Immediately afterwards—I think the very next day—Mr. Canning came down to this House, and in language of a severity ex-
  1122
  cecding anything that has been used with regard to the Peers during the discussion of this question, asked the House of Commons to take a course to maintain their rights. But he said, as Minister, he felt that it was his duty, if possible, to prevent any collision between the two Houses; and, therefore, he asked the House not to pass exactly the measure which had just been rejected, but to pass another Bill, including its provisions, but limited to a duration of nine months. And I think he expressed a hope that Heaven in the meantime might' grant intelligence and good sense to the legislators in "another place"—so that at the end of nine months they might agree without discussion to that which the Commons had determined on. Now that was in point of fact very much like a Bill of suspension. I would suggest to the noble Lord and his Colleagues, that they might, if they thought proper, introduce into this House a Bill—and I am sure the House would sanction it—for the suspension of the collection of the Excise duties on paper until the month of March or April next, which would allow time when Parliament met again for the reintroduction and passing of a Bill abolishing the Excise duty upon paper for ever; and I think such a course as that would be judicious in every way. There is one other course which might be pursued, and that is the one which was recommended by the hon. Member for Finsbury, at the beginning of these transactions. My hon. Friend proposed a Resolution, and though it was not in a form whip' could be accepted, its intention, the House will remember, was, that steps should be taken—I presume by an address to the Crown—that Parliament should not be prorogued as usual, but adjourned till November, to allow the postponed Bill to be reconsidered by the House of Lords, and by taking up this Bill and passing it, as I believe they would do, to restore harmony between the two Houses. Now both of these two courses—that of suspension, and especially that of adjournment—would be propositions of conciliation as between the two Houses, and not propositions which might be said to bear this character that the House of Commons was endeavouring to override the House of Lords. One of these courses, I think, the Government ought to take, and I believe the House would support them. The Government had just the same fears the other night about that question of seven-eighths of a penny in the pound of Customs' duty

  1123
  on paper. How many weeks did they hesitate in their course respecting his questtion? Nobody knew why they hesitated, unless it was because they doubted whether they could carry their proposals, and did not like to run the risk of defeat. Why, in one night's debate, the argument being triumphantly in their favour, the good sense of the House of Commons gave them a majority which is three times the majority that the noble Lord believed he possessed when first he met Parliament. Sir, I think that if an equally direct course had been pursued with regard to the paper duty abolition, the House of Commons, disregarding the question of £600,000 or £700,000 of revenue, would have risen to the height of the occasion, and would have supported him in maintaining their privileges as representatives of the people. Now, I want to put this question to the House—Are they willing to sustain their rights, or are they willing that the year should be marked by a concession of this dangerous, and even of this ignominious character? The Government is the depositary of the rights of the House; and whatever the Government determines upon a question of this nature the House is generally disposed to follow. If hon. Members have read any foreign newspapers, whether American, French, or Belgian—the newspapers of any country where there is freedom of discussion on subjects of any kind—they will find but one opinion expressed with regard to this question—an opinion that the House of Commons have made a great mistake during this Session; that we have had a fall; that we have not risen from it; and that rights which belong to the representative assembly of a free nation have been needlessly surrendered to a power against which the House of Commons, whenever they choose to meet it, can always fairly assert their rights. As the matter stands, we have not been faithful to those who have sent us here. I believe—I never believed anything with a firmer conviction—that if the noble Lord had dissolved Parliament upon the question of privilege as connected with the Excise duty question, he would have met with a response from all the constituencies of the country, and would have gained a majority such as there has not been in Parliament for many years, to carry out his policy, and to sustain the rights and interests of the House of Commons.
  I have said I should recommend, as I have recommended my noble Friend (Lord
  1124
  Fermoy), not to ask the House to come to a decision upon any question of this nature. I prefer to remain where we are unless we can take steps in advance, and I am so tender of the rights of the House of Commons that I know of no greater calamity that can happen to the country than that we should impair the confidence which the people should have in us, and that we should lessen our power over the great and constantly increasingly great questions which affect the finances and the taxation of the country. Now, there is such a thing as treason. It is a crime which is probably known to the law of every country. We have it in our law. It is committed generally against a Monarchy or against a State. It may have in it much that is evil, and it may have in it much that is good. Treason of that kind is a crime that may load a man with shame for ever, or it may cover him with lasting renown. But there is another kind of treason, which is treason against a people, which may be committed by a Minister of the Crown, by a consenting Cabinet, and by a compliant Legislative body; but that is a treason which is all evil, which has no good whatever in it; it covers no man or body of men with renown; but it covers them with contempt and infamy, decreed, I believe, by the just judgment of posterity. I hope and pray that when, the impartial pen of history in after times shall tell the story of our doings in this Session of the British Parliament, it may not have to say that the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and the House of Commons supporting them, let down the power of the House of Commons, and sacrificed and betrayed—as I fear we are in danger of sacrificing and betraying—those most solemn and important rights which we are bound to maintain, I undertake to say, by sanctions and engagements stronger than any which oaths can give. We are bound to maintain them by all that our forefathers have done upon this question, and by that which all those who may come after us will have a right to expect at our hands. I ask the noble Lord and the Government a question. I do not say he should answer me now—that he should rise in his place and say, "It is impossible that anything can be done, and that we have given a final opinion upon this matter." The noble Lord is not infallible, any more than any of us, but he might do much to band together those who, for the most part, have cordially supported the Government during this Session; he could

  1125
  do that which would be approved by the great party in the country which has sent us to this House; and I say, moreover, I believe, to the credit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if he would do this he would have the support of many on that side, and Parliament would unitedly rejoice that we could separate having left the same powers in the hands of the House of Commons undisputed, uncontrolled, unimpaired as it had when we began the Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I had hoped that the House had sufficiently discussed, and, at all events, disposed of for the present Session, a question which threatened to bring about a serious collision between the two Houses of Parliament. It is allowable, no doubt, for those who, like the hon. Gentleman, entertain very strong and extreme opinions upon this matter, to take advantage of any fair and proper opportunity for impressing those opinions upon the House, and urging that they should be carried into practical execution. But, I must say, if the hon. Gentleman entertains those strong opinions, which he has expressed to-night as to the consequences upon the character of this House, and upon the constitution of the country, which would follow from nothing more being done than that which the House, by a majority of, I believe, 400, agreed to do—it would have better become the hon. Gentleman if he had produced his opinions, and proposed his course of conduct at the time when the matter was under the consideration of the House, when the House was full, when the events were recent in the minds of hon. Members, and when, therefore, this, House was more in a condition to determine, and the country more in a condition to accept a Resolution than they can be at this moment. I think that I performed my duty to this House and the country by the course I conceived it right to recommend the House to pursue; and that opinion has, I think, been confirmed by the immense majority by which those Resolutions were sanctioned. If I had thought that measures such as those to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted as having been adopted by Ministers in former days, would have been proper for this occasion; and that it was necessary to propose them to the House, I trust I should not have required the stimulus of the hon. Gentleman's advice to point out the measures and the course which, as the responsible Minister of the Crown, I should
  1126
  have deemed it my duty to recommend to the House. I did not think the occasion required more than that which I proposed, and which the House adopted. I think we did sufficient to maintain the dignity and assert the privileges of this House of Parliament. But I think that, if there is one thing which is more undignified than another, more humiliating and degrading than another, either to individuals or to assemblies, it is to resort to puling lamentations, to fruitless complaints, well knowing at the time such lamentations are uttered, and such complaints are made, that no practical result can follow, except that of declaring to the whole world that, in the opinion of the speaker, an injury has been sustained for which, at the same time, he admits no remedy can be obtained. I think the hon. Gentleman would better have consulted his own character and the dignity of Parliament—he would have shown more regard for the constitution of the country, if, not choosing to make these proposals when the matter was under consideration—he had been content to let it rest upon what a numerous majority of this House deemed to be a satisfactory footing, and which I take leave to say was approved by the great bulk of the nation. The hon. Gentleman says that if we had dissolved Parliament, and appealed to the country upon this question, we should have had a large majority; but I will tell him that I am of an entirely different opinion. I am persuaded that the country would not have supported a Ministry who deemed that, under the circumstances of the case, it was a question upon which to place the issue before the electors of the country. I am not prepared for any of those courses which the hon. Gentleman has proposed. Towards the conclusion of his speech he has been pleased to tell us what, in his opinion, constitutes the crime of treason. There are those who think that men who would wish to overthrow, one by one, every component part of the institutions of the country—who, whether in Parliament or out of Parliament, in their minds conceive plans, which, if carried into execution, must come under that denomination, deserve to have that appellation applied to them. But all I take leave to say is, that when the hon. Gentleman says that the course which the Government have taken, is, in his opinion, a treason against the people which would cover that Ministry with contempt and infamy—I say I leave with

  1127
  confidence the question between the hon. Gentleman and myself in regard to this matter to the deliberate judgment of posterity—aye to the judgment of the present time and of all future ages—and I am not at all afraid as to which of us two will be deemed to be deserving of the epithets which he has bestowed upon me.
  Afterwards—
  LORD FERMOYsaid, that as he had been appealed to by the hon. Member for Birmingham with regard to the Instruction he had put on the Notice Paper, he thought it only fair to state the course he meant to pursue upon the paper duty.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the noble Lord was entirely out of order in explaining what he intended to do in regard to a Motion of which he had given notice.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, after the speech made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the very able speech made by his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Bright), he had a right to make a few remarks. He thought, since the question had been raised in the House, and particularly since the Resolutions of the noble Lord had been carried, that the House of Commons and the other House of Parliament did not stand in a satisfactory position. Either the House of Lords had infringed the privileges of the House of Commons, or it had not. If it had not infringed the privileges of the House of Commons, the Resolutions of the noble Lord were superfluous. If the privileges of the House had been infringed, the passing of the Resolutions had not redressed the position in which they were placed; and therefore he thought it would be more expedient that they should take some further movement. The noble Lord at the head of the Government in his speech said his own opinion, and the opinion of the Government, with regard to the present position of the House, was unchanged. The noble Lord had declared his determination not to take any further steps; and therefore, if other steps were taken, they would be met with the united opposition of the Government. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Bright) occupied a very important position in the House of Commons as regarded this question; he also occupied a very prominent position in the country with regard to many questions. The hon. Gentleman was followed by a number of Gentlemen who placed implicit confidence in him. He (Lord Fermoy) was in this position. If he pursued the course of which he had
  1128
  given notice, he would be opposed by Her Majesty's Government; and therefore, in order not to inconvenience hon. Members, and in deference to the advice of his hon. Friend below him, and others in whom he had confidence, he felt he had no alternative but to abandon the question during the present Session.

ENCLOSURE OF HAINAULT FOREST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the enclosure, which was rapidly going forward, of forest ground in the neighbourhood of London. He might say at once that he found, as usual, the blame shifted from one Department to another, so that he could not fully ascertain who really was responsible. The first question which he would ask the right hon. First Commissioner of Works was, by whose authority those enclosures were carried out? He wished to ask next, whether the Government intended to continue them. Epping, Hainault, and Wanstead forests formed a range of forest reaching up to within six miles of the east end of London. They were crossed by several lines of railway from different points of the East end. They were, therefore, singularly accessible to the hundreds of thousands of hard-worked shopkeepers and working men in that aggregation of great cities, Spitalfields, Whitechapel, Mile End, Stepney, Shoreditch, Hackney, and other parts, crammed with human beings, who were thus provided with noble and beautiful parks, which cost nothing to buy and cost nothing to keep up. He could speak from personal experience of the immense use which was made of them. He understood that last year upwards of 100,000 persons went down by rail alone to enjoy them, and nearly as many more by vans, carts, gigs, and other conveyances. He had spent many summer evenings in those forests, and could only say that he had never seen any spectacle that had given him greater satisfaction than the thousands upon thousands of pallid, over-worked mechanics, with their wives and families, enjoying themselves among these beautiful glades. On Sundays, especially, there used to he tens of thousands diverting themselves, some quietly, some noisily, but all happily and harmlessly, and inhaling health to body and soul. But all this was now rapidly coming to a close. These lovely forests had by ill-luck fallen into the

  1129
  hands of red-tapists of the deepest die. At the very time when they were spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to form and maintain parks for the people, at that very time the authorities, whoever they might be, had chosen to sell the Crown rights over these natural parks, the delight and comfort of hundreds of thousands of Londoners, and which cost nothing whatever for their maintenance, There might be some shadow of excuse if they had sold those rights for an important consideration. But the fact was that the Crown rights over Wanstead Forest—the loveliest part and the nearest to town—were actually sold for less than £3,000 to the EARL of Mornington. For that wretched pittance the Commissioners had for ever deprived the public of as delightful a part as could be found. He had visited Wanstead Forest the other day, and was filled with indignation to find the trees cut down, the ground ploughed up, and great palings erected to keep the public off from what they had lately possessed and so highly valued. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would put a stop to what ho considered one of the stupidest of the stupidities that had been done in the present day.
  Afterwards—
  MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEasked the Secretary to the Treasury on what principle the Woods and Forests having taken 1,873 acres of the King's Woods of the late Forest of Hainault, in full satisfaction of all Her Majesty's rights over the said King's Woods, now claim a further portion of the residue of the King's Woods that the Crown gave up for the benefit of the Commoners; and also on what grounds they included in the Bill, which they promised the Commoners of Chigwell and Lam-bourn to bring in for the division of the part of the King's Woods so given up by the Crown, the manorial wastes of Chigwell and Lambourn, and this without the consent of the Commoners of Chigwell and Lambourn?
  MR. LAINGsaid, it devolved on him, and not upon the First Commissioner of Works, to reply to the two questions put respecting these forests, because they were not public parks but private portions of the hereditary estates of the Crown. If they were public parks, he admitted that in many respects it would be desirable to preserve them for the purpose of affording recreation to the public. But being private property, very different considerations supervened. Those grounds were to all in tents and purposes the property of the
  1130
  Crown. That being so, it was the duty I of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to manage those estates for the benefit of I the property, as might be the case with any other private property. As regarded the last question relating to the division of the forest of Hainault, it was partly a question of the rights of private property. The rights of the Crown were of two sorts. The Crown had a right of soil and a right of forest over a large portion of the forest known by the name of the King's woods, and the Crown was proprietor of certain enclosed land in the adjoining parishes, possessing the ordinary rights of common over the unenclosed land in the neighbourhood. Some time ago an arrangement was come to by which the right of soil and of forest in the King's-wood was commuted into a specific grant of upwards of 1,800 acres; but it was duly recited in the Act that the rights of common of the Crown were not in any way affected. In 1851 another Act was passed for apportioning a large mass of common land, in which the Crown obtained a certain interest as one of the landowners in the district. The Commissioner appointed under that Act made a certain award; but an appeal from his decision, raising the question of the legal right of private individuals, was now pending in the Court of Common Pleas. The case of Epping Forest was somewhat different. The Crown had no right there over the soil, but simply a right of forest. That right was for a long time quite unproductive, and the Commissioners of Woods thought it their duty to make it profitable for the estate of the Crown by selling it to the adjoining proprietors. They were doing nothing themselves to enclose any portion of the forest, hut by the sale of the right of forest they had indirectly put the adjoining proprietors in a position to obtain enclosures, which might not otherwise have been available. He admitted, however, that it was highly desirable that some portion of the district should be preserved for the use of the public, and, although he saw considerable difficulties in the way, he should be happy to communicate with the Commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining whether, consistently with the rights of the Crown, a satisfactory arrangement could not be made.

DISTURBANCES IN SYRIA.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign

1131
Affairs, Whether, with reference to the interference of the Great Powers in Syria, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to limit the aid rendered by England to the appearance of a Naval Squadron off the coast? And, whether or not, in the event of the horrible massacres being continued and the troubles in Syria extending to fresh places, is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send aid in troops, or to permit France to obtain all the honour and credit which must result from an active military support of the Christians against the terrible proceedings of the Mahomedans?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend, who has asked whether we have limited our operations to the mere appearance of a naval force on the coast of Syria, I have to reply that we have not so limited our interference; but that our naval squadron will do all in their power to prevent the massacres, and, if they are not otherwise able to do so, the Admiral is instructed to land the marines, in order to prevent a recurrence of the scenes that have lately been witnessed. It has been communicated to me by the Turkish Ambassador, that there are accounts from Fuad Pasha that nearly 400 persons have been arrested for taking part in the recent outrages; that extraordinary tribunals have been established; that several of those persons have been condemned; and that, if found guilty of taking a part in the massacres, they will be immediately executed. He informed me likewise that Fuad Pasha states that all the well-disposed people in Damascus have assisted the Government in arresting those who had participated in the outrages, and that the troops of the Sultan have behaved with the greatest loyalty. No doubt, when the representatives of the various Powers met at Paris, it was their opinion, and that of Her Majesty's Government, that there was considerable reason to fear, from the misconduct of the Turkish troops, and those who commanded them, that the cause of order would find faint and uncertain support from those troops. It was therefore thought necessary to agree that a body of French troops should be sent to support the [authority of the Sultan, to prevent bloodshed, and restore tranquillity. But it was thought far better, in the first instance, that one Power should take charge of the movement of the troops. If it became afterwards necessary to send an additional number of troops, according to the protocol
1132
laid on the table, it would then be for the Powers to consider which of those Powers should furnish the additional troops, and of course Her Majesty's Government will have to give their opinion on that subject, and, if necessary, will take a part in the operations. I trust, however, that no such necessity will arise. I am inclined to believe, from the vigorous measures that Fuad Pasha is taking, that although murders are still going on in the country, and although the unfortunate Christians are afraid to return to their homes, the state of things will very soon be much better, and that the forces of Turkey and France will restore tranquillity and order to that country. If that be the case, instead of an additional number of troops being required, the Government of France will be enabled to recall the troops they have sent. We wish that this operation maybe a speedy one, and that we shall soon hear that order has been restored and that these horrible massacres have ceased. Of course, the general restoration of order is a matter of the first importance, and we shall then have to consider what measures should be adopted to prevent a repetition of these outrages.

IRISH BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, Sir, I gave notice yesterday, that I should on this evening call attention to the conduct of Irish business, and also ask some questions relating to the Poor Law Department in Ireland. The mode in which Irish business has been conducted, both in and out of this House, is a subject too large and important to admit of having full justice done to it, without transgressing the bounds of that privilege still enjoyed by independent Members, upon the usual Motion to adjourn from this Day until Monday. This privilege is naturally disrelished by Ministers, who would willingly narrow its legitimate limits, because under existing arrangements it supplies almost the only opportunity for directing attention to special subjects. In my observations upon the conduct of Irish affairs, I shall be as brief as practicable, and will avoid every expression at all irritating to any Member, whether in or out of office. What are the Irish measures which have either been presented to Parliament, or are likely to become law during the present Session? Of the latter class there are only the Irish Land Bills, which are useless—perhaps harmless—abortions;

1133
and the Maynooth College Bill, which will simply abstract some funds from educating the poor students, in order to keep the roof over their heads, thus "robbing Peter to pay Paul." The other Government measures for Ireland were the Reform Bill, which was withdrawn; the Irish Prisons Bill, also withdrawn; the Births, Deaths and Marriages Bill, likewise abandoned. A Poor Law Bill, afterwards converted into a mere Continuance Bill, with two valuable clauses introduced by independent Members in this House, but struck out this very evening in "another place." There are on our paper for this night two Coercion Bills for Ireland, the one called "Peace Preservation Bill," and the other "Party Emblems Bill." We are to have no Volunteers for Ireland, though myriads of men have been enrolled in England and Scotland; no coast defences for Ireland, though millions of pounds are to be expended on them in England; and no effectual step towards remedying the atrocious injustice of English and Scotch deportation of Irish paupers, beyond the appointment of a Select Committee, whose Chairman is also President of the English Poor Law Board. The grave question which now most interests Ireland is, whether a mixed system of National education shall continue to prevail there, or separate aid be supplied for the schools of each religious denomination. That most urgent of all subjects has been thrown over and postponed, notwithstanding repeated remonstrances from the Catholic Prelates of Ireland, and from others whose position ought to entitle them to some attention. In November last I wrote to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also applied to him Early this Session, but could extract no reply or information, beyond an intimation that the proper time to explain the views of Government would not arrive until the Estimates for National Education should be submitted to Parliament. It is now near the middle of August, but no Irish Estimates have been brought forward; and it will not be until after "Partridge Day" that a thin and impatient House will be invited to discuss this perplexing question. It is, therefore, manifest that any settlement of it must necessarily lie over until next Session. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is all bland civility, which invites corresponding courtesy. Accordingly, I handed to him yesterday morning a copy of my intended notice for this night, and he received it with that distinguished suaviter in modo,
1134
which often accompanies the fortiter in re I have no means of actual knowledge, but can easily conceive that, on receiving my notice for this evening, the right hon. Gentleman at once directed the preparation of a counter notice, in the form of the usual Government circular, to Members occupying seats on this side of the House. That circular I got this morning in an open envelope, and it is, therefore, no secret, nor its production any breach of confidence. These are its precise terms:—
"Certain Division—Tour attendance is earnestly and particularly requested in the House of Commons on Friday, August the 10th, at the evening sitting, on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, second reading."
That was the vigorous response which I received in reply to my present notice. I have now endeavoured to present briefly a faithful outline of the mode in which Irish business has been conducted in Parliament during this Session. For any shortcomings, I do not altogether blame the Irish portion of the Administration, as it is probable English matters interfered, regarding which English Members may have their own grounds for complaint. But, what has been the conduct of Irish affairs out of Parliament, and in Ireland itself? That country is governed by an English Lord-Lieutenant, through English Commissioners, and heads of departments, constituting a system of foreign bureaucracy, which deserves the old title—"The English Garrison in Ireland." In addition to the Chief Governor of Ireland, we have a Chief Secretary for Ireland, an Under-Secretary for Ireland, the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, the Commanding Officers of Artillery and of Engineers in Ireland, the Inspector-Generals of Irish Militia and Irish Hospitals, the Chairman of the Board for inspecting Irish Prisons, the Chief and three others out of the five Commissioners of Poor Laws in Ireland, the Chief Officers of Income Tax, Excise, Customs, Fost Office, and other departments in Ireland, who are not natives of that country. The Protestant Archbishop of Dublin—who, with the Commander of the Forces and the Lord Chancellor, usually govern Ireland during any temporary absence of the Lord Lieutenant—is also an Englishman. It would occupy much time to expose fully all the practical evils, arising from a system of functionarism, presided over by persons whose natural ties and interests do not identify them with the governed country. Some of those mischiefs may be collected

1135
from a description given by a philosophic traveller, of the bad effects of the bureaucratic system in Continental countries. In his Observations on Europe, Mr. Laing (father of our present Secretary to the Treasury) says—
"In all countries of Germany, occupied by the French, the established functionaries, in every district and department of public affairs, became the willing instruments in the hands of the French, of the most grievous exactions, contributions and oppressions; which without their assistance and organization, could not have been carried into effect by the French Commissioners. The chiefs only of a few departments had to be removed, or rather to act under a French functionary; but almost all the machinery of functionarism remained. Every man sticking to office, and quite as effective for the enemy as ho had been for the sovereign of his country."
It is notorious in Ireland that the smallest official there has more real weight with the local government of that country than the united influence of all its independent Representatives, not one of whom is ever consulted about its affairs, or as to any intended measures. Indeed, all Bills which concern Ireland are invariably preserved as profound state secrets from Irish Members, and the first intimation that we ever receive respecting them is the ordinary printed notice on the papers of this House. The Lord Lieutenant is a sort of roi faineant, with a mock regal court in Dublin, where he gives pleasant banquets and parties, at which the several officials with their families dine, dance, and make merry together, as well as at their own habitations; thus becoming a family party, which, in effect, governs the whole country, and arranges all its public affairs and appointments. Should the official conduct of any among that compact coterie happen to be impugned in this House, they have their Chief Secretary here to defend it, however culpable, as was recently exemplified in the case of the Rev. Mr. Fox, whom the Irish Poor Law Commissioners dismissed so unjustly from his office of chaplain to the South Dublin Union. A main objection to Austrian rule in Lombardy was the exclusive employment of Germans in its civil and military affairs. For my own part I should not in the least object to a large English element amongst officials in Ireland, were there any reciprocity observed by a due infusion of Irishmen into Imperial offices and counsels. But I do protest against the present one-sided arrangements. It is, perhaps, useless to reiterate any solitary protest, that although the so-called
1136
Act of Catholic Emancipation was passed more than thirty years since, not one Roman Catholic has ever been admitted into the Cabinet of the Empire. From the present Ministry all native-born Irishmen are also rigorously excluded, though some subordinate situations are occupied by Irishmen, who have been already described as outside passengers upon the political omnibus of the noble Lord. Two of those inferior offices are filled by noblemen of great consideration in Ireland, who represent the counties of Kerry and Wicklow (Lord Castlerosse and Lord Proby). A third office is occupied by the Member for the county Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue, heir presumptive to a peerage, and known amongst Englishmen through his Oxford career. The Attorney General for Ireland is necessarily an Irish barrister, my right hon. Colleague for the county of Cork, whose abilities well qualify him for the office. There is also an Irish Lord of the Treasury, which inferior post was refused by two Irish Members, and afterwards accepted by a gentleman of large position in his own district, the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell). Now I do not suggest that fitter gentlemen could have been selected for Government appointments, but I do assert that, in their subordinate positions, they are utterly powerless to influence the counsels of the Ministry, or urge their own views as to public affairs in the manner they might desire. That they were really anxious to benefit their own country, and procure useful measures for it, by accepting office under the present Government, appears from some of their addresses upon that occasion. The hon. Member for Clonmel, in his election address of June, 1859, stated, no doubt most sincerely, that—
"Having accepted office in a Government composed of all sections of the great Liberal party, I trust by unremitting attention to imperial and local interests, to prove that, by joining the most advanced Ministry that has ever ruled in this country, I have neither surrendered my principles nor relaxed my endeavours to procure useful measures for Ireland."
With equal sincerity the present Attorney General for Ireland, in June, 1859, addressed the electors of Cork county in those terms:—
"The Government under which I have accepted office is composed of the most Liberal statesmen, chosen from all sections of the great Liberal party, and is especially a Government of progress. In the benefits of that progress, I believe that Ireland

1137
will largely participate; and that the new Government will seriously and promptly address itself to the remedy of grievances long felt, often admitted, and too long left unredressed. You will find that in office I will endeavour, honestly, to carry out those views, which I have uniformly advocated when I was unconnected with, or in opposition to, preceding Governments."
We may reasonably conclude that those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are even more distressed and disappointed than ourselves at the supineness of their English colleagues, who have not merely left all old grievances wholly unredressed, but have so conducted affairs as to lose all political influence in Ireland, and to injure seriously "the great Liberal party" by alienating from it many of its Irish Members. And here I wish to address myself especialiv to English Liberals, who should clearly understand that a defection of fifty Irish Liberals to the opposite ranks will in effect cause a difference of 100 votes, which can only be compensated by corresponding accessions in England or Scotland. Formerly some seventy-five of the Irish Members, constituting five-sevenths of their entire body, used to occupy seats upon the Liberal side of the House. That state of things is at present reversed, there being now perhaps about seventy-five on the Tory, and hardly thirty on the Liberal benches. Some of those thirty Members retain their positions with difficulty, and probably against the wishes of their constituents, but being Liberals of long standing, and not mere mushroom Liberals of yesterday, it is repugnant to their political feelings to cross over to the Tory side of the House. They may, however, have to do so soon, or to leave the House altogether, should Irish remonstrances remain unregarded, and admitted grievances be left unredressed. Even now there are but few who have faithfully adhered to the Liberal side, and the last "rose of summer" may ere long be "left blooming alone" on these seats. Under these circumstances, and even in an English aspect, every reasonable means should be adopted to revive and restore the Irish Liberal party, instead of alienating its members still further, as would seem to have been wantonly done at a Ministerial meeting in Downing Street, on Monday last. Being no supporter of the present Government, I did not go to that meeting, but we have all heard various versions of what occurred there, and that in consequence of some ill-timed expressions of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), no fewer than twelve staunch Liberals, representing
1138
Irish constituencies, deliberately abstained that evening from recording their votes in favour of the proposed reduction of duty upon foreign paper. Not having attended the meeting in Downing Street, I experienced no personal slight, and felt at liberty to vote for the reduction of duty, on the obvious grounds that such reduction formed a part of the Commercial Treaty with France, which I had already supported; that the opposition to it was a mere set against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I ought not to lend myself; and also because I felt that the vote would give me a stronger hold upon English Liberals, as well as upon the Government itself, in any remonstrance I might afterwards make with regard to Irish matters. I will now take the liberty to suggest to the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) that he should profit from his recent experience, and not again venture to—
"Cast off his friends, as a huntsman his pack; Assured, when he likes, he can whistle them back."
For, it may happen, that the more the noble Lord shall whistle, the less they will feel inclined to return; and that when he may desire to recall his departed "spirits from the vasty deep" of Toryism, they will disregard his invocations. It is possible, however, that he may feel personally indifferent to these consequences, because he can safely calculate to be the political "Vicar of Bray," in any conceivable complication of circumstances, or form of administration, But it is manifest the proper conduct of Irish business vitally affects the Liberals of England, as well as the Liberals of Ireland. I have submitted these remarks in the most temperate, and almost subdued language, though not in any terms of "puling complaint,"—to borrow an expression used this evening by the noble Lord. They are offered in a spirit neither hostile nor friendly towards the Government, but from a simple desire that some remedy shall be devised for the existing evils, by those who have the power to apply it. Any which I might suggest, may not be accepted in good part, and, perhaps, were I to point out the right course, that might only be a reason for taking the wrong one. But, I venture once more to warn English Liberals that, unless some effectual remedy is applied during the tempus penitentice afforded by the approaching recess, they will probably find that Early next Session a strong Tory Government will be permanently located in office. I

1139
shall now conclude by asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether the Rev. Mr. Fox is actually reinstated as chaplain of the South Dublin Union; and is it intended, on the part of the Government, to infuse a due proportion of Irish and of Catholic elements into the constitution of the Irish Poor Law Board, which now consists of five Commissioners, of whom not one is a Catholic, and only one an Irishman?
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT (1856) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CARDWELLmoved the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would propose that the Bill should be read a second time on that day three months. He submitted that no grounds existed for asking for the strong repressive powers which this measure would confer on the Government. They had the evidence of the Prime Minister himself, and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the people of Ireland were well affected. He admitted there had been times in Ireland when, owing to misgovernment, it was necessary that the Executive should be armed with stringent repressive powers; hut, although the misgovernment still remained, the diminution of crime and the absence of outrage rendered quite unjustifiable the proposal to renew the obnoxious Act of 1856. In short, there was no country in Europe in which the records of crime were so small as in Ireland, and in support of the statement he referred to the addresses delivered in various counties by the Judges of assize during the late circuits in Ireland. He quoted the addresses of the Judges to the Grand Juries in Monaghan, Roscommon, Clare, Meath, Limerick, Wexford, King's County, Westmeath, Down, Wicklow, Leitrim, and Waterford. In all those places the Judges congratulated the Grand Juries on the lightness of the calendars. Under these circumstances, it was a strange proceeding on the part of the Government to ask for repressive powers from Parliament.
  MR. MAGUIREseconded the Amendment.
  Notice taken that Forty Members were not present: House counted; and Forty Members being present,
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BLAKEsubmitted that it was impolitic on the part of the Government to press this measure, because by doing so they would give the people of Ireland to understand that they had no claim upon their affection, and could not trust them.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask why the Bill was brought forward, because, as far as his information went, there was no necessity whatever for it. In every county in Ireland the Judges had congratulated the Grand Juries on the absence of crime and the great contentment of the people, and he was, therefore, astonished at a measure which, as far as Ireland was concerned, suspended the British Constitution. Moreover, the Act itself was totally unintelligible. It vested powers in the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of a most objectionable character. Not only had he the power of transferring forces—police and military—from one place to another, whenever in his judgment he deemed the peace to be in danger of being disturbed; but he had the power also of levying a tax for their maintenance. He also had the power of ordering any person suspected of possessing arms to be searched, and likewise the power of ordering prisoners to be moved from any one part of the country to another. Now, was that the case in any other part of the United Kingdom? For these reasons he should support the Amendment.
  MR. LONGFIELDdenied that the Peace Preservation Act had anything to do with the pacification of the country, and the prevention, detection, or punishment of crime. It was often a mere excuse for laziness on the part of those whose duty it was to enforce the general law. Wherever the ordinary powers of the law had been put into force, they had been found quite effectual. Within the last few years there had been in England crimes of greater magnitude than in the sister country, such as the Chartist riots, the insurrection at Monmouth, Thorn at Canterbury, and the Stockport riots. He repeated that this

  1141
  measure operated only as an excuse for apathy and negligence on the part of the authorities. For an offence which in England would only give rise to the interference of the ordinary authorities, all Ireland was degraded in the eyes of civilized nations by an Act which, from long experience, he believed to be utterly useless and inefficient. Believing that no case had been made out for this exceptional and degrading legislation, and that in point of number, magnitude, and atrocity, crimes in England had, within a given period, exceeded those in Ireland, he should also support the Amendment.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, ho hoped that it would not be considered an insult to the people of Ireland that he should propose to continue for a limited period an Act which experience had shown to be productive of good effects. He gladly recognized the fact of the satisfactory state of Ireland in respect of crime; but he could not understand why the continuance of these powers should be construed into an impeachment of the people of that country. While he admitted with great pleasure the satisfactory state of Ireland in that respect, he could not overlook the fact that there were circumstances occasionally occurring in Ireland which did not occur in this island—circumstances which it was the duty of the Government to guard against in the interest of the peaceable and well-disposed portion of the community. They had all heard of recent occurrences, into which he would not then enter, and he had received information that "there was a sham fight, at which 500 or 600 persons were present, with an immense quantity of arms." That was contained in a Report from a Government officer, dated August 4, 1860. [Mr. BUTT: Where was that?] At Scarvagh. The Bill which he asked the House to accept contained only two powers—one to enable the Government to take away arms in proclaimed districts; and the other to impose the expense of an additional police upon the proclaimed district. He thought there was nothing unreasonable or unjust in either proposition, but that both powers were essentially for the interest of Ireland, as tending to insure the maintenance of peace and tranquillity. It was said that the powers of the ordinary law were ample; and that might be if the object in view was only to punish crime; whereas the powers of the Bill he proposed were intended and calculated rather to prevent crime. What had been the state of the town of Belfast in
  1142
  1857? There were continuous riots, which were not put an end to by either police or military, but by the simple proclamation of the town. He repeated that the Continuance Bill before the House could not be regarded as an insult to the people of Ireland, but as a protection for the peaceful and quiet inhabitants. It was said, too, that the police had no influence on the repression of crime; but what had been the case in King's County? At the Summer Assizes of 1858, it was determined to withdraw the additional constabulary. In 1859, there were no less than forty-three serious outrages; and in December, 3 859, the magistrates applied for additional police. The Chief Justice, in the present year, noticed the heavy nature of the calendar, but congratulated the county upon an increased activity on the part of the police, and, consequently, greater success in the; detection of crime. The principle of the Bill was, first, that a district should be held responsible for any extraordinary amount of crime committed within it; and next, when large numbers of persons possessed arms which it was likely they would use to the injury of themselves or others; then there was a power not of punishment, but of prevention. It was only desired to continue the provisions of the present Act for a limited period, and that there was no wish on the part of the Government to enforce those powers unnecessarily was evident from the fact that at present there was not a single constable charged upon any district in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill, which the Government had felt it their duty to introduce to meet any occasional outbreaks.
  MR. M'MAHONobserved, that the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman would he tested by one question. Had Scarvagh been proclaimed?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that Scarvagh was situate on the borders of Down and Armagh, and the whole of the latter county was under proclamation.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would then further ask, whether it was intended to take away arms from the people in the North of Ireland? He did not believe it, for the Protestants had never been deprived of their arms. This Bill, which had been renewed from time to time, was originally that Crime and Outrage Act of 1847 which, like the Coercion Act of 1841, was passed to meet anticipated disturbances. But now there was no such state of things, and

  1143
  he could not 3ee what necessity there was for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the King's County; but the reason why crime had diminished there was not the proclamation, but the greater attention which the police had paid to their duties. The disturbances at Belfast in 1857 were traceable to the fact that the police of that town were appointed by the corporation, and were all connected with the Orange body. The Bill was distasteful and unnecessary. The argument that it was intended to prevent crime was the old argument which was employed to stifle liberty everywhere. The true principle to go upon in regard to Ireland was, to allow to the people their common and ordinary rights, and when they abused those rights then to punish them. But let them not, on the pretence of preventing crime, cast a slur upon four or five millions of people, and make it a misdemeanour for any man to carry a gun or pistol in any district which the Lord Lieutenant may have proclaimed. He trusted that the Government would reconsider the whole matter, and satisfy themselves that there was really no necessity for a renewal of the Act.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that when he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland declare that Ireland was a peaceable country, and that this measure was taken as a matter of precaution, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have also said that it was the intention of the Secretary for the Home Department to have introduced so admirable and excellent a Bill into England. If that were not done, he (Mr. Butt) asked the right hon. Gentleman what had he said to justify his exceptional legislation for Ireland? He (Mr. Butt) could term this measure nothing but a coercion Act. It belonged to that code of legislation which a great Irishman in that House had stigmatized as "Algerine." The whole purport of the Act was, that no Irishman should be entitled to have a gun in his House unless he obtained the permission of the Lord Lieutenant. The only justification offered for this Bill was the fact that 700 or 800 persons assembled at a place in the county Down, and had a sham fight, but which was followed by no breach of the peace. He asked was there ever heard such a justification for such an Act? Assize after assize in Ireland, the Judges congratulated the people on the diminution of crime, and it was under such circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to
  1144
  renew an Act, the preamble of which set forth that it was necessary because, "crime and outrage are generally prevalent in Ireland." Measures such as that before the House were mischievous to the peace of Ireland, unless some strong necessity was shown for it. Unhappily, there was a tendency in Ireland, fostered by misgovernment, to throw everything upon the Government and to do nothing for themselves. It was a tendency which unhappily prevailed through many departments of Irish business, and therefore, the moment they told a magistrate of a county that when an outraged occurred, instead of exerting the powers of common law, he had nothing to do but to call for measures of coercion, he (Mr. Butt) said it was a premium upon that tendency which of all others it was their duty to discourage. It appeared from a return of the number of counties in Ireland that had been proclaimed that nearly every one had at one time or other been subjected to that indignity; and in a large proportion of cases the reason assigned for the step was of the most frivolous kind. It was an accusation against the Austrian Government in Italy that a native was liable to punishment who had arms in his house without the licence of the Government; yet that was the system which it was proposed to revive in Ireland. This measure was proposed in 1848, renewed in 1852, again in 1856, and now in 1860 it was again proposed to renew it for two years more. No one could doubt that in 1862 the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the day would again come down and propose that the Bill should be, as a matter of course, renewed again. He asked English as well as Irish Members—Protestants as well as Roman Catholics—whether any justification had been shown for continuing this Algerine measure in a time of profound tranquillity? He would make the Chief Secretary for Ireland a proposal which must be admitted to be a reasonable one. If the Government would limit the operation of the Bill to a few months, and let it expire on the 1st of May next, so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill in the month of April, and not in the month of August, he would not object to the reenactment of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to justify this Bill in consequence of a sham fight. But what was a Government worth if it could not prevent a few hundred men from having a sham fight in Ireland? The sooner those

  1145
  who made this admission gave up the Irish Government the better. In 1846 a similar Act broke up the strongest Government this country had seen for many years. Lord J. Russell, who then came in, proposed an Arms Act, which was to expire on the 1st of May, but at the close of the Session he was obliged to give up that measure. He called upon the House to declare that the day was gone by when Coercion Acts were required for Ireland.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he could not congratulate his hon. and learned Friend on the consistency of his speech, because, after speaking of this as an Algerine Act, a measure of coercion, an insult to Ireland, and a suspension of the Constitution, his hon. and learned Friend ended by proposing that this measure, introduced, as he said, without any justification or reason, should be enacted for the whole of the ensuing winter. When the hon. and learned Member read to the House a portion of a return, he scarcely acted quite fairly to a preceding Government: for he omitted the fact that the proclamations had been withdrawn.
  MR. BUTT: I beg pardon; they have not been withdrawn.
  MR. DEASYsaid, many of the proclamations had been withdrawn. The proclamation, for instance, with regard to Cork was withdrawn in 1851. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield) had complained of the inefficiency of the local and stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. Ho differed with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and thought his remark most unjust to the Magistracy of Ireland. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M. Mahon) had stated that if there were as efficient a police force in Ireland as in England, all crime and outrage would be detected and prevented. He (Mr. Deasy) held in his hand a resolution passed at a meeting of the magistrates of Tipperary, presided over by Lord Ha-warden, declaring that the present tranquillity of the country was owing to the efficiency of the police. He believed the Irish constabulary to be as efficient in the detection of crime as any men could be. The Bill had excited displays of feeling not warranted by its provisions, or by the circumstances under which it was introduced. In 1846, when the Peel Government was displaced, there was, in consequence, a cessation of the provisions which had previously existed restricting the use of fire-arms. But, in 1848, the Whig Government, which had succeeded to power,
  1146
  introduced a Bill reimposing the restrictions; and they had been continued by every successive Government from that time to the present. Speaking on his official responsibility, he believed that the rejection of the present Bill would be attended with mischievous consequences, and that the security of life and property during the coming winter might be seriously endangered if the House were to refuse to the existing Government those powers which Parliament had conceded to successive administrations and which had never been abused. Nothing was further from his intentions than to appeal to religious prejudices, but there were two grounds upon which the Government had a right to ask for a continuance of the Act of 1856—first, the unfortunate excitement which at present prevailed in the north; and, secondly, the existence of the Ribbon confederacy in many districts of Ireland. The Ribbon confederacy was gradually being suppressed, but if the House rejected the present Bill it would spring up again with renewed vigour. King's County and Westmeath might be mentioned as districts where Ribbonism existed. What was the state of things in the north? lie recently received a report, stating that an assemblage of Roman Catholics, armed, had created terror among the Protestants, and had produced a counter assemblage of armed Protestants in the neighbourhood of Armagh. Was that a state of things which, particularly in the present condition of Ireland, ought to be allowed to continue? Without the powers now sought the Government would be unable to put a stop to it, and therefore he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had defended the unpaid magistracy, the stipendiary magistrates, and the police—a proof that the ordinary law was sufficient for the repression of crime. Every Judge in every assize town concurred in stating that the country was unusually free from crime. Where then was the justification for the Bill? It was said certain things might happen next winter; but there was nothing in the present state of the country to render such occurrences probable. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman had been out of office, they would have opposed the Bill vehemently. [Mr. DEASY: I supported the Bill of Lord Derby's Government.] He must contend that the facts cited by the right

  1147
  hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) were proof that there was no necessity for the Bill. He said that the Ribbon conspiracy was dying out. If the police and magistrates were so efficient, why could not they put it down altogether? It had been suggested that the Bill should be accepted, if its operation were limited to the 1st of May next, hut although he had no sympathy with crime or criminals, he would oppose the renewal of the Act for a single day. Whatever the intention of the Government, the Bill was a practical insult to the country. The opinions of the Judges cut the ground from under the feet of the Government. It was a lamentable comment on English Government in Ireland, that after sixty years of the Union, such a Bill as this should be necessary. Were a case made out he would vote for the Bill; but as it was, ho considered it wholly unnecessary and mischievous. He did not believe that the magistrates and police had been rendered more efficient by this Bill; it was rather attributable to a rebuke by the Lord Chief Justice from the Bench. Because there were a few isolated crimes in Ireland, was the whole country to be stigmatized and scandalized in the eyes of Europe? Were there no crimes in this country? Look at the Road murder. Had not the police and the most intelligent persons been baffled in the discovery of the murderer? And yet who would propose that all England should be stigmatized on that account? The Bill was a piece of insulting irritating legislation; it had done no good, and was a disgrace to the Government.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that a meeting of armed persons, threatening to the public peace, could not be prevented without the provisions of the present Bill. By the common law any meeting, especially a meeting of armed persons threatening to the public peace, was illegal, and the magistrates had the power to put a stop to such meeting. No exceptional laws were required for that purpose; the common law was sufficient to preserve the peace, except in cases of an extraordinary description. Now, did such cases exist in Ireland? The county of Louth, in which the borough he had the honour to represent (Dundalk) was situated, though it was perfectly tranquil and peaceable, was a proclaimed county, not, as was stated, on account of any particular crime, but of confederate societies. Now, he did not believe there were any
  1148
  Ribbon Societies in Dundalk, and that was confirmed by the fact that of eleven men who had been arrested and tried there on the charge of being Ribbonmen every one of them was acquitted. Throughout Ireland no reason could be adduced for the continuance of this exceptional law. They were often told about tyrannical proceedings in foreign countries, and if they had heard that such a law existed, say in Italy, to what a great deal of declamation it would give rise! Hon. Gentlemen should look at home. He objected to the measure, because it was unnecessary, unjustifiable, and insulting; because it gave the people to understand that the Government did not trust them, and, in fact, treated them as criminals; and because the Government thereby stimulated the very crime they vainly attempted to extinguish.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought he should fail to act a manly part if he concealed his opinions on that question. He should support the Government in the course which they proposed. He agreed that exceptional laws were objectionable, and that the burden of proving their necessity lay on those who proposed them. But such proof might be furnished. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the county of Louth. In 1852, when he (Mr. Whiteside) was Solicitor General, and was on that circuit, he was waited on privately by a grand juror, who said, "My life is in danger; every hour of my life I am a miserable man. I have received notice that I am to be shot." This gentleman, in the management of an estate, had done something which offended the confederacy, and he received notice—they were courteous then—that he would be murdered. Prom the circumstances that transpired at the time, he (Mr. Whiteside) believed that it was not the grand juror whom it was intended to kill, but a relative of the present Under Secretary of the Colonies, than whom he did not believe a more amiable gentleman could be found, and there were several other gentleman in Louth whom it was also intended to murder. It was necessary to institute a prosecution, and an opportunity was afforded. Three men came to murder a gentleman whom they did not know. The difficulty was not to kill the wrong man, because that would render it necessary to kill the right man afterwards, so they got hold of a railway labourer, who was at work near at hand. This man was well paid, well fed, and

  1149
  clothed, and he was to point out the victim to the persons who were sent to hill him. The labourer did as he was requested, and the men dogged Mr. Eastwood's steps as he was going home at night, until, finding a favourable opportunity for their purpose they sprang upon him. But although armed they did not use their arms. The place in which they committed the deed was of a populous character, and they feared that if they had resorted to firearms disagreeable consequences might ensue to themselves; so they determined to stone him to death. As ho lay upon the ground, however, one of the men plucked from his pocket his gold watch, and gave it to the railway labourer for the civility with which he had assisted their designs. The man concealed the watch in a feather bed; the police discovered the watch there, and arrested him. He disclosed all the facts of the case; the murderers were arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. During that trial the whole nature of the Ribbon confederacy was disclosed. The law was put in force; the county of Louth was proclaimed. The hon. Baronet was right in saying that crime had ceased in the county, but it ceased by reason of the vigorous enforcement of the law and by the application of the powers of this Act—an Act which every gentleman of every persuasion who had any property in the county wished to see enforced, if they desired to retain their property or their lives. He believed that no Government would ask for powers of this kind unless it were necessary. The prosecution of Ribbon men at the last assizes had been adverted to. The Judge had tried the case fairly, and, although the men got off, that by no means proved that the confederacy did not exi3t. The hon. Gentleman had asked what would be said if there were such a law in Italy. There were strange laws in Italy, and, taking all in all, he should prefer to take the Parliament and system of England rather than all the advantages enjoyed in any part of Italy. With a free press and a free Parliament to point out grievances and rectify any evil, there was no danger of the abuse of such a law as the present. For a short time it might be necessary to pass such a Bill. He had refused for a long while to believe in the insurrectionary movement in the county of Cork; but what were the circumstances of that affair? A man sent to Lord Eglinton a long case and a letter, and inside the case was an improved model of the old Irish pike. The
  1150
  writer said in the letter, "It is the only-model I have," and using a well-known Irish term—"It is a needle you will find sharp and penetrating, and I recommend you to get a stock made, for they will be useful." Other persons swore that at night they had seen by the light of the moon bayonets glistening, men actually under arms, and had heard the word of command given. All that was proved at the trial. The men prosecuted were convicted, and the Judge pronounced a sentence of fourteen years' penal servitude, for he said, in passing sentence, "conspiracy struck at the root of government, and must be checked." It could not he said that the law of this country, particularly when it approached to treason, was enforced with severity. On the contrary, so safe was the monarchy in the hearts of the people that no offence was more leniently regarded. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was right in saying that there were many counties in Ireland in which scarcely any crime appeared to have been committed at the last assizes. Well, if the hon. Gentleman could show that the Government were about to apply the present Act to those counties ho would vote against it. Something, however, must be trusted to the discretion of the Government. They must give to every Government the credit of believing that they would not pervert the law or act despotically; and, although he was opposed to the present Government, he did not believe they would act in such a manner—least of all did he believe that the law officers of the Crown would act otherwise than from a paramount sense of duty. That was a matter in which he disclaimed anything like party feeling. He was prepared to leave it to the judgment and discretion of the Irish Government whether the Bill ought to be renewed or not for a short time, feeling satisfied that they would use the powers intrusted to them with moderation and forbearance.
  MR. MONSELLheld that it was a serious matter to apply exceptional legislation to one part of the United Kingdom. It was melancholy to think that, while England and Scotland was allowed to join in the Volunteer movement for the defence of the country, it should be considered necessary to prevent the people of Ireland from testifying their loyalty and patriotism in the same way. The Judges on circuit were unanimous in congratulating the country on the absence of agrarian outrage; and, in order to instance any cases of the kind,

  1151
  the right hon. Gentleman opposite was driven to ransack the annals of the past. The only justification for the measure was the unfortunate religious contests which were prevalent in certain parts of Ireland; and he believed that these differences were attributable solely to the distinction which was drawn by the laws and institutions of the country between people of different religions. In the Colonies, where no such distinctions were established, Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics lived together in peace and harmony. If the Government believed that these religious disputes could only be suppressed by the continuation of this Act, he would not venture to oppose it; but he hoped that when the time came for the next renewal, there would not exits in the state of the country even a shadow of an excuse for it.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that he found in the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland a confirmation of the prediction made at the time of the Union that no Irish Member would be admitted into the Government until he had ceased to have the feelings of an Irishman. It was admitted on all hands, that neither as regarded disaffection nor crime was there any ground for the measure; and it was only that ungenerous distrust of the people of Ireland which debarred them from being allowed to join in the Volunteer movement which animated the promoters of that measure. He wished to see political distinctions put aside, and that his fellow-countrymen should remember, above all, that they were Irishmen. He should not be induced to support the Bill, by the promise that the Party Emblems (Ireland) Bill should be carried against the Orangemen. He did not think any Gentleman would stand up and say he thought it was necessary for the security of property and life that this Bill should pass.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYopposed the Bill. If the measure was such an excellent Bill as it had been described, why was it not applied to England as well as to Ireland? He ventured to assert that the Attorney General for England would not propose its application to this country. The argument in support of the Bill was of the weakest character possible, and resolved itself into an Hibernianism, that because the sham fight referred to was not a real fight, therefore the Bill was necessary. The common law of the land and the police force in Ireland were sufficient to preserve the peace of that country. Westmeath had been
  1152
  under proclamation since 1848; but it had failed to accomplish its object, though the common law had been found sufficient for the preservation of the peace of that county; and the same applied to other counties in Ireland. The county of Tipperary, which was now peaceful and remarkably free from crime, with no trace of Ribbon conspiracies, and no Orangemen, was placed under proclamation in 1847, and had remained under it ever since. That, he maintained, was a gross abuse of the Act. Yet the hon. Member for Liskeard would, no doubt, vote for this Bill; because that hon. Gentleman would rather go wrong with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, than go right with him. No Irishman spoke in favour of this measure, except the Attorney General who was in, and the Attorney General who expected to be in. The proposal was supported by those who knew nothing of Ireland, and he would not say cared less. Hon. Gentlemen came from libraries, smoking-rooms, and cups of tea, to outvote the Irish Members. The House had two Coercion Bills before it; the one to put down the Ribbonmen, the other to put down the Orangemen. Let them have nothing to do with either Bill, but be all friends, and seek to suppress disorderly conduct by moral suasion, and the influence of a good example.
  MR. BRADYobserved that his own county was eminently tranquil. The Judge at the last assizes sat only half a day; and yet it had remained proclaimed during the last thirteen years. And so of Donegal and other counties. He wa3 determined to oppose the Bill to the utmost of his power, not because it was brought in by the present Government, because it was totally uncalled for by the present circumstances of Ireland.
  MR. LEFROYremarked that he should support the measure, not as a means of putting down one party or another, but as necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland.
  MR. HENNESSYmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could hardly believe that the hon. Member was serious in making such a Motion, which was, in fact, seconded by an hon. Gentleman who had already spoken.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had actively opposed the Bill throughout, hut he believed the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) was doing the very worst thing he could in moving the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate ho now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 104: Majority 92.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 27: Majority 60.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

PARTY EMBLEMS (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read,
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which had been introduced into the other House and passed with the concurrence of both parties there. The circumstances which led to the introduction of the Bill were so well known that it would be wholly needless to refer to them, even if it were not advisable to refrain from reviving feelings of animosity by a lengthened reference to them. The object of the Bill was to amend the existing law by prohibiting demonstrations calculated to provoke animosities between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The existing statute law prohibited processions; but it did not prohibit certain other public displays and manifestations, such as exhibiting flags of a party character, using emblems and symbols of a party character, playing music, singing songs, ringing bells to tunes of a party character. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Recent experience made it impossible to deny that even the ringing of bells might be made as effective for party purposes as any other display. The object of the Bill, then, was to put down all such manifestations having a tendency to provoke hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would oppose that penal measure for the same reason that he had opposed the penal measure which the House had just disposed of. It was said that the main object of the Bill was to repress Orange demonstrations. He was no Orangeman, and had no connection with Orangemen; hut he opposed the Bill because, according to the opinion of the Irish Judges, the law was already strong enough to put down party processions. Mr. O'Connell had no connection with Orange-
  1154
  men, and yet he opposed the very Processions Act which it was the object of the Bill to amend. The House ought to proceed very cautiously when asked to put down party emblems. The Bill would make penal even the singing of party songs. The most despotic monarch in Europe would he deemed insane if he proposed a penal law to prevent the singing of party songs. Bid the right lion. Gentleman think that he would be able to put down the playing of "St. Patrick's Day?" He should conclude by moving that the Bill he read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  MR.LONGFIELDseconded the Amendment. He disclaimed all sympathy with the ridiculous displays of religious feeling which had led to the recent disturbances in Ireland, but he did not think that penal legislation ought to be resorted to against the persons who were guilty of them. The Bill was offensive to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and there was no use of going into Committee on it, for it could not be amended. Public opinion would be more effectual than penal laws in putting down party demonstrations and insults. Party spirit was, he rejoiced to say, dying out in Ireland, but so far from tending to allay that spirit, the Bill would foment irritation, and increase party animosity. It might be made a disgraceful instrument by which each party would annoy the other; it might be applied to temperance bands, and to the prevention of much innocent amusement; and he hoped it would be rejected by an overwhelming majority.
  MR. DEASYsaid, the Government had been appealed to from both sides of the House to bring in some Bill for the purpose of extending the provisions of the Party Processions Act, in order to meet a state of things which had developed itself in the North of Ireland to an extent which called loudly for legislative interference. The measure had come down from the Lords, where it had met with general assent, and he hoped the House would at least agree to the second reading; The Party Processions Act, which was made perpetual in 1850, though it. had had a useful effect, was not found sufficient. From the 1st to

  1155
  the 12th of July Orange flags were hoisted and kept flying from all the large churches in the Orange districts in the North of Ireland. This display caused the greatest excitement, and was regarded as an insult by the Roman Catholic population. Many of the clergymen disapproved those displays, hut were powerless to prevent them, when sanctioned by the churchwardens. Nothing certainly could be more derogatory to the Church than such exhibitions, which were discountenanced by all right-thinking people. There was no wish, whatever, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do anything calculated to annoy the Protestant population. All they wished to do was to arm the authorities with power to prevent displays of an offensive character, which endangered the public peace, and were discreditable to the country.
  SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman had confined the terms of his Bill to the prevention of party displays by hoisting flags on churches, beating drums in places of public resort, and similar practices, he should, at the request of influential gentlemen in the part of the country which he represented, have given it his support; hut matter which he believed to be not only objectionable, but improper, having been introduced, he felt bound to vote against the measure. Several gentlemen with whom he usually acted and himself waited upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and endeavoured to induce him to withdraw those portions of the Bill to which they objected; but, as he had refused to do so, they were at perfect liberty to take any course they thought proper.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would not press such a Bill as the one before the House. Had the question been one merely relating to the internal economy or social improvement of Ireland, he, as an English Member, should not have intruded himself in the debate; but when the House was asked to sanction a Bill which appeared to violate every principle of liberty, and placed such extravagant powers in the hands of magistrates and common constables, he felt bound to protest against a species of legislation for Ireland which Her Majesty's Government would not dare to propose either for England or Scotland. He wished to know who was responsible for a measure which suggested to any one who read it over that it had been drawn by an attorney's clerk. It not merely prohibited the
  1156
  singing of certain songs, but persons were not even to sing "in a manner calculated to give offence." So that a person might be singing the most loyal song—"God save the Queen," or "Rule Britannia," for instance—and yet a constable might come up and object to the manner of the vocalist, and say, "You have been singing that through your nose," or, "You gave a curl of your lip, and I shall therefore seize you and your music too." As the Bill had been drawn by a lawyer, there ought to have been at the end a schedule of prohibited songs, and some kind of suggestion as to "the manner" with which those otherwise harmless might be sung. In this year of grace, 1860, any Government should blush to propose such a measure, and after the expression of feeling on the part of the House, it ought to be withdrawn.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he most heartily coincided in the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down. He should feel degraded as an Englishman if such a law were passed for this portion of the United Kingdom, and he hoped Irish Members with a like feeling of indignation would reject the Bill. Power was to be given to the police to enter "any place," whether a man's private house or not, where a party flag or emblem was exhibited, and any opposition to its removal was to be a misdemeanour. In fact, the whole Bill was absurd. It came down from "another place," hut no one would own its parentage, and, as it was opposed to all sense of justice, he hoped it would not be pressed further.
  MR. COGANsaid, he thought the Bill was very important, and should be fully discussed; but out of consideration to the Speaker, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate he now adjourned."
  LORD NAASsaid, that it was inexpedient to postpone the discussion of this question; and though he thought this Bill went a great deal too far, yet he considered that after the discussion which had that evening taken place upon it, they could not have a better opportunity of coming to a vote upon the question than they had now.
  LORD FERMOYobserved that the Bill was worse and more mischievous than the Rill which went before it. He admitted that the display of banners on churches were breaches of good taste, but they were not illegal; and he thought it unfortunate

  1157
  that Chief Justice Monaghan should, in his address to the Grand Jury at Fermanagh, have meddled with matters that were not illegal, and with which, therefore, he, as a Judge, had no concern. He held that the Bill would check that good feeling which it was admitted on all hands was growing up in the North of Ireland.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he feared that this was only one of many proofs of the inconsistency of the House. It was hut the other day that there was a universal call upon his right lion. Friend the Secretary for Ireland to introduce some legislative enactment to prevent the party demonstrations that had produced such a lamentable result. His right lion. Friend did not volunteer in the matter, hut it was in compliance with a call on both sides of the House that this Bill was proposed to Parliament. Now, the House, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, seemed indisposed to entertain it, and perhaps the best course would be to adjourn the debate. The matter, however, was one of great importance. Any one who read the newspapers must he aware that these party demonstrations were producing great local disorders in Ireland. The Bill might be susceptible of improvement in Committee, and his right lion. Friend was ready to consider any suggestions with a view to its improvement. If, however, the Bill was to be debated, they might go on till eight o'clock. He could not agree with the noble Lord (Lord Naas) that there would he no other opportunity of considering the Bill, for, as it seemed to be the intention of the House to sit far away into October, there would be ample time to give it full consideration. He trusted the House would agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the Bill was a bad Bill, and would produce twenty times the confusion and animosity it was intended to put down. They were told the Bill came down from the House of Lords. Now, he respected the House of Lords when ho agreed with the House of Lords. But lie trusted that by rejecting this Bill they would not be doing the least disrespect to the other House.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Bill aimed at putting down the mischief that prevailed in the North of Ireland from party demonstrations and the use of party banners, such as took place on the 12th of July at Derry. It was for the purpose of checking this evil in the bud that the Go-
  1158
  vernment had responded to the appeal of both, sides of the House by bringing in this Bill. He was astonished after what had passed in the House at the opposition which was offered to the Bill. As to "singing songs in a manner calculated to excite animosity," words on which lion, and learned Gentlemen made so merry—"Nobody but an attorney's cleric," said one hon. and learned Gentleman, "could have introduced such ridiculous words into a Bill"—-the identical words were in the Party Processions Act. On those who, after appealing to the Government to bring in a Bill; now joined together to oppose it, would rest the responsibility of any consequences which would ensue from its rejection.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should support the Government on the general principle of the Bill, having been one of those who originally called on the Government to interfere. He had certainly expected to hear Protestant Members from the North of Ireland get up and promise that they would use their moral influence to put an end to these offensive demonstrations. In that case the Catholic Members would have said at once "Away with the Bill." At the same time he should support any attempt to make the Bill as little objectionable as possible.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he was not one of those who had asked the Government to bring in this Bill, hut he strongly felt its I necessity; and he was surprised that any Roman Catholic Member should oppose it.
  MR. M'MAHONalso insisted on the necessity of the Bill to Roman Catholics in the North of Ireland.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, the Orange commemorations which had been so much sneered at were supported till lately by the Government. He should oppose the Bill. He had no doubt that if the Orangemen of the North of Ireland thought the display of Orange flags from churches was universally offensive they would, to a great extent, desist from such displays.
  MR. BRADYcharged some lion. Members on the Opposition side of the House who now opposed the Bill with having only a few hours before expressed their intention to allow it to pass without discussion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsuggested that as the debate had been continued on the general question, and not on the Motion for adjournment, that Motion had better be withdrawn, so that the House might divide at once on the second reading.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he and some other

  1159
  hon. Members would have willingly supported the Bill on the condition that certain alterations should be made in it, and he regretted that the Government had not consented to those alterations.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERcharacterized the Bill as a Coercion Bill for the North of Ireland. He wished to see the peace preserved, but he did not wish the Protestants to be coerced in the North any more than the Catholics in the South of Ireland. He thought that the common law was sufficient to prevent any action tending immediately to a breach of the peace, and that the Bill required more consideration.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he objected to all Coercion Bills. He did not believe that the passing of the Bill would induce people in authority to enforce the law, and that the rejection of the Bill would be more likely to have that effect.
  MR. COGANsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD NAASsaid, if the Government consented to withdraw from the Bill those sections which imposed penalties for hoisting flags on public places of worship and party drumming, he thought the House might safely agree to the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. CARDWELLrepeated that he was ready and willing when the Bill was in Committee to consider any amendments which might be proposed by hon. Members.
  Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 29: Majority 33.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter-after Three o'clock, to Monday next.