Commons Sitting of 20 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ionian Islands (Marriages);Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1851) Continuance; Metropolitan Police Force (Dockyards); Leases Confirmation (Ireland).
2° Maynooth College; Spirit Duties; Census (Scotland); Excise Duties; Anchors and Chain Cables.
3° Prisons (Scotland); Herring Fisheries (Scotland; Railways Act (Ireland) (1851); Amendment; Highways (South Wales).

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENTS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee),
  Clause 1 (Stock to be Cancelled).
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, it was an inevitable consequence of the manner in which this Bill had been conducted —a long period having always elapsed between its appearances before the House — that the general principle of the measure was discussed over and over again, and that the House was doomed to hear, time after time, a repetition of the same arguments in regard to it. That was the more inevitable when the first clause had to be discussed, for, in point of fact, the first clause involved the whole principle of the Bill. The measure would cancel not less than £30,000,000 of stock, and the House was naturally anxious to know what security was to be offered as a substitute for that large amount of stock, and that question opened up the subject of the second clause, the creation of the State deposit, No. 1. They had yet to know the agency by which that creation was to be conducted, and the persons to be responsible. He objected to the transference of the securities from one form to another. The whole amount was at present held by the Government as a security to the local banks upon identically the same footing with the same amount of stock held by the Government in the name of any single person. That was the greatest security which it was in the power of Parliament to offer. He was, therefore, jealous of any alteration in that kind of security. It was proposed by the Bill to cancel an amount of stock equal in round figures to£29,000,000, in addition to the further sum of£2,000,000, the difference between the amount of securities held by the Government and the liabilities to the savings banks. All that sum was to be transferred to a book which was to be kept in the National Debt Office, and was no longer to be liable to the fluctuations in the Funds; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to insert in that book every year a sum which was to represent the deficiency between the interest receivable and the interest payable to the savings banks. Now the savings banks were entitled at any time to receive their money, and that might entail a great loss on the State, because the public might be called

  2221
  upon to pay at a time when the stock would be considerably below par. He thought it would be a much better plan, as recommended by the Commission which had sat upon the subject, to lay a statement of the deficiency annually before Parliament, and let provision be made for it as for the other requirements of the year. He did not think sufficient cause had been made out to justify the new mode of management. It was not merely a savings banks question, it was a question of public policy. That which was now proposed with respect to savings banks a future Chancellor of the Exchequer might propose with regard to some other fund. Therefore, opposing as lie did the whole Bill, he should move that the first clause be omitted, in order to give effect to the objection which he had to the Bill.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, the question at issue between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who opposed the Bill was this:— The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government considered that they should be bankers for the large sums of money deposited in the savings banks, whereas those who opposed the Bill thought that the moneys of the savings banks should be dealt with by a body of trustees, separate and distinct from the Government, and that no one should have power to use these moneys except to pay the depositors. That was the view he took of the question. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have no power to make use of this money. If he required money at any time it should be obtained in a constitutional manner, and not taken from a fund consigned for safety and security to the Government of the country. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would act wisely in withdrawing the Bill.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he thought it would be impracticable to keep such a separate account of the savings-banks' funds as had been recommended. The real security of the savings-banks' depositors was the credit of the country, and if the Bill was intended to add anything to that security he thought it wholly unnecessary; but the Bill went beyond that, and aimed at simplifying the management of these funds in the hands of the Government. Objections had been taken to the mode in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made use of the savings-banks' funds to carry out financial schemes of the Government. He heartily joined in deprecating
  2222
  any such use of these funds. The savings-banks' money was in the hands of the Government for security, but not as a means of financial intrigue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able, by means of the large sum in his power, to carry out unseen operations on the Stock Exchange, which enabled him to prepare the way for some great scheme of the Government; but that was a course of proceeding most unfair and unjustifiable, and the sooner it was exploded the better. In this respect, however, he regarded the Bill as an immense improvement, because it provided the means of dealing with this large sum as a book debt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not touch. The money was by the Bill taken out of the possibility of jobbery. Particular clauses of the Bill might be open to objection, but he wished to express his general approval of the measure. There had been a good many petitions, apparently from the same mint, presented against the Bill; but, with the exception of some fears that had been expressed as to a reduction of interest— for which he admitted there were some grounds — there was nothing in the Bill which justified the petitions that bad been levelled against it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he must protest against a Bill affecting such large interests being brought forward at a period of the Session when it was impossible for it to receive the discussion which its importance demanded, and in a House so thin as invariably was the case at morning sittings. He wanted to know who called for the Bill, and he would ask where were the petitions of those who were its supporters? The tendency of the Bill was greatly to shake the confidence of the depositors in savings banks. It had been said that the petitions presented against the Bill were nearly similar in terms, but the reason of that was obvious, because the managers of savings banks knew very well the imminent danger in which they would be placed by the passing of the Bill of the interest to the depositors being reduced. He believed the savings banks had wisely taken alarm; he believed that it was seriously intended to reduce their interest, and that this Bill was laying the foundation of that measure, for people were apt to judge more from deeds than from words. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke as if the savings-banks' money would be taken out of his hands; but by the Bill he would keep in his hands ample funds for all that any Chancellor of

  2223
  the Exchequer might want to do in the way of jobbery. He repeated that the real object of the Bill was to reduce the interest to savings-banks' depositors, and he could scarcely Bee any other.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought he had reason to complain of the language of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), language which had gone to the extreme verge of Parliamentary licence. He was not warranted in saying that the manifest object of the Bill was to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that which he knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer had absolutely disclaimed. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had distinctly stated that there was no intention to reduce the interest on savings banks' deposits, and the right hon. Gentleman abused the liberty of speech which was enjoyed in that House when he made allegations applicable not to matters of policy or opinion, but to personal intentions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might not pay much attention to his assertions on this point, but he surely must see the force of the argument, that the best answer to the allegation about reducing the rate of interest was that the effect of the Bill as it stood was to enlarge the income of the fund, and to make provision for its further enlargement here after; and he need hardly add that a Bill that enlarged the income of the fund could not be made an excuse for diminishing the interest. One material item of that enlargement of income proposed by the Bill was to invest a sum—say four or five millions—in securities bearing a larger rate of interest than the present investments, and which in the course of a year or two might increase the income by £40,000 or £50,000. He had a word or two to say with regard to the objections taken out of doors to the Bill. There were, no doubt, certain officers of savings banks who had an interest in maintaining the power they now had of cutting and carving on the sum that formed the difference between the £3 5s. per cent paid by the public, and the sum paid to depositors. These officers en-deavoured to maintain their own interests by sending in petitions against the Bill, which, as they thought, tended to diminish the funds available for defraying the expenses of savings banks, and raising all those beautiful buildings that were to be seen in so many of the towns of this country—buildings used for two or three hours a week for savings-bank purposes, and
  2224
  which formed very agreeable residences for those officers. They very naturally opposed the Bill, but he did not believe there was the slightest indication of the depositors being alarmed at any of its provisions. The state of the case as regarded the security of the depositors was this:—The moral obligation of the country was full and absolute to return to the trustees of savings banks both principal and interest, and that moral obligation was recorded in an Act of Parliament; but there was no legal machinery by which effect could be given to the legal obligation. It was merely a moral obligation legally recorded. Now, if it could be supposed, as an extreme case, that all the banks in the country were at once to demand from the Government the repayment of the whole sum that was due to them, it would not be in the power of the Government to make that repayment. He would positively state that the Commissioners of the National Debt had at present no power to do anything except to realize their assets, and hand over those insufficient assets in part satisfaction of the claim. But let the Bill before the Committee be passed, and so long as there was a shilling left available in the Consolidated Fund, the whole of the funds of the country would be answerable to satisfy the whole of these obligations. Indeed, he confessed that it had been an error not to have created this full and perfect legal title at an earlier period. There had no doubt been practical safety between the savings banks and the Government, but the full legal machinery to enforce that obligation had not existed, and it was very desirable to supply that want, so that the trustees of savings banks, on behalf of their depositors, might be in as good a position as any man who drew a dividend from his money in the funds four times in the year. It was quite true that a book debt, as this had been called, was not a convertible security, but he provided means of substituting marketable securities for that book debt in the extreme and remote case of the demand for the means of realizing the amount exceeding the amount of stock which was retained. In any case there would ultimately be a resort to the Consolidated Fund. Now it was admitted that there was a large existing deficiency between the assets and liabilities of the National Debt Commissioners on the savings bank account. He proposed to deal with that deficiency, amounting to£3,500,000, first by rectifying the

  2225
  capital account, and then by providing machinery which would gradually restore the income of the fund to an equality with the annual charges upon it. He did not think he should have been justified in throwing upon the country, at that time, the burthen of at once making good that deficiency, so he proposed to add it to the amount of the obligations already acknowledged; and at the same time, whilst extinguishing an amount of nominal stock held on that account, and thus making a saving of £9,000 or £10,000 a year, he would adopt a natural and simple system instead of the present artificial one, and would make it openly appear on the account that the Government held so much money repayable at call. It would be quite impracticable to adopt the plan which had been suggested, of taking each particular deposit as a separate investment, and it would be no favour to the depositors to offer to take their money and invest it in the Funds, since they could do that for themselves. The Bill did involve a considerable diminution of the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though it was not, as had been truly observed, by the mere creation of £31,000,000 of deposit account that his powers were materially diminished. Two-thirds, however, of the amount, which might be invested in other securities than those now permitted by law, would practically be so much removed from the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would not be in his power to make use of those stocks for financial purposes, in the manner in which probably, upon many great occasions, the existing securities had been employed. The way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been accustomed to manage his great operations was this. He sold stock, and with the proceeds he purchased Exchequer bills, and then again he had funded his Exchequer bills, all which he had been enabled to do without bringing his operations under the review of Parliament. Now, by the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be deprived to some extent of the opportunity of practising that operation of selling stock and converting it into Exchequer bills at his convenience. It must thenceforth be an operation necessarily limited and temporary in its nature; and it must, if this Bill became the law, always be brought under the notice of Parliament before it took effect. But if the House did not choose to pass this Bill, although the public would be somewhat
  2226
  poorer, and the legal title of the savings-bank trustees to their funds held by Government would remain imperfect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would continue to enjoy what was supposed to be the luxury of being able to deal with a large sum of money—a power which he (Mr. Gladstone) was now endeavouring to reduce. He therefore hoped the Committee would at once agree to this first clause of the Bill.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be annoyed at something he had said as to his intention. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make allowance for him, considering the great length of time that had elapsed since the discussion took place on the Bill. In what he said he had no intention to go further than this, that people judged only by what they saw in the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was perfectly satisfied.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he thought there must be a re-adjustment of the savings-bank account in some way or other, but he objected to the mode in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do it. Though he did not believe that any individual Chancellor of the Exchequer he had known would abuse the power of dealing with the funds, he was distinctly in favour of their being placed under the management of responsible and permanent trustees.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he should support the clause, which he thought materially improved the security given to the depositors. Some Gentlemen were in favour of a separate body of trustees to manage the fund, but the adoption of that proposal would by no means be favourable to the security of the depositors.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that before they went to a division he wished to remind the Committee that it was proposed by this clause to cancel securities to the extent of £28,962,742. That was exercising more than a banking power, and it was quite clear that it was a financial arrangement of a very gigantic and novel character. He objected to the proposal to entrust the management of the funds to an ex-officio Commission that would not act, thereby really leaving the management in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. Then came the question whether they ought to confide the power of changing the securities to any Chancellor of the Exchequer. He trusted

  2227
  the Committee would not consent to the clause, not alone because the proposition was objectionable, but also because they could not at that period of the year give the measure the consideration to which it was entitled.
  COLONEL SYKESopposed the clause, and expressed his conviction that the provisions of the Bill generally-would not be satisfactory to the country.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78;Noes 116: Majority 38.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have only to move, Sir, that you leave the chair, as the loss of the first clause destroys the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed. [No Report].

  RIFLED MUSKETS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what number of Rifled Muskets have been manufactured at the Government Establishment at Enfield during the twelve months ending the 30th of June last, and at what rate the manufacture is now proceeding; and what number of Rifled Muskets have been received from Contractors during the same period, and what number the Government are still liable to receive under Contract?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Sir, the number of rifles made at Enfield during the year ending the 30th of June was 90,707, which is at the weekly average of 1,744. But they are now making at a higher weekly average — namely, 1,900, rising to 2,000 as the new machinery erected comes into operation. We have received 30,416 rifled muskets from contractors, and the Government are still liable to receive under contract 99,626.

DISTRICT PROBAT REGISTRARS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended by the Government that the payment of District Registrars appointed under the Probate Act (20 &c 21 Vict., c. 77) by fees shall be continued; or whether the Government will take into consideration the extent of services performed, and order payment for the same (under the 111th Section of the said Act)
  2228
  by salaries, and carry the fees to the Consolidated Fund account, and make a reduction of fees payable by the public?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Government have already acted on the principle to which the question of my hon. Friend points. Some time ago a Minute of the Treasury placed these Officers upon salaries, under powers given to the Government by Act of Parliament, and requiring that after receiving their salaries they should account for the balance of fees to the public. But some of the Officers affected by that order made objection and appealed against it, which appeal is still under consideration. The principle, however, which my hon. Friend indicates has been adopted.

  BONDING PORTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would now beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the loss sustained by the Revenue in consequence of certain small Ports and Creeks where Goods for Bonding are not imported at all, and in other places to insignificant amounts, and the Duties collected are disproportionate to, and in some cases below, the cost; and whether he proposes to revise and correct the same?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No one, Sir, in reviewing the comparative charges and receipts of the different ports of the country can fail to be struck by the extreme disparity; but at the same time my hon. Friend will allow me to say that it would be a mistake to estimate the charges of each of those ports by reference to the revenue received, because there are many services to be carried on by the Customs department, and there is the whole business of the prevention of smuggling. These services, of themselves, are unproductive, but must be sustained. But the whole matter is a fit subject for the consideration of the Government, as, indeed, I mentioned at an early period of the Session; and the Government are engaged in the consideration of what steps can be taken with a view to the diminution of those charges. The subject, however, is a very extensive one, because it connects itself with other questions as to the consolidation in certain instances of duties now carried on in different departments. All I can say is, I can assure my hon. Friend that I am very sensible of the importance of the subject, and very desirous

  2229
  to take measures in the direction to which he points, but it would be impossible to do anything in the present Session.

ROMAN CATHOLICS IN THE NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BELLEWsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty, Whether if there be any objection to carrying into effect the suggestions contained in paragraph No. seven of the Memorial presented to the late Government respecting the treatment of Catholic sailors in the Royal Navy?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the paragraph to which his hon. Friend alluded was to the effect that the religion of every seaman should be stated as part of his description in the office of the Admiralty, and that every seaman should be obliged to describe his religion. The Admiralty did not think it would be advisable or conducive to the harmony and good feeling of the service to enforce such a rule.

THE DISTURBANCES IN SYRIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary on a subject in respect to which he had given notice of his intention that evening to move for papers. Could the noble Lord state to the House whether Her Majesty's Government were in possession of any information affirmative of the report which had appeared in the newspapers that troops had been placed on board of French ships of war to be sent to the coast of Syria? Next, he wished to ask whether Her Majesty's Government intended to join with the French Government in any active intervention on that coast? He begged also to inquire what was the nature of the papers which he understood a Member of the Government in the other House had promised should be laid before Parliament on this subject—whether they would be despatches from Her Majesty's representatives in the Levant, or merely a narrative of events? Lastly, he had to ask whether there would be any objection to produce the despatches which the Foreign Office had received from the Consul General at Beyrout?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: We have no intelligence that any troops have been placed on board of French ships with a view to interference in Syria; but the
  2230
  French Government are in communication with the Great Powers of Europe, and I believe with the Porte, with a view to consider whether an intervention should not be made for the purpose of assisting in putting down the authors of the massacres in Syria; and that is a subject which is at present occupying the attention of Her Majesty's Government as well as of the French Government. I do not believe there is any intention on the part of France to act alone in this matter. With regard to any interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government, it will not go beyond that which I stated on a former occasion—namely, that some ships of the Line and other vessels will be stationed on the coast of Syria, with a view to prevent the renewal or continuance of these massacres; and that the Admiral will be empowered, if he thinks it necessary, to land the Marines in Syria, but not to go beyond the coast. The papers to which the hon. Member has referred are now printed, and nearly ready to be produced. They are in fact only the narrative given by the different Consuls in Syria of what has lately taken place there. With respect to the Motion for papers of which the hon. Gentleman has given notice, if he will make the terms has of the Motion general and applicable to our other Consuls in Syria as well as the Consul General at Beyrout, I see no objection to its adoption.
  Moved, That the House at its rising adjourn till Monday.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I hope, Sir, I may be permitted to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the attention of the House for a very short time in reference to an attack which was made upon me last night in my absence. I am quite sure that the House will not refuse to grant me that indulgence. I learnt, partly from what I heard from Members of this House, and partly from what I have seen this morning, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) came down to the House with papers in his pocket, and made upon me what was certainly a most bitter personal attack. Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have apprised me that such was his intention. I do not know that I had any right to his courtesy, but I think I might have claimed, from that sense of justice and fair dealing which

  2231
  I believe distinguishes every gentleman and every Englishman, that he should at least have so far apprised me of his intentions, that, if he did not choose to tell me the nature of the attack he meant to make upon me, he might at least have given me such warning that I might have been present in my place to hear what he had to lay to my charge. I shall not, however, further allude to that conduct on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, of the fairness of which I leave the House to be the judge; and I mention it only to excuse myself for now obtruding this matter again on the attention of the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman repeated the charge which he made against me some time ago of suppressing papers and wilfully keeping them back from the House. I conceive I have shown, on a former occasion, how groundless that accusation is. In the course of the debate on the second reading of the Bill for the amalgamation of the Indian forces, the right hon. Gentleman quoted a telegram from Lord Clyde dated November, 1858;and so little was I aware of what he was referring to, that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. T. G. Baring), then sitting next to me, that I thought "1858" must be a misprint for "1859." On my suggesting this to him, the right hon. Gentleman said it was not so, but that he found it in a paper which I had suppressed. Now, I have since found that the telegram was contained in papers which were moved for by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) without the slightest reference to the project for amalgamating the two armies. I was asked by him at the close of last Session whether I had any objection to producing these papers. I objected to presenting them at the time because the inquiry was not complete. I had not seen the papers, and it seemed to me improper, under the circumstances, to agree to their production. At the beginning of this Session my hon. Friend renewed his request, and I at once acceded to it, and the papers were granted, as an unopposed return. Now, it appears to me, that I may fairly say my personal duty was concluded at that time. I cannot hold myself, nor do I think the House will hold me responsible for the progress either of the printing or the correction of the proofs or such other details as are done in the office, and of which I knew nothing. It was not till I inquired next day that I found how the matter stood, and learnt
  2232
  what had happened between the printer and the Secretary of the Military Department. The right hon. Gentleman says I had this brought to my knowledge three days before, and that with that knowledge I stated my ignorance of the fact of these papers being in the office. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth stated last night quite truly that I personally had no knowledge whatever of the matter, and I can only repeat my utter denial of having had any knowledge of it at all. I have since found that there was certainly delay in the clerical department of the Military Secretary, and that copies of part of these papers were placed in the hands of some members of the Military Committee of my Council; but neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth saw those papers. From those members of the Council—whether directly or indirectly, I know not, and I care not to know—the right hon. Gentleman must have obtained his information of the contents of those papers, which up to the time when the debate took place I had never seen; but I am quite certain that no member of my Council, who are all men of honour, would ever have said or insinuated what is undoubtedly untrue—namely, that I had wilfully kept back or suppressed these documents. That charge must, therefore, have emanated from the right hon. Gentleman's own imagination.
  I come now to the new accusation which the right hon. Gentleman has brought against me. He stated last night that he moved for some papers on the 28th of June. That statement is not correct. It was on the 28th of June that the notice of Motion appeared on the Votes. The notice which stood in the right hon. Gentleman's name was for three papers:—First, a correspondence which took place, not in my time, but in the year 1858, between the Secretary for War and the noble Lord opposite, then President of the Board of Control; secondly, the opinions of the law officers of the Crown; and, thirdly, some despatches. The 28th happened to be the day of the meeting of my Council, and also that fixed for the second reading of the European Forces Bill. Hon. Members will easily imagine that it was a busy day with me, and, in fact, it was not until I came to this House and took up the Papers that I saw the right hon. Gentleman's notice. The first notice was for the production of a correspondence between the Secretaries of State for War and India.

  2233
  The papers, if they existed, must, of course, have been in both departments, and it would not have been right for me to have consented to their production without the consent of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert). I showed him the notice, and asked whether his attention had been called to it, and whether he knew anything about the papers? My right hon. Friend told me that the papers were not in existence. In the course of the evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud came and sat down upon the Treasury Bench on the other side of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. T. G. Baring) with whom I was sitting, and asked me if I had any objection to the production of these papers? I told him that I had seen the notice but a short time before; that I had spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who had told me that the first papers were not in existence; that with regard to the second paper which he wished to move for he must know that it was not the practice to produce the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, but that to the production of the third set of papers, which was the only set which belonged exclusively to the Indian Department, I had no objection, and that he might move for them as an unopposed return. That is all that passed on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said last night—
  "The right hon. Gentleman told me it did not exist. I told him I knew it did exist, and that it was in his own office, and I begged I might have the correspondence. I told him the correspondence was in his own office. He insisted it was not."
  I beg to assure the House that that is a perfectly imaginary conversation; one which never took place. I did not say, and I could not have said what the right hon. Gentleman attributes to me, because the only information which I possessed as to the existence or non-existence of the papers was derived from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who must have known from his own office whether they existed or not. Having seen the notice for the first time in this House, and having had no opportunity of inquiring at my office, it is impossible that I could have said anything as to the existence of the papers there. I stated what had been told me by my right hon. Friend, who was a perfectly competent person to give information, because the papers must have existed in his office as well as in mine. Fortunately I have a witness as to this conversation,
  2234
  because my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth was sitting between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. He heard every word that passed, and will, if necessary, confirm my assertion that no such conversation as that stated by the right hon. Gentleman took place upon that occasion. From that time forward I never heard a syllable upon the subject from the right hon. Gentleman, until on Wednesday I received the letter which he read to the House last night. He did not move for the papers which he states that I had in my possession at the time. Some days afterwards, however, he moved that portion of the notice to which I had said that I had no objection. The right hon. Gentleman also said last night that, on Tuesday I think, he showed these papers to my right hon. Friend. The very statement which he made in the next sentence showed that he did no such thing, because he said that my right hon. Friend asked him for the dates of the papers, in order that he might inquire whether or not they did exist, and promised to give an answer when he came to the House that night. My right hon. Friend did not come down to the House that evening, and therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman moved for the papers next day, and stated that it was an unopposed return, he did so without the slightest warrant, because neither from my right hon. Friend nor from myself had he heard that we did not object to their production. The right hon. Gentleman went on to state what, in point of fact, he could not know, that my right hon. Friend told me of the information which he had received from him, that it was he himself who, in point of fact, gave me the information which enabled me to find the papers, and that therefore when I wrote to tell him that I had found them, and offered their production, he owed me very little gratitude. That, again, is totally inaccurate. What really happened was this, that on Tuesday morning last I saw a notice of Motion for the production of papers given by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans); I sent for the papers, and on seeing them, which I then did for the first time, I found that they were apparently those for which the right hon. Gentleman had asked me on the 28th of June. I immediately went to the Horse Guards and asked the Commander-in-Chief, one of whose letters was included in the correspondence, whether he had any objection to its production. I

  2235
  then came to this House with the papers in my pocket, intending to show them to my right hot. Friend the Secretary for War, and ask whether he had any objection to their being produced. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend was not in the House that evening, and it was not until Wednesday morning that I had an opportunity of showing to him for the first time the papers in question. On receiving from him the assurance that he had no objection to their production, I took the earliest opportunity that I properly could to inform the right hon. Member for Stroud that I had no objection to the production of the papers, and that he might move for them as an unopposed return. I quite admit that I did not inquire for the papers in my own office until I saw the notice of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. I relied upon the information of my right hon. Friend that they were not in existence, and my attention was not again attracted to the subject until I saw the notice of the gallant Member for Westminster. In answer to my note I received a not very civil letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which was delivered to me when the Cabinet was sitting, and which I showed to my right hon. Friend, pointing out to him the inaccuracies of the statement which it contained. So much for the question of the papers.
  I wish before I sit down to make a very few observations upon another charge of the right hon. Gentleman as to my conduct towards the Indian Council. I do not intend to go into that question at large, and so far as the charge concerns myself I should be quite disposed to let it pass; but I think that if I suffered it to remain un-contradicted it might be painful to the members of the Council of India, who are not quite so well used as I am to the habitual language of the right hon. Gentleman. He stated that I had treated the members of the Council with contempt, and had reduced them to insignificance. Now, Sir, I am happy to say that from the first nothing could be more satisfactory or agreeable than my intercourse with the members of the Council. There has been the most full, frank, and free intercourse between us upon all subjects, and so smoothly has the system worked that I do not think the Council has been divided more than half a dozen times. Upon the question of the Indian army, no doubt, I differed from the council, and they complained that I had not consulted them for-
  2236
  mally before the decision of the Government was come to. I have stated the reasons why that course was not taken in a paper which is on the table of the House. I beg that hon. Gentlemen will bear in mind that the question is not whether I consulted every member of the Council fully and completely upon the subject, or whether or not I was in complete possession of their opinions. It was my duty to make myself acquainted with the opinions of all persons of weight and authority on Indian matters, not only in the Council, but out of the Council, before I came to any decision upon so momentous a question. The question simply is whether the members of the Council were formally consulted in such a manner as to enable them, under the provisions of the Act, to record their opinions. Now, Sir, for the reasons which are stated in the paper to which I have already referred—namely, that it was a question for the decision of the Government, and not of the Council—this did not appear to me to be a matter which came under the words of the Act. Such a course can only be taken when a difference of opinion arises upon a question to be decided in the Indian Council; but the question of the army is one for the decision, not of the Council, but of the Cabinet. I did not take this course merely upon my own authority. I consulted my colleagues in the Government upon the subject, and it was their unanimous decision that it was the right course to adopt. It was the course taken by the previous Government, who came to a decision upon the question of the Indian army, but did not consult the Indian Council before they did so. I put it to every hon. Member of this House whether a course which was thought right by the Government which created the Council, and by the Government which succeeded, can be properly said to be a course which was intended by me to throw contempt upon the Indian Council, and to reduce it to insignificance. In point of fact, as soon as I thought that I could properly put the question before the Council, in order to enable the members to record their opinions upon it, I did so. I may have been wrong in doing so, but at all events, if I erred I erred on the side of wishing to show deference to their opinions. I made the offer to them twice, once to the whole Council, and again to the vice-president, and they declined to avail themselves of it. Ultimately, when, after a long interval, they came to the con-

  2237
  clusion that they wished to record their opinions, I took the same step which I had offered to do before, and which enabled them to do so.
  The next point to which I wish to allude has reference to two Bills which are not before the House, but with the contents of which, as discussed in the Council, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud seems to be well acquainted. I know not, of course, whence he received his information, but he should have stated correctly, if at all, the circumstances connected with those two Bills. He gave the House to understand that, upon the measures in question, I differed wholly and entirely from my Council, whose opinions, I think he added, though I may be wrong, I was disposed to override.
  MR. HORSMAN: I did not say so.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I may have been misinformed.
  MR. HORSMAN:—What I said was that you differed from a majority of your Council.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: It so happens that upon one of the Bills, that relating to the establishment of certain high courts of judicature, there was no difference of opinion at all in the Council.
  MR. HORSMAN: I did not allude to it.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: As to the other Bill, that relating to the Civil Service, there was no difference of opinion in the Council except upon one clause. Upon one clause there was a difference of opinion, but a large minority concurred in the view which I took, and therefore I did not differ from the whole of my Council, far less did I attempt to override their opinion. I agreed with a large minority and determined to introduce the clause into the Bill. The clause was not a child of my own brain. It was prepared by the noble Lord who preceded me in the office of Secretary of State for India, and who left behind him a Bill ready drawn, going further than I propose to do in the clause to which I refer. Here, again, I may be right or I may be wrong; I am not going to discuss the merits of the question, but it cannot justly be said that to proceed in a course which was thought expedient by two successive Secretaries of State, and by a large minority of the Indian Council, is treating the Council with contempt or overriding the opinion of a majority of its members. I do not wish to prolong my explanation beyond that which seems to be necessary to vindicate myself from charges made with-
  2238
  out any foundation whatever. It is not my intention to enter into the question of the merits either of the Bills to which I have alluded, or of the course which I may ultimately think necessary to take upon them. My object has been to show the utter and complete inaccuracy of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud has made with reference to the production of certain documents, and to prove that the charge of having treated with contempt the members of the Indian Council—gentlemen from whom I have received the most cordial assistance, and to whom I have on many occasions expressed my warmest gratitude—is wholly without foundation. I should feel ashamed of myself if I had left un-contradicted a charge which, however it may affect me, could not but inflict serious pain upon them.
  MR. HORSMAN: I do not think I have any complaint to make of the tone or even, so far as I could hear it, of the matter of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But there is one remarkable omission, at which, considering that he was complaining of my having attacked him in his absence yesterday, I cannot help feeling some astonishment. His complaint is that I attacked him in his absence. Will he be good enough to inform us why or how the spirit moved him to leave the House immediately before I rose to address it? I think that is not altogether, in the circumstances, either an uninteresting or an unimportant question. I saw the right hon. Gentleman in the House very shortly before I rose to address it, and, not being able, from this seat, to see what Minister may or may not he in his place, I had a right to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was on the Treasury bench, because he had one very great advantage of me and of other Members of the House who were not in the secrets of the Cabinet, and who came down here yesterday in the innocent belief that it was the intention of the Government to render the present Session to some extent, at least, memorable as having witnessed the passing of one useful measure. Having abandoned their Reform Bill, and having met with an accident in their finance, there was an impression that they intended to adhere to their only other important measure, and to amend the Law of Bankruptcy, in order to, save themselves from the disgrace of complete political insolvency. We came down yesterday, therefore, under the firm belief

  2239
  that the Bankruptcy Bill was to take up the whole evening. I came to the House with not the least idea that we were to go into Committee of Supply, with not the least expectation that I would have an opportunity either of making that speech or reading that correspondence, during the speaking and reading of which the right hon. Gentleman as it appears was so unaccountably and strangely absent. But the right hon. Gentleman knew what I did not know. He knew that the Bankruptcy Bill was to be given up; he knew that we were to go into Committee of Supply; he knew that the Indian Army Bill stood first among the orders for to-day, and he knew that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was going to announce that fact unexpectedly to the House. Moreover, he had my letter in his pocket; he saw me in my place; he knew that the announcement of the Prime Minister would call me up, and that I should make a statement to which it would be his duty to reply. Yet the right hon. Gentleman suddenly vanished from the House, and having done so he ventures to accuse me of attacking him in his absence. Every hon. Member of the House knows that upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply Ministers are liable to have questions put to them, but it so happens in the present instance that the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a question would be addressed to him. He knew that a discussion would be raised on the subject of the Indian army. I saw him in his place immediately before; I believed he was still in his place when I rose to address the House, and he has yet to explain how it was he left the House at the very moment a discussion was coming on in which he knew it would be his duty to take part. The right hon. Gentleman has said that I brought the correspondence down yesterday on purpose to read it and make an attack upon him. It is obvious I could have done no such thing, because I thought the Bankruptcy Bill would take up the whole evening, and I could not foresee that I should have an opportunity of reading the correspondence. I brought it down for the purpose of showing it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aryshire (Sir James Fergusson), who had given notice of an Amendment upon the Motion for going into Committee on the Indian Army Bill, and I told my hon. Friend that after that correspondence, which I supposed the noble Lord at the head of the Government had seen, the Bill
  2240
  would probably be postponed until the papers promised to us were in our hands. I said the same thing to other Members of the House whom I see in their places, and I have no doubt they will, if necessary, confirm my statement. I did not intend to read the correspondence. But the noble Lord at the head of the Government suddenly got up and, without any question being put to him, volunteered a statement to the effect that the first business taken to-day would be the Indian Army Bill. [Viscount PALMERSTON: A question was put to me.] The noble Lord will excuse me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks asked a question about the paper duties, and another about fortifications, and the noble Lord stated that those subjects would not come on to-day, adding that the Indian Army Bill, on which no question had been put to him, would be taken first. I heard that with great surprise. I believed the Secretary of State for India was in his place, and I am not sure, even now, that he did not hear the noble Lord make that announcement. I expected him to rise after the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham. I was surprised he did not. I rose, therefore, on the impulse of the moment. Before coming into the House I had no design of speaking or of reading the correspondence; but that sudden announcement having been made by the noble Lord, believing that the right hon. Gentleman was in his place, and believing likewise that the correspondence was known to the Prime Minister, I thought myself justified in reading it to the House. I cannot help thinking that what has taken place raises an important question as to the treatment by the right hon. Gentleman of his own colleagues. His conduct towards them seems to have been quite as objectionable as his conduct towards the House. What did we hear last night from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? That the right hon. Gentleman had not made known to his colleagues the opposition which was to be raised to the Indian Army Bill. His letter was delivered to me with a message that he was at the Cabinet, and begging I would send my answer to the Cabinet. I did so. He received it in the presence of his colleagues. They must have been at that time discussing, among other things, the business of the House, and considering what measures they should sacrifice in order to shorten the Session. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman

  2241
  ought not to have told his colleagues that his Indian Bills were going to be strongly opposed, and that any attempt to press them through the House of Commons in the absence of papers which had been ordered, would probably prolong the Session several days? If he had made that known to his colleagues what would have happened? Can any one doubt that something would have happened similar to that which took place yesterday, when the noble Lord at the head of the Government, instantly he became aware of the circumstances, administered a severe practical rebuke to his colleague, by postponing the very Bill which the right hon. Gentleman, with a full knowledge of those circumstances, had endeavoured to press forward with undue haste? If my letter had been placed in the hands of the noble Lord he would have said "Oh! our clever Secretary of State has got us into another mess about these Indian papers, and we must get out of it by tying these Indian Bills to the Attorney General's Bill, and by throwing them over together." Every one who knew the good sense and fair dealing of the noble Lord, must feel that that would have been the course he would have pursued. But the right hon. Gentleman did not give his colleagues that opportunity. He suppressed the fact that these Bills were going to be strongly opposed; and what more did he do? The right hon. Gentleman presses the Bill on, gives it precedence over all other measures, though a short Bill and the least urgent, and at the same time, with considerate and characteristic generosity, he graciously promises these papers, which he knows he has taken sure means to make too late. What could be the reason of his writing to me on Wednesday, telling me I might move for these papers which I held to be essential to the discussion of the Bill at the very moment when he put the Bill at the head of the Orders of the Day for Friday? The right hon. Gentleman took every means in his power to get the Bill on before the papers could be before the House. Under these circumstances, I can only repeat that I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has neither behaved fairly to this House nor to his colleagues; that the information we gave to him ought to have been laid before his colleagues, and that the Bill ought to have been postponed.
  I will state very shortly what the right hon. Gentleman said about the papers. My statement last night was that the right hon.
  2242
  Gentleman led us into many divisions by assuring us that he knew nothing whatever of the papers, and he himself had shown by his own statement that it was known to his Secretary, if not to himself, that they were at the time in the printer's hands. Remember that on the morning of the 28th these divisions took place. At the evening sitting of that day the right hon. Gentleman told the House that there were still 300 pages to be printed—that the printing had been delayed by the papers being sent back to a department of his own office, and kept there for revision, and that this matter was not brought to his notice by the Under Secretary until the 27th ultimo, when a note was written stating that hon. Members were inquiring for the papers. This was before the divisions took place, and then came an enigmatical sentence from the right hon. Gentleman stating that the steps he had taken upon that information evinced a desire on his part that the printing should be pressed on as rapidly as possible. Does not that mean that the steps taken were the getting the papers out of the hands of the Military Secretary, and sending them to the printer? What else does it mean? The hon. Under Secretary was sitting by the side of the right hon. Gentleman when he made his statement, and must naturally have felt that the printer had nothing to do with it.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that he was not by the side of the Secretary for India at the time.
  MR. SPEAKERobserved that, though he had not hitherto interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, he must now point out that reading from newspapers a report of a debate in that House was out of order.
  MR. HORSMAN: I should not have alluded to that matter unless the right hon. Gentleman had referred to it; but may I not ask another question about the papers? Is it not a fact that the printing of them was retarded by the right hon. Gentleman or his Secretary, in order to make way for more pressing matter which the right hon. Gentleman had in hand? I will not descend into the question whether the conversation between the right hon. Gentleman and myself was imaginary or not; but the right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in one point. He says that the Under-Secretary was sitting by when the conversation occurred. There were, however, two conversations, and after I returned to my seat the right hon. Gentleman invited me back again, when we had

  2243
  a second conversation. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that I showed the papers to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. I mentioned the date of the papers, but I never professed to have seen or have shown the papers. With respect to the conversation which occurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, if he states that there is any difference on that point I will admit the error to he on my side. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the subject of the conversations that took place. My statement was short, and next week we shall have another opportunity of going into the matter; but I stated that with respect to the Indian Army Bill the right hon. Gentleman was at issue with the whole of the Council, and with respect to the Civil Service Bill he was at issue with the majority of the Council, though, according to the Act of Parliament, it was expected that he should take them into counsel; and that he had not given to the Indian Council the weight and authority which Parliament intended. I stated that during the whole of the Session complaints were made against the right hon. Gentleman, which I am not disposed to modify or retract; that we had the utmost difficulty in getting requisite information; that he had himself misinformed us as to the papers in his office, and that when he promised we should have the papers before going into Committee on the Bill, he nevertheless pressed on the Bill before the papers were in the hands of Members. On the 28th of June I put a Notice on the Paper for other papers, and it was not till three weeks after that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that these papers were in existence. Would any other Minister, after notice had been put on the Paper, and after he was told that these papers were in existence, have been three weeks without inquiring whether they existed or not, while during the whole of that period he was pressing forward the Bill on the table with indecent baste? All those interested in Indian affairs concur in the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman has not treated us fairly, has not given us information in time, and has hurried on his Bill unduly, has overridden the Indian Council, not giving them a due opportunity of recording their dissent. There are dissents with respect to the Civil Service Bill, but they are not yet laid upon the table. I have nothing more to say. I think I have shown that in the first in-
  2244
  stance I am not responsible for the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and that if there is any inconvenience accruing to him from that absence he himself is the not unintentional cause of it. I have shown that I did not come here to read the correspondence, but that I was induced to do so by the speech of the noble Lord, and I can only say that I do not modify, qualify, or retract one single syllable of the complaint I made.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he rose to explain why he left the House on the previous night. An hon. Friend brought him a message that Sir Richard Airey wished to see him, and he went out of the House to speak to him.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—As the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to me I wish to say one or two words on the matter. I must say that I never heard a more lame apology or excuse for the most discourteous and unfair proceeding that ever took place in my memory in the House of Commons than that which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to make. I hope and believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the only Member in this House who would have so conducted himself on such an occasion. What is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? Why, forsooth! he had in his pocket the correspondence which he said he brought down for the purpose of showing to me. ["No, no!"]
  MR. HORSMAN: I said that I brought it down for the purpose of showing it to the hon. Member for Ayrshire.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Well, that makes the matter worse. The right hon. Gentleman had in his pocket a correspondence which he thought afforded good reasons why I, having announced yesterday that the India Army Amalgamation Bill would come on to-day, ought not to persist in that Motion, and yet the right hon. Gentleman now says that he had no intention to show me that correspondence. The right hon. Gentleman says that he had fair reason to suppose because he had seen my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India in the House at an early period of the evening that therefore he must have been in the House when he made the attack, because he thought that every Member of Government should be in the House of Commons when Supply comes on. That is a rule which I do not find recorded in the Orders of the House, but we will assume, therefore, that it was the rule

  2245
  which the right hon. Gentleman observed when he was in office. Now, let me in common fairness ask this question. A Member may be in the neighbourhood of the House, or he may leave it for a short time, but does it follow that he is necessarily to remain here? Even when a call of the House takes place he is not compelled to stay in his place afterwards; and, therefore, no man is entitled to assume that because a Member is present at a particular moment he is necessarily to be present half-an-hour or an hour later. But the right hon. Gentleman had in his head and in his pocket an attack—a virulent, an unfair, an unhandsome attack on my right hon. Friend. I will not use strong language, though I might do so if I followed the example of the right hon. Gentleman, who yesterday made use of expressions which I did not think it worth while to notice, because they are not such as are usual in this House. Why, Sir, any man of common feeling and of common generosity— any man who felt and knew the social obligations existing between man and man would, before he got up to make such an attack, have taken the trouble to ascertain whether my right hon. Friend was in his place, and remained in his place. He ought also to have given my right hon. Friend notice of his intention. Perhaps that would be expecting too much from the right hon. Gentleman, but any other man in the House would have given such a notice. He saw my right hon. Friend in the early part of the evening. Why did he not go up to him and say, "I am going to animadvert on your conduct and to read a correspondence which has passed between us; pray have the goodness to stay in your place?" That is the course which hon. Members usually take, and had that course been taken here, and had my right hon. Friend not then attended in his place, the right hon. Gentleman would have been entitled to say that the Secretary for India had mysteriously absented himself after full notice given of an attack which it was evident, therefore, he was unprepared to meet.
  That, however, is not the state of the case. The right hon. Gentleman says that I brought it all upon my right hon. Friend. Now, what was my statement yesterday? Not that the Indian Army Bill was coming on last evening. The right hon. Gentleman was not driven into a corner, as it were, by such an announcement; though even then I think the courtesy usual be-
  2246
  tween Member and Member would have led him to go to my right hon. Friend and say to him, "You have given notice of a Bill to-night, and I have reasons why I think it is one which ought not to come on. There are papers which I think most important to be produced in order to its due consideration, and they have not been produced. I am sure you will feel the impropriety of bringing on that Bill to-night." That would have been a very proper appeal, and, under such circumstanees, I should have felt myself authorized to comply with his request. Then, the right hon. Gentleman says I volunteered the statement. Sir, I did no such thing. I was asked a question about the course of public business. Minute details do not impress themselves very distinctly upon the memory, but what occurred, I think, was this:—I was asked a question respecting the course of business, not for yesterday only but for to-day, and I stated—if not in answer to a direct question, at all events from a desire to give full information— what measures would be taken this evening. That being so, and the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman objected standing not for last night but for this evening, there was surely ample time for the courteous appeal which hon. Gentlemen usually make in such cases, stating reasons why the Bill should not come on as proposed. But the right hon. Gentleman is also omniscient. It seems that he has his ear at the keyhole of the Indian Council, and knows completely everything that passes there. He knows who is consulted, and which way minorities and majorities go; he knows even the assumed feelings of the Members of the Council, who, he says, believe that they are reduced to insignificance by my right hon. Friend. Well, Sir, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to confine his mysterious knowledge to the Indian Council, and not extend it by leading us to infer that his ear is equally applied to the keyhole of the Cabinet. He states with the utmost confidence, and in that sort of offhand way in which he makes his assertions, that at the time when my right hon. Friend received a communication from him the Cabinet were discussing the measures they intended to drop, and those they would go on with. Now, I am bound to secrecy, though the right hon. Gentleman seems to be released from any obligation of the kind. Without violating my duty, however, I may go so far as to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking of matters of

  2247
  which he is totally and entirely ignorant. That is not, perhaps, a singular case. But, on the part of my Colleagues, I can assure the House that we grant the right hon. Gentleman our full forgiveness for any imaginary breach of the secrecy of the Cabinet which he conceives himself at liberty to commit. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made out no case whatever, and I most sincerely lament, from the regard which I have for him personally, that he should have done what I am sure every man who both observes and values the courteous mode of proceeding usual between Members of this House must have regarded with the greatest concern and regret.
  MR. HORSMAN: The noble Lord misunderstood me in one point. I said distinctly that my intention to speak was owing to his own announcement, my full belief being that he had seen my communication.

KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he wished to divert the House to more harmonious topics. Hon. Members would probably not be sorry to stop a discussion of a most unfortunate character, and which he thought was not calculated to increase the public respect for this House. He had given notice of a question which involved the comfort and convenience of many thousands of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and the House would probably allow him shortly to direct their attention to the subject. He referred to the encroachment which, under the direction of the First Commissioner of Works, had been made upon the tranquillity and privacy of Kensington Gardens. Some few days since the inhabitants of that portion of the Metropolis were very much surprised to find a road staked out in those gardens with a large number of iron hurdles. At first they thought it was the contemplated road between Tyburnia and Belgravia, so much desired for the accommodation of the public; but it turned out that the right hon. Gentleman had merely apportioned that strip of ground for the convenience of equestrians, male and female, more especially lawyers and doctors. The right hon. Gentleman said it would enliven the neighbourhood if they had an opportunity of seeing lawyers and doctors riding there for exercise; and, he added, that those persons, when they did ride, were obliged,
  2248
  their time being limited, to ride as fast as they could. Now, if there was one thing calculated to make a man feel the reverse of lively, it wa3 the sight of a lawyer on horseback. Sedentary people, it had been observed, seldom had a good seat, and, to employ a legal phrase, he might say that a lawyer had never entered into a covenant for quiet enjoyment with the animal on whose back he was mounted. To such persons mischievous boys were in the habit of saying, "Don't you think, Sir, you would be more comfortable if you were to get inside?" Equestrian lawyers, therefore, were the last persons in the world calculated to excite admiration, which was one of the grounds mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman for the formation of this new ride. As to doctors, he believed they very seldom rode; but he was quite sure that they would henceforth frequent this spot on the chance of the accidents which could certainly occur there. An important memorial against the road had already been presented by the inhabitants, and a deputation had waited on the right hon. Gentleman. Their remonstrance against the innovation was based on no vulgar feeling, as between pedestrians and equestrians, the lower orders and the upper ten thousand. The memorial was signed by 1,500 of some of the wealthiest inhabitants of the neighbourhood; and the deputation was attended by merchants and gentlemen of position, headed by an able Judge, the Recorder of London. They stated that they remonstrated on account of the threatened interference with the tranquillity of these gardens; and as an instance, it was mentioned that the very day before two large dogs were noticed which were following some persons on horseback, and which, having got through the hurdles, frightened almost into convulsions some of the small children who were playing there at the time. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was, "I will take care it is put a stop to; and I will put a green man," was the right hon. Gentleman's expression, "to see that no dogs shall be running about." It would be a very green man, indeed, who would attempt to interfere with a large St. Bernard mastiff, or a deerhound which might be following his master at full speed up the ride. Another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was, that persons on foot like to see the riders. But what was the answer of those who desired to retain the privacy of the gardens? They said, "Let those who like to see the

  2249
  riders go to that part where thousands of persons with such tastes do go, Rotten Row." There they could see doctors, lawyers, and the more accomplished equestrian, who—
  "With one heel insidiously aside,
  Provokes the caper he pretends to chide."
  But those who wanted to send their children to the gardens in safety were not those who wanted to see riders. He had given notice that he should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty had given her sanction to a ride being formed in Kensington Gardens, and as he was extremely unwilling to bring that illustrious name unnecessarily into any subject of debate, he would state his reason for putting the question. Those gardens had always been considered as the property of the Crown, and they had always been devoted to the use of pedestrians. As far hack as 1705 they read of the fact that Sir Isaac Newton wandered there during the latter part of his life, and died in the neighbourhood; Crabbe wrote many of his poems there; Mill, the Indian historian, availed himself of their privacy; Her Majesty drew her first breath in Kensington Palace; she there held her first Council, which had been described in the gorgeous language of the author of Sybil. The public therefore naturally believed that the gardens were more particularly the property of the Crown. No monarch had ever been more solicitous for the comfort and convenience of her subjects than her gracious Majesty; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound to state to the House whether before taking any step he had obtained the sanction of the Sovereign. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord Enfield) in introducing a deputation, put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, who gave an answer that was perfectly astonishing. The noble Lord asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any applications from anybody before he made this encroachment, and the answer was there had been no applications. Then at whose suggestion had it been done? Applications for similar encroachments had been made to former Commissioners of Works, and they had uniformly refused them. In 1851, a ride was made for equestrians out of Kensington Gardens, but that was only because a large portion of the space which had been long appropriated to equestrians was occupied by the Exhibition building.
  2250
  Upon that occasion a great movement took place, and a deputation waited upon Lord Seymour, who gave a pledge that when the Crystal Palace was removed the new ride should be discontinued. In the present instance he thought the public had some right to complain that the right hon. Gentleman, from some motives of ambition, perhaps, that he might do something in his ædileship which former First Commissioners had not ventured to do, that was, take away from pedestrians a large portion of Kensington Gardens, upon the plea that equestrians had not already a sufficient space for exercise. A more fallacious plea could not be urged. At present an equestrian could start from the bottom of Great George Street, along Birdcage Walk, up Constitution Hill, gallop up and down Rotten Row as much as he pleased, and then could make the circuit of the Park, which would afford an amount of exercise amply sufficient for any doctor or lawyer, or more than most of them could endure. The right hon. Gentleman had done an act which was much to be regretted, and which it was to be hoped upon reconsideration he would undo, It was unpleasant to suggest anything that could wound the amour propre of any official, but the right hon. Gentleman had so many brilliant examples among his colleagues in the Government, of how easy it was to withdraw measures, that he might now feel inclined to withdraw the iron hurdles in Kensington Gardens. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would seriously reconsider the question, and having had the discomfort and inconvenience which his plan would create explained to him, would not persist in a scheme which was so objectionable. He would conclude by asking whether the First Commissioner of Works had obtained the sanction of the Crown to take a portion of Kensington Gardens before setting out the Road for Equestrians, which has been done under his direction.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he should have imagined, from the energy displayed by the hon. and learned Member, that the subject he brought under the notice of the House was some grave constitutional question, instead of an attack upon an arrangement which during the last ten days had been a source of enjoyment to himself (Mr. Hubbard), and his family. He had inquired of the police and park-keepers, who ridiculed the idea of danger to any one from the ride being made there, and

  2251
  stated that not a single child had been run over. The only difficulty was, as he was told, that some of the ladies' crinolines would not pass through the openings between the hurdles. The police and keepers also told him that before the rails were put up they never saw any persons crossing in that direction. It was a great convenience for equestrians, but he could not support it if he believed that it would cause any inconvenience or danger to pedestrians.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that with all due respect to the hon. Member who spoke last, he did not think that the "green men" were the best judges upon this question. There was not the slightest wish to encroach upon that portion of the Park which had for very many years been enjoyed by equestrians, but those whom he represented thought the rights of pedestrians should be equally sacred. The deputation that waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the day before was composed of most respectable gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood, some for many years. It was no vulgar cry against the "upper ten thousand," but it was a question whether the inhabitants of that most respectable neighbourhood, who had for years enjoyed the comfort, the safety, and the privacy of Kensington Gardens, were now to be deprived of that enjoyment. The right hon. Gentleman had shown in many Metropolitan improvements so much desire to meet the wishes of the public, that it was to be hoped he would reconsider his decision on the present occasion, and not persist in a scheme which no one appeared to have asked for. If the right hon. Gentleman could show that representations had been made to him that the safety and convenience of equestrians demanded the formation of a new ride, he (Lord Enfield), although he might deplore the conclusion arrived at, would not say anything against it; but if no such representations had been made to him, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter, and, frankly admitting that he had committed an error of judgment, would in a short time restore Kensington Gardens to the same condition in which they were a few weeks since.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON:—Having visited the spot to ascertain what grounds there are for complaint, I am bound to say that I believe there is no reasonable foundation for objection, and, in fact, I for one feel extremely obliged to the right hon.
  2252
  Gentleman. The noble Lord asked whether the ride has been made in consequence of any petitions for it. But however that might be, I am quite sure that numerously-signed petitions could be soon obtained against the removal of the ride. Looking dispassionately at the arrangements that have been made, I am bound to say they are such as to leave not the slightest ground of reasonable complaint. There is no obstruction, for every twenty yards there are openings in the hurdles, through which persons can pass, and to say that the number of horses that will be found there will cause any obstruction is pure nonsense. The hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that in 1851 Kensington Gardens were opened temporarily for equestrians, but the arrangement then was totally different. The ride then was across the very centre of the gardens; and when he speaks of the large space taken away from pedestrians, I beg to say, as the result of my observation, that no space at all has been taken from them. The ride, such as it is, is very narrow; it is round the external margin of the gardens, and there still remains a very large space entirely unencroached upon for those who frequent the gardens on foot. The hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the privacy of the gardens, and certainly there is privacy, for when I have been there I have scarcely seen any one. But, practically the result of this innovation is, that where there was one pedestrian before, you will now find ten drawn thither to enjoy the increased liveliness of the gardens caused by this ride. I think it is a most rational and acceptable addition to the enjoyment of that portion of the public who take horse exercise, without detracting one iota from pedestrians; and I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be deterred by what appears a most unreasonable outcry from allowing those who take exercise on horseback to continue it.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he did not think this subject worthy the consideration of the House. The opposition had originated with a few locally interested parties, who forgot that the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests possessed his authority not for the benefit of any particular section of the inhabitants of the Metropolis alone, but for those also from distant parts of the country who were obliged to spend a certain number of months every year in London. He wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that he was acting

  2253
  for the benefit of the whole community, and in the height of the London season this ride was the only place where equestrians could take exercise. There was not sufficient room anywhere else, for equestrians had increased three or fourfold within the last six or seven years.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he had no hesitation in saying he had not made this opening into Kensington Gardens in consequence of any representations that were made to him by any person whatever; and he took on himself the responsibility of originating it. It originated thus:—He thought in the management of the Parks intrusted to him, it was his duty to follow the maxim of seeking the greatest happiness of the greatest number; and observing the great number of persons who derived enjoyment in Hyde Park, from sitting in chairs, and watching the horses in Rotten Row, and also those in carriages who were amused in the same way, it occurred to him that the enjoyment and recreation of the public would be promoted by giving similar facilities for conjunctions of riders and walkers in some of those very beautiful portions of that magnificent area of Kensington Gardens, which were little frequented, and to a small extent subserved the recreation and amusement of the public. On a careful examination of the gardens, it appeared to him that if riders when they reached the western end of Rotten Row were enabled to pass through one of those avenues, which confessedly were not much frequented, although near the great broad walk, he should enable a larger number of persons to receive enjoyment and recreation from the western end of Kensington Gardens. Then by carrying the ride along the northern edge of Kensington Gardens, which was not used, he would enable persons who wished to ride from Bayswater to Kensington to have the advantage of a communication through these avenues. He fixed the hurdles in a temporary manner, he made no new gates, he incurred no expense. What had been done was manifestly in its nature temporary. The ride could only be open during the summer months. In its present state it would hardly be safe for horses in winter. When the time came for closing the ride at the end of the season he thought he should be able to ascertain what was really the preponderance of public opinion on the subject, so as to guide the person who occupied the office he now filled in deciding whether it would be right again to
  2254
  give the public the advantage and enjoyment of that ride in summer. Now, as far as he had been able to observe, he thought the preponderance, certainly of reason, was much in favour of the ride. The argument against it was that it interfered with the quiet and retirement of persons who had hitherto frequented that portion of the gardens. He could only say that if some few solitary persons who desired to be alone were prevented from pursuing their quiet meditations in that particular avenue, on account of the admittance of horses, there was ample space in the 300 acres of Kensington Gardens where they could still find themselves beyond the sound of the trampling of horses; but he thought it very doubtful whether the passage of persons on horseback did at all interfere with the quiet enjoyment of pedestrians. He felt that there would be great objection to bringing the traffic of the town through such a place as Kensington Gardens. He certainly should not desire to see any portion of Kensington Gardens, in its present condition, used for business purposes. He thought the uses of the Park were mainly for the enjoyment and recreation of the public, and such should be the primary object. The objections founded on the assumed interference with the privacy and quiet of the gardens proceeded mainly from the inhabitants of the immediate neighbourhood of the western end of Kensington Gardens; it was from some of them he had what he thought a strange remonstrance. They spoke of the ride as an invasion of their rights. Not content to regard it as a simple affair of public convenience and enjoyment, they joined with persons who were trying to swell the matter into a great social and political question. But when he asked what rights had been invaded, he could get no answer. The residents in Notting-hill and Kensington assumed that they had some privileged and exclusive right in the gardens; and the exclusion of all but pedestrians would practically exclude those who lived too far off to frequent the gardens on foot, but who could easily reach them by riding. Now, he asked by what right did they seek to exclude those who took exercise on horseback? The grounds were maintained by grants from the public money. The inhabitants of Kensington had no more right to them, either by payment or in any other way than any other portion of the public. The soil was the property of the Queen, and the money spent in maintain-

  2255
  ing them was public money. It was difficult, therefore, to make out that by admitting the general public on horseback there could be an invasion of anybody's rights. He was told there had been three indignation meetings, at which it was insisted that this was a great invasion of the liberty of the subject. There were, as they all knew, in many parishes men whose only chance of becoming politicians and orators, and of obtaining vestry honours, lay in discovering some unknown grievance and in declaiming against the bloated, pampered, heartless aristocracy. But, he did not believe that when a man was rich enough to keep a horse, he necessarily became less regardful of the wants of the poor; and to endeavour to raise class against class in connection with this affair was manifestly preposterous. They read in ancient history of an equestrian order being opposed to the plebeian order; but happily in England any person with 10 s. in his pocket and a little leisure might belong to the equestrian order and enjoy the ride. There was no real antagonism between riders and walkers. On the contrary, he maintained that they mutually promoted and assisted each other's amusement. Since riders had been admitted to Kensington Gardens a large number of persons had gone there to look at them. It was urged that the new regulation was a matter of exclusion, but surely that exclusion would be on the part of those who would refuse admission to the riders. The grounds ought to be open to the enjoyment of the public in the best and most agreeable way; and the burden of proof lay with those who wished to exclude the riding public. Again, it was said the picturesque character of the gardens was injured; but he appealed to any judge of picturesque effect whether, on the contrary, the presence of equestrians did not add considerably to the beauty of the scene. But the objection that was most pressed was the danger occasioned to children, nursery-maids, and ladies in crossing the ride on foot. He would be the last person to wish to gratify the riders if there were any ground for this apprehension, but the danger seemed to be rather imaginary, inasmuch as the children and nurses who were to be exposed to the risk of crossing the ride had at present to cross the omnibus and carriage roads before they could enter the gardens. Rotten Row was crossed by thousands of children every summer's day in passing from Belgravia to Hyde
  2256
  Park, and yet, as far as he knew, not a single accident had occurred in Rotten Row. If, however, the residents in the neighbourhood really believed in the existence of this danger, it might easily be obviated by erecting some light bridge by which children and their nurses might cross the space devoted to riders. He would rather like to see such a bridge, not because any child or nurse would ever go over it, but because it would stand as a monument of the visionary character of these apprehensions. It was true that there had been a memorial against the ride signed by 1,500 persons, but a counter memorial was also announced in its favour. He knew from casual intercourse and other means of information that large numbers of people who went into the gardens on foot were very thankful to have a dull portion of the grounds converted into an amusing scene, and he had heard persons say they used to take the trouble of going a mile and a half to see the riders, whereas they now had them brought close to them. It could not be denied that Englishmen and Englishwomen took pleasure in seeing equestrians, even when they did not ride themselves; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman disclaimed any desire on the part of the legal profession to share in this exercise, he was only sorry that that profession should have so degenerated. The Judges and the Bar used to ride on circuit and to Westminster Hall, and when the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, made their appearance on horseback in Rotten Row, their equestrianism did no discredit to the profession of which they were distinguished ornaments. He had spoken of the lawyer and the medical man only as types of that large body of hardworking men whose health and general welfare were of the utmost importance to the community, and who were obliged to take their horse exercise either early in the morning or late in the afternoon in Hyde Park. He did not allude only to Members of that House, but to the mercantile and professional classes of the Metropolis generally; and if they could have the pleasure of seeing the beauty of Kensington Gardens, without injury to any other class, he thought it was his duty, if possible, to extend to them that advantage.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had no right to say that those who had made representations to him upon the subject of the new ride in Ken-

  2257
  sington Gardens were actuated by a desire for vestry renown. The deputation which waited upon the right hon. Gentleman was headed by the Recorder of the City of London; and the time for the signature of the memorial had been limited in order to anticipate, and, if possible, prevent any agitation out of doors. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had made this alteration under the impression that it would excite no opposition, but, as it would undoubtedly do so, he trusted that his right hon. Friend would at once reconsider the decision at which he had arrived. Of all the miserable places which he ever saw, the ride, which was now a swamp, and in dry weather became so hard that no one could ride upon it, was the worst. It was altogether a mistake, and the sooner things were restored to their original condition the better.

THE PAPER DUTIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PULLERsaid, it might have escaped the attention of hon. Members that the notice which for some time past had been standing on the paper on the subject of the paper duties had yesterday been altered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to propose a diminution of the Customs' duty on paper after the 16th of August, instead of their total abolition. For some years past the Customs' duty on paper had been 2½d. per lb., the object of its imposition being to compensate the home manufacturer for the Excise duty of 1½d. per lb., and the additional 5 per cent to which he was liable, as also for the expense to which he was put by the Excise regulations, and for the disadvantage under which he laboured in comparison with his foreign rivals through the restrictions placed by other countries on the export of rags. In France and Belgium the export of rags had been altogether prohibited, and in Germany, Holland, and other countries there had been a large duty of from 6s. to 9s. per cwt. In 1853 the subject was distinctly brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then contemplated an equalization between the Customs' duty and the Excise; but the paper manufacturers of this country made nit a good case, and his proposal to reduce the Customs' duty was abandoned expressly on the ground that they would be exposed to an unfair competition if such a measure were adopted. When the Chan-
  2258
  cellor of the Exchequer this year proposed the total abolition of both the Excise and Customs' duties on paper, our manufacturers were again thrown into consternation. The Foreign Secretary had intimated that the Government would use their best endeavours to induce other States to repeal or modify their restrictions on the exportation of the raw material, and on a subsequent evening the House had listened with pleasure to the announcement made by the noble Lord that the French Government had consented to substitute for their previous system of prohibition a small export duty on rags. The home manufacturers thought, when the House of Lords rejected the Bill for the repeal of the Excise duty, that the proposal to deal with the Customs' duty on paper would be abandoned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But they had now been undeceived, because the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of a Motion to reduce the Customs' duty to such an amount as would exactly compensate the Engligh manufacturer for the Excise duty, and for the expense occasioned by the Excise regulations, but would not leave him any protection at all in respect of the existing restrictions on the export of the raw material from other countries. Under these circumstances he begged to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has succeeded in obtaining from any of the Continental Governments the abolition or modification of the taxes or restrictions imposed by them on the export of Rags; whether it be true that the French Government has abandoned its project of substituting a Duty on the export of Rags for the prohibition which now exists; and, whether any Communication has been received from the French Government, claiming that, under the recent Treaty of Commerce, the Customs' Duty on French Paper imported into this country be diminished?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: With regard to the first question, I certainly did undertake, as the hon. Gentleman has stated, to represent to foreign Governments that it would be the desire of Her Majesty's Government that some change should be made with regard to the export of rags, that where there was a prohibition it should be abolished, and that where there was an export duty that duty should be reduced. I am sorry to say that those representations have not been successful; that, although some of the foreign Governments

  2259
  promised to consider the matter, no efficient steps have been taken for that purpose, and that many Governments replied that the paper manufacturers objected to any diminution of duty or removal of prohibition. That is the answer which we have received from Austria, Prussia, and from other Powers. With regard to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, I stated some time ago that the French Government proposed to change their system of prohibition into one of duty, and accordingly they submitted to the legislative body a project for such an alteration. We have no official information upon the subject, but we understand that great opposition was made to that project, and there are great doubts whether it will be carried. It therefore does not appear at all certain that the French Government will persist in the proposition. With reference to the last question, I imagine that, the treaty of commerce having been sanctioned by Parliament, the French Government will expect that our obligations in that respect should be fulfilled. They have made no communication upon the subject, but I imagine that they consider that, as a matter of course, we shall comply with the obligations of the treaty.

THE PRINTING OF THE BIBLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESrose to ask the Home Secretary, what course the Government intended to pursue as to the Queen's Printers' patent for printing the Bible. The House was aware that a Seclect Committee sat during the last Session and the present, to inquire into this subject; and in their Report they made the following recommendation, namely,—
  "That the Patent of the Queen's Printers, so far as relates to the printing of Bibles and New Testaments be not renewed, and that no exclusive privilege of printing the Sacred Volume be allowed henceforth to exist."
  As Chairman of the Committee, he thought it his duty to give his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis), the opportunity of informing the House and the public the course which he intended to take on this matter. It was not his (Mr. Baines') intention to discuss the general question on its merits, owing to the advanced stage of the Session; but there were one or two points to which he must draw the attention of the Home Secretary and the House. Whilst the Committee was yet sitting—as
  2260
  the former patent of the Queen's Printers expired in January, 1860—the right hon. Gentleman renewed the patent, not for any term of years, but during the Queen's pleasure. But if that patent should not be revoked by an Act of the Government, the recommendation of the Select Committee would be set aside, and the exclusive privilege of printing the Bible enjoyed by the Queen's Printers and the Universities would be continued. Now, there were on the face of the patent two great anomalies. It was in the old form, and had the vices of centuries on its head. The patent, in the first place, strictly forbade any other person than the Queen's Printers to print the Bible in England, "of any translation, with notes, or without notes;" and in the second place, it forbade the introduction into or sale in England of any Bibles printed out of England; which of course prohibited the introduction of Bibles printed in Scotland, where the printing had been free for twenty years, though under the supervision of a Bible Board. Now, the English printers were subjected to a real and twofold injustice, and the Scotch only to an apparent injustice; the two kinds of injustice being partially cured by two modes of violating the law. The patentees did not venture to enforce their rights as to the printing of the Bible with notes in England, or as to the importation of Bibles from Scotland. The Scotch printers introduced their Bibles, which were sold as freely in London as in Edinburgh or Glasgow. But the English printers were prevented from printing the authorized version without note or comment—thus losing the privilege of printing the book which was more largely sold than any other book in the world, and although they printed editions of the Bible with notes, yet, in so doing, they were subjected to the payment of the paper duty, from which the Queen's Printers, the Universities, and the Scotch printers were exempted. Therefore, the English printers had to bear an unjust competition with the Scotch printers. In order to show how severely this pressed upon them he would state that he had within these few days presented to the Lords of the Treasury a memorial from the enterprising firm of Messrs John Cassell and Co., of London, in which they said that they were issuing an illustrated Family Bible, for which they had had a sale of nearly 200,000 copies, but "that the paper tax upon this issue amounted to a sum of more than £3,000 per annum,

  2261
  which is substantially a tax to that amount upon the free circulation of the Bible among the classes for whom it is most desirable to provide religious instruction." He did not comment upon these facts, but he thought it right to mention them, and to ask the Government and the House to consider whether the law ought to be left in such a state as to be constantly violated. If unhappily the Government should be so inconsistent with its free-trade policy as to uphold the patent, he should next Session invite the attention of the House to the subject, in the hope that the Parliament which had abolished the customs duties on 400 articles, and thrown open every trade for the supply of every want of the people, would abolish the last and worst monopoly, that of printing the Word of God, and give us that perfect freedom of competition which the experience of all ages and countries showed to be the surest guarantee for cheapness and excellence.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Government to maintain to the Queen's Printers the power renewed by the Patent lately granted of preventing the importation into England of Bibles printed elsewhere, and, in particular, of copies of the authorized version of the Scriptures printed in Scotland, by licence, and under the revision of Her Majesty's Bible Board of Scotland?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, if he had taken advantage of the reappointment of the Select Committee on the printing of the Bible to amend the patent he should have exposed himself to the charge of want of good faith. The hon. Member for Leeds would probably have said that he had met his argument against the patent by altering it, and therefore he had taken care to renew it exactly in its existing form. His own opinion was that, looking to the extreme cheapness of the editions of the Bible and of the Common Prayer Book published in this country, and the great variety of forms in which they were issued, the Bible and Prayer Book were, in fact, published as cheaply under the present system as they would be if the printing were thrown open to public competition, He objected to the expression "monopoly," used by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), because practically there was a very active competition with respect to the printing of the Bible and the Book of Com-
  2262
  mon Prayer between the Queen's Printer and the two Universities; and every one was aware that the most determined competition might prevail among a very limited number of individuals or of corporate bodies. He believed it was impossible that the Bible could be printed more cheaply than it was printed at present; and there seemed to be a general persuasion in the public mind that it ought not to be printed without some public control and supervision. In Scotland, where it was said the printing of the Bible was free, not a single sheet could be published until it was sanctioned by the Bible Board. A certain expense was involved in the maintenance of that Board, which was paid by the public money; but in England the necessity of paid officers was avoided by the contrivance, which appeared both effectual and economical, of limiting the right of printing the Bible to the two Universities and the Queen's Printer. With respect to the importation of Bibles printed in Scotland, and with respect to the printing of Bibles with notes or illustrations, or in foreign languages, no practical inconvenience existed. The exclusive right exercised by the Queen's Printer and the two Universities was practically limited to the printing of the authorized version without note or comment, and the importation of Bibles from Scotland was perfectly free, there being agencies in London, who kept by them a large supply of Bibles and Prayer Books printed in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that this was a violation of the law; but it was not, properly speaking, a violation of the law, but a violation of the Queen's Printer's patent, and, of course, if he chose to waive his right, he had a right to do so. He was not aware of any practical inconvenience in the present state of things; but, if any should he felt, he should be ready to issue an Amendment of the patent. With regard to the Universities, he believed that what was desired could be effected without legislation; but neither the Queen's Printer nor the Universities desired to exercise those rights, which had not been exercised for many years.

PARTY BANNERS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COGANsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have received information that, from the 1st to the 12th of July, Orange

  2263
  Flags have been flying from the towers and steeples of a great number of churches in the North of Ireland; and, if so, whether Government intend to propose any legislative enactment to further restrain the public exhibition of Party Banners and Flags in Ireland; and to call the attention of the House to the state of the North of Ireland? It was with much pain that, thirty years after Catholic Emancipation, he felt compelled to draw the attention of the House to atrocities springing from religious fanaticism in the North of Ireland, which could not be equalled in any country in Europe, and were only paralleled by those dreadful events now taking place in Syria. He (Mr. Cogan) had already given notice that he would introduce a Bill to prohibit these irritating displays; but he believed he could show to the House that a necessity existed for such an enactment, which he hoped would induce the Government to take up the matter themselves as it was clearly impossible for a private Member at that period of the Session to be able to carry any such measure. The hon. Member for Armagh (Sir William Verner), the deputy grand master of the Orange Society in Ireland, was last night understood to give his assent to the introduction of some measure to put an end to the public exhibition of party emblems in Ireland; and, doubtless, animated by humane feelings, shocked at the recent outrages, had thus intimated that the exhibition of party banners in Ireland could not but be attended with danger to the public peace. While giving him every credit for so acting, he felt bound to declare, at the same time, that he believed that a deep responsibility rested on the hon. Member and others of station and property in the North of Ireland for assisting to prolong the existence of the Orange Society, by giving the authority of their names and influence to it. He believed he need not then enter into any lengthened argument for the purpose of showing that that society had been productive of considerable mischief in Ireland. So far back as the year 1813 it had been condemned by Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning. It had since that time frequently occupied the attention of the House, and in the year 1832 its proceedings had rendered necessary the Party Processions Act, which had been introduced by the present Earl of Derby, who was severely attacked by Mr. Shaw for saying that the Orangemen of Ireland alone persisted in keeping up religious animosities, and that their
  2264
  only object in meeting was to insult their Catholic fellow subjects and to defy the Government; also the late Mr. O'Connell, who for many years indulged the vain hope of conciliating the Orange party, and others, strongly opposed the measure as an infringement of the constitutional liberties of the people, and alleged that the Emancipation Act would put an end to the atrocities against which it was directed. Outrage followed outrage, however, in the North of Ireland, and they were doomed to see similar disastrous events as those that occurred in 1840. In 1845 Parliament thought they would give a chance to the Orangemen in Ireland, and they allowed the Act to expire. It was not until other outrages occurred that the attention of Parliament was again awakened to the subject, and all those who, in 1832, were opposed to it were reluctantly compelled to admit that the exceptional circumstances of the North of Ireland rendered its re-enactment a matter of necessity. In 1850, then, the Act was revived by the unanimous vote of the House, including even the hon. Members from the North of Ireland who were Members of the Society. Still the conduct of the Orange body looked so dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the country as to demand the serious attention of Parliament. A Committee was appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and the result was, three Reports in which it was declared that the existence of the Orange Society was dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the country. Addresses were presented to the Throne by both Houses calling for the suppression of the society. Gentlemen connected with the North of Ireland and in high position, both in this and the other House of Parliament, declared their compliance with the wish expressed by their Sovereign that the body should be dissolved. Again a hope was entertained that a feeling of brotherly love would be established in the country, and that the insults of an old religious ascendancy which had passed away would be abandoned. He regretted to say, however, that again they were disappointed. Men of great influence and ability, and deserving of great respect, yet carried away by religious prejudices, again sought to revive the Orange Society. Lawyers were consulted to advise how or by what means the law could be evaded. The right hon. Joseph Napier, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, drew up a code of laws in 1845 for the revival of the Orange Society. He (Mr.

  2265
  Cogan) did not mean to implicate Mr. Napier with the Orange Society by his doing so. That learned Gentleman, who had been a distinguished and esteemed Member of that House, merely acted on that occasion in his capacity as an eminent lawyer; but he regretted that he did not use his great influence with his party for the purpose of suppressing a body that had done such great mischief. In May, 1849, the Orange Society was again revived, and in July, 1849, just two months afterwards, the dreadful massacre of Dolly's Brae, with the details of which the House was no doubt familiar, took place. The Earl of Derby, in speaking of that affair, in which a village was burned down and many lives lost — condemned in as strong language as possible the atrocities of the Orange party. On a recent occasion unfortunately they had seen all that bad feeling spring again into existence at the unfortunate meeting of Derrymacash, where a number of persons were fired upon by the Orange party. Although he was pleased to hear that the Government intended to frame a provision to check such disturbances by preventing the exhibition of Orange flags and banners upon churches and other places, still the organization of which this outbreak was the outward sign would remain. Until that organization was destroyed, there could be no hope of the permanent re-establishment of peace in Ireland. Now it was in the power of Parliament to destroy that organization. If the law were vigorously put in force, and no magistrate and no Lord or Deputy Lieutenant were allowed to belong to these exclusive and secret societies—and he was ready to prove, if it were considered necessary, from the Report on the Belfast riots, that they were both exclusive and secret— the Government would at once go to the root of the evil. If, however, they were not prepared to take such a step, he would appeal to the good feeling of the gentlemen in the North of Ireland whether there was any practical use in this organization, and whether it did not create more mischief than good. W hat could be a stronger proof of its dangerous character than the letter which the gallant Member for Armagh had lately penned with such good taste, and calling upon the Orangemen to abstain from those riots which usually took place on the 1st and 12th of July of every year? Other measures also should be taken. The Government, for instance, might direct their attention to the jury system in Ireland, with a view of rendering it impossible
  2266
  for Orange juries to try Orange offenders At present, as Judge Fletcher stated' Catholics in the North of Ireland had no assurance that justice would be done to them when they or when Orangemen were brought for trial before an Orange jury. On one occasion Chief Justice Bushe said, after the acquittal of an Orangeman in the county of Down, "That is your verdict, gentlemen; thank God it is not mine!" Moreover, there could be no proper faith in the administration of justice when Members of the Orange Society were on the bench. No man should be retained in the commission of the peace, or should he allowed to sit on a jury, who belonged to this or to any other secret society, whether they were orange or green. He (Mr. Cogan) would put down both the one and the other; he believed they were the great curse of the country, and at the root of all its evils. He did not wish to speak with harshness of those clergymen who allowed their churches to be decorated with Orange flags and banners when they knew they were calculated to insult and arouse the angry passions of a large portion of their fellow countrymen; he believed many of them were compelled to do so against their will. He should only say that he regarded such a mode of church decorations as a desecration of the house of God, who preached peace and good will to men. Upon a church adjoining the court in Lurgan, where an investigation about the shooting down of sixteen Catholics by the Orange procession at Derrymacash was going on, there were to be seen, long after the 12th of July, four Orange flags flaunting in the breeze. Was not that a desecration of the house of God? Few Gentlemen in that House were aware of the length to which these things were carried in the North of Ireland. There at all times Catholics were exposed to annoyance and insult, "To Hell with the Pope" being a common street cry, which was shouted in the streets at all times. Very recently a Catholic gentleman was chosen sheriff of the county of Fermanagh. He was a man universally respected and esteemed, but he was prevented from dining with the grand jury, because the standing toast was an insult to his religion, it being the "Glorious, pious, and immortal memory." Would or should such a thing be longer tolerated! He (Mr. Cogan) would not object in England to drink the health of William III., whom he considered to have introduced many reforms; but in Ireland that toast was intended as an insult to Ca-

  2267
  tholics, and as such was distasteful to them; in the one country his name was identified with civil and religious liberty, but in the other it was connected with the most shameful religious persecution and penal laws—and was intended to mean Protestant ascendancy. Sir Robert Peel long ago condemned the practice of observing anniversaries, which were made the occasions of disorder, and why did the Protestant gentlemen of Ireland to this day encourage and permit such baneful practices to continue? Sir Robert Peel had said that that toast was meant to commemorate the battle of the Boyne, and to celebrate the defeat of the Roman Catholics. Mr. Lefroy, the present Lord Chief Justice in Ireland, who was then a Member of that House, said they might as well declare that the battle of Waterloo should no longer be commemorated. Well, they had lived to see the day when, in deference to the feelings of their French Ally, that great event was no longer commemorated; and were the feelings of their own fellow-subjects to be still disregarded? He would only remind the House that in 1857 Belfast was for days the scene of almost civil war, one class of citizens being arrayed in arms against another class. Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the causes of the outbreak, and they reported that the observance of the July anniversary was the main cause of all the disorders. He would not enter at any length into the details of the recent outrage. A riot was provoked by the insulting and irritating conduct of the Orange party. On the morning of the 12th upwards of 5,000 Orangemen with 28 drums and fifes were marching through Lurgan, it being market day—and on the return of some of these in the evening some one of them fired a pistol at the cross on the chapel at Derrymacash—so it began. It is not material who actually commenced the riot, but it was certain that the Orange party alone indulged in firing. Sixteen persons were wounded, two of them dangerously, and the persons who were responsible for that were those who encouraged or took part in such irritating proceedings. One part of the evil was to be dealt with, but he wished to see the Orange Society entirely abolished; he believed there would be no peace in the North of Ireland till that was done. He wished hon. Gentlemen would exert themselves to that end, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks would persuade his followers to abandon and discourage the
  2268
  society, he would probably obtain a larger number of supporters; for in Ireland the chief ground of objection to a Conservative Government was, that its entering into office was regarded as the signal for a renewal of insults to the Catholics and the assertion of Protestant ascendancy. They had been offended and outraged by some who now sat on the Treasury bench, but they still supported them, because they disliked more the advent of a Government which would lead to Orange ascendancy. They had not forgiven the Durham letter, and never could forgive it; and there were many other things which the Whigs had done not to be forgotten, and if the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were wise, they would take advantage of this, and bid for power in Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for Ireland would take warning by this. If he could be instrumental in putting down these party organizations, which had been productive of so much mischief, and could bring all the people of Ireland, of whatever creed or party, to live together as fellow-citizens of one country, he would deserve the gratitude of Ireland.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he had listened with great attention and deep interest to the observations of the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan), in which the hon. Member had alluded to a series of events which were greatly to be deplored by every Member of the House. He (Mr. Dawson) was deeply interested in the good name and the prosperity of Ireland, and especially the North of Ireland; and no one could deprecate more than he those useless and insulting displays which invariably accompanied these July anniversaries. He had seen many of these manifestations, but they had always grated on his feelings, he-cause he was aware that they recalled party triumphs which ought to be forgotten, and prefigured the establishment of ascendancy which he never desired to see exercised by any class. So far he agreed with the hon. Member for Kildare in the very able statement which he had made, but he would ask the House not to continue the discussion of an irritating matter, or to use any partisan expression which might tend to widen differences already existing in certain districts in Ireland. He must remind the House that the excitement was confined to certain localities, and did not prevail throughout the whole of Ulster; but leading articles, written on the telegraphic reports of proceedings in

  2269
  the House, frequently appeared in Irish newspapers, and therefore he would suggest to hon. Members to refrain from any language which would afford ground for articles that would not lead to that good feeling which he was sure it was the wish of the House to promote. He was well acquainted with the town of Lurgan, and he was able to corroborate the statement of the hon. Member that the magistrates had used their utmost exertions to bring the offenders in this matter to justice. He had that morning received a letter from Lord Lurgan, which stated that the magistrates were unanimously determined to sift this deplorable case to the bottom, and that they would spare no pains for the purpose. It was almost unnecessary to say that he had never been a member of an Orange body. Nobody regretted their existence more than he did, and he had always been of opinion that secret societies, of whatever party, had been the curse of Ireland. If the efforts of the local magistracy were seconded by the Government, there was every reason to believe that tranquillity and a spirit of confidence would soon be restored.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought that after the able and dispassionate statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare, and the candid speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, it would be better on the whole that the discussion on this subject should not be protracted. He believed that, whatever party was in power, such occurrences as these would be viewed with the deepest regret by the Government, and every Government would view with the liveliest satisfaction the dissolution of the societies which led to such occurrences, and which postponed the day when the people of Ireland would live together as one united and loyal people. Last year he had the pleasure of stating that these anniversaries passed over in the most satisfactory manner, and there was every reason to hope that such would be the case this year. Unhappily, there had occurred riots in Armagh at the beginning of the month. It led to forty-five persons making their appearance at the assizes, and now there was this disturbance. The main cause of these disturbances was a social condition which it was their duty to remove, as far as possible, by social and moral means; but there were also defects in the law which the Government intended to ask Parliament to remedy at once, notwithstanding the short period which re-
  2270
  mained of the present Session. He might mention, in answer to a question which had been put to him, that the town of Belfast was under proclamation at the time referred to, and still remained in the same condition. The town of Lurgan would be put under proclamation immediately. The defective state of the law had already attracted the attention of Government, but he was glad that their attention had been so early called to it by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir William Verner). Nothing could exceed the exertions which had been made by the magistrates of Lurgan, but, as their investigation had not yet terminated and he had no official information, therefore, on the subject, it would be right for him to abstain from further dwelling on it. He drew, however, a very favourable augury for the future from the temperate, but forcible observations which had fallen from Gentlemen on both sides of the House. They could not be lost on any part of the community, and he trusted that the generous sentiments which had been elicited by the discussion on these occurrences when conveyed to Ireland would strengthen the efforts which would be made by the Government, not only to put down these disturbances, but to remove the causes of them.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that though the statement of the hon. Member for Kildare was, in some respects, a proper one, he (Mr. Whiteside) must take issue with him on the picture which he had drawn of the province of Ulster. He said that, to his (Mr. Cogan's) knowledge, justice had not been done by Judges and by juries acting in that part of Ireland. He (Mr. Whiteside) begged to tell the hon. Gentleman that he had been present at many trials in Ulster, at which, without an instant's hesitation, juries brought in a verdict against men for having walked in procession. He had seen one man sent to gaol there for six months for whistling a party tune. It was monstrous to say that the Judges of the land—most of whom were of the same religious persuasion as the hon. Member himself—would not administer the law impartially.
  MR. COGANin explanation said, that he had made no allusion to the Judges of the land. What he had said was, that it must be injurious to the administration of justice to have men administering the law who were members of an Orange Society.
  MR. WHITESIDE: The hon. Gentle-

  2271
  man had asked a very sensible question as to what had led to the reconstruction of the Orange Society. He (Mr. Whiteside) would answer the question for him, although no one could answer it better than the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. It was as well the whole truth should be spoken. After the dissolution of the Orange Societies Mr. O'Connell commenced the greatest agitation which was ever seen in any country in the world. It appeared that the Orange party at Lurgan, on the occasion referred to, consisted of a number of people, 500 in all, men, women and children, who had gone to church—and he supposed he must regret that they had done so if it gave offence— and who were returning. It was not such numbers Mr. O'Connell brought together. When he was engaged in revolutionizing Ireland, he brought together hundreds of thousands of strong men, and, as he believed, brave men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) was then Secretary for Ireland, and he directed a prosecution against Mr. O'Connell for those meetings and societies, which were very unlike the small affair at Lurgan, because they were well organized by a man of consummate ability as an agitator, and their avowed object was to change the Government of the country. It was a legitimate object in which Garibaldi had succeeded elsewhere. Mr. O'Connell did not admire English administration, and he wished to get rid of it if he could. It was exactly at that time that a body of persons of opposite opinions held meetings and drew up resolutions for the express purpose—it might have been wrong, but for the express purpose of disputing with Mr. O'Connell the possession of the country. That was the short history of the resuscitation of these societies. No one had laboured more in the good and wise attempt to repress the excesses of any body of politicians than Lord Eglinton. There were disturbances at Belfast, but 100 constables were sent down, and on the first occasion of a riot afterwards, they caught the rioters. The rioters were sent to gaol for a month, and they heard no more of riots at Belfast. He was not satisfied with the conduct of the officials on that occasion. If there were any procession which was forbidden by the law, how came it to pass that it was permitted to proceed? He doubted very much whether there was any procession; but, if there were, all the persons were engaged in an
  2272
  illegal act, and the process of detection was very simple, because it took place in broad day-light. These persons went to church. They left it, and he was told that a man's treading on a match was mistaken for the shot of a pistol. The firing at a cross was a very unlikely thing to take place, and he had heard with great pleasure that it was a fiction, and that nothing of the kind had occurred. What did occur, he was informed, was more natural. A shower of stones came from behind hedges and ditches as these people were proceeding home. He understood that they had no arms, and not even sticks; but, being naturally pugnacious they retired, and got into some house where there were arms. They returned, and, though in a great minority, forced a passage home. It was a very lamentable transaction, and, no matter who were right or who were wrong, he hoped all would be punished. If there were any illegal procession, there was law enough to punish them. But a riot in one corner of Ulster did not justify the description which had been given of a province nearly as large as Scotland. There was no part of Ireland where the Roman Catholics were more comfortable or were better paid, find he trusted they would live happily with those who differed from them; one mode to accomplish which was to repress those feelings to which the hon. Gentleman had directed his observations. It would be far better, in this instance, to have allowed these persons to go home, to have marked them, to have given information, and to have prosecuted them for the procession, if it were an illegal procession. He was very sorry that the transaction had occurred; but, he was sure, there was no spot in Her Majesty's dominions where justice was more efficiently administered than in that part of Ireland.
  SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, the hon. Member for Kildare had endeavoured to make this impression on the House—that the only persons guilty of any outrages in Ireland were those whom the hon. Gentleman might call Orangemen if he liked, but who were the Protestants of Ireland, for it was against them as a body, and not against the Orange Society only, that the objection lay. He asked the hon. Member could he produce a single instance in which the Protestants had ever shot a person in broad daylight, in presence of hundreds of people, without one of them being found to come forward and

  2273
  give evidence against the murderer? The House was not fully aware of the nature of the society which had caused the remodelling and reforming of the Orange body. He meant the Ribbon Society. He would state a case to show what this society was. A gentleman who succeeded to a property in the North of Ireland appointed an agent to take charge of it. The agent went upon the property, and one of the first things he endeavoured to do was to establish a school. The schoolmaster was a Protestant, and in open daylight a party went to his house, dragged him out, and murdered him in presence of his two daughters, in front of his house. The murderer was taken with his coat covered with blood; the daughters identified him as engaged on the occasion, so that there could be no mistake. He was brought to trial in Armagh; and on two several occasions the jury disagreed and there was no verdict. This was stated to be owing to the presence of Ribbonmen on the juries; for by one of the oaths of the Ribbon Society the members bound themselves to on no account give evidence against a brother Ribbonman, no matter what the offence. The man was brought to trial a third time, the prosecutor having taken especial care to exclude Ribbonmen from the jury. The consequence was that the prisoner was found guilty and hung. In 1848, when Ireland was very disturbed, and the troops were obliged to be sent out of Dublin, the Lord Lieutenant could not find 200 men to depend upon without having recourse to the Orangemen. He accepted the services of 200 of them, and placed arms in their hands.

CEYLON RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he had a notice on the paper to put certain questions to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, regarding the Ceylon Railway; and he wished to express a hope that some statement would be made that might tend to tranquillize the minds of the colonists in that Island, who were excessively disturbed at the prospect of an enormous railway expenditure which threatened them; and that some measure would be suggested, if possible, to extricate them from the position in which they found themselves; very much owing to the mismanagement of the Colonial Office. He would say a very few words as to the origin, progress,
  2274
  and present state of the Ceylon Railway. In 1856 the Governor in Council passed what was technically called an ordinance for reviving the Ceylon Railway Company, and calling on the Island to grant the sum of £1,200,000 to complete it. The decision of the Governor and of the Legislative Council was received in the Island with the greatest consternation. It was alleged that was not the result of a free expression of opinion on the part of the Representatives of the Island in the Legislative Council. The Council consisted of eighteen Members, eight of whom were official persons, on whom the Government could bring influence to bear; and the ordinance was carried by a majority of only one. The matter was referred home, and the Secretary for the Colonies was called upon to send out a competent engineer; and if he decided that the line could be made for £1,200,000, that then the Colonial Office should make arrangements with a Company to carry it out for that sum. The Colonial Secretary sent out Captain Moor-som; but unfortunately, as he was informed by that gentleman, with no instructions to make a working survey. Captain Moor-som made what was called a "flying survey," and declared that the line could be made for that sum; and by that course the agreement became an absolute one, and the colonists found themselves pledged not to make a railway for a definite sum, but pledged to a company to pay six per cent on an indefinite sum. The Company caused their own engineer to make another survey, when, to the horror of the colonists, he reported that the railway could not be made for a less sum than £2,250,000. When he stated to the House that this would entail an addition to the export duty on coffee of from 2½ to about 8 per cent, they would see that the consternation of the colonists was very natural. It might be said that Sir Henry Ward's somewhat rash conduct in regard to this railway was confirmed by subsequent addresses from the colonists. But at the time of the great railway excitement in Ceylon, there was a Cambridge house in Colombo, and he was told that the festivities held there produced these addresses in support of the Governor's proceedings. The railway had also been negligent and extravagant in carrying on its works; and he appealed to the hon. Baronet, the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who was connected with the direction of the Company, to afford some explanation of its conduct. When

  2275
  the colonists referred to the Home Government for a complete survey, and an agreement defining the sum they were to pay, they also expressed a strong desire to have some gentleman possessing the confidence of the Island, and well acquainted with the locality through which the line was to pass, appointed on the direction of the railway to take care of their interests. To their great surprise and extreme disgust, however, instead of their request being complied with, they found the Government sending out a précis clerk from the Colonial Office to undertake that duty. He wished, therefore, to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to suspend all expenditure on the Ceylon Railway, except such as is absolutely necessary for the preservation of works in progress; to inquire, in the event of the connection between the Railway Company and the colony being severed, whether the Government will submit to a strict audit all claims for repayment made by the Ceylon Railway Company; and whether the recent expenditure on surveys (swelling the sums expended under this head to above £100,000) was undertaken by the desire, or with the knowledge, of the Colonial Legislature?
  MR. P. W. MARTINasked what reason there could be for expending £2,000,000 upon an undertaking which a responsible English contractor was prepared to complete for a much smaller sum?
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the House was not the proper place for discussing railway politics. The general meeting of the Ceylon Railway Company would be held next week, when he believed explanations would be given which would be satisfactory to the public in regard to the position of the undertaking. The cost of the surveys for the line was £39,000, not £100,000, as had been stated.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he must protest against the assumption that this railway project, though unfortunately not now in a flourishing position, had been in any degree forced upon the people of Ceylon by the Colonial Department. The Government had been repeatedly urged by the colonists to promote the making of a line between Kandy and the port of Colombo; and on their application Lord Taunton, when at the Colonial Office, entered into a provisional agreement with the Ceylon Railway Company. It was true that the provisional agreement was sanctioned only by a majority of one
  2276
  in the Legislative Council of Ceylon; but the Governor made its adoption an open question in the Council, and it was strongly opposed by the then Colonial Secretary, and present Governor of Ceylon. After Captain Moorsom's report was received, stating that the project might be carried out much within, the limit of £1,200,000, the feeling of the colonists generally was decidedly favourable to the undertaking. The hon. Member was very naturally disappointed at what had since happened; but there had certainly been nothing approaching to a wish on the part of the Home authorities to force this project on a reluctant community. Some months ago his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office consulted the late eminent Mr. Stephenson upon the subject of this railway, and by his advice suspended all works upon the line, with very few exceptions. At the same time he ordered home Mr. Doyne, the resident engineer, and sent out the agents of two eminent contracting firms, in order that materials might be prepared for offering a contract. Since then the whole matter had been submitted to Mr. Hawkshaw, who recommended that the railway should be proceeded with at an estimated cost of £1,800,000. Certain offers for the surrender of the contract had been made by the company to the Colonial Office, and these, together with all the circumstances of the case, would be submitted to the Legislative Council, and to those commercial bodies which were entitled to be consulted in the matter, before any decision was arrived at. He apprehended that no such offer would be accepted without a thorough investigation of the affairs of the company. That statement nearly amounted to an answer to the second question of the hon. Baronet. With respect to the third question, he begged also to say that nothing would be done without consulting the wishes of the colony.
  MR. BUCHANANcomplained that, although this railway had not been made, the planters had for some time been subjected to an additional export duty on their produce on its account.
  MR. DUDLEY FORTESCUEsaid, that as one of the ill-used planters referred to, he thought that the complaints which had been just made were well founded.
  Motion agreed to. House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill. When the Maynooth Act was introduced in 1845 a provision was contemplated by the Government and Parliament with respect to the annual repairs of the college. It was proposed, according to the statement of Sir Robert Peel, that the Board of Works should undertake the repairs of the college, in order that the business should be conducted with the greatest economy, and that the cost should be included in the annual estimates of the Board. Accordingly, in the Act itself the Board of Works were made Commissioners for the purpose, among others, of enlarging, improving, repairing, and furnishing from time to time the buildings constituting the College of Maynooth. That arrangement continued until 1851, which was the last year in which Parliament voted any sum of money for repairs at Maynooth. There was in the Treasury a balance which served the purpose in 1852. In 1853 the Government included in the estimate for the Board of Works the usual sum for the repairs of the college, but on the Motion of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, that Vote was rejected by a small majority, and no Vote had since been taken for Maynooth. Last year a memorial, praying that the annual Vote should be renewed, was presented to the Irish Government by the authorities of the college. The answer he returned was that it was then too late to consider the subject, and that even with regard to future years he could hold out no expectation that the Government would think it expedient to propose an annual Vote to Parliament. When the trustees of the college held their annual meeting in the present year he directed their attention to the Report of the Harrow by Commission, in which were set forth all the wants which the building now had in order to fit it for the purposes for which it was intended by Parliament. All the money originally appropriated had been expended, but the works were still in an unfinished state, and he could not understand the policy, when we had spent a large sum of money in erecting a building for the education of a number of men who were to be in an important degree the guides of the Irish population, of keeping those persons in a position of discomfort. If the
  2278
  building was not to be allowed to fall to pieces, money from some source must be found. It was hopeless to think of an annual Vote; but the Harrow by Commission had recommended a different arrangement, and the trustees of the college had informed him that, while they could not relinquish their claim to a Vote of Parliament for annual repairs, they felt themselves constrained under present circumstances to accept any reasonable expedient by which the building might be saved from falling to decay, and the health and comfort of its inmates might be secured. Having received that communication, he thought it right immediately to ask the permission of the House to give effect to that arrangement. It was proposed to deal with the sum of £5,000 a year as mentioned in the last paragraph of the Report. That amount was by the Maynooth Act assigned in sums of £20 each to 250 senior students, and the Commissioners recommended that the fund for repairs should be obtained by suspending those payments. Then came the question, how was the amount to be applied? For the annual repairs the whole sum would be more than sufficient, but the whole sum was not immediately available, as the trustees would not suspend the allowances to any of those pupils to whom they were already given. Their interests would continue to be preserved, and it was only by the suspension of the allowances to new pupils that funds could be obtained. At the same time it would not be right to suspend the allowances with respect to the whole of the new students, as it was necessary to afford some encouragement to merit in any scholastic institution. At any rate, the whole sum would not be available for some period. The application of the money would not be limited to mere repairs, but the chapel —a necessary building in any scholastic institution — would be finished, and care would be taken to provide proper ventilation, lighting by gas, and baths. To meet this expense it was proposed to allow, with the previous sanction of the Treasury, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, who had a sum of money in their hands similar to that which the Exchequer Loan Commissioners dispensed, to make advances to complete the college and keep it in repair, on the credit of the sum of £5,000 a year. It was not intended to make any addition to the college directly or indirectly, but simply to complete it and repair that which would otherwise fall

  2279
  to ruin. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Warwickshire intended to offer opposition to the Bill, and he should have thought that the hon. Member, having great objection to the endowments of the pupils of the college, would have supported the Bill, which drew on those endowments for the repairs of the college. The House must either permit a building erected at great expense to fall to ruin—a result which would have most important consequences of a moral and political character'—or, since it would not appropriate funds for the repair of the building, it must consent to the present Bill, which trespassed on the funds assigned to the students.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. As the House was aware, he dissented altogether to the institution, as he thought it was contrary to the Protestant constitution of this country to do anything in support of a system of education completely subversive of the Protestant religion. He would not enter into details on the present occasion, his general views having been so often stated in respect to a perpetual charge on the Consolidated Fund for Maynooth. He objected to the Bill on two grounds. First, that it enabled the Government to apply grants of public money to the extension of the College of Maynooth, and secondly, that it entailed the cost of the annual repairs of the college upon the country. Ever since 1853 the House had declared that they would have nothing to do with the repairs, and they took away the powers of the Commissioners, not because they grudged the money, but because they thought it an object to which the sanction of Parliament ought not to be given. But he had still stronger objections to the second clause, by which the trustees and Commissioners were authorized to borrow and lend money for that purpose. The moment that was done the country was responsible for the payment of the loan. The House was in reality now asked to give perpetuity to the grant. It was nothing more nor less than paying money in perpetuity for that to which he was conscientiously opposed. He felt no enmity against the Roman Catholics. They ought to enjoy their civil rights, but he did object to any assistance being given by a Protestant Parliament to the
  2280
  propagation of the Roman Catholic religion. The doctrines taught in that college were completely subversive of the articles of our pure Reformed Church, which articles the Sovereign of this country was bound by the Coronation Oath to maintain. These doctrines were, moreover, contrary to the Word of God, and such as a Protestant nation ought not to encourage. He believed that this country owed the great blessings which it had so long enjoyed to its Protestantism; and he believed further, that the judgment of Heaven would fall on us if we diverged from it. As long as he had a seat in the House he felt bound to express his conviction. He had another objection to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had put a face upon the question it really did not bear. It was not to keep a public building in repair; it was not to make the pupils in the college comfortable that the Bill was proposed; it was to undo what Parliament had done in 1853, and, by a side wind, to sanction a departure from what Parliament then had enacted, and to introduce a practice entirely contrary and opposed to our pure Protestant Constitution.
  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."
  SIR WILLIAM VERNERseconded the Amendment, which he believed would meet with the approbation of the country. He wished to know whether the funds which it was now proposed to apply might not be used for the purpose of extending the present buildings and increasing the number of pupils?
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he also objected to the Bill, not because the doctrines taught in the College were contrary to the Word of God—not because the object of the Bill might be to increase the number of Roman Catholic pupils in the College, but because the object was to remove the annual grants made to the College from the jurisdiction of Parliament. The 2nd clause enabled the trustees to borrow money on the security of the grant; and immediately that section was passed the grant, instead of being a subject of discussion year by year, whether it should be renewed or not, would be removed from the pale of discussion, for the money borrowed would be borrowed by authority of Parliament. The House had been by a recent Bill supported by the

  2281
  Government, called on to recognize the doctrine, discipline, laws, canons, and usages of the Roman Catholic Church. He had made some inquiry into those matters, and if any one was prepared to contend that the doctrines, discipline, laws, canons, and usages of the Roman Catholic Church were such as to entitle the college to further support, he for one was prepared to enter upon the discussion, if the promoters of the Bill were willing to submit the subject to such discussion; but if not, then this Bill — pretending to be for repairing the buildings of Maynooth, but being really for the purpose of changing altogether the nature of the existing grant by removing it beyond the ordinary control of that House, and thereby preventing future discussion of the doctrines, discipline, laws, canons, and usages there taught and used—ought to be rejected.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he should support the second reading. He believed that the principle of the Bill was not that there should be a shilling added to the grant, but that there should be an authority to devote the surplus money already granted to the repairs of the building. Therefore he gave his assent to the second reading.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was not satisfied with the Bill, and could not consent to vote for it if it abrogated a pledge solemnly given by Parliament that there should not be an annual grant to Maynooth for the purpose of repairs. He thought that it did amount to a distinct pledge that the repairs should be defrayed by Parliament, and he hoped that when the Bill went through Committee words would be inserted which would leave open the important question of an annual grant.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the position in which the House stands in reference to this Bill. I believe that I can show that the House is asked to stultify itself by agreeing to any such measure. In the first place, the Bill proposes that the same number of students shall be educated at Maynooth as were provided for by the Act of 1845—namely, 520;and next, that the allowance which was deemed to be adequate by the framers of that enactment for the maintenance of the students shall be diminished by the sum considered requisite, not merely for repairs, but for furnishing and finishing the new compartments of the establishment at Maynooth. Parliament must, therefore, have been clearly wrong, according to this Bill, when,
  2282
  in 1845, it decided that£30,000 a year was not more than sufficient for the maintenance and instruction of the pupils at Maynooth. The House is now asked to declare, and particularly those hon. Members who supported the Act of 1845, that the amount they agreed to on that occasion was in excess, and that they did not know at the time how cheaply these Roman Catholic priests might be brought up. That is the first point which the House is now called upon to stultify itself. The second point upon which the House is asked to stultify itself is this:—It is invited to declare that the House has wrongfully refused to provide separately for the repairs of Maynooth since 1851. I fully admit that, as observed by the hon. Member for Youghal, there has been an omission—that the House did not do its work in 1851 so completely as it ought to have done, and that it would have been more consistent to have repealed the statutory obligation which appears to rest upon the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, under the Act of 1845. Well, that, I confess, was an oversight; but by the solemn decision of the House, arrived at after a long struggle, it was decided that these annual grants for the repairs of Maynooth should not be continued; and notwithstanding what has been stated by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Butt), the Government, in deference to the feeling of the House and the country, have accepted the decision of the House that no further money should be voted for repairs. That is the second point in reference to which the House is called upon to stultify itself; because, what is the difference between appropriating money granted for an analogous purpose for repairs, and granting new funds for that specific purpose? It is the same thing, in fact; and that is the operation to which we are now called upon to assent. I must now call to the recollection of the House the circumstances which were so lightly passed over by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says that people build houses and do not count the cost, and that by accident there was an excess in the Estimate of £30,000 for the repairs and new buildings at Maynooth contemplated by the Act of 1845;but that is simply a gloss put upon a grave subject. The facts of the case are these. I have taken great pains in going through the whole of the evidence up to this day, and these are the facts. In 1845 there was

  2283
  not only a sum of £30,000 granted for salaries and the maintenance of the students at Maynooth, but another £30,000 was given to provide adequate accommodation for the residents at Maynooth. Well, Sir, what was done? £30,000 was ample. I have shown on a previous occasion, from the evidence of Mr. Carus Wilson and of Sir Francis Head, that it was far more than ample to provide, by repairs and enlargement of the building, for the accommodation of the 520 students and the requisite staff of professors. What was done? Did they repair the old existing college? Not in the least. Did they merely add such a number of buildings as should provide a separate apartment for each of the students? Not at all. No, the authorities of the college gave Mr. Pugin, the architect, carte blanche for the magnificent scheme he proposed, and carefully asked for no estimate of its cost. That scheme was placed before the Commissioners of 1855, and there are drawings in their Report showing what it is, and how much of it has been completed. It provided, not for the better accommodation of the 520 students already in the institution, but, by adding 215 rooms to the existing ones, and which were quite sufficient, has already provided accommodation for 735 students. Why do I say that the accommodation in 1845, if the repairs were done — and they were done by separate Votes of this House—was quite sufficient for 520 students? Because the visitors who were appointed under the Act of Parliament reviewed in 1846 the state of the college, and found that there were 522 students at college, of whom 512 were resident; that they were not sleeping three in a bed, as was alleged in 1845; but that, with very moderate repairs of the then existing buildings, they were, to use the expression in the concluding paragraph of the Report, "on the whole, in a very satisfactory condition." That Report I have now beside me. I will give you another proof to justify my assertion. There was no haste exhibited on the part of the authorities of Maynooth to undertake the new buildings. Not at all. In 1847 the visitors complained that no steps had been taken beyond laying the foundation of these great buildings, and implied no astonishment at the perfect satisfaction which reigned at Maynooth with the accommodation then existing. Again, in 1851, the principal reported, on behalf of the students, that he had nothing to complain of. He stated it for them, and they stated it
  2284
  for themselves. Yet not one room of the 215 new rooms was then occupied. Since then, it appears that, by falling back upon voluntary contributions and the property which the college possesses, these rooms have been brought into a state fit for habitation, And what do the visitors now report? They report from the president of Maynooth that it is absolutely necessary, if this enormously increased accommodation is to be preserved in a state of repair, that some additional funds should be provided. How are they to be found? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told you, by taking from the provision for the maintenance of the professors and students, which in 1845 was not deemed excessive, the sum of £5,000 a year, or thereabouts. And for what purpose? Why, for the purpose of completing an addition to the college of 215 rooms, thus providing accommodation to that extent in excess of the amount limited by the Act of 1845. I put it to the House, then, are we not asked to stultify ourselves? But beyond that, we are asked to pledge the faith of Parliament to the continuance of the whole sum by the appropriation of this grant. I know that in these days Protestantism is not so rife as in 1851; still I conclude that there are some Protestants left in this House. I know there are in the country; and I do not think that the revelations of the Commission of 1855 have reconciled them to this institution. I do not believe that it is one whit more popular now than ever it was. Doubts are entertained as to the nature of the teaching in the College of Maynooth; whether it is that tolerant Roman Catholicism which prevailed at the commencement of the century, or whether it is that intolerant ultramontane system which has been of late too manifest. The visitors report that the marked circumstance of this last year is the formal and final rejection of the Galilean doctrines, as inculcated by Baily, by the authorities of Maynooth, and the adoption of the ultramontane which are now dominant at Rome, in the form of the work of Scavini; and that work of Scavini is a compendium of the doctrines of Liguori, which are again derived of the teaching of the Jesuit Bussenbaum. I repeat that you have it stated in the visitor's report that the marked circumstance at Maynooth this year is the formal and final adoption of the teaching of ultramontane or Jesuit doctrines. Considering that it was thought right in 1845 to endow Maynooth, and provide

  2285
  for the wants and comforts of 520 students, in order to conciliate the Roman Catholics, I think the House will decide wrongly if it takes from that sum an amount which is estimated by the surveyor of Maynooth at £32,000, as necessary to complete the buildings and provide furniture, in accordance with Mr. Pugin's plan of enlargement, the whole cost of which has been estimated at £62,000, £30,000 being already spent upon the new buildings. The remaining £32,000, remember, is exclusive of all repairs, and will be applied to completing the accommodation in excess of that which in 1846 was quite sufficient. The Commissioners admit that the number of priests necessary for Ireland, with her diminished population, is not so great as formerly. Upon what grounds, then, of common sense can the House be asked to provide for accommodation for the education and maintenance of more students at Maynooth than were deemed sufficient in 1845? The Commissioners in 1855, and the visitors from year to year declare that that which has been really advantageous and really conciliatory in the Maynooth grant has been the better provision made by the Act of 1845 for the actual maintenance and teaching of the students; and it is that which you are now going to trench upon to the extent I have described by providing for the completion of an extension of the buildings at Maynooth, which is contrary to the Act of 1845. I think I have said enough to show that if you pass this Bill you are not at the end of the course upon which you are entering. You are asked to sanction an unlimited borrowing power. Grant that, and you sanction this grant in perpetuity. You diminish the comforts of the students resident at Maynooth permanently, and adopt a course calculated to prevent that institution from ever reverting to the position upon which it was founded by Mr. Pitt; that is, of being aided by Parliament, but supported mainly by voluntary contributions. Is there any reason to suppose that, if you agree to this measure, you will be able to stop here? Two years ago I ventured to tell certain right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the front bench below, and who were then in the Government, that if they reversed their votes against the grant, from that moment would increased demands be made by the more active members of the Roman Catholic body. I told them that charters would be demanded, that a university would be demanded, and that concession, instead of
  2286
  satisfying, would only stimulate demands. And so it proved. Last year the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and other Members of this House, including the present Attorney General for Ireland, waited on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to demand of him a charter for a Roman Catholic university; and the Attorney General stated, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan stated, that a sum of not less than £80,000 had been subscribed for that purpose. Well, if £80,000 can be so easily found for the establishment of a Roman Catholic university in Ireland, who can believe that funds would not be available for the repairs of the College of Maynooth? Protestants as well as Roman Catholics know that it is far easier to obtain public subscriptions for building purposes than for purposes of endowment; but by the present measure you are creating a building fund, and excluding the application to the maintenance of the fabric of Maynooth of funds which you know are ready for Roman Catholic purposes, while you place the students on short commons. Look around you in this country. It is a well-known fact that large sums are collected in this country which go to the Propaganda. Roman Catholic Members must excuse me. What I am stating is the question, and is fact. It is well known that the Propaganda receive considerable sums from this country and Ireland; but nothing like so large as those which they send hither for what they term the conversion, or, as I interpret it, the subjugation of England. Let them apply some of this money to the maintenance of the College of Maynooth. Look around you, I say again. On all sides you find springing up chapels, convents, monasteries, missions. Who, then, can doubt the abundance of Roman Catholic funds? I contend, therefore, that it is but right Maynooth should revert to its original foundation—the constitution established by Mr. Pitt; and should depend for its repairs and enlargement upon the voluntary contributions of the members of the Roman Catholic persuasion. When Lord Redesdale was Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in 1807, he prayed his Sovereign not to expect him to continue to act as visitor of Maynooth, for he told his Sovereign that he found that he appeared there in a state of ridiculous nullity, totally unable to control a seminary that was conducted upon Jesuit principles. Neither the present nor any Government

  2287
  of this country has any chance of controlling those principles but through the interference of the laity of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that forcing Maynooth to depend upon voluntary contributions in some degree is the only means of bringing to bear the action of the Roman Catholic laity so as to correct a system of teaching and of discipline which is year by year deteriorating into a form more adverse to the constitution of this country.
  MR. BELLEWsaid, that with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he might rend an extract from a letter of the President of the College of Maynooth, which stated that "so far from its being true that the £30,000 was applied to any other than building purposes, some money had been paid by the trustees out of other funds, in addition to that £30,000, towards the expenses of building. The number of students never exceeded 520, except in 1853, when there were fourteen attached to the college whose charges were borne by private individuals."
  Question put,
  The House divided—Ayes 135;Noes 57: Majority 78.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up.
  On the Vote of £12,000 for Retiring Allowances of Officers of the Navy,
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERopposed the Vote, which he said would be entirely useless for the purpose for which it was proposed. He had not met with any one in or out of the navy who approved the scheme. He had a certificate in proof of a statement which he made last night, and which was then contradicted, that a seaman who had lost an arm had been awarded a pension of £18 4s. for one year. He wished to know why the Admiralty should give the man the trouble of coming again at the end of the year, since they could not put on his arm again. With a war in China, and confusion in Europe, it was the duty of the House to do everything they could to assist in manning the British navy, which, up to the present time, had not been accomplished.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I think my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admi-
  2288
  ralty has scarcely been treated in that spirit of generosity which is due to him, with respect to that scheme of naval retirement which he has submitted to the House, at the instance of the Board whom be represents. For my own part, I am fully aware that he holds earnestly at heart the welfare of his brother officers and the good of his profession; but I am bound to confess that I regard that scheme as arbitrary in its enactments and harsh in its provisions. My noble Friend frankly owns that had he been entrusted with a larger sum than £12,000 at his disposal, he could have produced a better scheme. Let me, then, advise him to withdraw it in its present form, and at a more favourable opportunity, when a more liberal sum is at his command, reproduce it in an amended shape, calculated to meet the exigencies of the service and to enlist the sympathy of the profession. Should it appear indispensable to the well-being of the Royal Navy, in the opinion of this House and the country, that officers, on attaining the age of sixty years, must be removed from the active list, painful though the sacrifice may be, it must be borne by them. The necessity, however, should be proved beyond dispute which calls for a step so extreme; and, if positively demanded, the blow to their natural feelings of sorrow should be softened by a considerate regard for their future welfare to the close of life. Such treatment they have deserved by the zeal, fidelity, and courage which they devoted to their country from earliest youth, in every hour and in every service when England required it. And if now for her good they are to be bidden to acquiesce in a compulsory removal and retirement, and to forego all opportunities henceforth of winning high place or emolument in their profession, it is only common justice which would award them a liberal acknowledgment of their past services. "True valour still a true respect should have." I would invite the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to consider the extremely hard position in which mates in the Royal Navy will be placed if they are debarred from counting a portion of the time which they passed in that rank. Many of them have held the appointment of acting lieutenant, and a considerable number, after having passed the examination for a lieutenant's commission, have remained without promotion for several years. I would, therefore, recommend that a portion of that time should be reckoned as a lieutenant's

  2289
  service, in order to entitle them to an increase of allowance on retirement. I must confess to some doubts as to the advantages which, it is presumed, will accrue from a Commission such as it is proposed to nominate; its efficacy could only be secured by the appointment of impartial and intelligent members qualified to form a just judgment. I have made these observations in the hope that I am assisting to create
  2290
  good precedents as well as to follow them, and urging an honourable and just cause; for I cannot fail to remember that, unless we treat the services of others in our own time fairly and tenderly, it is a debt that will be sure to be paid when we are gone.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock, till Monday next.