Commons Sitting of 29 June 1863

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—Resolutions (June 25th) reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Removal and Punishment of Prisoners* [Bill 194].
Considered as amended—Public Works (Manufacturing Districts [Bill 192].

THE MHOW COURT MARTIAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a copy of the second Letter or Memorandum

  1615
  of the Mhow Court Martial, signed by the Adjutant General, a portion of which letter has been read out to Captain Smales at the Horse Guards, wherein it was said that in the opinion of His Royal Highness the statements contained in the Paymaster's letter of the 26th of February were not considered by him as false, though they were in part malicious? He would also renew the question he had formerly put, whether the opinion of the Judge Advocate General has been given on the legality of the proceedings at the Mhow Court Martial before Captain Smales was gazetted out of the service?
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he also wished to ask the noble Lord whether a subsequent communication or memorandum, signed by the Adjutant General, has been sent to the Commander-in-Chief in India, modifying the opinion on the proceedings of the Court Martial at Mhow contained in the Memorandum of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief of the Army upon the same subject, now upon the table of the House, or in any way relating to the same subject; and whether such first-mentioned communication or memorandum has been read to the assembled Officers of Her Majesty's Enniskillen Dragoons in India as publicly as the Memorandum now upon the table?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I shall, perhaps, be able most easily to explain the position in which the War Office stands with regard to these papers if I first answer the Question of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie). I will therefore state that the only document which at all answers the description given to it by my right hon. Friend is a communication or memorandum which was last March forwarded by the Adjutant General to the Commander-in-Chief in India, and which was covered by private letters to Sir William Mansfield and Sir Hugh Rose. The private letters that covered the memorandum were marked "private," and they were addressed "My dear Mansfield," and "My dear Rose." The memorandum enclosed was particularly described as being private, and particular directions were given that it should not be read to the troops in the same way as the former one, or published in any way. I am not aware, and cannot suppose it possible, that it should have been read in India in the public manner stated by my right hon. Friend. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear to the House, that when I stated there was no "public memorandum" on this subject, I
  1616
  was perfectly correct. And I think the House will see, that that memorandum being covered and guarded so carefully as a private communication, the House has no claim whatever to have the memorandum published. [Mr. CONINGHAM: Was it signed by the Adjutant General?] I am not sure whether it was signed by him or not. The circumstances under which it was sent out were these:—His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had received several private letters from officers in India on the subject of this court martial. The Commander-in-Chief requested the Adjutant General, who was acquainted with his views, to draw up a private memorandum embodying those views for the information of Sir Hugh Rose and Sir William Mansfield. In that memorandum his Royal Highness stated that he fully appreciated the motives which prompted the officers in India in what they had done, but he distinctly declined to modify any of the opinions to which he had given expression in the memorandum publicly read to the troops in India. Although, therefore, there is, in the opinion of the Government, no necessity or obligation to lay this private memorandum on the table, still, at the special request of his Royal Highness, who wishes that no step which he has taken in this matter should be kept back from the public, and who apprehends that after the questions which have been put, and the public mention which has been made respecting this memorandum, a false impression might go forth to the world if it were not laid on the table—at the special request, I say, of the Commander-in-Chief, this second memorandum, as well as the private letters of his Royal Highness will be laid upon the table.
  With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham), I have to state I cannot lay any such letter or memorandum as that to which he refers on the table of the House, because no such paper is in existence. As, no doubt, the hon. Member had some grounds to go upon in asking the Question, I will state what did occur, and what gave rise to the supposition that such a paper existed. In a conversation at the Horse Guards between the Adjutant General and Mr. Smales, the Adjutant General read to Mr. Smales a portion of a departmental or office Minute which he himself had written to the Military Secretary embodying his own views upon the court martial. That Minute was read by his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief,

  1617
  but he did not concur in it. The Minute was read by the Adjutant General to Mr. Smales by way of explaining to that gentleman what the ideas of the Adjutant General himself were upon the court martial. The passage that was read was to this effect—that in his (Sir James Scarlett's) opinion Mr. Smales's charge against Colonel Crawley was malicious, but perhaps not intentionally false, as Colonel Crawley, though in cantonments and on parade, was not at the time in actual command of the regiment. When the Adjutant General read this Minute to Mr. Smales, he was explaining to the latter, that in his opinion, although he might have expressly proved that Colonel Crawley was not present in command of the regiment on parade, still being present in cantonments and in actual charge of the regiment, the statement was essentially false, though Mr. Smales might not have made an intentionally false charge. But this opinion of the Adjutant General was never confirmed or adopted by the Commander-in-Chief; it never took the form of a memorandum or letter, and therefore cannot be laid upon the table. If, however, the hon. Gentleman should ask me whether I will lay on the table the Minute of the Adjutant General, my reply would be that it is contrary to all precedent that a departmental or office minute should be laid upon the table, and it cannot be produced. With respect to the Question whether the proceedings of the court martial on Mr. Smales in India were submitted to the Judge Advocate General, every Member of the House knows, that as soon as they arrived in England, they were submitted to him, and he gave it as his opinion that the sentence passed by the court martial was a legal sentence.
  MR. CONINGHAM: What I asked was, were the proceedings submitted for the opinion of the Judge Advocate General?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The proceedings were submitted to the Judge Advocate General; and as he gave his opinion that the sentence passed was legal, Paymaster Smales after a time was gazetted out of the regiment. I believe I have now answered all the Questions.
  MR. CONINGHAM: I shall to-morrow ask a further Question on the subject.

NEW CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, What progress is making in the arrangement of new or additional
  1618
  Circuits, and when a Report will be made to the House; and whether any and what measures are taken to relieve the Judges from the excessive toil now imposed on them, by moans of creating additional Judges or otherwise; and, if not, what causes prevent the correction of an inconvenience to the public in the administration of justice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, his hon. Friend seemed to suppose that a Commission had issued to inquire into the subject of Circuits, and that the Government were waiting for their Report; but no Commission was in existence, and therefore no Report was being waited for. With regard to the number of the Judges, it was not at present in the contemplation of the Government to propose an increase. But it was hoped that such changes as might be proposed would have the effect of relieving the unequal pressure of judicial business which now existed, and of enabling the Judges in their present number, without being unduly pressed, to administer justice satisfactorily in their respective Courts. Some changes seemed desirable and expedient, and for such as could not be effected without the aid of Parliament a Bill would be brought forward during the present Session, should there appear any reasonable prospect of it passing into law.

THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to certain negotiations said to be pending between the Hudson's Bay Company and an Association called the International Credit Company for the sale of a largo portion of British North America; and whether the Government have recognised or sanctioned the bargain; and, if so, with what reservations or restrictions; also whether any Correspondence has taken place with the Government of Canada on the subject, and whether any steps have ever been taken to ascertain the legality of the powers claimed and exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company, in respect to territory, taxation, trade, and government, by a reference of the same to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as advised by the Law Officers of the Crown in 1849, in compliance with an Address voted by the House of Commons in that Session of Parliament?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that with respect to the proposed sale, not of a large portion of British North America, but of the stock of the Hudson's Bay Company, the Government had no official information which went beyond that which had appeared in the public prints. That information consisted only of a letter from the Chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company; but his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had had intimation that in the course of the present week he would be put in possession of further and complete information, which he would 'have before him when he made his intended statement on British North America. If his hon. Friend would repeat his Question in the course of a few days, he would be able to give him an answer. With respect to the last Question, if the hon. Gentleman referred to the Parliamentary Paper of 1850, he would find what took place in pursuance of an Address of the House of Commons. Earl Grey, then Colonial Minister, called on the Hudson's Bay Company to furnish the Colonial Office with a statement of their claims with respect to territory and other matters. That statement was furnished, and submitted by Earl Grey to the Law Officers of the Crown—Sir John Jervis and Sir John Romilly. They reported that in their opinion the Hudson's Bay Company was in legal possession of the powers and rights they claimed, and that the proper mode of testing the validity of their Charter would be by petition addressed by private persons to the Crown. The parties interested in the matter did not think right to take that course, and Earl Grey did not think it was the duty of the Government to institute such proceedings on their behalf.

PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS) BILL— [BILL 192.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, it might be in the recollection of the House that on a former stage of the Bill he had asked some questions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, without obtaining any answer, and that subsequently on the same day the House went into Committee on the Bill. If he were asked why he did not then repeat his questions, his answer would be that an appeal was made to the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Lancashire, setting forth that any further discussion at that
  1620
  time would interfere with the progress of the Bill, and in deference to that appeal he abstained from pursuing his inquiry. The questions to which he called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman were—first, whether he considered that the security to be given for the money to be advanced under the Bill was of such a nature as to render it quite certain that the money would be ultimately repaid, as otherwise the result would be, that portions of England in which, judging from the comparative state of the poor rates, still greater distress existed, would be virtually taxed for the relief of Lancashire. Secondly, whether, in his opinion, the distress existing in Lancashire was not to be attributed quite as much to overtrading as to the deficient supply of cotton. If that were so, the whole position of the case would be altered, and the House, though they might be prepared to come forward in times of great distress to relieve a portion of the population which might be suffering in consequence, were bound to ask the Government whether they had taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the evil. The third question was, whether the Bill would be a permanent source of relief; or whether it would be merely a temporary measure, and that the House would be called on in the end to resort to emigration? To the latter question, the only answer he obtained was, that in a later stage the hon. Member opposite would bring forward the subject of emigration, and that on that occasion he would express his opinion upon it. He (Mr. Bentinck), however, thought the House was entitled to information on all three points at an earlier period of the proceedings. The only answer he did elicit from the right hon. Gentleman was a somewhat—he would not say discourteous—but a somewhat supercilious taunt directed against his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and himself, that they were the only two men left in the House, or perhaps in England, who still advocated the principles of protection. As the right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to throw out that taunt, he would not probably think he (Mr. Bentinck) was going out of his way if he offered an observation in reply to it. The right hon. Gentleman must have studied very little of the history of his own country not to know that during the last few months there had been two most remarkable converts to the principles of protection. Why, in the last eight or nine months the hon. Member for Birmingham

  1621
  (Mr. Bright) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) had publicly, avowedly, and advisedly advocated the principles of protection. The hon. Member for Birmingham boldly advocated the exemption of the cotton fields of India from all taxation till such time as they should be able to supply English manufacturers with cotton at remunerative prices. The hon. Member for Rochdale recommended that the cotton mills of Lancashire should be exempt from taxation till they were again at work with profit. He (Mr. Bentinck) claimed, then, these two hon. Members as converts to the doctrine of protection; and he would remind the House that the protection which these hon. Members asked for was of a widely different kind from that which he himself advocated. The protection that he advocated was protection against foreign competition; the protection which those hon. Members asked for was protection of the most mischievous and objectionable kind—namely, protection of one class of their countrymen against another. For one, he had always been of opinion that protection would be again called for, and that the first cry for it would come from Manchester; but he must confess that he had never been so sanguine as to expect that the cry would be raised so early as 1863, and, above all, that it would be raised by the hon. Members for Birmingham and Rochdale. But did the right hon. Gentleman, who taunted the hon. Member for Devonport and himself with standing alone in their belief in protection, himself believe in the existence of the large number of sincere free-traders that he talked about? Giving the right hon. Gentleman perfect credit for sincerity, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was he (Mr. Villiers), and not the hon. Member for Devonport and himself, that formed the exception. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described the whole position in the happiest manner. A few years ago in discussing the Treaty of Paris, he told the House that every man, without exception, was a free-trader, but that there was no free-trader without his exception, for that every man was a free-trader except in the commodity in which he himself dealt. Did the right hon. Gentleman believe that the sudden conversion to the principles of free trade that occurred in 1846 were sincere conversions? Did he believe that the still more sudden and remarkable conversions that occurred in 1852, when noble Lords and right hon.
  1622
  Gentlemen voted that to be wise, just, and beneficial, which they had always theretofore denounced as unwise, unjust, and prejudicial to the welfare of the country, were honest conversions in half a dozen hours? No. Those noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen were converted by the threat of expulsion from office; and there was no kind of conversion that such threat would not produce. [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman laughed; but he knew that the term "free trade" was a rank absurdity, and for this reason—it never did, it never would, and never could exist. He knew that it meant nothing more nor less than a national bankruptcy. Believing the subject to be of vital importance, he felt himself justified in asking of the right hon. Gentleman clear and distinct answers to the three questions which he had that evening asked a second time.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he did not rise to discuss the question of free trade, and, indeed, he thought the right hon. Gentleman bad made a great mistake in introducing it. He rose to express a wish that some Member of the Government would tell them what was to be done with the unemployed factory operatives in Lancashire and Cheshire during the ensuing winter, and who was to be responsible for their condition? A fortnight ago the Central Committee met in Manchester, and Mr. Farnall, the special Commissioner employed by the Government to inquire into the distress, made a statement of a most alarming character. He stated that during the ensuing winter about 400,000 men, women, and children would be out of employment in the cotton districts of Lancashire and Cheshire alone, and that, by the Public Works Bill then passing through the House, not more than 27,000 adults would find employment, giving the means of subsistence to 82,000 men, women, and children. As many as 318,000 would therefore have to be kept out of the poor rates or by the aid of the Treasury. He (Mr. Ferrand) had, on four different occasions, asked the President of the Poor Law Board to give him the number of unemployed unmarried women in the factory districts who had formerly gained a living at the mills. The right hon. Gentleman said at first that he would try to get Returns on this head, then that it would be some time before they were ready, next that there was some difficulty in procuring them, because a great number of single women had never received parochial relief but had been maintained by private subscriptions; and lastly, that the

  1623
  clerk to the Central Committee at Manchester had undertaken to see whether the information could be obtained. Now, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had done all he could to get those Returns, and that he would produce them if he had them; but he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had been deceived in the matter. He received, on Saturday, a letter from an active Member of one of the relief committees, stating that there was no difficulty in ascertaining the number of the unemployed single women, because sewing schools were established in nearly all the manufacturing towns, where young women in receipt of relief either from the committees or the Poor Law Guardians, are obliged to attend; and at all such schools registers of the names, ages, &c. were kept, as well as whether the attendants were married or single. If this Return, his correspondent added, were not in the hands of the Central Committee, it could easily be procured by them from the district committees—from such towns as Blackburn, Burnley, Ashton, &c.—and would give a good idea of the percentage throughout the whole of the manufacturing districts. He understood, from private information, that the number of single women out of employment in the manufacturing districts was immense, and he suspected that it had been concealed, in order that the public might not learn the present alarming state of affairs in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Rochdale informed the House the other day that the next winter would be worse than the last, that the Bill before the House would not remedy the evil, that the savings of the people were gone, that the credit of the people was stopped, and the public subscriptions were at an end. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asking for the £1,500,000 to be expended under the Bill, told the House there was no present prospect of a supply of cotton from America; and he further said that next February an application would be made for a further £1,500,000 of money; but he did not add one word as to what was to become of the unemployed during the coming winter. Not only had they 318,000 persons on the books of the Poor Law Guardians; but they had an immense number of single women kept by private subscriptions from being starved to death. The money to be expended in Lancashire and Cheshire under the Bill amounted to only about £1 a head, and there was no chance of a further national subscription. Mr. Rawlinson, in his Report to the
  1624
  Poor Law Board, warned them that the present system was most demoralizing to the able-bodied men who were out of work. What, then, was to become of that large population if Parliament were prorogued without any further steps being taken to provide for them? It was not his wish to hold out any threat, or to utter a single word that might excite ill-feeling in the country. He had been repeatedly requested to attend meetings of operatives in Lancashire, to hear what they had to say for themselves, and had always declined. He had told them plainly, that if they broke the laws, they must take the consequences; and he repeated now from his place in Parliament what he had often said out of doors, that he was prepared to do his duty as a citizen if any violence were attempted in Yorkshire, as in 1842 and 1848. But he earnestly begged of that House, knowing as they did how nobly and how patiently the unemployed people had borne their sufferings, to take their case into consideration; for if those poor factory operatives were to remain in their present state of distress for another winter, thousands and tens of thousands of them would be sent to their graves. He, therefore, entreated that House, whatever were the consequences, to do their duty, to act honestly, mercifully, and kindly to these poor factory operatives, to give them the means to a certain extent of emigrating, to enable them to work at their daily labour, and not to keep them in a state of semi-starvation—in short, to act in such a way towards the factory operatives that the whole working population of England might feel, that when they brought their distresses before that House, they would not only be listened to patiently, but that they would meet with the redress they deserved.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS, in reply to the remark made by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), begged to say, that nothing could have been further from his intention than to show a want of courtesy towards that hon. Gentleman. The fact was, he did not rise to reply to the hon. Gentleman on a former occasion because he understood that the principle of the Bill was approved of by him, and that as regarded the policy of free trade, on which he and the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) had largely descanted, he collected from what fell from the hon. Member for Devonport that he intended, on an early day, to bring on a discussion on the policy of protection and free trade. He did not dispute the right

  1625
  of the hon. Member to adhere to his views in favour of protection; but he thought, that as time was precious, the sooner this Bill was permitted to become law the better; he would therefore proceed to answer the questions put to him by the hon. Member for West Norfolk. The first was whether he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) considered the security offered upon these loans was ample, and whether it was probable that they would be repaid. That was a matter for the Public Works Commissioners to consider, and it would be their duty not to advance any money unless it was so; but the Commissioners had already stated that the security would be ample. He had not, indeed, prepared the Bill without consulting with them on that point, and he had not, indeed, himself the least doubt that it would be adequate. He believed, that if the hon. Gentleman would only take the trouble himself to examine into the subject, he would find the security more than sufficient. The money to be advanced was never to exceed one year's assessable value of the property in the place where it was to be applied; and the district itself, where these advances would alone be applicable, included an area in which there were 2,000,000 of population, and the ratable value of the property was £5,000,000 annually. Ample powers were given by the Bill to recover the amount lent upon the rates: there would be power to levy a rate if none were made; and if the rates were not paid, the property itself could be made available for their payment: the security, therefore, was unquestionable. The next question was, whether he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had made inquiry as to the cause of the distress, and whether he had not satisfied himself that it arose, in great measure, from overtrading on the part of the millowners; and whether, if it was caused mainly by overtrading, the Government was prepared to take some steps to prevent the recurrence of overtrading in future. He might say that he did not think it was especially his duty to inquire into the cause of the distress. His particular province was rather to satisfy himself as to the fact whether there was a great mass of our fellow-countrymen in a state requiring relief. Even if he had penetrated further, and found there was such a thing as overtrading, he should not have been prepared to say that the unemployed operatives should not be assisted. It was sufficient for him to know the proximate cause of the distress—namely,
  1626
  that the mills where the people used to find employment had suddenly ceased to work, or were not working full time, and which had been caused not by any fault of the people, but from the want of the raw material. But what did the hon. Member mean by overtrading? He ought to have been more explicit—he used the word as if it explained itself—but he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) hardly understood what it meant, or what the hon. Member thought it meant. Before the Civil War in America stopped the cotton supply, he could see nothing that could be objected to. The mills were all working full time, and a vast population were ail in full employment in consequence; there was a great demand for labour, and good prices were paid for it; the markets at home were good, and abroad they never were better. As an invariable consequence of this state of things, the agricultural interest was prosperous, the well-employed operatives becoming, as usual, better consumers of their produce. There was no anticipation of mischief till the raw cotton ceased to arrive in the quantity and at the price it had done; when, of course, from the prices rising, the markets were everywhere affected, and the consumption of goods diminished. What, then, was meant by overtrading? The hon. Gentleman always seemed to have in view some body or corporation of men whom he did not like, and who he thought were doing nil the mischief. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) believed he meant the millowners. They seemed to the hon. Member to be the incarnation of mischief. They were always doing something rash or oppressive. They never seemed to be conducting their business to the hon. Member's satisfaction. What were the hon. Gentleman's opinions about trade? If the merchant gave the manufacturer an order, was he to refuse to execute it for fear of overtrading? He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had heard the expression used before now in relation to agriculture. Sometimes it was that there had been too much corn grown, and that food was too cheap; and sometimes that there had been too much game preserved, which possibly might be the case. For his (Mr. C. P. Villiers') own part, he disbelieved in much that was said about this overtrading. He saw no proof of it. The only cause of the distress was the absence of the raw material; and when it was again imported in sufficient quantity, the trade would revive. He looked forward to its revival. He should not object to a revival

  1627
  of what the hon. Gentleman called overtrading, if it was attended with the same prosperity as before. The third question asked of him was whether this was to be a permanent source of relief. It was never intended to be permanent; it was simply a temporary measure intended to meet a temporary distress; it was not introduced to put an end to the distress, but to mitigate it, and he hoped it would prove successful. With respect to the relief the measure might afford, there was some uncertainty in the mind of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand), who was, however, not quite consistent in his criticism. The burden of his speech was that they had not done enough in the measure, but yet he had said on several occasions that he was satisfied the Bill would he inoperative, and that the money would not be employed. He (Mr. Ferrand) wished that money might be granted for emigration, and said that not half the amount proposed to be lent would be taken up for works. There might be a difference of opinion on the subject; but taking the views of gentlemen well entitled to confidence, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) thought it more likely that the whole of the money would he applied for to execute works, and that a great number of operatives would be employed. That very day he had received an intimation from the town of Blackburn that they intended to apply for £104,000, to carry out works which had been long needed, and which would give great employment to unskilled labour; and that was only one town in a district comprising twenty-seven unions, and containing a population of two millions. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted to complain of something, and had said that the whole of the money would be speedily used up, and that there would not be enough, he would have been nearer the mark. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of what work the operatives would undertake, and what they would not undertake; but there was reason to believe that they would readily engage in the work in question, and that though somewhat rougher than that which they had been used to, a great many would be employed. The hon. Member for Devonport sought to impute to him some inaccuracy as to the number of persons who would find employment. Now, he could, of course, give no accurate calculation of that number; all he could give was the opinion of competent authorities, who, having looked at the state of the towns of Lancashire, and ascertained what
  1628
  works were positively required for health and convenience of the inhabitants there, came to the conclusion that enough might be advantageously done to find employment for every operative out of employment. But if only a certain number would be employed on these works, others would seek work out of the district, and he believed that at once their labour would be much needed for the coming harvest. At present, the number of the unemployed was decreasing. About 4,000 a week had been taken off the lists lately and got into employment; and when perhaps it was seen, as he firmly believed it would be, that the people were willing and able to work, whether in the street or in the field, he hoped and believed that some of the proprietors would carry out operations in drainage and other improvements which were much required to give their property additional value, and afford work for the unemployed. That would account for a very large number. The hon. Member for Devonport had tried to alarm them; he had not exactly threatened, but warned the Home Secretary about what might occur in the winter if some greater provision were not made, he seems to be expecting that the peace will be broken. He did not know what people might say under excitement and the influence of inflammatory addresses; but as for there not being sufficient funds to keep the people from starving, he ventured to say that there was no ground whatever for that apprehension. This was not the only measure by which the distress was to be met. He meant also to propose the continuance of the Act enabling the guardians of the poor to borrow money if the rates exceeded three shillings in the pound. Again, there was no limit to the charge which the guardians might make upon the common fund of the union, for purposes of emigration, if they thought proper to resort to that mode of relief; and it was also known that there was a large balance remaining from the contributions of all parts of the country. There was, therefore, not the smallest ground for alarming the people as to the existence of means for their support. The great object was that they should be supported by wages rather than by alms, and he believed that he was proposing a measure by which that would be done. It was far better, in his opinion, that work should be procured for them here, and if possible in their own neighbourhood, and that would also be more economical, than sending poor creatures out

  1629
  to Colonies of which they knew nothing themselves, and of which some of their friends did not know much more. He had never said that this Bill would do more than remedy a portion of the evil; but he trusted that if the House would now allow the experiment to be made, it would realize the favourable expectations which had been formed of it.
  MR. FERRANDexplained that he had not made a single statement, except upon the authority of Mr. Farnall, and therefore it was most unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to charge him with making alarming representations.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he gladly assented to the principle of the Bill. It proposed to give the operatives work and not the workhouse. He remembered asking the Government of the day, when the New Poor Law Act was under discussion in that House, whether it was meant, that if distress should at any time fall upon the manufacturing districts, the operatives must go inside the workhouse before they could get relief, and the answer given was that such was the intention of the measure. He was glad to find that that rule was not, in the present case, to be adhered to. He did not object to the present Bill, but it behoved them to see that it was accompanied by proper safeguards. Among other precautions which it was desirable to adopt for the due repayment of these loans, he thought there ought to be a clear and separate account kept of these transactions. He regretted that there was no provision to that effect in the Bill. Again, the chief responsibility for granting these loans and carrying out the Bill ought, in his opinion, to rest with the Finance Minister. The Poor Law Board was too often mentioned in the measure, and it was something new to trust that Department with the handling of the money of the nation. He thought the various relief committees in Lancashire had done their work admirably; yet he hoped they would take care not to interfere with the organized bodies of the country, otherwise they might paralyse the action of the boards of guardians and other local boards. He did not think the Bill placed the security for the loans quite so clearly as it ought to do. It was put alternatively upon the rates or the property. It should, in his opinion, be upon both the rates and the property; otherwise, if the rates fell through, the public might lose the foundation of its security for repayment. Another important point was, that the measure introduced the novel and
  1630
  somewhat dangerous principle of lending money to private individuals for private improvements. He wished to know, therefore, whether the local boards were to give the first security, and the private persons to whom the money was lent to give the second security. He thought that ought to be the case, because great caution was needed in this matter. If the capital of the nation was to be advanced for such works, every care ought to be taken to guard the nation against loss.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was quite true that the Bill contemplated, very wisely, as he thought, large grants of outdoor relief for the people of Lancashire. It would have been a great misfortune, in his opinion, not only to Lancashire, but to the country at large, if an emergency like the present, requiring to be met by a great deal of outdoor relief, had occurred at a time when the new Poor Law Act was passed—a time when the people had been demoralized by a vicious system, and when the application of a stringent corrective was necessary. Now, however, that the principles of that measure had been well established, and were thoroughly understood in the country, relaxations of those principles, under great pressure, which might before have been dangerous, might now very well be both wise and safe. With regard to the accounts connected with pecuniary transactions, the Government had two objects to keep in view—first, that any transactions of the kind proposed should be carried out in the most economical manner; and secondly, that all the information connected with them should at all times beat the command of Parliament. The Government did not propose to commence by contracting any loan whatever, for, like the Vote for fortifications, proposed three years previously by his noble Friend, the whole charge would be thrown, in the first instance, upon the Consolidated Fund, and the loan would only be taken to replenish the Consolidated Fund when it had been too largely drawn upon by draughts for Lancashire. He was sure his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Willoughby) did not wish the Government to go into the market for money which they did not want, or until they had ascertained that the public balances would be insufficient. Separate accounts would be kept of the advances, and it would, therefore, be competent for any hon. Member of Parliament to obtain all the information he thought fit, regarding the application and payment of the money. The hon. Baronet

  1631
  thought there was one usurpation on the part of the Poor Law Board of the functions of the Treasury. In point of fact, there was a combination of several authorities under the Bill. The Treasury had to satisfy itself of the general wisdom of the proposal, and the Poor Law Board to regulate the details and method of its application. After the Treasury had given its assent, the most important portion of the financial duties would devolve upon the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, and the House, he was sure, would continue in the hands of that body the duties which they had discharged with so much prudence and advantage for the last thirty or forty years. It would be satisfactory to the hon. Baronet to know, that as far as the Government was concerned, the security was really upon rates and property. The local Boards were responsible to the Government for the entire amount, although, as between them and private individuals, there might be a different understanding.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he did not think the discussion one of a very practical character; but as it merely had the effect of deferring another discussion, initiated with a view of robbing the Irish Church, he was not disposed very strongly to object to it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, he thought, had rather misrepresented the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk. His hon. Friend was sceptical, not about the ability of Lancashire to repay the loan, but about her willingness to do so. A few years ago large sums were advanced for the relief of Irish distress. No one doubted the ability of the Irish proprietors to repay those advances, but they preferred not to do so, and the House remitted the debt. If the House agreed to grant small loans, larger ones would be asked for; and he feared that the precedent of the Irish loan would be remembered and acted on in Lancashire. [Colonel WILSON PATTEN: No, no!] His hon. Friend said "No, no!" Borrowers always said that, but he entertained a different opinion. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by over-trading. The answer to that question was exceedingly easy. The manufacturers had glutted the market by providing a far greater quantity of cotton goods than they could reasonably suppose would be sold; and if the cessation of the cotton supply had not taken place, there must have been a crisis The same results took place in agricultural operations when a greater amount was ex pended on the production of crops than
  1632
  the return which they could be expected to yield.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, the hon. Gentleman opposite was mistaken in supposing there was any intention to "rob the Irish Church." The Irish Chinch had been robbed long ago, and it was only the English garrison in Ireland that was undergoing revision. The hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with that erroneous assertion, also had a fling at Irish distress. But if a loan of £1,200,000 or £1,500,000 had been proposed for Ireland, all sorts of lectures would have been delivered about Irish jobs. It was true that six millions were sent to Ireland, but that amount had been more than repaid. Ireland suffered to the extent of six times six millions by the repeal of the Corn Laws, and during the famine years she had to pay fancy prices for the Indian meal and breadstuffs sent into that country. Their Lancashire Chancellor of the Exchequer talked a great deal about remitting the Consolidated Annuities, but he had taken good care to repay himself fivefold by his handling of the income tax. He (Mr. Scully) had no objection to grant any assistance to Lancashire which might be required. He would rather give five times the amount which was asked for than throw away money on that great job at the West End which was being perpetrated in the interests of the aristocratic classes. But there was no check upon expenditure. Parliament had degenerated into a debating club on foreign affairs—and a miserable debating club into the bargain. It discussed everything, and did nothing. Why was nothing done for Ireland? Because there were no Irish representatives in the Government. There were Lancashire men in the Cabinet who felt and acknowledged the distress. But Ireland had a Chief Secretary who knew nothing of the country and cared less, who contradicted all the evidence of distress in it, and who did his best to add insult to the misfortunes of Ireland. He, for one, had no wish to rob the Irish Church; it was such a hideous scandal that it was the interest of Irish Roman Catholic Members to keep it. The Lancashire weavers were unfit for emigration; and if it were to be tried, it should be in Ireland. They were all agreed in that, except right hon. Gentlemen on the front row on that side of the House, and the sooner they were removed the better.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
SEIZURE OF BRITISH VESSELS.
SUPPLY—REPORT.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  Resolutions reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolutions be now read a second time."
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the stoppage of the trade between Great Britain and Matamoras. He wished to call the attention of the Government to the repeated seizure of British vessels by American cruisers, and the decisions of the American Prize Courts upon those seizures. He hoped to be able to elicit from the hon. and learned Solicitor General a definition of what British merchants said they bad not been able to elicit from the Foreign Office—a definition of what the Government considered to be legal and lawful traffic. Free pratique, as he understood it, was when a vessel, without any relation to the nature of her cargo, was going from one neutral port to another neutral port, under a neutral flag, and bonâ fide shaping her course to the port to which she was destined. He believed that that was so clear and unquestioned a principle of international law that he should not have thought it necessary to call attention to the subject, but for the extraordinary language used by the Foreign Minister in another place. Earl Russell on the 26th of April last said—
  "It may be that complaints have been made in this country which are not without foundation it may be that United States officers have not observed these rules, but have gone beyond the directions that they have received; it maybe that they have seized vessels that were really going to Matamoras or some neutral port without sufficient evidence that the cargo was of a contraband character."
  He (Mr. Peacocke) repeated that no neutral vessels sailing from one neutral port to another were liable to be captured, whatever the nature of their cargo might be They were only liable to be captured if their papers were fictitious, and if the neutral port described as the port of destination was not the real one. If he under stood the noble Earl, however, the position of the Government was that they could no enter into the particular case of each individulal vessel, but that each case must rest on its own merits, and be decided by the American Prize Courts. It was there fore the duty of the House to see how the law was administered in those courts. He
  1634
  confessed that he greatly distrusted these Prize Courts as they were at that time constituted; and when he had stated the facts of one or two cases, the House would, he thought, consider that he had grounds for his distrust. He would first take the case of the Adela. The Adela belonged to a Liverpool firm. She was seized and taken before the Prize Court at Key West. The Judge asked both sides if they would appeal. They said they would. He then said, that though there was no case, he should send it to a higher tribunal, and so condemned the vessel, after having detained it nine months and opened the mail-bags and letters. He (Mr. Peacocke) had been informed that those facts had been verified before a public notary, and a copy of the statement sent to the Foreign Office. In the case of the Pearl all the ship's papers were in order, and there was no ground of suspicion to justify the detention. The Federal officer who boarded the ship and inspected her papers declared to the captain that the same were in due order, that he should hoist a signal for him to proceed, instead of which, after returning to the Tioga, a crew was sent on board which took possession and conveyed the Pearl to Key West, the captain and crew being kept under restraint for three weeks, and not permitted to communicate with the shore. They were then taken and separately examined before the Prize Commissioner, and the pilot, on his arrival at Nassau, stated that he was offered 600 dollars if he would swear that he saw a Confederate flag on board the Pearl. The case was brought before the Prize Court at Key West, when the Judge refused to adjudicate for want of sufficient evidence to condemn the vessel, and the mate and portion of the crew, at that time in Liverpool, would affirm that he openly stated that there was no case against the vessel, though it would be bettor for the Federal Government to pay double the value for her, as she was so fine a vessel. The master and crew were all turned out of the vessel, and she was left at Key West without any one in charge to keep the machinery from injury, which would suffer very material damage. Had the vessel arrived in Nassau in due course, she could have been sold for a large sum. The House might wonder why the Federal Government were so anxious to keep the Pearl. The reason was because she was the swiftest vessel in the Clyde, and could make twenty knots an hour. The statement

  1635
  made by Messrs. Johnson, her owners, in regard to the Pearl was borne out by the proceedings before the Prize Court itself. He would not trouble the House by reading the whole of the judgment, but he would call attention to one portion of it. The Judge said—
  "It does seem to me that the testimony as it stands, taking all the facts together, does raise a very strong presumption that the owner was sending out this vessel to Nassau with the settled purpose that she should be employed in running between that port and the ports of Charleston and Wilmington, in violation of the blockade. There is not a fact or a tittle of testimony in the case to rebut that presumption. But the vessel being captured when really going from one neutral port to another, I am unwilling to pass a decree of condemnation without giving to the claimant the time and all the facilities he may desire to produce evidence to rebut the powerful presumptions against him. He has it in his power, if innocent, to clear up the whole matter by his own oath and by the oaths of others connected with the contemplated business of this vessel. If she was going out to Nassau for an innocent and lawful purpose, he can show it. He can state on oath and show what trade or business he intended she should be engaged in."
  Now he (Mr. Peacocke) wished to ask whether it was not introducing a new principle that a vessel should be condemned upon what the Judge acknowledged to be not conclusive but only strong presumptive evidence, and that the defendant should be called upon to prove a negative, or run the risk of his vessel being condemned. He now came to the case of the Dolphin, and to the extraordinary law which was laid down by the Judge of the Prize Court in her case. The Judge said—
  "Now, it is hardly creditable that this vessel was to end her voyage at Nassau. For what was she going, and how was she to be employed there? It is not suggested that she was going there for sale. Was she to be employed in making short voyages suited to her capacity to and from blockaded ports, in like manner as so many or all the other steamers of about her size which have lately come out from England to Nassau have been employed in making until captured? Except such voyages, it would be difficult to think of any trade she could engage in at Nassau or at any other port in the West Indies by which she could defray the expenses of running. What was to be done with the cargo?
  He (Mr. Peacocke) wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General to that question, and to ask whether a vessel could be condemned on the destination and nature of its cargo—
  "It was to be delivered to Chambers and Karr. But what were they to do with it? Nassau furnishes no market for any such cargo as this. It is a small town; the adjacent islands possess but a small population dependent on it for supplies.
  1636
  Probably not three merchant steamers ever arrived at that port from any part of the world until after the present blockade was established, except the regular Government mail steamers. Was her cargo to be sold in Nassau, including the 920 rifles and the 2,240 swords? These are questions which it is not unreasonable that a Prize Court should ask, and expect some reasonable solution of, in a case like this."
  Such were the principles upon which that vessel was condemned. There was no evidence that those vessels were going to run the blockade; they might have been going to sell their contraband of war elsewhere—to Mexico, for instance, or to the South American States, where hostilities were being carried on. The Judge went on to say—
  "But there was a third letter, which was not intended to be shown to the cruisers, dated four days later, and addressed to Messrs. Chambers and Karr. Its contents were probably unknown to the master; for had he known the contents, it is quite likely it would not have fallen into the hands of the captors. It reads as follows:—
  'Per steamer Dolphin.
  'Liverpool, Feb. 10.
  'Messrs. Chambers and Karr, Nassau.
  'Dear Sirs,—I addressed you on the 6th of February, for a certain reason. I now beg to cancel those instructions entirely, and, of course, my vessel is not to be sold to any one. I shall be sending you a power of attorney for certain purposes by next mail this week. I hope you will be able to get some more goods on, instead of taking any off at good rates.
  I am, dear Sir, yours truly,
  'W. J. GRAZEBROOK.
  'P.S.—I send various letters to forward.'
  So it appears that Mr. Grazebrook did not intend that his vessel should be sold at Nassau, nor that she should end her voyage there. She was to go from Nassau somewhere. More goods were to be put on instead of taking any off. The studied effort to conceal the ulterior destination, the swords and rifles found on board and denominated in the freight list 'hardware'"—just as if the United States herself did not always do something of the kind—"the almost certain impossibility of employing a steamer of this class and size in any trade in this part of the world by which she could earn her expenses even, other than in the trade and business of violating the blockade, all point with unerring certainty to Charleston or Wilmington as the ulterior destination of the vessel and cargo. Condemnation of the ship and cargo follow of course."
  Well, the condemnation of the ship and the cargo followed. New, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what evidence there was on the face of that judgment that that vessel was intended to run the blockade. She might have been intended for some other places where war was being carried on. The House would see, when law of that kind was administered by the Prize Courts of the United States, what distrust of those Courts must prevail in

  1637
  the mercantile world. There could be no better touchstone of that feeling than the rates of insurance at Lloyd's; and when they found those rates raised from two to twenty guineas, he thought it showed the amount of confidence which the Prize Courts of the United States inspired, and also the degree of confidence inspired by the vigorous action of Her Majesty's Government in guarding the interests of the commerce of this country. He had been assured by an eminent mercantile firm who had recently had to insure £10,000 on a steam vessel, that, in addition to the ordinary risk, they had to pay a further war risk of six guineas, although the ship was going to a neutral port and their goods were warranted British goods and not contraband of war—to such a condition had the conduct of Her Majesty's Government depressed the trade of this country. Under those circumstances, the House would not be surprised to learn that the trade of this country was being transferred to other Powers. They found from a letter addressed by Earl Russell to Mr. Adams how much better Spanish and Danish vessels were treated by the United States Government than our own. Earl Russell, writing to Mr. Adams on the 19th of April 1862, says—
  "The course taken by the United States Government in the case of the Labium is all the more to be regretted, since it appears from papers which have been communicated to Congress that in the case of two neutral vessels, the one a Spanish the other a Danish ship, which had been unjustifiably captured, the United States Government has not only released such vessels without sending them before a Prize Court, but has also consented to pay compensation to those interested therein."
  Mr. Adams did not contradict that statement. Quite the contrary; he admitted it. He says—
  "It comes presented to me in so many forms of evidence that I cannot avoid the painful conviction that a systematic plan, founded en the intent to annul Her Majesty's Proclamation by steady efforts to violate the blockade, through vessels either actually British or else sailing under British colours, has been in operation in this island for many months, and becomes more rather than less extensive with the progress of time. If, therefore, it happens that a Spanish or a Danish ship, when seized, is more readily released than a British ship, the reason must be found not in any disposition to be more partial to those nations, so much as in the fact that they have been incomparably less involved in the suspicion of attempting illegitimate methods of trade."
  If the case rested upon that admission of the American Minister, it would be very
  1638
  strong; but he (Mr. Peacocke) would call attention to an Act of Congress passed in the year 1862–3, cap. 86, section 1—
  "Be it enacted, &c., That whenever any prize property shall be condemned in any district or circuit court, or shall at any stage of the proceedings, be found by the court to be perishing, perishable, or liable to deteriorate or depreciate, or whenever the costs of keeping the same shall be disproportionate to its value…. it shall be the duty of the Court to order a sale thereof, and no appeal shall operate to prevent the making or execution of such order."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: That is the law in this country also.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that might be, but the Act he had quoted allowed the district Judges to decide in those cases; and as in many of them the goods were contraband of war, and what the Americans stood most in need of, they had a direct interest in selling articles of that kind in such a place as Key West, where no possible competition could exist, at prices ruinous to the owners and most advantageous to themselves. There was but one way of proceeding in such cases, and that was by enforcing against the American Government very heavy damages. But he was surprised to find that Her Majesty's Government had in limine utterly repudiated the doctrine of damages. In the case of the Magicienne, which even an American Prize Court could not condemn, the owners claimed £500 damages for the seizure, which was pronounced by the Court of Key West to be illegal, and their total claim for seizure, loss of time, stores consumed, &c., was £2,220. But, in a letter from the Foreign Office, signed by Mr. Hammond, the owners were informed that Earl Russell
  "cannot instruct Lord Lyons to put forward, on your behalf, a claim for £500 as 'damages for the seizure of the vessel;' neither can his Lordship instruct Lord Lyons to claim on account of demurrage (under which term would be included the wages of the men, their provisions, and the loss of interest to the owners) more than £161, with the addition of £65 for stores consumed by the prize crew, making in the whole £226."
  The Foreign Office, therefore, distinctly repudiated the doctrine of damages. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) also the other evening stated that the British Government would not attempt to enforce damages against the United States. Having proved to the House that by reason of an Act of Congress the cargoes of vessels not yet adjudicated on were placed at the absolute mercy of the Judge of a local court, that the Government of the United States

  1639
  had a direct interest in the sale of the cargoes at prices ruinous to the shipping merchants, that the only check for these proceedings was the enforcement of damages against the Government of the United States, and that Her Majesty's Government totally repudiated that doctrine of damages, he thought that he had shown enough to convince the House, the natural guardian of the interests of British merchants and of the honour of the English flag, that they ought to watch with a vigilant and jealous eye the acts of the American Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, any Papers which Her Majesty's Government may have received from the British Consul at Key West, or from elsewhere, touching the proceedings of American Prize Courts,"—(Mr. Peacocke,)
  —instead thereof.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that if the hon. Member had moved for papers connected with the case of any particular ship, Her Majesty's Government would willingly have considered how far such papers could without inconvenience be produced during pending communications; but when a Motion in terms so general as that of the hon. Member was made, it would be quite impossible for the Government to accede to it without interfering in the most inconvenient way with existing negotiations. The hon. Gentleman commenced his observations by referring to a passage in one of Earl Russell's speeches, in which the noble Lord spoke of a case of contraband as a case which might be a ground of seizure, though the ship was ostensibly bound to Matamoras, or a port of that description. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think, that according to the existing law of nations, there could be no sufficient ground for taking and adjudicating upon a ship having an apparent destination, according to its papers, to Matamoras. The hon. Gentleman seemed not to be entirely aware of the precise position of the port of Matamoras, and it was essentially necessary, in order to understand the bearing of all these questions which they repeatedly heard about the trade of Matamoras, that they should know what the position of Matamoras was. It was a frontier town in Mexico, lying on one side of the river, on the other side of which was Texas. A ship putting into the
  1640
  river of Matamoras, and lying in the river roadstead, would, in consequence of the state of the tide and wind, be constantly obliged to lie on the Texan side. It was perfectly clear that the crew of such a ship, having the destination of Matamoras in its papers, would, if they had any instructions to land their cargoes, whether consisting of arms or other descriptions of contraband articles, whenever opportunity occurred, on the Texan side of the river, have great facilities for obeying their orders. At the same time, when there was nothing in the ship's papers to show that it was intended as a matter of course to land the goods on the Texan side of the river, it was perfectly impossible to say that the contraband on board the ship bound to the river Matamoras was not intended for the neutral side. The doctrine of law was, that if it was intended to land the cargo on the neutral side, and even if the cargo might afterwards by other means find its way to the Confederate States in the course of trade, that could be no ground for confiscating the vessel which originally brought it. That, however, was a doctrine admitted most distinctly by the Prize Courts of the United States, in which the hon. Gentleman had so little confidence. They had had up to that time no proof of the bad faith of those Courts, while in one case the good faith of the Prize Courts of the United States was distinctly shown—the case of the Will-o'-the-Wisp. That ship was lying in the port of Matamoras in the American waters. She was taken because it was found that munitions of war, powder and arms, were being discharged from the ship. They were, however, discharged into a lighter sent from the Mexican side, and the evident presumption consequently was that they were intended to be landed on the Mexican side. The captain prevaricated grossly, and that circumstance, according to prize law, was sufficient to place the ship in great danger. Another thing was that the gunpowder was concealed, and that led to the suspicion that it was meant that the powder, after being landed at Matamoras, should find its way across the border. Nevertheless, the Prize Court acquitted the vessel and released her. It was perfectly true that the Prize Court did not give costs and damages, and that was one of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman objected. All he could say was, that as far as damages were concerned, there never was a case of that kind where the suspicion was so great in which costs

  1641
  and damages had been given by the English Courts; and therefore, if the English Government were to insist on damages in such a case, they would be laying down a rule never acted upon by Lord Stowell under similar circumstances. Of course, it was very easy for persons on this side of the water to apply to the House of Commons without first carrying their case to that tribunal to which, by the law of nations, recourse should first be had. If a Prize Court gave a sentence not acquiesced in by the interested parties, the next course was to go to the Court of Appeal; and after that the Government of the neutral country might consider whether there was apparent injustice in the sentence pronounced; and in such case only was it consistent with the law of nations for the neutral Government to interfere. The Court of Appeal in America was the Supreme Court, which held a very high rank indeed, both for learning and impartiality, in the opinion of the world. He must remind the hon. Member, that among other inconveniences incident to a discussion like that in which they were engaged, there was the risk that he might, if the facts were within his knowledge, give utterance to statements prejudicial to cases under investigation, and with respect to which there existed the right of appeal.
  It was right that the House should know that the mode of procedure in Prize Courts was the same in America as in this country, the American system being, in fact, borrowed from England. Not long after the Declaration of Independence the American authorities received from Lord Stowell a description of the practice pursued in the English Prize Courts, and that practice had been adhered to by the Americans ever since. It gave, in the first instance, great advantage to the ship, for the evidence, in the first place, must be obtained from the ship. The papers on board, and the statements of the officers and crew, were the only evidence on which the ship could be brought before a Prize Court; and if there was not in the ship's papers matter to raise a primâ, facie case against her, no collateral evidence would be received, and she would be acquitted. On the other hand, as a sort of counterpoise to the advantage he had just mentioned, the usage prevailed, that if there were discovered on board the ship any circumstances of a grossly suspicious character, raising a strong presumption that there was something wrong, something disguised or irregular,
  1642
  the Judge was entitled to ask further proof from the ship to negative that presumption; and, if it were not produced, to condemn it. And more than that, in some eases where the circumstances were very much against the character of the vessel, the Judge might even proceed to condemn without hearing further evidence. That was undoubtedly the practice of Lord Stowell throughout the war, and the Reports of proceedings in the Prize Courts abounded with proofs of it. Therefore, when the hon. Member said, that in those cases where the evidence must be derived from the ship or her crew it ought to be as direct and conclusive as was required in other ships, he submitted a proposition which, however plausible it might sound, was entirely opposed to the practice in the Prize Courts of this country. Evidence not direct and conclusive in the ordinary sense, had been accepted in this country during the last war, as sufficient to invert the onus probandi, and to throw on the ship the necessity of exonerating herself by evidence, at the penalty of being condemned if such evidence was not forthcoming. Even when the ship, complying with that condition, did clear herself from the suspicious circumstances, yet it had been held that the very existence of those circumstances was enough to justify the capture and detention of the ship, and to deprive her of any claim to costs and damages.
  He did not intend to enter into the question of this or that ship, because, as he said before, if he were to accept what the hon. Gentleman had said, he would be accepting an ex parte statement; while, on the other hand, if he were to mention anything to the contrary, he would be prejudicing the case of the owners before the legal tribunal. He would therefore make only a few general observations on some of the cases, without going into details. And first, as to the case of the Adela. That was, he believed, the only case in which a judgment had been given which was open to exception. All that they knew about the case was, that the Judge, in condemning the ship, did not give his reasons for that decision. It had been said that the Judge had himself stated that there was no case against the ship, but that nevertheless he was determined to condemn her; and if that were established, it would be, of course, a very important circumstance. At present, however, it required confirmation. It appeared, however, (and this

  1643
  looked very like an arrangement between the parties,) that an order in that case was made by consent for the sale of the ship pending the appeal; and that circumstance led him to doubt the correctness of the representations made to the hon. Gentleman. It was, he owned, to be regretted that no reasons were given for the judgment. That was not a commendable practice: but when they were dealing with international law, it was impossible to plead as a violation of that law that which, he was sorry to say, had happened in the Prize Courts of all nations from time to time. The cause of no reasons being given might be because the case was already so clear as not to require them, or because the Judge, knowing there was to be an appeal, was unwilling to assist it by any statement of the grounds of his decision. Until they had seen the evidence—and it was not yet before them—they could not say that there was no case. It might turn out that the judgment was perfectly justifiable.
  With regard to the Pearl, the Judge held that the testimony raised a strong presumption that the vessel was intended by the owners only to touch at Nassau and then go on to break the blockade at Charleston. Now, if the owners imagined that the mere fact of the vessel touching at Nassau, when on such an expedition, exonerated her, they were very much mistaken. Whether the Judge was right or wrong in his view of the evidence, he would not discuss. He had not the means of doing so, and, even if he had, he would not avail himself of them. The next case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was the Dolphin. On board of that ship was found a large quantity of arms, which were entered, not as such, but as "hardware." She was consigned to a firm at Nassau, but a letter was discovered on board which was deemed by the Prize Court to mean that the owners did not wish the cargo to be landed at Nassau; that they would, in fact, prefer that something should be added to it rather than anything taken from it; and it was supposed that the letter contained an indication of a destination which was not avowed. The court held that there was a fair and sufficient presumption that the destination was either to a blockaded port or to some other port of the Confederate States, for the purpose of introducing contraband. With regard to that case, again, he would not go into the evidence. He would only say that the principles of
  1644
  the judgment were to be found in every volume of Lord Stowell's decisions. If the view of the Judge were borne out by the evidence, it was impossible to say that the case of the Dolphin was not a case which must be left once and for all to the consideration of the Prize Courts of the United States.
  The hon. Gentleman also complained of the high rate of insurance on British vessels going to Nassau. Now, it was well known to everybody that there was a largo contraband trade between this country and America by way of Nassau, and it was absurd to pretend to shut their eyes to it. There were many vessels which went there on legitimate trade, but then there were many which were engaged in illegitimate enterprises, and it was not at all surprising that the rate of insurance should be raised. He was rather astonished that any surprise should be expressed at the fact. The insurers probably knew better than other people what was the destination of the vessels, and what cargoes they carried. If the ships were perfectly clear and innocent of anything that was liable to just condemnation, although it might happen now and then that one was taken for adjudication on improper grounds, yet as a general rule the terms of insurance would not be affected to the degree which had happened. The trade with Nassau and Matamoras had become what it was in consequence of the war. Although part of it was conducted on the safe side of the law, yet the fact that part of it was also conducted on the other side influenced the repute and risks of the whole trade. As the trade was almost entirely in the hands of their countrymen, it was not unnatural that British ships were not insured on such easy terms as those of other nations which were not engaged in the traffic. The Act of Congress as to the sale, without condemnation, of a ship supposed to be liable to detention, to which reference had been made, was the same as the law of this country. It might, however, be some consolation to hon. Members to know that in one instance, when the Government of the United States wished to possess itself of an uncondemned vessel for its own convenience, the Prize Court interfered, and would not allow it to be sold. The hon. Gentleman had concluded with the extraordinary statement that Her Majesty's Government repudiated the doctrine of damages. Her Majesty's Government did no such thing. When owners had represented that their

  1645
  ships had been seized without warrant, Her Majesty's Government had invariably informed the Government of the United States, that if such should turn out to be the case, they would expect that full compensation in the shape of damages would be made. But the hon. Member had mentioned two cases, in one of which damages only to a small amount—some £156—were obtained, while in the other none were got at all, The reason was, because it would have been unwise and undignified for Her Majesty's Government to insist diplomatically upon that which they knew they were not likely to get, and which they also knew they could not demand consistently with the practice of their own courts under similar circumstances. When a ship had been brought into court under circumstances of strong suspicion—by which he meant suspicion excited by its own papers, or by the depositions of its own officers and crew—it had always been the practice of the courts of this country, in their discretion, to refuse both costs and damages. A case in which there was no disguise, no prevarication, nothing to justify the seizure, would he a case in which exemplary damages ought to be given, or at least claimed by Her Majesty's Government; but to demand damages where the captain prevaricated as in one instance, or where articles of a contraband character were found on board as in another, would be to say that Her Majesty's Government should insist upon other countries doing to them what they never did to other countries, and what they would not concede if demanded from them. The principle upon which Her Majesty's Government had acted was this—to endeavour strictly to apply against themselves and in favour of the United States those same principles of law which they applied against other nations and in favour of themselves in former times. The code was certainly severe enough, but they ought not to relax it in their own favour as neutrals, its severity having arisen from the decisions of their own courts at a time of war in which they were engaged as principals, especially as the United States had followed the law of England to the letter, and embodied it into their own.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he could not understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman had entered so largely into the case of Matamoras, because the hon. Member for Maldon had abstained from any mention of that port. Probably, the hon. and learned Gentleman had a speech ready
  1646
  on the subject of Matamoras, and did not care to address the House on two occasions. For his own part, he should not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into that matter, but should confine himself to much more damaging cases against the American Government, and against the English Foreign Secretary, and the Law Officers who pleaded the cause of the American Government—namely, the cases of the Dolphin and the Pearl. Prize Courts, where the captor was at once plaintiff and judge, had always been watched with wise and suspicious vigilance; but the American Courts were not free from circumstances of suspicion attaching to them peculiarly. It might be that in old times Judges had sat on the American bench who enjoyed a world-wide reputation, but within the last two or three years the American tribunals had delivered their judgments under the pressure of fixed bayonets. The Supreme Court of America, which the Solicitor General had praised so highly, two years ago was applied to for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the American Constitution; but the Judges were unable to pronounce the judgment which their consciences would have prompted them to deliver, because the soldiers of President Lincoln appearing at their doors in arms so terrified them, that they perverted the law to suit the design of the Executive. What they had done against their fellow-countrymen he believed they were equally ready to do against foreigners. In the case of Don Pacifico Lord Palmerston refused to wait for the decision of the Greek Courts, because, as then constituted, justice could not be expected from them. The same principle must be applied to the American Courts, which were notoriously acting under the pressure of military force. It was to be remarked that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had flinched from the statement of international law, to which the hon. Member for Maldon invited him. No person could doubt that the Americans were taking an unfair advantage of our indulgence. In itself, the blockade was a thing which, considering the obligations of the Treaty of Paris, the world could never have expected to see again. About 40 per cent of the vessels which tried to run the blockade succeeded in doing so, and yet the doctrine laid down by the Protocol of Paris, which was assented to by the American Government, was that no blockade

  1647
  was to be held good unless there was a force sufficient effectually to prevent access. The blockade was kept up mainly owing to the ingenious special pleading of the Solicitor General two years ago. But his chief complaint was that the American Prize Courts were not only unjust in the case of single ships, but they made two tremendous strides in their interpretation of international law. First, they laid it down that it was lawful for their cruisers to make prizes of the vessels of peaceful traders. The law laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman was no doubt correct, that a vessel which merely made an ostensible visit to a neutral port did not thereby put on end to the continuity of its voyage. But the American Courts said, that if a vessel left England and went to a neutral port, and if in that neutral port the vessel were sold, the cargo un-laden, and the crew paid off, and the vessel subsequently used for running the blockade, or rather if these things were intended to be done—then they said their cruisers might seize the vessel and sell her. Something very like that had been laid down in the following passage in the decision in the case of the Pearl:—
  "I think the law is, that if an owner sends his vessel to a neutral port with a settled intention to commence from such port a series of voyages to a blockaded port, he thereby commences to violate the blockade, and subjects his vessel to capture, notwithstanding he may also intend to unload the vessel at the neutral port, discharge the crew, and give all other external manifestations of an intention to end the voyage at such port."
  That was a new doctrine in international law, and he defied the Solicitor General to find a case from Lord Stowell to justify any such proceeding. The whole trade of England would be prejudicially subjected to assumptions based on that principle. Nassau was as much part of the British Empire as Loudon, and they might as well stop a ship coming from Calcutta to London as a vessel sailing from London to Nassau. The doctrine was not affected by the fact that Nassau was a port conveniently situated for running the blockade, and they must prepare themselves for all the consequences to which the logical application of the principle would lead. Her Majesty's Government were guilty of a neglect of the interests of British merchants in not protesting against such a doctrine when it was authoritatively laid down in the American Courts. The other presumption was more monstrous still. It was that the Americans
  1648
  had a right to confiscate a vessel because they believed that her cargo, when landed, sold, transferred, and re-shipped, would be carried into the Confederate States. Here was the argument of the judge. He asked, "What was to be done with the cargo?" What on earth had the Judge to do with that? No doubt it was to be landed at Nassau, and reshipped. The judge said "it was to be delivered to Messrs. Chambers & Karr," and he continued, "But what were they to do with it?" What right had the Judge of a Prize Court to inquire what consignees on British ground intended to do with the goods that might he delivered to them. "Nassau (he added) furnishes no market for any such cargo as this; it is a small town." Surely that was no business of his. British merchants had a perfect right to convey Armstrong guns or other munitions of war in any quantity into Nassau; and provided they were intended to be landed there, no American cruiser had a right to stop them. Of course, if an attempt were made to break the blockade, the American cruisers might do their best to prevent it. The Judge proceeded—
  "The adjacent islands possess but a small population, dependent on it [Nassau] for supplies. Probably not three merchant steamers ever arrived at that port from any part of the world, until after the present blockade was established, except the regular Government mail steamers. Was her cargo to be sold in Nassau, including the 920 rifles and the 2,240 swords?"
  Now, he would ask—was Her Majesty's Government prepared to submit to that doctrine? It was not merely the loss of the Dolphin that was concerned. Of course, one sympathized with the merchant, and would be glad to save his property. But it was an enormous principle of international law that was laid down by that Court—the principle that such Courts might inquire what was to be done with the cargo, what market it was intended for after being taken to a British port, and that they might condemn the cargo because it might be subsequently used for an illegal purpose. In such matters as that it was difficult to call the Government to account, because it was not easy sufficiently to gain the attention of the House. But he felt that they had a right to protest against the nature of the defence which the hon. and learned Gentleman had set up. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been telling them that he

  1649
  had no information on the most important points connected with the subject, and therefore he declined to answer. Why, it was the greatest condemnation of the Foreign Office that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not furnished with the utmost information. The decisions of those Prize Courts were vital to British commerce. Upon them the very existence of many of the mercantile houses depended. Everything which affected the rights of British merchants ought to be the subject of careful and unceasing vigilance on the part of our Foreign Office. And yet the Foreign Office was so neglectful, that not only did it make no representations when illegal determinations were made by the American Prize Courts, but it did not even take any measures to ascertain what those determinations were. The hon. and learned Gentleman professed to be perfectly ignorant about those decisions, and, so far as the Foreign Office was concerned, he might remain ignorant of them till the day of his death. He did not take in the Mew York Herald, and there was no reason why he should. But if the Foreign Office did not take steps to know how these American Judges, acting under the ear of their own Executive, were dealing with British claims and British property, it seemed to him that it was neglecting one of its first functions for the protection of British interests.
  He could not help contrasting that remissness towards the treatment given to British merchants on the other side of the Atlantic with certain recent proceedings of the Government at home. The hon. and learned Gentleman was fresh from certain great efforts of legal acumen, in which it was to be regretted for his sake that he had been unsuccessful, but in which the object was to do the work and the bidding of Mr. Adams and to bring an English merchant under the pressure of the law. Well, as to that alone, they might complain in that House that it had been done, as seemed to have been the case, upon insufficient justification. Yet, if it had stood by itself, he should not have been prepared to mention it again. But there was a peculiarity in the suit which the hon. and learned Gentleman was the instrument of bringing forward—namely, that the costs inflicted on the defendant must be enormous. The Crown paid no costs; and therefore, if it chose to appeal from Court to Court, it could absolutely crush a defendant, because the Government's purse was
  1650
  boundless, while the purse of a private individual was limited. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman, in carrying out the decrees of the American Minister, resolved not to be content with the decision which had been given against him, but—not, it was to be presumed, from his own disposition, which they know to be amiable, but from the instructions of the Foreign Office—it was his intention to wear out the defendant by carrying him up to the Courts of Appeal, and so to try to gain by the boundlessness of the Government's purse what he was unable to gain by a fair interpretation of the law. There was a good deal of animus in that. But they had seen no such animus with respect to the Federal enlistments going on in the south of Ireland. He believed that the emigration thence to New York had increased from 10,000 to 30,000, or 300 per cent, within a very limited period; and yet there was no effort made by the Government to apply against the Federal agents any of that legal machinery which it was so ready—nay, eager to put in force against the Confederates. But before he sat down he wished to call attention to a case of attempted partisanship which, if true, seemed to him far stronger than any other, and which he thought that even some Members of Her Majesty's Government would be unwilling to adopt as their own. He had seen the following paragraph in the leading journal, and he would like to know whether it had any foundation in fact:—
  "THREATENED DETENTION OF ANOTHER SHIP AT LIVERPOOL.—Intimation having been given that it is intended to export two of Blakeley's large guns on board the steamship Gibraltar bound for Callao, notice, we believe, has been served on the owners of the vessel by the Custom-house authorities at Liverpool to the effect, that if the guns are put on board, the ship will be detained on the suspicion that they are destined for a Southern Confederate American port. This proceeding is deemed extraordinary, as the guns, from their vast size, each weighing about twenty-one tons, and being capable of carrying 700 lb. shot, it is considered perfectly clear that they cannot be used in the armament of ships. It is further deemed singular, from the fact that arms are shipped, and the ships cleared almost daily for Northern Federal State ports. It is alleged that the interference in the case of the Gibraltar and Captain Blakeley's guns has been made in consequence of the representations of the United States Minister in London."
  That statement had appeared in The Times, and no contradiction of it having been put forth, he assumed that there was some foundation for it. But, if so, it seemed to him to complete that case of

  1651
  unblushing partisanship on the part of the Government under which British merchants were so deeply suffering. He had no doubt that the vast acumen and learning of the hon. and learned Gentleman would always enable him to make a plausible case on behalf of the Federal Government, which he was instructed to serve and defend. But it was not to be supposed that the people of this country would long put up with such open and unblushing partisanship in favour of one particular side in a contest with regard to which Her Majesty's Government had professed a strict and careful neutrality.
  MR. COBDEN: Sir, I find myself in a rather novel position in appearing, even by implication, to be taking a side in opposition to the interests of merchants and ship-owners, while the noble Lord who has just spoken appears as the advocate and champion of those interests. With respect to commercial blockades extending over a coast of 2,500 miles, it is well known that I have no sort of sympathy with such a proceeding. I maintain that such a mode of warfare can be objected to on the ground of natural justice. I do not think that two nations ought to be allowed—and I have no hesitation in using that word—I do not think a couple of belligerents should be allowed to carry on war by such a mode as will inflict upon innocent neutrals, 3,000 or 4,000 miles distant, a greater injury—a greater injury in an economical sense—than they inflict upon each other. That is the case in the present war in America. There is greater injury and suffering inflicted by this blockade on the manufacturing towns of England, such as Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport, and others, than upon any town in the United States, apart from the loss of life and limb upon the battlefield. I speak not now of those sufferings with which what is termed military glory is associated, but of the misery of hundreds of thousands of innocent people deprived of the means of earning their daily bread by honest industry, by means of this war. But who are chiefly responsible for this system of warfare? Undoubtedly the public men of this country, and those who uphold commercial blockades as a mode of warfare. I can appeal to a resolution, agreed to by the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool within the last six months, adopted on the Motion of Mr. James Spence, the well-known defender of the Confederate cause in England, which approves this mode of carrying on war. That resolution
  1652
  was moved in a speech in which it was argued that it was for the interests of England that the principle of commercial blockades should be maintained. He argued that such blockades were essential to our maritime superiority; and to that view the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool has expressed its adhesion. Under those circumstances, I cannot say a word in opposition to the blockade now enforced by the United States. It is only our own principle, carried out with dreadful severity against ourselves—the principle which we have cherished in the belief, that when we become belligerents, it would be of advantage to ourselves. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) has spoken of this blockade as being ineffective, and in proof of that adduces facts, which are, however, a complete fallacy. He says that 40 per cent of the vessels which attempt to break it succeed; but he forgets that the great ports of the Southern States are sealed up altogether. Take New Orleans; there is no contraband trade going on there. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: Because the Northerners have got hold of it.] The North has got possession, and therefore contraband trade cannot exist there. The noble Lord alluded to some small places and some small vessels which carry on a contraband trade. But does the noble Lord suppose, that if there were anything like an extensive trade with those Southern ports, we should have cotton at its present price? I take it that the blockade is clearly effective as against the Southern States of America. The noble Lord has referred also to the right of search—I think that neither he nor I can claim to be authorities in that matter; but the noble Lord has laid down a doctrine which, I believe, I can quote the highest authority to correct. He says that the American cruisers have no right to stop a vessel going from a port of this country to Nassau, no matter what its cargo may be, provided its ostensible destination be to Nassau.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: If I said that, I did not express myself correctly. What I meant to say was that a vessel going bonâ fide to Nassau could not be seized, whatever her cargo might be.
  MR. COBDEN: The noble Lord used the word "stopped," and it is certainly of great importance in these discussions to be strictly accurate and definite in the terms which are used. Now, Lord Stowell, it is well known, has laid down the principle that the ostensible destination of a vessel must be its real

  1653
  destination. Well, supposing a vessel starts from Liverpool for Nassau, and that her ship's papers are regularly made out for that destination. But suppose, too, that there are verbal instructions, or secret written instructions on board to the supercargo or officer, that if a convenient opportunity should offer, the vessel, instead of going to Nassau, should make for Charleston. Now, evidence of these intentions would be sufficient to ensure the legal condemnation of that vessel in a Prize Court of the United States; but how can such evidence be got at if the vessel itself be not liable to be stopped? Of course, such a state of things must produce great inconvenience and loss, and it is of that inconvenience and loss that the noble Lord is now making a grievance. But has the noble Lord taken the trouble to go to the Board of Trade to ascertain what were our exports just now, to the West India Islands and the Mexican ports, of goods notoriously destined for the Southern States? Has the noble Lord taken the trouble to examine into the extent and character of our trade with the ports in that part of the world? Why, every one knows perfectly well that there is a large contraband trade now carried on, and it does not become us to utter such complaints as those made by the noble Lord. I think I have a right to say this without being suspected of indifference to the interests of our commerce, for my whole life, I may say, has been devoted to the task of freeing commerce from restrictions and extending its operations. But I know that the contraband trade to the South is all from England, that it is carried, not only largely, but exclusively from England; and when we all know this, is it not something like affectation to come down to this House and utter complaints as if we were innocent parties? It is not merely affectation. I call it very unreasonable on our part to pretend that there are any great grounds of grievance to our merchants engaged in this trade. I do not say that capitalists may not carry on this contraband trade; but they must carry it on at their own risk, of course. The Queen, in her Proclamation, warns her subjects from engaging in it, and tells them, that if they do, they will incur the penalties of international law. All this inconvenience follows as a matter of course, because English subjects will engage in this trade; and it does not become us to stand up in this House and talk as if we were an aggrieved nation in the matter. Of course, I claim
  1654
  for those vessels and merchandise a fair trial in the Prize Courts; but the decision we must leave to those Courts, for they are the only tribunals which international law recognises as competent to decide in those cases. The noble Lord has said a great deal against the character and administration of the Admiralty Courts of America. I do not think that upon that subject his opinion coincides with the opinion of more competent judges. I could quote one given by Lord Lyndhurst in a debate in the House of Lords. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: How long since?] Some five or six years since. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear, hear!] Yes; but the noble Lord must know that opinions and decisions given many years ago are what guide the tribunals now. Well, in that debate on maritime law to which I have referred Lord Lyndhurst quoted American authorities much more frequently than English authorities. For instance, the noble Lord will find that so good an authority as Lord Lyndhurst quoted Kent and Story more frequently than even Lord Stowell. Such being the case, what right has the noble Lord to assume that justice will be administered in the American Courts with less impartiality than in our own. The noble and learned Lord talks of the Supreme Court at Washington having given a decision under duress—with soldiers at the doors. I ask the noble Lord for his proofs of that—I will not accept the noble Lord's allegation without his proofs. I follow the course of events in America with as close an interest as the noble Lord, and I have not seen any proofs of what he has stated. I have not read of such a case as the Supreme Court at Washington being surrounded by soldiers while deliberating upon judgment. Then, the noble Lord has alluded to the judgment in the case of the Alexandra. I am not going to say a word about the law, or as to whether the learned Judge who tried the case is right in his interpretation of the Foreign Enlistment Act;—but this I venture to tell the noble Lord, and I tell him as a better friend to the commercial interests of this country than he is—if he will allow me to say so—I venture to tell the noble Lord, that if the judgment in the Court of Exchequer be confirmed by the Judges, and the House of Lords—if the law there laid down be established as our municipal law—it will prove far more injurious to the interests of our commerce than to those of all the

  1655
  other commercial nations of the world. The House, I believe, will soon have proof that some of the most extensive and intelligent shipowners of Liverpool are awakening to a sense of the danger such a law, if it be decided to be law, would prove to the commercial interests of this country. It comes to this—that a neutral Power may build ships of war for a belligerent, provided only that the ship and its armament be kept apart until they get to a distance of three miles from the shore. These ships, having then received their armament, may take the sea as armed ships of war, and carry on operations of war against a Power with which the neutral country is at peace; and the other belligerent will have no cause of complaint against the shipbuilder, or the country in which the ship is built. The law, as laid down by the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, amounts to this:—That if this country were at war, say with Brazil—or with Ireland, if she were acknowledged as a belligerent—and I claim the attention of the House to this matter, for it is one of vast importance—a shipbuilder at Boston or some other port of the United States may build a vessel of war, tow her out to sea, and to the same tug-boat that draws her out to sea may have attached another vessel full of arms and munitions of war; and provided only that the vessel is not armed in port, but at a distance beyond three miles from the shore, then that is a vessel which can be sent to cruise against you, you being at war with Brazil; and you have no ground of complaint against the shipbuilders at New York or Boston. Now, will any lawyer tell me I have exaggerated the scope of that decision of Chief Baron Pollock? I have under-stated it. If this principle be acceded to and acted upon, you invite America to come and blockade your coasts, to wait four miles out at sea, until these vessels which you are equipping get beyond the three miles, and then pounce upon them. What is it but inviting that state of anarchy which existed in the Middle Ages, when every war became a universal war—when a war between two countries became a battle royal for all the nations of Europe. But I had thought that the Foreign Enlistment Act was intended to put an end to that state of things, and to prevent the citizens of a neutral Power committing the Government by those acts of hostility, and thereby drawing neutral Powers into war. But if you allow this recent decision
  1656
  to be good, then you may rest assured that you will lose all safeguards for the future; and this will be a most serious thing for England, for there is no country in the world that is to one-fourth degree so vulnerable in that kind of warfare as ourselves. The noble Lord has touched upon another point, which I am obliged to correct. I admit that this was a divergence into a subject which has nothing to do with the one before the House, but the noble Lord the Member for Stamford has been so illogical as to go into it, and it would not be right to allow the noble Lord's statements to go unanswered. The noble Lord has stated that we are not impartial; that we are not dealing in the same manner towards the Federals as towards the Confederates; that we allow the Federals to enlist recruits in Ireland. I again ask the noble Lord for his proofs. I believe that a more gross misrepresentation—uncousiously so I, of course, mean, for I do not accuse the noble Lord of intentional misrepresentation—a more ignorant misrepresentation—I must say ignorant—has never been made. The noble Lord shakes his head; but I must say that a more ignorant representation has never been made; because if the noble Lord will read the bluebook, he will see that Earl Russell, having most injudiciously made this charge of recruiting in Ireland against the United States Government, Mr. Adams challenged him to prove it, and the noble Earl was obliged to admit that he had no proofs. I thought the accusation was most indiscreetly made by Earl Russell. What proof has the noble Lord? He may find some stray newspaper paragraph. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have no spies in my service.] But the noble Lord spoke of emigration going on from Ireland—of 30,000 emigrants from that country. Why, have we not had in the House, within the last few days, a discussion which is quite sufficient to account for that great emigration from Ireland. Has it not been admitted, by the highest authority in this House, that emigration is desirable? It is necessary these people should go away from Ireland, because there is not sufficient employment for the people there. Probably it is unknown to the noble Lord that there is, at the present moment, an especial reason why there should be an emigration from Europe to the United States. It may not be extensively known, but it is probably better known in Ireland than it is in this House—that one of the

  1657
  great reasons of this exodus to America is, that within the last twelve months a law has been passed in America of a most important character—a law that had been in agitation for ten years, and had been always resisted by the South. It was an act of legislation that was vetoed by Mr. Buchanan, the last President. It is an Act called the Homestead Law, which gives 160 acres of land to every head of a family who emigrates to America, for the mere price of the surveying, which is 3d. an acre; so that every head of a family gets 160 acres of land for 40 s. The Americans tell us they have, in different latitudes, a thousand million acres of cultivable land, which would support the population of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom; and as they offer 160 acres to every head of a family for 40 s., is it to be wondered at that there is a great impetus given to emigration from Ireland? And as the United States Government has a thousand millions of acres of uncultivated land, not Ireland only, but all England, France, and Germany might be entered into it. That is one of the great reasons. I challenge the noble Lord to give his proofs that the hand of the American recruiting sergeant is at all engaged-in this matter. I contradict the assertion, and I do so not merely on Mr. Adams's statement, but virtually on Earl Russell's admission. Mr. Adams challenged that noble Lord to the proof, and he was in the same position as the noble Lord opposite is in now—he had no proof at all. I say these vague, declamatory statements and aspersions ought not to be repeated in this House. I beg pardon for having wandered from the question before the House, which I should not have done, had not the noble Lord been so illogical in his observations as to lead us away from the real question. With regard to the question of the Prize Courts, I leave that in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown. The House has heard what the Solicitor General has said on the point, and I am satisfied to have the law expounded by that hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he regretted very much the continual discussions upon the questions raised on the capture of British vessels by American cruisers. He regretted them because the result was this—that English Ministers, and English Law Officers, were presented to the House in the very unenviable position of defending every step taken by the American Government, and of doing
  1658
  everything they could, by speeches in that House and in other places, to injure the cause of British merchants, and ignore the rights which those merchants possessed. Those discussions placed the hon. Member for Rochdale in an equally curious and, as he ventured to think, unfortunate position. That hon. Gentleman had always declared himself the advocate of every proposition for the amendment of international and maritime law that was in favour of the merchant class; but on these occasions he felt himself obliged to run counter to the feelings of that class, and to ignore the grievances of which it complained. The hon. Gentleman had always avowed himself anxious to see belligerent rights restrained, modified, and controlled, but now he was obliged to come down to that House to defend the conduct of the American Government and of their own Government in upholding principles which, if carried out, must do much to fetter the commerce of this country. If men engaged in speculations, and endeavoured to break a blockade, they did so at their own risk, and deserved no sympathy. The complaint of the hon. Member for Maldon was not that contraband and illegitimate trade was repressed, but that legitimate and fair trade was repressed by acts of American cruisers for which he held there was no justification whatever. He must point out that the hon. Member for Rochdale was met at once by the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office with a direct denial of the doctrine which he had laid down. The position of the hon. Member for Rochdale was, that we were engaged in trade with Matamoras and Nassau, that it was notorious to the world this trade had increased to an enormous degree, and that goods conveyed to those places were in reality sent there to be conveyed thence to the Confederate States. He believed that the hon. Gentleman had said that was a disreputable trade. [Mr. COBDEN: I said it was not a reputable one, as it is in violation of the Queen's Proclamation.] The hon. Gentleman had argued that this trade was in violation of the Queen's proclamation, and that the merchants engaged in it must put up with the inconveniences resulting from their being engaged in what he believed he (Mr. Cobden) had called a "contraband trade;" but what did Earl Russell say on the same subject in a recent despatch written to Lord Lyons? It was to be wished that that despatch, which had only reached the hands of hon. Members

  1659
  that morning, had been written long ago. Earl Russell said—
  "It is an impression widely spread and deeply felt that it is the intention of the American Government, by captures without cause, by delays of adjudication, by wanton imprisonment of the master and part of the crew of captured vessels, to put a stop to the British trade to Matamoras altogether. The trade to Matamoras is, however, a perfectly legitimate trade. It is carried on from New York, as it is from London and Liverpool. To pretend that some goods carried to Matamoras may be afterwards transported across the frontier to Texas does not vitiate the legitimate character of that trade. Nor is it possible to say beforehand that certain goods will be consumed in Mexico, and certain other goods will be carried into the so-called Confederate States."
  He believed the hon. and learned Solicitor-General approved that statement. [The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Hear, hear!] The Solicitor-General cheered, but the statement which he approved was in direct opposition to the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale. The doctrines laid down by the Solicitor General were in the main singularly clear and correct; but, at the same time, he took good care not to apply them to the cases before him. He justified the proceedings of the American Courts with respect to the Dolphin, by saying that evidence less than conclusive was often admitted by Lord Stowell. That might be perfectly true, but the ground of complaint here was that the Prize Courts of the United States had proceeded to condemn both the vessel and the cargo upon the purest presumption—a presumption so thin and naked that to any unprejudiced mind—he would almost say to any one who was not the Judge of an American Prize Court—it would amount to no presumption at all. For what was that presumption. A vessel was consigned to a neutral port, with regular papers, and nothing on board except a single letter which would lead to the suspicion that she was going to run the blockade. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: There were arms.] That did not alter the question in the slightest degree. If her destination was Nassau or Matamoras, she had a right to have munitions of war on board, and they might be called "hardware," taking the word from the Northern vocabulary; for of the munitions of war shipped at Liverpool for New York probably not more than a fiftieth part was not shipped under this description. The sole piece of evidence on which sentence of condemnation was pronounced consisted of a letter in which the owner told the master that he was not to land the goods at Nassau,
  1660
  and that, instead of diminishing the cargo, additional cargo was to be added to it. But was there no port of destination after touching at Nassau except Charleston or Wilmington? The vessel might have been going to the Havannah, to Vera Cruz, to Matamoras, to some of the ports of Venezuela, or even to New York. Grant that less than conclusive evidence might be admitted in the English Courts, that doctrine was not applicable in the case of the Dolphin, because that had been admitted as a presumption which in no other Court in the world would be held by any reasonable man to raise a presumption at all. Again, in the case of the Pearl, the ship and cargo were condemned solely because the cargo was such as was not likely to be consumed in Nassau. Well, nobody ever supposed it was, and there could be no doubt that it was consigned to Nassau with a view to run the blockade from that port. A swift vessel drawing little water was likely to run the blockade with success. But to condemn ship and cargo on such a ground was contrary to those principles of international law which had been laid down by Lord Stowell, by Chancellor Kent, and others; and what he complained of was that Her Majesty's Government were allowing doctrines to be introduced by these decisions by which in the long run England and her commerce would be the first to suffer. Why did not the Government at once remonstrate and call for explanation, or say, "If this be your new doctrine of international law, we give you fair notice that England will not submit to it?" Mr. Seward had communicated to the Government a letter addressed by him to the Secretary of the United States navy, and Earl Russell had referred to it as a document reflecting great credit on Mr. Seward, and justifying great confidence in the course taken by the American Government. But what was the doctrine set forth in that letter? Mr. Seward said that vessels were not to be captured unless their cargoes had a direct or indirect destination to Southern ports. Surely Earl Russell ought immediately to have said, "Here is something novel—something which international law does not ratify, and I will call on Mr. Seward to explain what he means by indirect destination to Confederate ports." By practice they knew well enough what was meant—namely, that vessels were to be captured not where there was an intention to break the blockade, but to land the goods at Nassau and Matamoras for the

  1661
  purpose of being sent across the frontier by vessels of light draft. Such a statement ought to have challenged the attention of the British Government, but it did not; and the result was that at that moment British commerce was suffering, and British merchants were put to the greatest inconvenience and loss. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said he did not wonder that the rate of insurance had risen; and, in point of fact, the insurance between Liverpool and Nassau was six or seven guineas per cent, even on such goods as leather and cloth; but if, as Earl Russell declared, that was a legitimate trade, and the American cruisers had no right to stop it, the rate of insurance ought not to rise. The fact was, that the American Government knew the English Government were not likely to find fault with any of their proceedings, and they were determined, at all hazards, to put down the trade between Liverpool and Nassau and Matamoras, al though Earl Russell had characterized it as legitimate and honest. Another despatch from Mr. Seward, in answer to Earl Russell, published that morning, threw considerable light on the question. He said—
  "It is only very recently that this especially enlarged Matamoras trade has come to our notice. Suddenly and quickly as palaces, cities, states, or empires rise in the tales of the Arabian Nights under the waving of a wand or the utterance of a spell, that trade rose from a petty barter to a commerce that engaged the mercantile activity of Liverpool and London. Simultaneously, roads across the interior of Texas were covered with caravans, the cotton of disloyal citizens in the insurrectionary region became all at once the property of the treasonable conspiracy against the Union, and was hypothecated by its agents for a foreign loan to satisfy obligations contracted by them in the fitting-out and equipping and clearing from British ports of steam naval expeditions to destroy the commerce of the United States. The Peterhoff was about the first discovered of the vessels engaged in this expanded trade."
  That was the real secret of what was going on. The American Government knew perfectly well that the trade described by Earl Russell as legitimate and fair was becoming of great importance to the Confederate States, and therefore they said—"We don't care in the least for English interests; we don't care for remonstrance; we will put down the trade with a high hand, and run the risk of all consequences." Earl Russell, speaking in another place, stated the other night, that as long as he was at the Foreign Office, no British subject should ever, in any part of the world, be insecure either as to person or property. The sentiment
  1662
  was one which did him honour; but the noble Earl would deserve still greater honour if he made that principle of general, impartial, universal application. He could not understand the noble Earl using such language with regard to men shipwrecked in Brazil and yet permitting the property of British subjects to be seized and confiscated, while the crew and passengers on board the Peterhoff were taken to New York, and for three weeks were not allowed to write or communicate with a single friend ashore, or even with the representative of their country. If the noble Earl had determined, that so long as he held the seals of the Foreign Office, no British subject should suffer unjustly in person or in property, it was an honourable sentiment; but he felt bound to condemn a course of policy which in all these events had exposed British subjects not only to loss of property, but also to indignities such as he had mentioned in the case of the crow of the Peterhoff. One word more, and he should have done. The noble Lord at the head of the Government last year, when his attention was called to cases similar to those now under discussion, used one peculiar argument which the hon. Member for Rochdale would do well to consider. The noble Lord deprecated discussion upon these subjects, because, he said, no Power in the world was more interested than England in extending rather than contracting belligerent rights. But he (Mr. Fitzgerald) could not admit that argument to be sound or just. He believed that England ought to stand by the acknowledged principles of international law; but he did not believe that it was the interest of this great commercial country to have those principles extended one whit beyond what the absolute necessities of the case required as laid down according to the necessities of the case during former wars; and he was sure, that if they permitted those principles to be adopted as against themselves by the United States or by any other Power, the moment they, in their turn, attempted to enforce them when they became a belligerent, they would find the other Powers leagued together to prevent them—regarded as they were by all the world with jealousy and distrust—from applying those principles, and the result would be that they would have exposed their fellow-citizens to losses and indignities without obtaining the object which they had in view in the extension of belligerent rights.
  Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he was far from being satisfied with the answer that had been given by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State respecting the answer to the notes recently sent to St. Petersburg. The hon. Gentleman had stated, no doubt quite accurately, that the Government was not aware that any answer had been received, and that no such answer had been communicated to his Department. It was, however, generally believed that an answer was received in London on Saturday, and it was considered remarkable that the Government should have allowed forty-eight hours to elapse without having ascertained whether any such answer had arrived at the Russian Embassy. As the close of the Session was approaching, he wished to point out to the House the danger they were in of finding themselves in a similar position to that in which they were placed in the same month ten years ago. In June 1863 they found themselves in the same relations towards Russia as in June 1853, with this difference—that then they were negotiating in favour of Turkey, and now they were negotiating in favour of Poland. But the negotiating Powers were the same. Russia, on the one hand, France and England on the other, and Austria playing her own game between them. Austria played her game successfully in 1853, when she managed to protract negotiations through the Parliamentary Session, which closed before the House could have the discussion for which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs then so vehemently pressed, and for which the Government was in vain asked to fix a day. The Queen, in proroguing Parliament, was advised to say that there were the best prospects of the maintenance of peace, and when Parliament met again it found there was a state of war. What had been the course now? The negotiations had been pro longed throughout the whole of the Session by the instrumentality of Austria The Russian answer to the notes of the three Powers was received in May, and it was seven weeks before the replies of England and France were sent off, because it appeared from the public papers that
  1664
  they had to wait six or seven weeks for the reply of Austria, and even after that the friends of Austria in this country managed to obtain a further postponement of discussion. But the analogy between the two periods was not yet complete. Every one remembered the Vienna note, and the famous four points, which were accepted by Russia and rejected by Turkey, because the latter discovered in them a trap, which France and England also perceived when pointed out by Turkey. But Russia, having accepted the four points, insisted that the Powers should enforce their acceptance upon the Porte, and then it turned out that Russia had accepted these points upon a construction of her own—one different to that adopted by France and England; and it also turned out that Austria, who was professedly acting with the Western Powers, had all the time a secret understanding with Russia. At the present time, Austria proposed, not four, but six points; and it was generally believed and stated in journals of high authority abroad, that while professedly acting with France and England, Austria had separate communications with Russia. It was also said that Russia was about to accept the six points, and, if so, she would only accept them again in a dishonest sense; but if she did accept them, she would call upon England and France to enforce their acceptance upon the Poles. The move would be a dexterous and safe one for Russia, but it would be an embarrassing one for England. We should be placed in a twofold difficulty—first, of assuring the assent of the Poles to those conditions; and next, of guaranteeing the faithful observance of them by Russia. He did not believe that Parliament would sanction such obligations; but the present situation confirmed the truth of what he had often maintained, that Parliamentary discussion should precede, and not follow, negotiation; and if that rule had been acted on, the Ministry would have been saved from rushing headlong into a quagmire by following an Austrian will-o'-the-wisp. They might be placed in a discreditable and embarrassing position, and it was necessary Parliament should have time to discuss the matter and to extricate themselves. He believed that a peaceful and safe extrication was possible if they acted with promptness and determination, and insisted that no more time should be lost in waiting for papers or the printing of documents. They had papers enough if they were earnest and determined

  1665
  to do their duty; and therefore, with the warning of 1853 before them, he hoped they would not allow the Session to close without having had a full and satisfactory discussion; and they should also insist that not a day should be lost before the answer of Russia to the notes should be communicated to the House, which should set its face against any further endeavours of postponement, that cannot be otherwise than degrading to Parliament and damaging to the interests of the country. I conclusion, he wished to give notice that he would ask the Under Secretary, on the following day, to state distinctly whether the Government had ascertained whether any answer had arrived in London to the notes of the three Powers communicating the six points to Russia.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few remarks upon the Diplomatic Service. It was quite unnecessary for him on that occasion to go at any length into the evidence taken before the Diplomatic Committee which sat two years ago, or before the Consular Committee which sat in 1858; but he should like to know from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it was the intention of the Government to act on the Reports of those Committees. It seemed strangely inconsistent with the welfare of the service, that when Reports were made expressing the strongest opinions with regard to important points in relation to that service, these Reports were not attended to. He wished to direct the special attention of the House to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Report of the Select Committee on the Diplomatic Service, which were in these words—
  "That whenever it is practicable and fit a residence for a term of years should be secured for the British embassy or mission, the rent and repairs to be defrayed at the public expense. That the attention of the Secretary of State be directed to the salaries and allowances of the larger missions, with the view of considering whether they are adequate to meet the greatly increased expenditure of living at the principal European capitals."
  Such was the unanimous opinion of the Committee—that the ambassadors and ministers occupying the highest diplomatic posts were not sufficiently paid, and that it was impossible for noblemen and gentlemen to occupy such situations and fill them
  1666
  adequately without drawing on their own resources. The fact was also admitted by several members of diplomatic experience, and he must say it was most injurious to the public service that such a state of things should go on from year to year. Who were the witnesses examined before the Committee? Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Mr. Elliot, Lord Wodehouse, Sir J. Crampton, and Mr. Hammond. Mr. Hammond stated that the expense of living in many of the European capitals had increased from 50 to 100 per cent, and that the members of the diplomatic service consequently had great difficulty in making their official monies cover their expenses. Sir A. Buchanan while at Madrid lost nearly £1,000 a year by his appointment. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, in giving evidence some short time ago before a Committee, stated that it was impossible that an Ambassador could live properly in Paris under £15,000 a year. At St. Petersburg the salary was £8,000, and Lord Wodehouse, speaking from personal experience, said it was impossible to live there for £10,000. At Berlin £6,000 was allowed, and it was impossible for an Ambassador upon an allowance inferior to that given by other countries to maintain the same appearance. It was a strange circumstance, in connection with the diplomatic service, that it was the only service of which the cost was diminishing while the circle of its operations was extending. In 1825 the annual amount voted was £300,000; in 1830 it had fallen to £230,000; now it was only £180,000. For a long time past several thousands a year had been paid to the Treasury, and a sum of £130,000 had been accumulated, which was practically due to the diplomatic service, and might be expended for its benefit without trenching on the amount voted by Parliament. Then, again, the consular service had been neglected; nothing had been done to place its salaries and emoluments on a proper footing. It was impossible that a man at a place like Cherbourg, which was growing into first-rote importance, could live and maintain a proper position on £500 a year. Marseilles, on what principle he failed to discover, entitled the consul to £1,200 a year. He wished to urge upon the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, who, he was quite sure, had the interests of the service at heart, to devote his attention to the subject; and he hoped it would be in his power to slate that the Government meant to

  1667
  carry out the unanimous recommendations of the Committee.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the only occasion on which the Government was blamed for not paying its servants enough was when the Vote for the service which he had the honour to represent was brought forward. The speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton completely answered the speech his hon. Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) had made a few nights ago, in which he felt inclined to quarrel with the rate of pay to the diplomatic service. It was perfectly true, that, on the whole, it was an underpaid service. But his hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that the Government had done nothing to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. They mode seven recommendations, of which six had been carried out. Those recommendations were—first, as to the constitution of a second class of candidates for admission; that had been carried out. Secondly, that a probationary term of six months should be passed in the Foreign Office, and that a further period of four years should be spent at some mission abroad; that had been carried out. Thirdly, they recommended, that at the expiration of this period of probationary service, a certain rate of pay should be given to attaches, and that had also been carried out. Though these recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Committee, and acted upon by the Government, his hon. Friend the Member for Sussex objected to the small additional sum which they entailed. For his own part, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Honiton that pay ought to be given to the attaches. It was very hard that men should be called on to serve their country perhaps for fifteen or sixteen years without receiving any equivalent; and the proposal of the Committee, that after four years service £150 a year should be paid to them, he regarded as very moderate. The fourth recommendation of the Committee was, that there should be exchanges of clerks with the Foreign Office; and the fifth, that leave of absence should be granted to the Ambassadors and Ministers, as it previously was to Secretaries of Legation, without deduction from their pay. These had also been carried out, and they had every year two months' leave without any diminution of their pay. The sixth was, that, whenever it was practicable and fit, a permanent residence should be secured for
  1668
  the embassy; that recommendation had likewise been carried out in some cases, and he thought it would be very desirable if it could be carried out in all. The only recommendation which had not been carried out was the seventh; and that was a question, not for the Foreign Office, but for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point to be determined was, whether the House would be willing to sanction an increase of a grant which, as his hon. Friend was aware, was fixed on the Consolidated Fund, and could not be increased or diminished annually. It was perfectly true, as his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton had stated, that the cost of the service had diminished instead of increasing, and he ventured to assert that the same could not be said of any other branch of the service. Some years ago, the amount voted under that head was nearly double the present amount. Out of the £180,000 provision, moreover, had to be made for the pensions for diplomatic services. The missions to China and Japan had arisen since the former settlement of the diplomatic service, and their cost was not included in the £180,000; but the only other exception lay in the small sum of £2,000 or £3,000, which it had been his duty to ask on behalf of attachés, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Notwithstanding that the diplomatic servants were as a class underpaid, and were compelled to contribute from their private fortunes to the expenses of the public service, he frequently heard complaints, both in and out of the House, that they were not sufficiently hospitable to travellers. Under the circumstances, he thought it hard that persons should grumble because public servants did not increase their expenses; but, in point of fact, he believed they did entertain more hospitably than the country had a right to expect. No doubt, as was stated by Sir Hamilton Seymour, one of the duties of diplomatists was to give good dinners. The object, however, was to entertain, not travellers and British subjects, but persons in high station in the country to which those diplomatists were accredited. If they performed their duty in that respect, they were entitled to credit, and not to be exposed to reflections in that House. His hon. Friend was further mistaken in thinking that nothing had been done to improve the position of the consular service. He held in his hand a list of no less than seventy-one consuls, of

  1669
  whose salaries some had been nearly doubled, and all materially increased, The Government, notwithstanding that addition, had been able to reduce the annual Vote for the consular service, as he would proceed to explain:—In 1859 the Vote taken on that account was £156,404, which was an excess over that for 1858 of £10,920. After the recommendations of the Committee had been issued, the Government determined to pay the consuls in future by salaries instead of fees, which should thenceforward be levied on account of the Government. In 1861 the net charge to the public for consular services was £143,156. In 1862 it was £142,241, being a reduction of only £1,000 between 1861 and 1862. In the year 1861 there was paid into the Exchequer, however, for fees received, £10,935, and in 1862 £13,000. So that not only had the recommendations of the Committee been carried out with vast success, but with increased efficiency to the public service. He feared that it would be impossible to come to Parliament for an increased grant without interfering altogether with the arrangements for the diplomatic service, and incurring the opposition of several Members of the House.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would beg leave to remind the hon. Under Secretary that there was one mode by which the limited sum apportioned under the Consolidated Fund for the remuneration of diplomatic services might be increased—by being more judiciously distributed. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the sum was limited, and that these public servants could not be more adequately remunerated without applying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, he did not wish to enter into the question as to whether those gentlemen were adequately or inadequately remunerated; but he would repeat that if the sum was limited, there was a mode of distributing the fund which would allow more ample compensation to be given than was the case at present. Let the House consider the practice which prevailed of sending out persons on special missions. The House would be presently asked to vote a sum of £1,500 to be paid to Mr. Elliot for his special mission to Greece. It was true that was not paid out of the diplomatic fund. But that was not the point to which he wished to call the attention of the House, What he wished to know was, why a gentleman should have been sent on a special mission to Greece
  1670
  when Her Majesty had a Plenipotentiary at Athens, receiving an adequate salary, paid out of the special sum to which the Under Secretary had referred? The House had every right to suppose that the permanent Minister at Greece was able to discharge the duties of his office; if not, he ought not to be there. He was, he believed, a diplomatist of considerable experience and ability, yet the moment any business of importance occurred the Foreign Office sent out a special envoy to transact that business, the country paying the special envoy when it was also paying for the permanent Minister. No reason had been given why that practice was continued, and why two salaries were paid to two diplomatists that ought to be paid to one. When the House was told that only a certain amount of diplomatic expenditure was permitted, it would perceive that the cost of their diplomacy was increased by the practice to which he had alluded.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was clearly under the impression that the expenses of the special missions to which he referred were paid out of the sum appropriated to the diplomatic service, and were consequently in diminution of the ordinary salaries. Such was not the case. The sums for special mission were voted by Parliament. Special missions had been spoken of as if they were a common practice. They were not common, and it was clearly undesirable that they should be frequently resorted to. But occasions might occur when a special mission intrusted to a person of eminence, accurately instructed as to the most recent views of his Government, became absolutely necessary. Such occasions had arisen when Lord Ashburton was sent to America and the Earl of Elgin to China.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that his right hon. Friend did not contend that there ought not to be special missions on special occasions. Lord Ashburton was sent out because he had special relations with America, and Lord Elgin because he had a particular knowledge of China. Mr. Elliot was, however, first sent on a special mission to Naples. ["No!"] Yes, there was a balance of a Vote that night for Mr. Elliot's special mission to Naples. Mr. Elliot had been twice selected for special missions when no great emergency existed, and when, as in the case of Greece, Her Majesty had a very able and faithful servant at the capital to which he was sent.

  1671
  The objection to such special missions was, that when once the permanent Minister was superseded in that way, his Government virtually told those to whom he was accredited, that although he did very well for ordinary affairs, yet when matters of importance arose they were obliged to send out some one else. That was a most unfair thing to a Minister, besides making the diplomatic expenditure more extravagant than it need be.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the hon. Member for Honiton was quite mistaken in supposing that the expense of the diplomatic service had diminished. In 1831 the whole expenditure of the effective diplomacy was £179,000; in 1862 it had increased to £336,000. The hon. Member said that the members of the Diplomatic Service Committee were unanimous. That was not surprising, as the Committee consisted of fifteen members, ten or eleven of whom were either officials or ex-officials. They called before thorn a number of witnesses connected with the diplomatic or consular service, and the question they put to them virtually was, "Would you like an increase of your salary?" The answers of the witnesses and the report of the Committee were such as might be expected. It did not follow, because other foreign Ministers at different Courts received larger salaries than those of Great Britain, that they were to run a race of expenditure with those foreign Governments. It was quite enough that France should frame the Army and Navy Estimates, without having the diplomatic expenditure governed by that of another country. The House of Commons ought to have its own standard, and vote as much as was necessary for the effective discharge of the duties of the office. He was sorry to hear the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs express an approval of the proposal to have leasehold residences for the diplomatic servants, and say that in some instances it had been adopted. He had hoped that the leasehold house of their ambassador at Madrid, which had turned out a very bad bargain, would have operated as a warning against their having leasehold houses elsewhere. That house was purchased at a high price, an architect was employed for many years running backwards and forwards to look at it, there was a permanent clerk of the works at it, and he saw one report which stated that the house was a heap of ruins, and that there was the greatest possible difficulty in preventing it tumbling down. The hon.
  1672
  Gentleman had alluded to an increase of pay in the case of the consuls. The consuls were an efficient body of men, but he believed their efficiency as well as their pay might be increased without necessarily adding to the expense of the consular service. The fact was, they had got a number of unnecessary consuls in different places, and the savings that would be effected by the abolition of useless consulships might be applied to increase the pay of the others. A beginning had been already made; useless consulships at Moscow, Milan, and other places, had been abolished, and still more might be done in the same direction. The House should watch with great jealousy any proposition, direct or indirect, made by independent Members for an increase of the pay of public servants.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he had always understood that Committees formed in that House were composed of persons of some experience of the questions with which they had to deal, and likely to come to a proper and impartial decision. The Secretary of State, the Under Secretary, the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and the hon. Member for Horsham, and other hon. Gentlemen who had diplomatic experience, were members of the Committees on the diplomatic service, and the evidence which was brought before them was fully sifted. In fact, a fairer Committee could not have been formed. The hon. Gentleman objected to the evidence given by the witnesses who were called before the Committee, but he would ask the House merely to read that evidence. There was not a single member connected with the service who did not in the most distinct manner show that the necessaries of life had increased from 25 to 100 per cent, and that in every case their salaries were entirely inadequate. He was glad the subject had been brought forward by his hon. Friend, because he had elicited from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) the fact that the attention of the Government was turned to the subject. But it was too bad, when a Committee made a Report, that hon. Members should come forward and say that its recommendations ought not to be carried out. A gentleman formerly, upon entering the diplomatic service, was often six or seven years unpaid; but now, as the Committee had recommended, after four years he received £150 a year, and after a certain time he would receive £250 upon becoming

  1673
  second Secretary. A man might be in South America for four or five years, and in coming home he would have to spend £60 or £70 out of his own pocket, unless he was sent to another place. The Secretaries of Legation had very important duties to perform, for they had not only to assist the Ministers, but regularly every year to make a full Report upon all matters connected with trade, and both the public press and the House always admitted the ability with which those Reports were drawn up. It would be a much better plan than that pursued at present to have recognised mission-houses abroad. He bad had experience when at Vienna, of the inconvenience arising from the removal of papers from one house to another, and he could not conceive anything more open to objection. It was said that British Consuls were in the habit of charging excessive fees; but the Committee inquired into that matter; they sent letters asking for information to all the Chambers of Commerce in England, and the result was, that the accusation fell to the ground, and the Consuls of this country earned the highest praise it was possible to bestow. And the same was true of the diplomatic corps. Under those circumstances, he could not believe that the House or the country would grudge an increase of salary to a body of men who so well deserved it, sufficient to enable them properly to represent Her Majesty and the power and wealth of the country.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the Committee in question was composed of officials, or those who had been officials, with two or three who were officials expectant; and all the witnesses were of the same kidney. Foreign Ministers were paid, in the smaller capitals of Europe, at a much lower rate than their own. Many of the smaller embassies might be dispensed with altogether, as either useless or injurious. The means of communication by telegraphs and railways would enable them to do that and save money, while the service would not suffer in the slightest degree.

MISSIONS TO GREECE.—QUESTION.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to put a Question with regard to the special mission to Greece; but as he had not given notice of it, he would, if necessary, repeat it tomorrow. The House would recollect that when Greece became independent, a treaty was entered into between England, France
1674
and Russia for the purpose of guaranteeing a loan which was then raised to meet the financial exigencies of the new State of Greece. That treaty was in the usual form of all treaties in which the responsibility of Parliament was involved in favour of a foreign State. Under that treaty England had from year to year been called upon to pay her share of that guarantee—that was to say, the interest and what was necessary for the sinking fund. They all knew that the financial condition of Greece was then, and contained to be, of a most deplorable character, and that no money had been contributed by Greece towards the payment of either interest or principal. But three years ago a Commission was appointed to inquire into the financial condition of Greece, and it reported that the time had arrived when Greece was able out of its resources to contribute annually 900,000 francs, which was equal to about £36,000, towards the principal and interest, He observed, however, from the papers laid on the table, that France, Russia, and England had agreed to a protocol containing a proposition that £12,000 a year should be appropriated out of the sum which Greece was to pay on account of that loan for the benefit of the future King of Greece. That was a protocol and not a treaty, and it was not in the language used when the Crown undertook to make a convention with a foreign Power dealing with funds under the control of Parliament. Upon this an important constitutional question arose, because the assumption of the protocol was, that if Parliament appropriated funds for the specific purpose of a foreign Power, and that foreign Power agreed to repay them, those funds should not necessarily come back to the Exchequer, but that the Crown could make a charge on them and grant out of them a pension to a foreign Prince. He apprehended that was an assumption which the Crown was not warranted in making, and that when an Act of Parliament confirmed a treaty and regulated the disposal of funds to arise under it, it was not competent for the Crown to enter into any treaty at all as to any change in the disposition of those funds. All that the Crown could do, using the language ordinarily employed in such cases, was to engage to recommend to Parliament that the funds should be appropriated to the object stated in the protocol. He therefore wished to know, whether the Government intended to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the

1675
grant of £4,000 a year from England to the King of Greece, and in what mode the sanction of Parliament was to be obtained?
MR. LAYARD: said, he would have to answer a similar Question on the following day of which the hon. Member for Horsham had given him notice, and perhaps that would suit his hon. Friend Mr. Ayrton.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions read 2o, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [26th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and which Amendment was,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present Ecclesiastical Settlement of Ireland,"—(Mr. Osborne,)
—instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.

THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. ADJOURNED DEBATE. SECOND NIGHT.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, Sir, I think it is quite natural that hon. and right hon. Members on the Treasury bench should feel towards my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea pretty much as Cornelius Agrippa may be supposed to have felt when, on returning to his laboratory, he found that his idle apprentice had raised the Devil in his absence. There is, however, this difference between the case of the enchanter's pupil and my hon. Friend—namely, that he and those who are acting with him have raised the devil not wantonly, but of set purpose. We are perfectly aware that we are stirring the gravest of all our internal questions. We are perfectly aware that many of our opponents will treat this not as a political, but as a religious controversy, and use every weapon of sectarian animosity to keep what they have. We know all this; but we also knew that the present state of Ireland is, I will not flay a disgrace to the Liberal party, but almost a negation of the existence of any Liberal party, in the true sense of the term; and we take comfort from the words of the First Napoleon, when a clamour, was raised against him
  1676
  for infringing revolutionary equality by instituting the Legion of Honour—
  "We have reason on our side; and when one has reason on one's side, one should have the courage to run some risks."
  Sir, the Irish question was stated with singular force and perspicuity by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire in 1844. After describing the state of the country, he asked what was the remedy. His answer was, "A revolution." "But you cannot," he said, "have a revolution, because the strong grasp of England makes it impossible." What, then, is the duty of on English Minister? To effect by his policy all that a revolution would do by force. The continued existence of the Irish Church for a period of nearly thirty years in undiminished power and prosperity, after having been condemned by many of our foremost statesmen, is a sad, though, alas! not an unusual phenomenon in the history of politics; and it is the more monstrous and intolerable, because during these thirty years we have been everywhere busy in exposing the scandals of other Governments. Like the Americans of the once United States, we have been boasting of the perfection of our own institutions in spite of this great unredressed wrong, which may, if we are not wise in time, one day be to us what slavery has been to them. We have been assured, again and again, that Catholic emancipation has been a failure; that it has not realized the vision of those who thought that it would inaugurate a period of perfect peace and prosperity. Of course it has not. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire said in 1835—
  "You have no right to stop short of any concession to the Irish people, as long as you leave them one hardship which is not shared by the people with which they are united."
  Catholic emancipation was the beginning; of a reform which should have been ended ere now, but in which we have hardly yet had courage to take a second step. But it is said that the Irish people care little about this question of the Irish Church, since the tithe grievance has come to an end. Those who think so, need only be reminded, in the words of Mr. Charles Buller, "That in almost all oases national revolts have had their immediate cause in some offence to the feelings, not to the interests of a people." The truth is, that for some years Ireland has seen no hope of effecting anything in this direction, and

  1677
  she has been playing her old game, waiting for our necessity, which, alas! she has often had too good reason to know, is her opportunity. When this subject was last discussed in this House, if I omit the Motion of Mr. Miall in 1856, which came at an unlucky time, too soon after the fever fit of 1851, the alarm which resulted from the repeal agitation of Mr. O'Connell had not yet died away. Times have now changed. No one can accuse the statesmen who, obedient to the voice of justice, seal the fate of the Irish Establishment, with yielding either to internal clamour, or to the fear of foreign foes. But this state of things will not always endure. The day can hardly fail to arrive when you will again have differences with France, and differences with America; and again, Ireland, if her just demands are unsatisfied, will absorb and neutralize a great portion of your force. Now is the time to yield peacefully; to take those precautions which may allow you to be "calm in danger, because you have trembled in repose." We have heard from the hon. Mover and others that many of the startling statements with which the country became familiar thirty years ago, are still applicable, and that, on the whole, the position of the Irish Church, in respect to its hold upon the population of Ireland, is no better. Is there any country in the whole wide world where so few people have so much expended upon their religious instruction? And with what result? I never heard that the members of the Church of Ireland were, morally, either better or worse than then English neighbours. If they were as much a better as they are a more costly product than English Churchmen, Ireland would obtain a new right to the title of "Island of the Saints." But perhaps it will be said, that this Irish Church is doing some special work, which entitles her to being paid at a higher rate than other churches. Well, let us hear what she is doing. It has been asserted that she is a missionary Church; that she exists for the purpose of extending Protestantism. I grant that she was founded to be a missionary Church. We shall hear something I hope, before the debate ends, about those gentlemen who stop travellers in search of the picturesque at Achill, to discuss the number of the beast, but these missions are not specially Irish Church Missions; indeed, the good man who circulates pamphlets about them is, I an informed, a Cornish vicar. A German
  1678
  political poet of our own day has described the great Frederick gathering around him in the other world the most famous warriors of the Prussian monarchy, and addressing to them some uncommonly strong observations upon the state of Germany. I think, Sir, that if Queen Elizabeth could summon around her once more her wise counsellors, they would be rather surprised by the failure of their missionary experiments, and would, I am afraid, in the reaction of their surprise, be very likely to advise that the Irish Church should be improved off the face of creation. A Church whose action is governed and limited by the Liturgy of the Church of England, has, it appears to me, neither the faults nor the merits which are requisite to enable it to deal with a Celtic people, as Celtic peoples now are. Look at Wales; look at Cornwall; look at Brittany; look at North Western Scotland. Is there not in the religion of all these districts an impulsive, passionate element which is quite alien to the religion of a Church which has almost taken for its motto—for it is the motto of its typical work—'In quietuess and in confidence shall be your strength.' I never will believe, Sir, that the united Chinch of England and Ireland can conquer Connaught. I beg pardon, Sir, I do believe it; and I will tell you when it will conquer Connaught. It will conquer it on the day on which the freeholders of Buckinghamshire are converted, by the study of not the least characteristic work of the most brilliant living advocate of the Church of England, to the worship of—the Syrian Venus. But perhaps she is a learned Church. We have heard that there are many clergymen in Ireland whose leisure, judging from the smallness of their flocks, must be nearly unbroken. Do these men occupy themselves with literature or theology? If so, why do we not hear more about them? Have the great works of Biblical criticism, and ecclesiastical history, and religious philosophy come to us from the west or from the east? But perhaps she is particularly famous for the examples of extraordinary holiness of life which she exhibits in her high places. She has, I presume, a whole roll of Leightons and Fenelons and Pascals, and men like the author of the Imitatio Christi to show. Although many of us have met the type of Irish clergymen whom Mr. Kingsley has celebrated as Mr. O'Blareaway, far be it from me to say that the Church which is illustrated by the names of Archbishop Wheatley

  1679
  and Bishop Fitzgerald is no better than the Church of Stone and of Boulter. Still, as the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin, or some equally fervent partisan, will, I dare say, rise in this debate and celebrate the pure apostolic succession of the children of that Protestant gentleman, St. Patrick, I may be allowed to prepare the House by reminding it of the forcible lines in which Swift, himself thought good enough for an Irish Dean, described the Irish Bishops of his day—
  "Of whom there are but four, at most,
  Who know there is a Holy Ghost;
  The rest, who boast they have conferred it,
  Like Paul's Ephesians, never heard it.
  And when they gave it, 'twas well known
  They gave what never was their own."
  But perhaps she is a Church associated with great historical recollections. If so, what are they? Those which come back most easily to the mind are the atrocities of 1793, which a recent English historian, after comparing with the proceedings of Robespierre, Couthon, and Carrier, decides to have been rather the more diabolical of the two. But, Sir, if the wrong is established, what is to be the remedy? Not, I say, a half remedy like that which finds favour with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. The only remedy which meets the case is that which Cato proposed for Carthage. I am quite aware of the arguments that can be brought against the voluntary system; and a quarter of a century ago they were powerful enough to induce Sir George Lewis to give his verdict in favour, not of general disendowment in Ireland, but of endowing all sects alike. But whatever may have been the case then, the set of the current of the age, the stream of tendency is now distinctly the other way. I have no wish to exchange for a voluntary system the arrangements of any Established Church which is working reasonably well; all I say is that the future of Christian societies belongs to the voluntary system. In the words of a great religious writer "Our religion will become less and less Jewish, more and more it will tend to reject everything like political organization in the concerns of the soul." Of course, I would respect all vested interests. Of course, I would preserve all Irish Church property for Ireland; but I would remember, that while the State has a deep interest in the people being moral and religious, she has no interest whatever in their being taught this or that doctrine. The same measure that I meted out to the
  1680
  Church of Ireland I would mete out to the Roman Catholics, and to the Presbyterians of Ulster. Slowly and gradually, with a scrupulous respect for vested interests, the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum should be diminished, till at last they vanished away. England and Ireland, Sir, have many mutual injuries to forgive, and I verily believe at this moment England is more prepared to be just and reasonable towards Ireland, than she is to be so towards us; but if so, it is only what is to be expected from our much higher civilization. Let us do this great and righteous act, which will benefit us and Ireland enormously. In doing it, we shall not have settled the Irish question, but we shall have settled incomparably the most difficult part of it, and ere long we shall have a country as loyal as Scotland, and we shall have done more to increase our power for good in the councils of Europe than we could do by twenty victories over any foreign foe.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought he could take no better opportunity of expressing his deep regret that the attention of the House had been latterly so much taken up with discussions bearing upon polemical questions, which, though often originating in the best intentions, might probably set man against man, and bring even the very name of their holy religion into disfavour and disrepute. He was much averse to these debates, for though he greatly preferred his own religion, he had invariably given support to the endowment of other religious bodies. It was no doubt impossible to deny that anomalies existed with regard to the different religious endowments in Ireland; and, indeed, that necessarily arose from the fact that there was no country where there was a more complete divergence of religious opinion, and where there was a more complete disinclination to agree in a uniform advocacy of a religious system. He felt, however, that all these anomalies were so indissolubly bound together, that if they touched one of them, the rest would fall, and in that fall would be involved the whole religion of the land. Believing that no present alteration would meet the requirements of Ireland, he would resolutely resist such propositions as had been made, whether they came from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), or the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. G. Duff). He would beg to remind the House that

  1681
  the position of the Church was secured by the Act of Union; and so long, therefore, as the United Kingdom remained there should be one undivided Church. The Church had accepted the provisions of the Church Temporalities Act, by which its four archbishops were reduced to two, and its twenty-one bishops to ten, and by which a fourth part was withdrawn from the receipts of every clergyman. The nominal Church revenue was £580,418, but it was subject to certain deductions, which reduced it to £370,681, or about 12 s. and not £1, as had been erroneously stated, per head of the Church population of Ireland. There might be disproportions which ought to be redressed, but he could not admit that Church benefices ought to be measured out on the same Procrustean bed. He would never consent to the alienation or appropriation for other purposes of the property of the Church, which belonged to it upon the faith of the Act of Union, confirmed by repeated Acts of Parliament. That there was a surplus could hardly be maintained when it was considered how many poor livings there were, and he thought that some of the larger emoluments should be retained for the purpose of attracting men of character and ability to the service of the Church. He felt certain from the first that the groundwork of the debate would be a numerical calculation, yet such a foundation was fallacious when it was borne in mind, that though the population of Ireland had much decreased, the numbers of the Church of England had relatively increased; for whilst the diminution of the numbers of Roman Catholics was nearly one-third, that of the Church of England was less than one-fifth. He submitted that the position of the Church in Ireland was stronger now than in 1834, or than at any time between then and now. It had gained in the character of its clergy, for the clergy were almost all resident, and in the disastrous years following the potato famine of 1846 the clergy of the Church set an example of self-sacrifice that secured for them the appreciation and gratitude of the whole country. Until the subject was recently disinterred from oblivion, he did not think that there was any disposition in Ireland to re-open the question of Irish endowments. They all wished to prevent the landlords, who were mostly Protestants, from living out of Ireland; but would that end be promoted by attempts to weaken their Church? The advantage of having in a parish a resident clergyman
  1682
  and his family who would be always accessible to the claims of charity was self-evident; but it certainly would not diminish absenteeism to deprive landlords of the presence of the clergy. In his opinion, the question of the integrity of the Irish Church involved the whole structure of society, and the very existence of Ireland as a component part of our established nationality. That the feeling in favour of the Church was strong in Ireland, was shown by one or two facts that had come under his observation during the last year. In Londonderry the time-honoured cathedral had recently been restored, chiefly at the expense of local subscribers; only six weeks ago the parish church of Lurgan was re-opened for the accommodation of a double supply of attendants, who now numbered 1,600 people; and lately, in Belfast, a sum of £7,000 was promised in one day for the purpose of building and endowing five new churches. Those facts afforded abundant and tangible evidence of the vigour and vitality of the Church in the north of Ireland. The older Members of the House would not have forgotten the movement, extraordinary for its non-results, which induced so many Members of the present Government to force the resignation of the first Administration of Sir Robert Peel in 1835. The House had a right to require, notwithstanding the able speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a more thoroughly explicit declaration of the policy of the whole Cabinet on this question. By a reference to Hansard, he found that in 1835 the resolution for the secularization of Irish Church property was supported by no fewer than six Members of the present Government. The names were—the Duke of Somerset, Earl Russell, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the right hon. Members for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), and Halifax (Sir Charles Wood). The present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the right hon. Members for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) and Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) voted on the same side. Again, in 1856, the position of the Irish Church was similarly assailed by Lord De Grey, the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), the noble Lord the Member for Kerry (Viscount Castlerosse), and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue). He could only hope that the influence and example of the Chancellor of the Duchy of

  1683
  Lancaster, who was himself free from any inconsistency on this subject, had been sufficient to convince and convert so many of his noble and right hon. Colleagues. An assurance to that effect would be received with satisfaction by all the friends of the Irish Church. The Presbyterian Church had been indirectly attacked by the last speaker, but it was a notorious fact, that wherever Presbyterianism flourished, there the people were distinguished for their intelligence and enlightenment. The condition of the north was superior to that of any other part of Ireland, and he had no hesitation in saying that the Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches had been the chief instruments in effecting this local superiority. Regarding Protestantism as the sheet-anchor of British power and prosperity, knowing that it had always inculcated principles of loyalty and patriotism, he trusted that despite such attacks as the present it might long be sustained, with vigour unimpaired, and with a sphere of usefulness undiminished for the advantage and consolation of remote posterity.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, before this debate closes I am anxious to address a few observations to the House. I thoroughly concur in the remark which has been made by a previous speaker with reference to the importance of the subject now under discussion, and I hope that in dealing with it I shall say nothing calculated to give umbrage—such, at least, is not my intention—either to those who agree with me or to those who may differ from me in religious opinion. There can be no doubt that circumstances have greatly changed since this question used formerly to be discussed. Then it too frequently led to strong party demonstrations, or it was the signal for stirring up in the minds of all classes the most serious religious differences. It is recorded that at one period Ministers themselves were terrified at the approach of such discussions as the present, and we know that the debate on Mr. Ward's Motion had to be postponed in order that the places of four Members of the Government, who had resigned, might be filled up. What are the circumstances now? The tone and temper in which such questions as this used to be treated are completely altered; indeed, so strong is the influence in soothing religious animosities and producing harmony among opposite religious communions which has sprung up, that this subject can be debated in these days with
  1684
  hardly any excitement, except such as is the result of the ability of those who take part in such discussions. I must, however, say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard hardly did justice to the question he brought under the notice of the House. He made, undoubtedly, a very clever speech. We all know he is possessed of superior parts, but I cannot help thinking that the general tenor of his remarks was too jocose for the gravity of the subject. As for his facts, they were so voluminous that he positively overdosed us with their superfluity. I hope, at the same time, presently to show that he drew to such an extent on his imagination that he almost altogether spoilt the effect which he intended to produce. I do not find fault with my hon. Friend for the length to which he went, but I cannot help saying—looking upon him as I always shall with a warm feeling of regard, so far as political sentiments are concerned—that I thought he was somewhat unfair towards me in introducing into his speech a matter of private feeling which had nothing whatever to do with the Motion before the House. I do not think, for instance, that my hon. Friend had any right to operate on me in the way he did for attending the meeting to which he alluded. I had, however, one satisfaction in listening to his speech, because, although he drew a most terrible picture of the state of the Irish Church, although he endeavoured to show that it was prejudicial to the interests of the Protestant faith and most mischievous in its tendency, as a political institution a blunder, and as a national religion a pious fraud, still he expressed no desire that it should be uprooted. Now, I thank my hon. Friend when he tells us he does not intend to destroy the Church, and I must confess that he would not, in my opinion, even if be did intend to do so, succeed. I may, however, remark, that as I sat upon the bench behind watching the pious tears chasing one another down his theological cheeks as he wept over the position of the Irish Church, I could not help looking on in wondering admiration. The hon. Gentleman who addressed the House last but one spoke of the Hottentot Venus. [An hon. MEMBER: The Syrian Venus.] Well, I suppose all Venuses are pretty much alike; but the hon. Gentleman, as you say, talked of the Syrian Venus, and also of Carthage, and I can well figure to myself Dido weeping over the ruins of her deserted city, or Niobe lamenting according

  1685
  to the fiction of the antique; but my hon. Friend, with the Rev. J. Bolster, rector of Killaspugmullane, and the cobweb fonts of which he spoke, standing around him, present a tableau vivant worthy of the pages of Punch or the department of Science and Art.
  My hon. Friend entered very largely into the debate on this subject, which some nights previously took place, and criticised at considerable length the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. Indeed, he not only criticised his observations, but said his history was bad, and threw some doubt on his opinions at to the virtue of Elizabeth. Now, I am not at this moment going to deal with that question; but I ask the indulgence of the House if I refer to a debate which my lion. Friend—inasmuch as it took place only about three weeks ago—touched upon somewhat in violation of the rules of the House, carrying out, no doubt, the doctrine of what he culls a "pious fraud." My hon. Friend, in the course of his remarks, was constantly alluding to the Liberal party. He asked why the Liberal party did this, and why they did that? He said this question was the stumbling-block or the stalking-horse of that party. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I referred to the Whigs.] Well, that is the Liberal party. ["No, no!"] We are all Liberals in these days. There are no party distinctions of that kind. Be that as it may, my hon. Friend contended that this question was the stumbling-block or the stalking-horse of the Liberal, or, if he likes it better, of the Whig party. But the fact is, they could not proceed with it. The sense of the country was against them, and then they wisely gave it up. The question has often been made a battlefield. After being quietly interred in 1833, it was revived in 1856 to no purpose. Mr. Ward brought forward his Motion on the subject, and so did Mr. Miall; but neither was an Irishman, and as to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he told us he never was in Ireland; and, indeed, there was no necessity for his doing so, because everybody who listened to his speech must at once have seen that he knew nothing whatever of the country, one remark of his being, that the Irish Church was supported by an army of 21,000 soldiers and 12,500 police. The question, however, has at last been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, who is no more an Irishman than St. Patrick,
  1686
  and I would place him in the same category of Protestants.
  Now what, let me ask, is the Motion before the House? My hon. Friend asks fur a Select Committee—a Select Committee in the month of July. That, in my opinion, is hardly the way to treat a great question of this kind. If you want a Select Committee, you cannot limit its inquiries to the Established Church in Ireland, which is only part and parcel of the United Church of England and Ireland. If you deal with the one, you must deal with the other, and, indeed, with all endowments—with the Church established in Scotland, and with the endowment to Maynooth. To enter into an inquiry so extensive, after the great labours and abundant legislation of the Session, would, I contend, be impossible. My hon. Friend, indeed, says that we only passed a Vaccination Act for adults, but he evidently has not read the Bill, because it was a measure for the vaccination, not of adults, but of babies. Indeed, I think the only inducement which my hon. Friend could, with any success, hold out to hon. Members to sit on the proposed Committee would be that he should himself take the chair. At all events, the House will, I am sure, admit that there has been on the part of the Government no hesitation in affording the fullest information on this subject, Numerous Returns have been moved for, and I have been always anxious that they should be as soon as possible produced. It should, I may add, be borne in mind, in dealing with this question, that our Parliament in 1828 consisted exclusively of members of the Protestant Church; whereas now it admits indefinitely gentlemen hostile to the Establishment. The discussions on the question stand now, therefore, upon a very different footing from that which they did formerly. I approve the liberal measures which have been passed of late years, and to those hon. Members who differ from the Church I give every credit for the benefits which they have conferred in promoting sound religious instruction. But it is not inconsistent with the respect which I feel for those bodies to assert, that in the interest of the country and the feelings of the country, it is right that we should have a State establishment. There are three different establishments—one in England, one in Scotland, and one in Ireland. The Church establishment in Scotland, as in Ireland, is in the midst of a population differing from a great part of the population.

  1687
  The Church establishment of Ireland is united to the Established Church of England and Ireland, and I contend that when the question is considered it must be by concert and combined action by the members of the Church establishment in both countries, not with a view of opposing wise reforms, but of preventing and parrying measures of a novel and dangerous character.
  I think it is an error to attribute the state of society in Ireland to the state of the Established Church. I think the Church Temporalities Act of 1833 did a vast amount of good, and, I frankly admit, I shall be very willing to see the action of that measure judiciously extended by the House, though not by a Select Committee upstairs, to which I am opposed. Let me briefly show the vast benefit that Act was to the Church establishment. It abolished two archbishoprics, suppressed eight sees, and reduced the income of the remaining bishops. All sinecures were abolished; livings in which no duties were performed for three years were not filled up; first-fruits were suppressed, and Church cess levied on Catholics and managed by Protestant vestries were discontinued. The repairs of the churches were provided for, and provision was made for the augmentation of small livings, under the superintendence of a Commission. Nothing could be wiser than those arrangements for the amelioration of the Established Church; and I entirely differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard in his observations on that Commission. He spoke in strong terms of the Commission, but I do not think, that considering the large sums which they have disposed of for the benefit of the Church, they are in any way open to the accusations which were brought against them. The hon. Member for Swansea made an extraordinary statement the other night. He said that the disturbances in Ireland were to be traced to the existence of the Church establishment; that, instead of producing harmony, it prevented unity, and destroyed all chance of peace and goodwill. That statement alone is sufficient to show how utterly ignorant the hon. Gentleman was of the country and the people with whom he was dealing. What said Sir George Lewis, that profound thinker, whose loss we all deplore? He wrote a book on this subject, and he said, "The disposition to outrage in Ireland springs from causes wholly independent of religion, and it cannot be said that Roman
  1688
  Catholicism leads to crimes and disturbances." What said Mr. O'Connell? In 1825 he made use of a remarkable expression to show that persons of different religious persuasions could live together in peace and amity. "I always perceive," said Mr. O'Connell, "that when Catholics and Protestants of a liberal class come to know each other personally, animosity diminishes by their personal knowledge." What said Bishop Stanley? In a pamphlet which he wrote he said—
  "How often has it been asserted in England that by the entire Catholic population of Ireland Protestants are held in abhorrence, so that their very lives are in jeopardy. But I am certain nothing is more fallacious. On the contrary, left to their own warm-hearted feelings, they are inclined to live on the best of terms with their Protestant brethren."
  Those are the opinions of three distinguished men, and they entirely confute the remark of that stranger to Ireland—the hon. Member for Swansea. The hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), in the course of the remarks which he addressed to the House the other night, said that the people of England would not endure such an application of ecclesiastical revenues in this country as was made in Ireland. Many Protestants felt it to be a monstrous grievance, and he went on to say that the proposition for which he contended was, that Ireland being a Roman Catholic nation, it was unjust to compel her to contribute to the support of a Church in whose doctrine she did not believe, and whose teachings she practically rejected. If the complaint were well founded, I should agree that it is well worthy the serious consideration of the House. But what said Sir George Lewis, who was so much referred to the other evening by the hon. Member for Liskeard?
  "It is commonly said that the Catholics feel aggrieved at being compelled to contribute by the payment of tithes to the support of a Church from the creed of which they differ. But, in fact, the Roman Catholics contribute nothing, inasmuch as in Ireland the tithe is of the nature, not of a tax, but of a reserved rent, which never belonged either to landlord or tenant."
  The argument of the hon. Member for Tipperary, then, falls to the ground. As I understand the hon. Member for Liskeard, he wishes to apply the surplus revenue of the Established Church to all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects, and, in fact, to open up that wide question which was settled when the Appropriation Clause was abandoned in 1838. It is quite evident that no Committee would agree to such a

  1689
  proposal, and there is therefore no use in having a Committee.
  The hon. Member made certain statements the other night which are really unfounded, and I wish to call his particular attention to them, because I am sure he will regret having used them. He said the income of the Irish bishops was £80,000 a year. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: This book says £79,000.] That book is not correct. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: It is the Church Directory.] It is as well we should state fairly what the case is. The Irish bishops receive a net income of £57,604 2s. 6d., and the hon. Member makes that into £80,000 a year by adding the £21,621 which they pay to the Commission. I will not enter on the question whether they receive adequate payment, but the truth is that the bishops do not receive £80,000 a year, but £57,604. Another statement made by my hon. Friend according to the report of his speech in The Times, was that the united dioceses of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh had a bishop with £4,000 a year, and only 686 Protestants. There is no united diocese of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh. The former has been joined to Killaloe and the latter to Clonfert from time immemorial. Clon-fert and Killaloc and their subdenominations are united in one bishopric. The income is £3,310 a year, and this bishopric extends overall Clare, one-third of Galway, and parts of Tipperary, King's County, and Roscommon, having a population not of 686, as the hon. Gentleman alleged, but of 15,906 Protestants. There is another statement of my hon. Friend which I will notice. He held up the Commissioners to the contempt of the House, and he told us that their pay was £6,000, but the fact is that there are two paid Commissioners at £1,000, and the £4,000 goes in paying the secretary, treasurer, architect, and clerks. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: No, no!] That is the fact, but my hon. Friend by his remarks intended the House to infer that these Commissioners received for their own sole purposes this sum of £6,000. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I did not.] There are many other mistatements, which, if I had spoken earlier in the night, I should have been able to refute. I am quite sure my hon. Friend made them unintentionally. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: No, intentionally.] I know enough of my hon. Friend to be assured, that if I showed him he was wrong, he would be the first man to say that he regretted having made them. It
  1690
  is rather important that I should go a little into the statistics of the matter, for so much has been said of the dying-out of the Protestant religion in Ireland. In 1834 the population of Ireland was 7,941,000, but in 1861 it had sunk to 5,770,000—that is, there was a diminution of 2,165,000 in that time. But it is a singular fact that the great diminution took place in the numbers of the Roman Catholics. The number of Protestants, of course, diminished also; but the great falling off was in the Roman Catholics. In 1834 the Roman Catholics were 80 per cent of the whole population, and in 1861 they were only 77 per cent. The Established Church in 1834 was but 10 per cent of the whole, but in 1861 it was nearly 12 per cent, showing a relative increase in favour of the latter of 2 per cent. I do not think that that is any argument for interference in a question which we settled in 1834 and 1838. My hon. Friend referred to the number of bishops. In 1834 there were twenty-two, and the whole amount of their incomes was £150,000; but by the action of Lord Stanley's measure the number was reduced to ten, and their income is £57,000. My hon. Friend also referred to church accommodation, and, quoting from that book of his, he endeavoured to show that there was a great deal more Church accommodation than was requisite. I have gone most carefully into this point, and I find that while you have in Ireland 691,000 members of the Established Church, you have only accommodation for 372,427—that is to say, there is really not church accommodation for half the population. My hon. Friend said also that the clergy in Ireland were too highly paid, and he drew a comparison between the clergy and their respective congregations in the two Churches of England and Ireland. In England, he says, there are 2,612 people to every clergyman, while in Ireland there are only 325 people to a clergyman. But the truth is that my hon. Friend, in taking the English population, included the Protestant dissenters of all denominations, who are more than a third of the population; and the real state of the case is this:—In England, you have 10,620 parishes, and the number of persons to each parish is 598, while in Ireland it is 431. Therefore, in reality the difference is not so great as my hon. Friend would lead the House to infer. But he says the clergy in Ireland have too large revenues at their command. The total sum given to the working clergy of

  1691
  that country is £320,000 a year. Your armour-plated Warrior cost you from £360,000 to £400,000; and surely it is not too much to give to the ministers of your establishment in Ireland a less sum than one of your vessels of war costs you. You must recollect, too, that in Scotland where the voluntary system prevails, the clergy are absolutely paid more than in Ireland. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] I am not an advocate of the voluntary system—far from it; but it is a fact that under it in Scotland the clergy get more than the clergy of the Establishment in Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the revenues of the Establishment in England are? The revenues of the Established Church in England exceed £4,000,000, and that for 9,000,000 to 10,000,000 of worshippers is certainly a large sum to expend. It is unjust, therefore, to urge this charge against the Establishment of Ireland. You cannot separate the two branches of the Established Church; and if you wish to deal with the endowments and with the revenues of the Irish Church, you must, enter into a wider field, and deal with all endowments given by the State.
  It is very desirable that in a matter of this kind you should endeavour to obtain the opinions of those who, from their position, are best able to give an opinion upon it. We have had the opinions of hon. Members of this House. We have had the opinions of gentlemen in Ireland, and I wish to draw the attention of the House to the opinion of those who are at the head of the Roman Catholic Church. On the 6th of May, the chief authority of that Church in Ireland, Dr. Cullen, published a letter to his clergy in reference to this debate. After stating that the Protestants have dwindled away since 1834, whereas in reality they were more in 1861 with reference to the entire population, he goes on to make this remarkable statement—
  "The income set apart for this declining church is probably ten times as large in proportion as what is allowed at present for the maintenance of the clergy in any country on the continent of Europe."
  He goes on to say that both Earl Russell and the Earl of Carlisle have denounced the existence of the Establishment in Ireland as a standing insult to sense and reason; and farther on he says—
  "Can we reconcile ourselves to the existence of an establishment which proclaims the Bible and
  1692
  nothing but the Bible as its rule of faith, and grants to every one the right of thinking and acting as he wishes in religious matters?"
  Now, that is precisely the ground on which we stand by the establishment. I know no stronger answer that can be given to this observation of Dr. Cullen on the Protestant Church than the language of the late Prince Consort. In one of his addresses, His Royal Highness said—
  "I have no fear, however, for her (the Church's) safety and ultimate welfare, so long as she holds fast to what our ancestors gained for us at the Reformation—the Gospel and the unfettered right of its use. I feel persuaded that the same earnest zeal and practical wisdom which has made her political constitution an object of admiration to other nations, will, under God's blessing, make her Church likewise a model to the world."
  I set the opinion of the late Prince Consort against that of Dr. Cullen, and I am quite sure that the Prince Consort's is the correct one. Dr. Cullen attacks the Church Establishment in Ireland, because, as he says its revenues are ten times greater in proportion than the sum allowed for the maintenance of any clergy on the continent of Europe. Directly I heard that statement I sent to Rome, and I sent to Naples, to ascertain whether it was founded on fact. The result is most remarkable. I find that the population of the Neapolitan State is 7,060,618, and to watch over the spiritual welfare of this population, there are twenty archbishops and seventy-seven bishops. This is exclusive of Sicily. I find also that there are 1,020 establishments for men, containing 13,611 monks and laymen; that there 276 convents; and, in fact, from authentic, information which I have received, I find that the Neapolitan Church in 1860 had in its service 70,000 individuals. And yet Dr. Cullen tells us that the Church in Ireland has a revenue ton times larger than any church on the Continent. Rut I will take the case of Rome itself, which is still more remarkable. I have not been able to obtain information of a later date than 1840, since which, as we all know, three-fourths of the Pope's subjects have thrown off his temporal authority and transferred their allegiance to King Victor Emmanuel. But in 1840 the population of Rome was 153,000. The number of ecclesiastics, monks, nuns, and seminarists, was 5,273, or one ecclesiastical person to every twenty-nine of the population; while, in what were then the States of the Church, there were 1,824 convents

  1693
  for monks and 612 convents for nuns. In fact, when Archbishop Cullen made that statement, evidently with the intention of lowering the Irish Church Establishment in the eyes of the world, he could not have been aware that in the Neapolitan States, as they were then called, and in the States of the Church, there was such a state of things as these facts disclose.
  I am unwilling, Sir, to prolong my observations, and I apologize to the House for having taken up so much of its time; but there is one other remark which fell from the hon. Gentleman to which, with the permission of the House, I am desirous of adverting for a moment. I refer to his allusion to my attendance at a meeting in London with respect to the Church in Ireland. I trust I shall always be prepared, frankly and fairly, to give explanations as to my personal and political conduct, whenever they are legitimately called for. I consulted my noble Friend at the head of the Govermment as to whether he thought I had done wrong in taking the course I then pursued, and he assured me that in his opinion I had not. I may further tell my hon. Friend, and other hon. Gentlemen who may agree with him, that when I went to that meeting, with respect to which he sought to throw blame upon me, accusing me of going there for the purpose of making converts, I went solely to listen to the speakers whose names had been announced. And when I saw in the list sent to me the name of one of the most eminent Members of this House, who certainly would not have laid himself open to the charge of being a bigoted and intolerant man—I mean the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), coupled with the names of the primates of England and Ireland—I felt that there could be no possible harm in my attending a meeting in which such men were to take a part. What I did on that occasion I am prepared to stand to. What I then said had more particular reference to the working clergy of Ireland, and I remarked, that although, as my hon. Friend ob served, there are many of the clergy of that country who have not sufficient scope for their abilities, yet, nevertheless, as every man must acknowledge, there are among them many shining lights, and many who are doing that missionary work out of which the Church has grown, and that will be admitted by all who are conversant
  1694
  with the efforts of the Irish clergy. But I must say that I would infinitely prefer to sit below the gangway or in any other part of the House in order that I might advocate, according to the true feelings which I entertain, that which I believe to be for the interests of morality and the prosperity of the country, rather than that by occupying a place on these benches I should be supposed to surrender one iota of that legitimate influence and independence in regard to politics which every man in this country is free to hold and exercise, and which our Parliamentary system of Government was never intended to diminish. I will not, however, further allude to the subject than to say, that I am sure that the feeling of the House will be with me when I say that my going to listen to that which I thought might he for the benefit of Ireland can in no way be construed into an offence against the Government or the country with which I am politically connected.
  Sir, in my humble judgment, the revenues of the Irish branch of the United Church are not more than sufficient. I think the clergy of Ireland are not less deserving than they used to be either of the consideration of Parliament or of the revenues they possess. I feel, therefore, satisfied that the House will concur with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Duchy, when he asserted that the Government could not give its assent to the Motion of my hon. Friend. It is impossible upon public grounds—to say nothing of the time at which it is made—to agree to that proposition. But I must tell my hon. Friend, if he be in earnest, and I presume he is, that he is dealing with a subject the magnitude of which he does not appear to have sufficiently contemplated. In dealing with the Established Church of Ireland you are not dealing with a mere excrescence or a growth of yesterday, but with an institution which has existed for ages in that country. We all know that you may transplant the tender sapling, and it will still thrive in the soil to which it has been removed. But to upheave the deep-rooted oak, or to lop it of its fair proportions and giant limbs without detriment to its vigour, is a work to which the skill and ingenuity of man cannot easily attain. So it is with the Established Church of Ireland. It was founded by the zeal and the piety of our ancestors; it has been sanctioned by Parliament and by the Coronation Oath of the Sovereign; and, above

  1695
  all, it has been confirmed by the attachment and veneration of many generations. But I will tell my hon. Friend, in conclusion, that an attack upon the Church Establishment in Ireland is but a necessary preliminary to an attack upon the Church Establishment in this country; and I maintain that any successful attempt to divide the revenues of the Irish Church among all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects ought to be immediately followed by a Motion for the alienation and secularization of the revenues of the Church Establishment in England. Indeed, to be consistent, you ought to go further and do away entirely with Church Establishments. You ought to adopt that voluntary system which prevails in America, but which I would not prefer to the system which has so long flourished in this kingdom. And I must say, that if this question is to be agitated again, either in the present Session or in the next, it is time for us, no matter on what side we sit, frankly to declare our opinions and to choose our party for this struggle. I, for one, unhesitatingly affirm, that if that moment has come, I shall be found—ay, and acting under the advice and guidance of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—I shall be found contending on behalf of those principles which for two centuries and more have ever been—and God grant they may long continue to be!—the centre of loyalty to the Throne and the bulwark of civil and religious liberty.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had just made a statement which would attract great attention in Ireland, and which ought to be of some interest to the House. He had told them, that when he attended the recent meeting, about which he had said very little, but which was an event of some importance in his political career, he had consulted the noble Lord at the head of the Government before doing so.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: What I said was, that after I had seen my attendance at that meeting called in question, I asked my noble Friend if I had done wrong, and he said "Certainly not."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he presumed, then, that the noble Lord gave the right hon. Gentleman absolution. The noble Lord and the Government generally, then, were responsible for the conduct of the right hon. Baronet on that occasion. What had been the result of that conduct? Why were the benches on both
  1696
  sides the House so full that night? Why was it that, as had been said in the course of the debate, a warfare was springing up between the two great religious bodies in Ireland. The Chief Secretary attended that meeting, and moved a resolution of thanks to the chairman and the committee who conducted the operations of that society in London. Let the House remember that that chairman was Mr. J. C. Colquhoun, and bear in mind what was the language in which that friend of peace, speaking in Exeter Hall, addressed the people of Ireland. In his speech the gentleman, using a military phraseology, said, "We must have a plan of the campaign, a regular scheme, munitions of war, and, above all, strong places from which to march, and on which to fall back again." He spoke of the artillery which would be required for the work in which they were engaged, and described the work as a great scheme of controversy against the Church of Rome. He said that the Irish Church, from being passive, had taken the field of controversy, and the result was that a "furious warfare was now going on between the Church of England and the Church of Rome." But in spite of the military language of the chairman, and in spite of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the West Connaught Society was a doomed one. No less an authority than the Irish census had struck it a blow from which its balance-sheet showed that its funds had not recovered. In a book called Good News from Ireland, Mr. Garrett, the Secretary of the West Connaught Society, gave an account of its progress, which account was of itself a condemnation of the whole system. Speaking of a place called Palnathomas, Mr. Garrett said that it had been "a painful scene of uncertainty." The same remark applied to the various missionary stations to which that gentleman referred. Making an appeal for Bullnahinch, he said, that even if £50,000 were required for the mission there, he must call on his friends to come forward with an endowment quickly, solemnly, and generously. He could imagine the right hon. Baronet coming forward quickly, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) coming forward solemnly, and his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham coming forward generously with the £50,000 to endow Bullnahinch. That book showed nothing but wreck and ruin, empty churches, and dilapidated

  1697
  school-houses. The question of Irish Church missions, banished for some years from the arena of that House, was re-introduced on account of the support given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to that which was worse than an imposture, and which led to breaches of the law and of order. It was said that the schools were full, but how wore they filled? Lord Plunket, the president of the West Connaught Mission, established missionary schools on his property, and compelled his tenants, on threat of eviction, to send their children. And Mr. Townsend stated at the trial which took place that the object of these schools was to bring up these children as Protestants. To justify himself, Lord Plunket published a list of tenants evicted, and the reasons for evicting them; and among them were the names of several persons evicted for assaulting Scripture readers. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) cheered that statement; but had he read the severe condemnation passed on Lord Plunket for his conduct on that occasion, by the leading organ of public opinion? All these missionary schools were failures, and had led to violence. He had never joined in any attack upon the church of England, and he rejoiced to say that on one occasion, when the Speaker gave a casting vote against the Church Rates Abolition Bill, one Roman Catholic Member did not vote, and that was the hon. Gentleman who was then addressing the House. At the meeting which had been alluded to, it was said that the converts might be counted by tens of thousands, and Dr. Wordsworth, in his Irish Mission, spoke of 30,000 converts in West Connaught. Now, what was West Connaught? It comprised the western part of the counties of Galway and Mayo, and part of the diocese of the Bishop of Tuam. He found, however, that in that district the Returns showed that the Protestant population had fallen off 25 per cent, from 22,765 in 1834, to 17,156 in 1861, while the total diminution of the Protestant population, in all Ireland, in the same period, was but 19 percent. Again, the Protestant marriages in the counties of Galway and Mayo had fallen from 203 in 1851, to 104 in 1861, or nearly 50 per cent. During every year that these missionary societies had been at work, the Protestant population had fallen off; and how could that fact be reconciled with the astounding statements of conversions by tens of thousands?
  1698
  The Protestant gentry of Kilkenny had shown their opinion of those societies by addressing a memorial to the Bishop of Kilkenny, praying him to have the missionaries withdrawn from the town of Kilkenny, because their presence created ill blood and provoked disorders. The operations of these societies had been described in the Church Review, a review edited by a distinguished dignitary of the Church of England, as tending to religious rows and broken heads—that placards headed "Rome the Babylon," "Rome the Mother of Harlots," &c., necessarily provoked retaliation, and the usual result of a missionary appearance in a town was the calling-out of the military, while the crowning triumph was the condemnation of a certain number of Roman Catholics to fine and imprisonment. He appealed to the common sense and justice of England, whether it would maintain a system that resulted in figures, fighting, and a shriek for money.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Sir, the hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), in the course of his observations on Friday, deprecated the idea that a speech upon this question should provoke the laughter or excite the amusement of the House. I could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman directed his observations to the speech that immediately preceded his own—that of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne). But I must say I entirely agree that the question is one of gravity and importance, and that it should be treated with all the seriousness that such a subject deserves. If I must mention another important ingredient which I think is required in the consideration of the subject, I should say that ingredient was precision and accuracy as to facts. If the House will indulge me with as much of its time and patience as the importance of the subject deserves, I will satisfy them, that conspicuous as the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) was as a fund of hilarity, it was still more conspicuous for the absence of that precision and accuracy which such a subject demands. The first point is to ascertain precisely what is the end aimed at by the different propositions that have been made. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), whose Motion on this subject was withdrawn in order that the House might proceed with that now under consideration, proposed to affirm that there was a surplus of revenues belonging to the Church of Ireland, and that it ought to be appropriated

  1699
  to secular purposes or to the general purposes of the State. The hon. Member for Liskeard said that he did not wish to take away any part of the revenues of the Church, but only to re-adjust or re-adapt those revenues; but he had scarcely sat down, when the hon. Member for Tipperary got up, and returned thanks to the hon. Member for Liskeard for rendering such effective service towards the overthrow of the Irish Church, because the Irish people would not be satisfied without perfect equality in regard to all endowments in that country. An hon. Gentleman also on the other side (Mr. Grant Duff) has to-night reminded us of the saying with regard to a celebrated city of antiquity, and he wanted to apply the same rule to Ireland.
  Now, it is important for the House to know the real facts of the case, and I will take the view of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who says that the revenues of the Church in Ireland are excessive in amount, having regard to the duties the clergy have to perform. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Hear, hear!] I am glad, as there are so few points of agreement between us, that, at all events, we agree on the basis of the argument. With reference to the revenues of the Church of Ireland, let me remind the House that a Return laid on the table, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea, would very much mislead the House. It says that the revenues of the church amounts to £580,000 in round numbers. But from that sum a great number of deductions have to be made. The Return includes the taxes which the various benefices and bishoprics have to pay to the Commission, and which are laid out in other parts of the various dioceses. In this way the Return is some £30,000 or £40,000 overstated. There are some minor deductions to be made besides, and the effect of these deductions we shall see in a moment. I will illustrate this by two statements, neither of which admits of dispute. With reference to the financial state of the Church of Ireland the hon. Member for Liskeard quoted the authority of Archdeacon Stopford; and what does he say? In his larger work on the Irish Church he made a calculation in this way—he takes the whole revenues of the church, the whole value of glebe lands, of the rent-charges, and the income of the various bishoprics, and after making the proper deductions, he comes to the conclusion that the net sum from every possible source available for expenditure on the part of the Church in Ireland is
  1700
  £510,000 a year. Now, a gentleman, formerly a Member of this House, Mr. Serjeant Shee, whose name should always be mentioned with respect for the many excellent qualities he possesses, wrote on this subject, and he said, "I do not wish to despoil the Established Church, I wish to pay every beneficed clergyman and bishop a proper remuneration," and he laid down the scale on which he would pay them. What will the House suppose was the total to which the payments Mr. Serjeant Shee would make to the various clergymen and bishops of the Irish Church amount to? The total was £589,000 a year—exactly £78,000 a year more than the whole net income of the Established Church of Ireland. Therefore, on these two calculations—one coming from a gentleman whose accuracy the hon. Member for Liskeard justly extols, the other from Mr. Serjeant Shee, whose authority cannot be disputed—instead of their being a surplus of revenue beyond what is adequate for the remuneration of the ministers of the Established Church in Ireland, there is a deficiency of £78,000 a year.
  I will give you another calculation. The number of incumbents in Ireland is 1,530, and the net parochial income of all the clergy in Ireland is exactly £370,000 a year; and without deducting the sums paid for curates, the sum given to each incumbent is exactly £210 a year. That is not the whole of the case. Reference has been made to England; but if you take the number of square miles in England, and the parishes in which there, are incumbents, there is an average for every benefice of five square miles; but in Ireland the average is twenty square miles to each benefice. So that you pay in Ireland an average of £210 a year to a clergyman for doing duty, not over five square miles, as in England, but over twenty square miles.
  The hon. Member for Liskeard says £210 is not a large sum for a clergyman, but what he objects to is that this clergyman has no flock. Now, what are the facts of the case? Let me compare England and Ireland in that respect. You have not a Census for 1861 of religious denominations in England, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well to whom we are indebted for that. Sufficient is known, however, for the purposes of this discussion. But what is the number of Episcopalians in the towns of Ireland. In 17 towns in Ireland there are over 10,000 inhabitants; the Episcopalian population is 114,295.

  1701
  72 parishes out of 1,572 belong to these towns. That gives 1,590 Episcopalians to each parish. As far as these towns are concerned, it is incorrect to say that there is not in each parish a sufficient number of Episcopalians to require the services of a minister. In the rural parishes of England, by the Census of 1851, out of those attending public worship on a particular given day, 9 out of 19 were Episcopalians; in Wales 6 out of 25; and applying this ratio, we get for each country parish in England 387 Episcopalians; in Wales 248. In Ireland there are 1,500 rural parishes for 564,576 Episcopalians, or 376 for each parish. Ireland, therefore, stands middle between England and Wales, very far lower than England, and higher than Wales. That puts an end to the argument of the hon. Member for Liskeard; but he says that may be the average; but there are individual parishes in which there is a very much smaller number of Episcopalians. Then I say you find the same thing in England. The hon. Member is very fond of looking at clergy lists. Let him go to the English Clergy List. He will find 500 parishes where the gross population is just over 100 souls, and, taking three-fifths to be members of the Church, between 50 and 60 Episcopalians.
  The House should understand, that being anxious for the well-being of the Church of Ireland, I do not desire to resist alterations in the finances of the Established Church in that country. I say, where there are inequalities to redress—where, from change of circumstances, a different adjustment of ecclesiastical property is desirable, just as you do every day in England, the same rule ought to be applied in Ireland. The same rule has been applied in Ireland since 1833 or 1834, and I do not see why the same principle should not be continued. But as the hon. Gentleman talks of inequalities, I ask you to go further than the right hon. Baronet has gone, lest the inaccuracies he has overlooked should be considered as facts. The hon. Member for Liskeard stated that the archbishops and bishops of Ireland have an income amounting to £80,000. The House will find their net income falls very far short of that. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I said their gross income.] The hon. Member says "gross" now, but the hon. Member did not say "gross" on Friday night. The difference between their gross and their net value is exactly £22,000 a year. Upon the same principle, he might as well say that the
  1702
  Bishop of Durham receives £25,000 or £28,000 a year. The Bishop has a gross revenue of that amount, but he pays more than half of it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and the incomes of the Irish bishops are subject to deductions of exactly the same kind. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Where do the deductions go to?] I will tell the hon. Member where they go to; and I am very glad he puts the question, because the hon. Member is in the act of acquiring information which otherwise he would never have obtained. The deductions go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and are by them applied to the augmentation of small livings. I put it to the House whether, in their judgment, it was a fair representation to hold up the archbishops and bishops of Ireland as dignitaries who were receiving and spending £80,000 a year. That is not all. The hon. Member said, "Look at the thousands to whom every English bishop attends, who are under his jurisdiction and under his care, and contrast that with the case of Ireland." What did the hon. Gentleman do? There are in England twenty millions of inhabitants; it is not exactly ascertained how many of them belong to the Church of England. Some say twelve millions, some ten, and some even less. The hon. Member took the whole twenty millions, and divided the bishops of England into that; he then divided the bishops of Ireland not into the gross population, but into the Episcopalians of Ireland, and he instituted a comparison between one and the other. I pass to another inaccuracy of the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary referred to the point, but I must ask the House to look at it a little more closely. The hon. Member for Liskeard said, "The united diocese of Kilfenora and Kilmac-duagh, in which there are about 686 Protestants, have a bishop at £4,000 a year and the usual staff." The Chief Secretary has told the House that no such diocese exists; it is the name of some former diocese which has been united with Clonfert and Killaloe; and the total number of Episcopalians in the diocese for which the Bishop receives £4,000, are not 686, but 15,907. As the hon. Gentleman is deriving great information from these facts, he must allow me to give him one or two more. He went on to say:—"In the diocese of Waterford and Lismore, with which I am intimately acquainted, there is a population of 134,336, of whom 5,000 belong to the Established Church;" and he asked, "Why should

  1703
  5,000 people make a diocese, with a bishop receiving £5,000 a year?" This is the hon. Member's own diocese, and surely he ought to have some personal knowledge of the facts. But what do I find? Waterford and Lismore are united to Cashel and Emly, for which the bishop receives £4,600 a year, the Episcopalians being in number, not 5,000, but 13,853. Let me go a little further. He said—and this was a striking statement—in England you have a clergyman for every 2,612 persons; in Ireland one for every 325. Let me first correct him as to Ireland. I have shown the House that in towns the number is one for every 1,590, and in the country one for every 376. But how did the hon. Member calculate with regard to England? I commend it to the House as an arithmetical exercise of the most ingenious description. There is a gross population of 20,000,000, and there are in the Church in England, in round numbers, 18,000 clergymen. The hon. Member divided 18,000 into the 20,000,000; but even that was not enough, for it would only bring out a quotient of somewhere about 1,000; so he doubled the quotient, and added 600 more to it. I commend that to the House as the most wonderful feat in arithmetic that was ever performed for its enlightenment. I cannot conceive how the hon. Member, having the Returns before him, can ever have arrived at such a result.
  I come next to a statement, which, proceeding as it did from an hon. Gentleman having some acquaintance with Ireland, surprised me very much. In the diocese of Meath, he said, the population is 110,000, of whom but 6,500 are Episcopalians. Now, will it be believed that he has made this mistake. He has taken the county of Meath, and he is under the impression that it is co-extensive with the diocese. If he had looked at the Return of the diocese, he would have found that the Episcopalians were not 6,500, but 16,300, being a slight difference of nearly 10,000. These are the data upon which that very interesting and amusing statement was founded, which delighted the House so much, and must have given to many hon. Members who were not aware of the real state of the case a very singular impression with regard to the state of the Church. But I have not done yet. The hon. Member said he would go into detail with regard to the see of Meath. He took the living of Kells, held by Archdeacon Stopford, and he made out, from the Irish Church
  1704
  Directory, that the parish church contained 500 sittings, that there were only thirty-one Episcopalians, and that the living was of £1,151 a year. I will own I was a little startled by that assertion. It seemed to me not very probable; but, of course, I thought the hon. Member looked into the Returns. Will the House believe the series of blunders which are involved in this statement? In the Return made to Parliament, which deals with towns in Ireland having more than 1,500 inhabitants, the hon. Member finds Kells mentioned—not the parish of Kells, but the town of Kells. Even then he cannot quote the Return accurately, for he puts the number at 31 Episcopalians, whereas the Return says 331 Episcopalians. But that is not all. The town of Kells has nothing to say to it. The church is the church of the parish of Kells, and the parish of Kells goes round the town for square acres or square miles, and every one knows that in Ireland the places where the Protestants live are in the town parks and green fields, upon property immediately adjacent to the town, not in the houses of the town, where the numerical majority is always in favour of the Roman Catholics. The question, therefore, is not what does the town of Kells, but what does the parish of Kells contain? and that point the hon. Member never touches at all. Then, as to the value of the living. The hon. Member said this was the living of Archdeacon Stopford; and he praised his works, and said they were most instructive to any one who read them. I wish to goodness the hon. Member had read them—because he would have found that the living of Kells was one of those upon which the Archdeacon commented, and not without a little bitterness of feeling, for he shows very clearly, that although returned as being of the value of £1,151, after making the deductions which have to be paid the value is exactly £491 a year, and out of that he has to pay a curate besides.
  I now come to a nucleus of errors. The hon. Member takes Cavan, Cahir, Carrick-on-Suir, Ballinrobe, Westport, Killaloan, Kilrush, and other towns; and he goes to the Irish Church Directory and says, "I find in each of these towns so many sittings, 300, 400, or 500, and so many Episcopalians, sometimes 50, sometimes 60, and sometimes 150, but in every case the number of sittings quite disproportioned to the number of Episcopalians." He has fallen into the same error in every one

  1705
  of these cases of taking the town or place for the parish, though, of course, it is for the parish that the churches are built. I will give the House one instance I have been able to lay my hand upon in the short time which has elapsed since the hon. Member's speech, and it will illlustrate the inaccuracies of the whole of his statement. I take the case of Tuam. The hon. Member said it contained 257 Protestants, the value of the living being £623. The fact is, that in the parish of Tuam, where there is church accommodation for 300 or 400, there are 640 Episcopalians; and the net value of the living, in place of being £623, is fixed by the Commission at £320 a year. I have yet another mistake to point out, and, as it has been alluded to to-night, I am bound to set it right. In the diocese of Cork he takes five clergymen—the rectors of Rahan, Mourne Abbey, Clenore, Carrigamleary, and Clon-meen, and he says he finds all these living in pleasant, nice Mallow, away from their parishes. To use his own words, "That is the picture presented by this book." Let us see what are the facts. Mallow is down in the Directory as the post town of these five parishes. As to four of these parishes, there is no glebe on which the rector could live, and so he lives in the town; and that is the great case of non-residence which the hon. Member found in the diocese of Cork. Then there was the case of Mr. Bolster, of a place which I hardly like to trust myself to pronounce—Killaspugmullnne. The hon. Gentleman said, it was the hardest name in Ireland, and that was almost the only correct statement in his speech. He said Mr. Bolster resides at Glanmore, which is a great way off. The fact is, that Glanmore is the post town; it is only a mile and a half distant, the parish has no glebe, and Mr. Bolster lives in the nearest house to his parish. The hon. Gentleman said, "I agree to your averages." He does not deny that every rector has only £200 a year, and that he has a certain number of Episcopalians in his parish; but he says, it is ridiculous to suppose that there is any call in Ireland for a Church at all. I believe I am right in saying, that nine out of ten of the hon. Gentleman's alleged facts are erroneous, and I do not doubt that the tenth is erroneous too.
  The hon. Gentleman, assuming that there are changes in the population of Ireland, asks us why we oppose this Motion? I will tell him exactly why. I
  1706
  say his Motion is not made to amend or improve the Church of Ireland. The other day the hon. Gentleman had a Motion to destroy the parochial system of the Irish Church, and change it to a congregational system. Let me point out the powers which now exist for the reform of this Church. The Lord Lieutenant in Council has two remarkable and important powers. When a sinecure falls vacant, he may suppress it; and when any parish of more than £800 a year value is vacant, the Lord Lieutenant may divide it. That is the kind of measure the Church requires. In the parish of Belfast there are 30,000 Episcopalians—about one twenty-third of the whole number in Ireland—and what are the parochial endowments of that parish? They do not exceed £500 a year, or one eight-hundredth of the whole endowment of the Church. That is not an excessive endowment, and I should be very glad to see a proper method of dealing with such cases. But the proper way of doing so is with the advice, the cooperation, and the assistance of the heads of the Church, and they are anxious to give their co-operation. It might be done, also, by means of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and their powers might be advantageously enlarged for this purpose.
  I must not leave the hon. Member for Liskeard until I have corrected his statement about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are very respectable men, and who have done their work exceedingly well. The right hon. Baronet referred to the salaries of the Commissioners. There is a Return of their salaries before the House. There are only two Commissioners in the receipt of salaries, and they receive £1,000 each. The hon. Member for Liskeard, who had the Returns in his hand, said there were three Commissioners who received salaries, and that they were proper and discreet men. He told the House they received £6,000 in salaries, and that they managed the Church property under their control in the most expensive and extravagant way. But what does the Return, which the hon. Gentleman had in his hand, say? It shows that this sum is for the salaries of the Commissioners, the secretary, the treasurer, and all the clerks of the establishment. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I read that.] No, I beg pardon, the hon. Member did not read that. He must excuse me. He could not have read it even to himself, for he said they received £6,000 in salaries. Did he read the next

  1707
  Return? He said that for rent and coals the Commissioners paid £909 a year. I was astonished that this sum should he paid for the rent of a house in Dublin, and I looked at the Return, and what did it say? That this sum of £909 covers rent, coals, supernumerary clerks, repair of house, taxes, insurance, and other incidents. In fact, the establishment expenses of the Commission, which manages nearly 150,000 acres of land, spread over the whole of Ireland, are £7,000 a year in all—a sum as moderate as I have ever known spent by a Commission of the kind. Then the hon. Member said, "Just look at the next item, £36,000 for the ceremonials of the parish churches." Some one asked, "What are these ceremonials?" And the hon. Member for Liskeard replied, "Organ-blowing and things of that kind." What is the fact? There are no church rates in Ireland, vestry cess is abolished, and the care and working of the organ and the fuel are thrown upon the central fund in the hands of the Commissioners. The expenses are £36,000 in all, and this gives an average of £22 10 s. a year to each parish to pay the sexton, the clerk, the care and working of the organ, and the fuel. I should like to know in what church in England all this is clone for so little money.
  The hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) tells us that the Church of Ireland has not answered the purpose for which it was established, and ought therefore to be abolished. But what is the test of a Church having answered the purpose for which it was established? I will not indulge in any flights of imagination; it is by facts this matter should be judged. We have got a Return moved for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University in regard to population. We are told that the numbers of the Episcopalians have diminished, and we are asked to accept this as a proof that the Church has not acted up to its duty. But this Return puts the matter very shortly and very clearly before us. According to the Census of 1834 there were 100 Roman Catholics to 13¼ of the Established Church. In 1861 to 100 Roman Catholics there were 15½ of the Established Church. So that the members of the Established Church are relatively a larger body than they were in 1834. If we suppose that the ratio of 1834 had continued, there would be 70,000 fewer Episcopalians than there actually are, or, in other words, there has been a relative
  1708
  increase of 72,000 members of the Established Church. In the Census of 1834, 40,000 Methodists were reckoned as members of the Established Church. Add them to the calculation, and you have relatively 110,000 more Episcopalians than you had in 1834. The hon. Member says that the Church of Ireland has failed as a missionary Church. But does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that all the endowments of the Irish Church ought to be taken away, because she has failed to convert the Roman Catholics; and then that in due time all the endowments are to be taken away from the Roman Catholics if they do not convert all the Protestant population? If the Church endowments are to be taken from one religion and given to another, accordingly as they succeed or fail in this respect, let us understand it clearly, and then the various bodies will know what they have to do.
  I was very much surprised to hear this House made the field of discussion of the merits of the West Connaught Society; but I will say that those who object to the operations of the Society could not have done it a more beneficial service than to bring it under the notice of the House of Commons. I am sure it will do the Society more good than twenty meetings in London, even though the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary were to attend all of them. But what are the facts? I do not care about the 30,000 converts. West Connaught is 100 miles long and 30 broad, and twenty-five years ago there were in it 13 congregations, 7 churches, and 11 clergymen. There are now in it 57 congregations, 27 churches, and 35 clergymen. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: What are their numbers?] The numbers of some of the congregations are 50, of some 100, 200, and 300, and they meet regularly in the week and on the Sunday from one end of the year to another. The hon. Member for Liskeard, though he did not challenge the purity either of life or doctrine of the Irish clergy, said they were inferior in manners and learning to the English. I do not know what opportunities of associating with the clergy in Ireland he had, for he said he had never seen the clergyman of his own parish. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: He has never been near it.] Has he got a house? [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: No.] I have no doubt, if the hon. Member provides one, he will live there. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I will, if he pays for it.] But the hon. Member

  1709
  accounts for the Irish clergymen not being on a par with the English in this way—that the Irish bishops ordain men who have not received a University education. But is that the rule, or the exception? I know it is a matter of frequent occurrence in England; and when it cannot be avoided, a man who has not got a University education is ordained just as often in England as in Ireland. The hon. Member had the good taste to refer to the schedule of the effects of a bishop who died fourteen years ago, and who held one of the sees that have been since suppressed. But that bishop was a gentleman of large private fortune. The hon. Gentleman said, when he saw that schedule, it was in one of the famine years, and it made a deep impression on his mind. But I wish he had referred to the case of the head of the Irish Church, who, for upwards of fifty years, deriving a large income from the Church, and possessing a princely fortune in his own property, expended both upon the Church of which he was the head, and which will never cease to mourn his loss. And if matters connected with the famine are referred to, I wish the hon. Gentleman had thought of the part taken by the members of the Established Church—how they shared to the last shilling with their countrymen, and created a bond of affection among the people around them which will last long after the memory of the famine has passed away.
  Some who support this Motion would desire to see the Established Church transfer, either the whole or a part of her revenues, to the Roman Catholic Church. [The O'DONOGHUE: No, no!] The hon. Member for Tipperary says "No!" but he said on Friday night that he would never be satisfied, nor would the people of Ireland, until something of the kind was done. [The O'BONOGHCE: I said nothing of the kind; I said I never would be satisfied, nor would the people of Ireland, until there was religious equality.] Of course, I cannot ask what he means by religious equality; but I want to know what symbol of religious inequality is there in Ireland except the Establishment, and what is the sign of that inequality except the possession of property? I am not going back now to the age of St. Patrick, although the hon. Member for Liskeard has something to learn about him; but, putting aside the question of antiquity, I say that Church has got the title of prescription, which is as good as the title of the Church
  1710
  of England, or as good as that by which any hon. Gentleman holds his property. I would ask Gentlemen connected with the Nonconformists, upon what grounds do they support this Motion? Upon what principle did the House pass the Dissenters' Chapel Bill, when a far less period than 300 years sufficed to make a title to which Parliament felt bound to give effect? There is a pas sage in the speech of Lord Macaulay at that time which I would like to read to the House. He says—
  "I could never have imagined," said he, "that in an assembly of reasonable, civilized, and educated men it would be necessary to offer a word in defence of prescription, as a general principle. I should have thought it as much a waste of time of this House as to make a speech against the impropriety of burning witches, or of trying a right by wager of battle, or of testing the guilt or innocence of a culprit by making him walk over burning ploughshares. It is in every known part of the world, in every civilized age; it was familiar to the old tribunals of Athens; it formed part of the Roman jurisprudence; it was spread with the Imperial power over the whole of Europe; it was recognised after the French Revolution; and when the Code Napoleon was formed, that very principle of prescription was not forgotten. We find it both in the East and in the West; it is recognised by tribunals beyond the Mississippi, and in countries that had never heard of Justinian, and had no translation of the Pandects. In all places we find it acknowledged as a sacred principle of legislation. We have found it among the Hindoos, as well as the Mexicans and Peruvians; in our own country we find it coeval with the beginning of our laws. It is bound in the first of our statutes; it is close upon our great first charter; it is consecrated by successive Acts of Parliament; it is introduced into the Statute of Merton; it is found in the Statute of Westminster; and the principle only becomes more stringent as it is carried out by a succession of great legislators and statesmen down to our own time…. Is it not clear that the principle of prescription is essential to the institution of property itself, and that if you take it away, it is not some or a few evils that must follow, but general confusion?"
  I repeat that the title of the Established Church of Ireland by prescription, even if we go back no further than the last 300 years, is as good as the best title by which any estate in this country is held. But the hon. Member appeals to Lord Plunket. He was no bigot, he was not hostile to the Roman Catholic Church, and his name would be remembered with gratitude by the Roman Catholics of Ireland as long as any name can be borne in mind. Well, Lord Plunket said—
  "With respect to the Protestant Establishment of Ireland, he considered it necessary for the security of all property. He thought that there should not only be an established Church, but that it should be richly endowed, and that its dignitaries should be enabled to take their stations in

  1711
  society with the nobles of the land; but speaking of it in a political point of view, he had no hesitation in stating that the Protestant establishment was the great bond of union between the two countries; and if even that unfortunate moment should arrive when they should rashly lay their hands on the property of the Church to rob it of its rights, that moment would seal the doom of, and separate the connection between, the two countries."
  And what did Mr. Serjeant Shee say on the same subject? These are his words—
  "The Church by law established is the church of a community everywhere considerable in respect of property, rank, and intelligence; it is strong in a prescription of three centuries, and in the support which it derives from the supposed identity of its interests with those of the Church of England. Nothing short of a convulsion tearing up both Establishments by the roots, could accomplish its overthrow."
  The hon. Member for Elgin, and those who think with him, desire that establishments should be put an end to. But I desire the House to observe that that is not a question that concerns the Irish Church, but the Established Church of England and Ireland. And though I quite agree that there is nothing in the articles of Union to prevent you from amending the Irish Church, yet if you go upon the abstract principle of endowments, you will be obliged to deal with both Churches on the same footing, and that was what Lord Castlereagh meant when he pointed out the advantages to be gained from uniting the two Churches. He said that the Church of Ireland was a colonial Church; but once the two Churches were united, the Irish Church was put beyond attack, except upon grounds upon which the Church of England might be attacked also. The hon. Member for Swansea told us the other night that he had observed in the history of British parties, that when once the Whigs ceased to attack the Irish Church, they became a failing party. He perceived that there might be an attack on the Irish Church, and he thought that it would be very inconsistent to make that attack, when his party should be in Opposition, unless they made it while their party was in office. That was as refreshing a frankness and as candid a confession as I ever heard. The hon. Member referred to the Appropriation Clause, and we cannot help going back for one minute to that measure, and contrasting the present state of Ireland with its condition at that time. Then you had disturbance, riots, and I might also say rebellion in Ireland, if not caused, directly connected with the state of the law as it stood with
  1712
  respect to the revenues of the Established Church. You altered the law, and where are the riots in Ireland? You have occasionally agrarian disturbances, but there is not an instance for twenty years of disturbance in Ireland which you can connect in any way with the revenues or existence of the Established Church in Ireland. I will tell the House why. The House commuted the tithe charge in Ireland, which may be taken in round numbers at £400,000 a year, and a calculation has been made which shows that the amount of the rent charge payable by Roman Catholics in lieu of tithes is under £30,000. With regard to the tenants of Church lands and glebes, a wife and mild legislation was introduced in 1833 and 1834, in pursuance of which two-thirds of the tenants of Church lands have bought out their farms. They hold them in fee simple, having paid the purchase-money to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That money is in the bank, and the income is applied to the benefit of the Church, and there is no grievance attaching to Roman Catholics in connection with the Church. We are now at the last day of June, and this discussion was begun on the 19th of May. An hon. Member, in moving the adjournment of the debate, said, wait a fortnight and see what Petitions on the subject would flow in from Ireland. Here we are at the end of six weeks, and I find that the number of Petitions from the beginning of the Session to the present day, complaining of the existence of the Established Church in Ireland, is twenty-two, and the number of signatures 7,000 from 4,500,000 people. The war of the Appropriation Clause has answered its purpose, but I feel satisfied that the Irish Church would never deprecate or shrink from any attempt at amendment or re-adjustment for the purpose of improvement; but I hope the House will always resist any proposal which, under the transparent cloak of aiming at improvement, seeks to destroy and overthrow an institution which I believe to be indissolubly connected with the best hopes of Ireland and the true principles of Christianity.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: The noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire on a former evening desired, after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that some other Member of the Government should declare what course the Government intended to take in reference to the present Motion: but I should have thought that the declaration made by

  1713
  the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was explicit and clear enough to render any statement from me unnecessary. He stated that the Government felt it their duty to oppose the Motion, and in that declaration I cordially concur. The noble Lord said that my right hon. Friend in announcing that decision showed but little enthusiasm in his defence of the Established Church in Ireland, and I am afraid I shall be subject to the same reproach if the noble Lord expects me to rise to any high pitch of enthusiasm in defending a system, by which in any country an exclusive Establishment is maintained for the benefit of a small minority only, while at the same time no provision is made for the clergy of the great majority. That is an opinion which I have before expressed, and to which I deliberately adhere. At the same time, I have never said or given countenance to the opinion that the Established Church in Ireland should be subverted, and it is because I concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, that the present Motion, though clothed in vague and indefinite terms, aims at, not the reform or Amendment, but the destruction of the Irish Established Church, that I give my opposition to it. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) said that he merely wished to remove some of the anomalies in the Irish Establishment, and to transfer the Church revenues from parishes where there are no Protestant inhabitants to other parishes, or to inquire into the operation of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Ireland. To a proposition of that kind there might be no reasonable objection, if brought forward in a practical shape; but what has been the course of this debate? The hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) did not conceal the fact that in supporting the Motion his intention was to destroy the Church of Ireland, and declared that the doctrine and liturgy of that Church were unsuited to any people of Celtic origin. The hon. Member for Tipperary, in an able and temperate speech, put the same construction as the hon. Member for Elgin on the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and supported it on the ground of the right of all persons in Ireland to religious equality. As he disclaimed any desire to appropriate any portion of the revenues of the Church in favour of the Roman Catholics, the only alternative which the hon. Member had in view must be that which the hon. Member for Elgin also aimed at—the sweeping
  1714
  away of the Protestant Establishment. The Motion before us, ambiguous and vague in its terms, has been supported by two hon. Members in speeches which clearly indicate that it is directed to the total abolition of the Church. Whatever I may think of the wisdom and policy of establishing an exclusive Church of the religion of a minority in a country, without making any provision for the religion of the majority of the inhabitants, it is impossible to get rid of the fact, that this Church has existed for centuries, has become interwoven with the institutions of the country, and could not be subverted without a revolution. That revolution I, for one, am not prepared to recommend. I deeply regret that at the beginning of the century, at the time of the Union, the wise policy proposed by Mr. Pitt and those who acted with him was not carried into effect, and that when the Irish branch of the Establishment was incorporated with the English some provision was not made for the clergy of the mass of the people. I believe it would have been accepted at that time, although the time appears to have gone past for it now. There are now these two great obstacles:—First, the progress of the feeling of hostility among the people of this country to any such measure, which would prevent any Government from proposing it, and would lead to its rejection if it were proposed; and secondly, the repeated declarations made on behalf of the Roman Catholics that they would repudiate any such provision. We now have an Established Church of Ireland, and, I believe, it has been the means of effecting much good. I fully concur in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said as to the learning, piety, and devotion of the clergy, who relieve suffering without regard to creed. At the same time, I cannot agree with him in saying, that because the tithe rent-charge is on land, which is chiefly held by Protestants, there is no ground for complaint. I can understand that there is ground for dissatisfaction, notwithstanding that beneficial change in the law which prevents the clergyman from coming into collision with his parishioners in the collection of tithe, because this question is, after all, one of feeling rather than money. I think good may be done by such reasonable reforms in the Church as may be deemed practicable. As to the appeal made to myself and some of my Colleagues who voted twenty-five years ago for the Appropriation Clause, on that

  1715
  account to support this Motion, I may say that the Motion is of a totally different character. It goes far beyond the object of the Resolution supported by majorities of the House at the time I hare mentioned. The party with whom I acted then, as I have done during the rest of my political life, with the view of removing some ground for dissatisfaction in Ireland, proposed that if a surplus should be found to exist in the ecclesiastical revenues after providing for the reasonable wants of the Protestants, it should be applied to the general education and improvement of the Irish people. I believe that was a sound and salutary principle. A controversy arose regarding it between the two Houses of Parliament, and after it had been repeatedly affirmed by this House, the Government, with the consent of the leaders of the Irish party, abandoned the clause, in order to remove an obstacle to practical legislation. The Tithe Act was then passed, which has been productive of great advantage to Ireland. Afterwards the Whig party, then in Opposition, instead of attempting to reverse that decision, gave their cordial support to the Bill of Sir Robert Peel, then at the head of the Government, the object of which was to provide for greater equality in the religious institutions of Ireland, by supplying the means of education for the Roman Catholic clergy. That was, I believe, only an act of justice, and we have always, at the loss of some popularity and the sacrifice of some friends, given it a hearty and consistent support. Now, to revive the discussion is only to excite acrimonious feelings without the possibility of any satisfactory result. I feel myself totally free from the obligation to support the Motion, on account of the part I took a quarter of a century ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard has himself justified me in that course. For several years he sat on this bench as one of my Colleagues; and when Mr. Miall brought forward his Motion, he acted the part of a mute, and neither by his Voice or his vote expressed his dissent from the policy of the rest of the Government. For these reasons I cannot support the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  COLONEL GREVILLEmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would appeal to the House to give fair play to advocates of the Motion, and, by adjourning the debate, to permit of a reply to the three defenders of the Church—the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. and
  1716
  learned Member for Belfast, and the Home Secretary.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he rose to order. He submitted that the Speaker had never put the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville), who had moved the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would proceed at once.
  Motion made, and Question put. "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Greville.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 228: Majority 161.
  Original Question and Amendment again proposed.
  MR. LANIGANsaid, he would move that the House should adjourn.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should offer no opposition to that Motion, because its effect would be to put an end to the debate by getting rid of the Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that as so large a majority of the House were anxious to terminate the debate, it would be unwise not to accede to their desire. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, was sufficiently answered by the cheers which greeted it from the Opposition, and the indignant silence with which it was received on that side of the House. The right hon. Baronet said the object of the Motion Was to destroy altogether and to abolish the established Church of Ireland, but the hon. Member for Liskeard had distinctly stated that he only desired to have a Committee to investigate the present ecclesiastical establishment of Ireland, and he did not even say how the surplus revenue, if there was any, should be applied. He (Mr. Monsell) disclaimed all idea of supporting the Motion from a desire to overthrow the Established Church in Ireland. That, he admitted, could not be accomplished without a revolution, and he was not prepared to face a revolution for such an object; but, without being overthrown, its revenues might be reduced, and the surplus appropriated to other purposes. Every argument in favour of the Established Church in England told against the Establishment as it now existed in Ireland. Would the English people submit to the exclusion of the large majority of

  1717
  Englishmen from a participation in the funds dedicated by the piety of their ancestors to provide for the spiritual wants of the whole people. If neither England nor Scotland would endure the appropriation of their ecclesiastical revenues to a small and rich minority, could they expect the Irish people to be contented so long as the present ecclesiastical settlement there remained unchanged. The Secretary of State was not accurate in saying that the subject had slept since 1834, because in the debates of 1843 and 1844 the leaders of the Whig party condemned the Church of Ireland, and attributed to it most of the evils from which that country suffered. Did the right hon. Baronet forget the strong language used by Lord John Russell, Lord Grey, and Lord Macaulay, the latter of whom declared, notwithstanding his respect for the rights of property, that the Church of Ireland was an intolerable abuse, and ought to be swept from the face of the earth. Did he forget the emphatic words of the noble Lord now the Prime Minister, that it was impossible that the present ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland could be permanent? What had caused the difference between the opinions of right hon. Gentlemen at that time, and their opinions in 1834? The only difference was, that there was then in Ireland a powerful agitation headed by a powerful man, and they yielded to fear what they now dented to justice. In every other respect, every change of circumstance had been unfavourable to the Irish Church. The course pursued with regard to the question by the Government would be most injurious to their own party and could not fail to strengthen their opponents.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he must protest against the debate being closed that night. The House had had no opportunity of hearing the Prime Minister, who would, no doubt, adhere to his already expressed opinions; nor was the leader of the Opposition present, who had himself strongly condemned the Irish Church.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Lanigan,)—put, and agreed to.

  REMOVAL AND PUNISHMENT OF PRISONERS BILL.
  Bill for remedying certain defects in the Law relating to the Removal and Punishment of Prisoners, presented, and read 1o*. [Bill 194.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.