Commons Sitting of 22 March 1866

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland)*; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland) *; Cattle Assurance.*
First Reading—Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland)* [88]; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland) * [89]; Cattle Assurance * [90].
Second Reading—Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [71]; Contagious Diseases [78].
Referred to Select Committee—Contagious Diseases [78].
Committee—Labouring Classes' Dwellings (re-comm.) [67]; Ecclesiastical Leases (Isle of Man)* [80].
Report—Labouring Classes' Dwellings (re-comm.) [67]; Ecclesiastical Leases (Isle of Man)* [80].
Third Reading—East India Military. &c., Funds Transfer * [75], and passed.

MR. SPEAKER'S ILLNESS.
The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the continued illness and unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker:—Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker; and after prayers, counted the House, and Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July 1855.
BOSTON ELECTION.
The Clerk of the Crown, attending according to Order, amended the Return for the Borough of Boston, by substituting the name of Meaburn Staniland, esquire.

BRIDGNORTH ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That Sir John Emerick Dalberg Acton, baronet, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bridgnorth.
That Henry Whitmore, esquire, is duly elected, and ought to have been returned a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bridgnorth.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed that the Committee had altered the poll taken at such Election by striking off the name of William Edwards, as not having had a right to vote at such Election; also of Mark Philip Lee, it having been proved that he had received money for the purpose of influencing his vote:
730
House further informed, that the Committee had agreed to the following Resolution:—
That it was proved to the Committee that the said Mark Philip Lee had been bribed with the payment of £4 by Charles Selby Bigge, under the pretext of travelling expenses; but that it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of the said Sir John E. D. Acton or his Agents.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Clerk of the Crown to attend forthwith, to amend the Return.
The Clerk of the Crown attending, according to Order, amended the said Return accordingly—namely, by substituting the name of Henry Whitmore, esquire.

GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That Sir Edmund Henry Knowles Lacon, baronet, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Great Yarmouth
That James Goodson, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Great Yarmouth.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed of Resolutions agreed to, by the Committee reporting that certain parties had received several sums of money as bribes, and that it was not proved to the Committee that any of the aforesaid acts of bribery were committed with the knowledge, authority, or consent of the said Sir Edmund H. K. Lacon and James Goodson, esquire, or either of them, or of any of their Agents:
That the Committee have reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last election for the Borough of Great Yarmouth.
Report to lie on the Table.

BRITISH MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he would; beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have had under their consideration any scheme for the improvement of the constitution and administration of the British Museum; and, if so, whether they will lay I upon the table of the House the Correspondence which has taken place on this subject between Her Majesty's Government and the Trustees of the British Museum; whether it has been decided to fill up the post of Secretary Librarian under the same conditions as it was recently held by Mr. Panizzi; and whether the Government will lay upon the table of the House any Correspondence that has passed between the Trustees of the British Museum and

731
the various Departments of the Government respecting the removal of the Ethnographical Collections to the east of London?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member's question, I have to state that there is no correspondence between the Government and the Trustees of the British Museum, and no decision has been taken as to filling up the post of principal Librarian under the same conditions as it was recently held by Mr. Panizzi. There was some time ago certain communications with the Trustees, but they were not embodied in a correspondence; and although they might be made the subject of explanation when they came to deal practically with the case, they could not be presented separately to the House. In the view of the Government, the first step to be taken is to submit to that House the Vote which they have given notice of their intention to propose for the erection of a building at Kensington; and we can take no other step of a definite character until the House has decided on that. If there is any correspondence respecting the removal of the Ethnographical Collections to the east of London it will be produced.
LORD HENRY LENNOX: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question with reference to the other correspondence.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: All I can promise is that when the Government moves the Vote to which I have referred they will fully state their views with regard to the whole subject.

EXPENSE OF ELECTIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONTsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the additional cost of Parliamentary contests arising from the proposed increase of Electors, Government will introduce Clauses in their Reform Bill—1. To render illegal the conveyance of Voters to the Poll at the expense of candidates, and to multiply polling-places; 2. To defray out of local rates certain Election charges connected with Returning Officers, Polling Places, &c., and generally to reduce the costs of contests?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the two propositions which are mentioned by the Question of my hon. Friend are propositions of very considerable
732
importance, with an object which we are very desirous to promote by every means in our power—namely, the cheapening of elections, especially as regards the candidates. They are, therefore, matters which it would certainly be our duty to consider. But we must take the several parts of the subject relating to a reform of the representation of the people in what we think is their natural order; and, undoubtedly, as far as we are able to judge it would be our duty to consider those questions which relate to the boundaries of towns, and especially to the re-distribution of the seats, before we come to the revision of the law connected with the machinery of registration and the expenses of elections.

INSURANCE OF CATTLE.—QUESTION.
LORD GEORGE MANNERSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for the purpose of placing existing local Mutual Cattle Insurance Associations on a sound and legal basis?
MR. BARING, in reply, said, he hoped to obtain leave that evening to bring in a Bill to afford to Mutual Cattle Insurance Associations additional facilities to recover subscriptions from members of those societies. He also proposed to allow persons to insure in those societies for more than they can at present.

THE RIVER COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the River Commission are likely to make their Report, and whether they are not now prepared, if called upon, to make a Special Report on the River Thames; and whether it is not desirable that they should be called upon to do so, as that River is now the subject of legislation in this House?
MR. BARING, in reply, said, the Report of the Royal Commission was now in the press, and would be presented to Parliament before the recess. That Report related to the River Thames, to which the hon. Member's Question alluded.

FENIAN PRISONERS, &c., (IRELAND.)

  QUESTION.
  The O'DONOGHUEsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whe-

  733
  ther he does not think it would have a good effect upon the state of Iceland, and whether he sees any objection to releasing from custody those persons arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act who can procure bail; whether it be true, as reported in the papers, that the Catholic Cathedral at Armagh was searched, and even the vaults entered; if so, whether this was done by direction or with the approval of the Government; if it was not done by direction or with the approval of the Government, whether he does not think the matter ought to be made the subject of inquiry, with a view to giving redress to the Catholics, and of preventing the recurrence of such an act; and whether lie will state if the Land Bill which the Government was going to introduce differs in principle from the Bill introduced by Mr. Cardwell; and, if so, what is the difference?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, in reply to the hon. Member's first Question, he had to state that a careful investigation was made in the case of every person arrested under the Act, and no person was retained in custody unless the Government were clearly satisfied that he had been actively engaged in promoting the objects of that conspiracy. In his opinion it would have a very bad effect indeed if they were to release upon bail the persons who were so engaged, and to permit them to travel through the country carrying on their do signs. With regard to finding bail those persons would have no difficulty in doing that, because it would only be necessary for them to indemnify the sureties for any breach of their recognizances. But if amongst those in custody there were persons who had come from America to pro mote the objects of the association, he would be disposed to give a very favourable consideration to any application which they might make if they wished to leave Ireland and to return to the place they came from With respect to the lion. Member's second Question, as to a search in the Catholic Cathedral at Armagh, he (Mr.Lawson) had written to Ireland for full information on that subject, and directed that it should be procured He had not yet, however, received it, and if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to repeat his Question he should be in a position to give him the fullest information on the matter. [The O'DONOGHUE: To morrow?] He could not answer for that, but thought it was extremely likely. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's third
  734
  Question, as to the Land Bill which the Government were to bring in, and as to the principle of that Bill, he was sure the hon. Member himself and the House would see that it would be extremely improper for him then to anticipate the statement which should be made upon the introduction of that measure. He had reason to hope, however, that the proposal of the Government would be one that would be likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement of a very difficult and vexed question.

  LOSS OF THE "LONDON."—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If he considers the late inquiry into the loss of the London steamer a satisfactory one; and, if so, to state what, in his opinion, are the causes alleged in the Report of the Court of Inquiry as having occasioned the said wreck, by which so large a sacrifice of life took place?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, the inquiry was so far satisfactory that every one who could give any information and who was competent to form an opinion as to the cause of the loss of the London was fully examined. I think that, although the mode in which these investigations are generally conducted may be improved, it is very improbable that in this case any proceedings different from those pursued would have enabled the Court and the public to arrive at any more positive conclusion on the subject than that stated by Mr. Traill and the assessors. With regard to the second Question of the hon. Member, 1 can only reply by referring to the Report itself, which states that the immediate cause of the loss of the London was entirely owing to the sea getting into the engine-room and extinguishing the fires; but it is not clear from the evidence, whether the water came in through the hatchway or from some unobserved injury which the ship had received in the gale.

  REPRESESTATION OF THE PEOPLE— THE FRANCHISE.—QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question arising out of the statement made by him with reference to the Reform Bill. He wished to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to give a qualification to Copyholders and Leaseholders within Cities and Boroughs, or within Counties or Divisions of Counties

  735
  within which such Cities and Boroughs are situated; and, if so, what addition to the County constituencies will be made by such provision?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: With respect, Sir, to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, I may say that I thought my intention was declared with perfect clearness in the Bill. In reply to the latter part of the Question, the answer is, we have no means of forming anything more than a judgment of our own upon the matter, which does not admit of being made the subject of a Return. All county votes the subject of a claim depend upon the parties coming forward to make known precisely what is the state of their property, and we have no means of getting a Return in reference to it. With regard to the judgment we have formed, it is this—we look to the number of copyholders and leaseholders upon the actual register, we compare that with the number of freeholders upon the actual register, and then take into view the very large number of the copyholders and leaseholders within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs who must be disqualified from claiming for the county by the fact that they are in the occupation of their own holdings, and if they are in the occupation of their own holdings they cannot be claimants for a Parliamentary vote in respect of them. Our opinion, therefore, is that the number of persons who would be in a condition to make a claim would be a decidedly small number.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I desire to know what is the estimate of the number of voters that will be added to the County constituencies?
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER: I thought that was the very question I answered. I replied that the subject admitted only of the formation of an opinion respecting it.

  THE TOTNES ELECTION.
  House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
  That John Pender, esquire, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Totnes.
  That Alfred Seymour, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Totnes.
  That the last Election for the said Borough, so far as regards the Return of John Pender, esquire, is a void Election.
  And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
  736
  House further informed, That the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:

  1. That John Pender, esquire, was guilty of bribery at the last Election:

  2. That it was proved to the Committee that an offer of a place or employment was made by the said John Pender, esquire, to Robert Harris:

  3. That it has been distinctly stated by some witnesses, and the general tenor of the evidence given leads the Committee to believe that a system of gross corruption prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Totnes, and also on former similar occasions:

  4. That there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed in the said Borough.

  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.—(Mr. Bouverie.)

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise for the purpose of bringing before the House, as briefly as possible, what would appear to be a great grievance, and of making inquiry of the Secretary for War in reference to it. Though this grievance has been experienced by persons of a very humble position, I am sure the House of Commons will not attend to it less on that account, and it affects a considerable class of Her Majesty's subjects. The facts of the case are these:—Some years ago a Buckinghamshire lad, by name Sadler, enlisted into Her Majesty's service, and shortly afterwards was ordered to India. In August, 1863, his father, who was an agricultural labourer, received intimation of the death of his son. It so happened that a very brief time before this intimation reached the father he received a letter from his son, written not at all in the contemplation of approaching death, for he was not even suffering from any illness: the son informed him that he had deposited £15 in the military savings bank. It was, therefore, very natural that the father, on receiving the sad announcement of his son's death, should make some effort to obtain the money; and he therefore wrote to the Department over which the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) presides. For some considerable time he received no

  737
  answer; but at length he received a communication enclosing an order for the sum of £1 0s. 1d., with the notification that that sum was all the father need expect. I would here say that I do not complain of the delay in answering the man's letter, for I can easily conceive that there may have been circumstances which prevented on immediate answer. In the letter there was no savings bank book or any voucher enclosed, or any official document of any kind. The father was very naturally disappointed at such a result, and he accordingly went to the person who is often the poor man's only friend, the parish priest. The vicar of the parish drew op a letter which stated the whole case in a lucid manner, which was afterwards copied by the father and forwarded along with the son's letter to the War Office. No answer was ever received to this epistle, and even the son's letter, the only voucher for the money deposited in the savings bank, was not sent back, although it was particularly requested that it should be returned. A. period of two years and a half then elapsed, during which the father died. A very short time after this event a letter arrived from the War Office, addressed to the father as the representative of the young soldier, enclosing an order for 2s. 2d., as the balance of his account. The case appears to be one of great injustice. We hear night after night of the difficulty which is experienced in finding recruits for our army; we see that it. is necessary to hold out inducements in order to get men to enlist—and here is a youth who gave his youth and his life to his country, who would seem to have been of a provident and moral turn of mind, and at a great distance from his home, guided by those principles which we cherish in England. There can be no doubt that the possession of such a sum of money is of great importance to a labouring man, and yet of this sum only a very inconsiderable part came to the father's hands. Nearly three years have elapsed, and such would appear to be the conduct of affairs on the part of the War Office that it is impossible not to suspect, and almost to believe, that this is not a single and exceptional case, but an instance from a variety of cases of oppression and hardship which do occur. Under these circumstances, I have deemed it my duty to bring the subject before the House, and I feel satisfied that the noble Lord at the head of the War Office if he should not have it in his power to give a satisfactory explanation on the
  738
  points to which I have referred will take them into his serious consideration. This, when we are about to be asked to vote the public money, is, I think, the proper occasion to bring such a matter forward, and I should be happy to learn from the Government that there was some chance that those on whose behalf I speak should obtain redress for the loss to which they have so long and so unjustly been subjected.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, that he had not the slightest idea that his right hon. Friend was about to bring forward the subject to which he had just called attention, but he would now take occasion to say that a similar instance had come under his own; notice. A short time ago a widow in a village near where he resided received a I letter from her son stating that he was travelling down the coast with his discharge on his way home; adding that he I had saved £30 or £40, which he had placed in a savings bank, and with which he hoped to start in some trade and contribute to her support. The next account of him, however, which reached her was conveyed through a paper which was forwarded to her from the army agent in London, authorizing her to receive a sum of about 20 s., but not saying a word about the money in the savings bank. He bad laid the matter before the War Office, but had never got any satisfactory reply with respect to it, and he was afraid there was something radically wrong connected with the management of the affairs of our soldiers in India, otherwise no such circumstances as those to which attention had been invited would have occurred.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must express my deep regret that my noble Friend at the head of the War Department (the Marquess of Hartington) is not in his place to reply to the Questions which have been put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The subject, I may add, has been brought on out of the ordinary course of the business for the evening, as set down in the Notice Paper; and even if my noble Friend were present he could hardly give an immediate answer to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as he could only address the House once on the Motion before it, and the next subject for discussion also relates to matters connected with the War Department, on which he would have to; speak. I, of course, can offer no satisfactory explanation as to a case with the

  739
  circumstances of which I have been made acquainted only within the last few minutes. At the same time, I may say, that it is a case which seems to demand explanations on both sides. It happened to me to have to apply to the War Office with respect to the affairs of soldiers coming from India, and I must say that the accounts for which I asked were given with the utmost promptitude. I quite agree that this is a case which calls for careful inquiry; but I would remind the House that it does not appear that any depositor's book was sent to the War Office, and the letter of the soldier was obviously no voucher at all. I do not like to make a suggestion that the papers should be produced, nor can I exactly say what would be the right course to take, until I have some further knowledge of the particulars of the case. I, however, agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these matters ought to be looked into with the utmost punctuality, otherwise an injurious effect may be produced.
  MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman, owing, no doubt, to some fault of mine, has entirely misapprehended my statement. There was no controversy in this case as to the title to the property. The War Office recognized the title by making two remittances. The savings bank books, I may add, necessarily remain in the hands of the Government. A peasant in Bucks could not well have in his possession the savings bank books of a soldier in India. The books, and all the other property of the man were, directly he died, taken into the hands of the authorities in India, by whom and the War Office the disposal of the assets is effected.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to a point of order. According to the rules of the House, Motions on going into Committee of Supply should be brought in regular succession, in the order in which they stood on the Notice Paper. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, however, interfered with that arrangement by bringing on before any of those Motions were disposed of a subject with respect to which there was on the Paper no notice whatsoever, and the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand), who had announced it to be his intention to bring on another question on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, had been entrapped into sacrificing the privilege of doing so, inasmuch as he had already spoken once. It was productive of great
  740
  inconvenience, in his opinion, that the rules regulating the conduct of public business should thus be departed from.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was correct in point of order; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks had been enabled to make the statement which he had made by the consent of the House.
  Afterwards—
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of expressing his regret that he had not been in the House in the early part of the evening, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had put a Question respecting the effects of a deceased soldier. The right hon. Gentleman had privately given him notice that he would ask that Question; but he had expected that the right hon. Gentleman would not have done so until the other Notices on the Paper previously to their going into Committee of Supply should have been disposed of. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have stated that the relatives of a deceased soldier of the name of Sadler had been unable to recover the sum of £15 which he had placed in a regimental savings bank. But the War Office had been informed by the commanding officer of the regiment that that soldier had not for a considerable period before his death had any account in that bank. He could not account for the circumstance, but the testimony of the commanding officer was conclusive that there was no such sum in the savings bank, and the soldier's friends were informed of that fact.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

IRELAND—ESCAPE OF STEPHENS.

  QUESTION. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. WHITESIDE, in rising to call attention to the circumstances of the escape of Mr. Stephens from Richmond prison, and to move for Papers, said: Sir, the subject on which I wish to address the House for a short time relates to the escape of Stephens from Her Majesty's gaol at Richmond, in which he was detained. It is not my intention to enter into the large and general question which awaits discussion, as to the

  741
  principle or the policy which led to the Fenian conspiracy. It has not been deemed judicious until the prosecutions which have been undertaken are completed to submit to the House the views which are entertained by some, and amongst others by myself, of the policy which led to the sad events which have disgraced and damaged Ireland. The particular question which I now wish to submit to the attention of the House is a short one compared with that of the Fenian conspiracy, and well deserves the attention of those hon. Members who wish to ascertain the true condition of the country, and the state of the departments and the morals of certain officials who are intrusted with the execution of the law. Sir, the question relates to Mr. Stephens, and the first question that might naturally be asked is—"Who is Mr. Stephens?" I became acquainted with him—but not personally—during the trial of the late Mr. Smith O'Brien, in 1848. I was engaged for Mr. Smith O'Brien and General Meagher. When I first heard of Mr. Stephens he was aide-de-camp, I believe, to Mr. Smith O'Brien; and, together with Mr. O'Mahoney, he got into conflict with the police. Mr. Stephens was wounded, and then, with his accustomed dexterity, he managed to quit Ireland, and fixed his abode with O'Mahoney at Paris. There, I am informed, he studied French and other revolutionary accomplishments, and every thing which a gentleman undertaking so serious a matter as the overthrow of the Irish Government ought to acquaint himself with prior to embarking in so perilous and desperate an effort. He afterwards returned to Ireland and was introduced to many respectable families as a teacher of the French language, and I have heard that he was esteemed and admired for his qualifications. Towards the year 1858 or 1859, a Conservative Government being then in power, the Earl of Eglinton, the Lord Lieutenant, from his habit of reading the police and magisterial reports, perceived plainly the beginning of a conspiracy in Ireland, and after some time it was found to be connected with persons in America. My noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), who was Secretary for Ireland, recommended that a faithful agent should be despatched to America, to discover whether there was any reality in the truth of the statement that the conspiracy had a connection with persons in that country; that person returned
  742
  and reported that it had, and that in his judgment there was a dangerous confederacy in America in connection with the movement in Ireland. After a time it was discovered that Stephens was the person who had organized this second conspiracy, and in the case for the Crown, prepared by a most efficient officer (Sir Matthew Barrington), the following facts, which were afterwards proved in evidence, were stated—
  "It further appears that the members of this treasonable confederacy have bound themselves by oath to carry out their designs; but no trace of pass-words or secret signs has been discovered. The earliest fact which has been ascertained appears to be that a person, named Stephens, and who was also known by the soubriquet of 'Shuke,' and who was implicated in the insurrectionary movement of 1848, was in this country last summer, and that he traversed the localities mentioned, organizing this society, and giving to certain persons the form of oath which they were to administer to others for the purpose of extending the operations of the society."
  That oath was proved on evidence, and the terms of it will give the House to understand what an unhappy event has been the escape of Mr. Stephens. The oath, which these persons took, was in the following terms:—
  "I, A. B., do solemnly declare, in the presence of God, to renounce all allegiance to the Queen of England, and do my utmost endeavours, at every risk, to make Ireland an independent democratic Republic; and that I shall take up arms and fight, at a moment's warning, and shall yield implicit obedience to the commands of my superiors; and that I will preserve inviolable secrecy with regard to brotherhood; and finally, I take this oath without any mental reservation—so help mo God."
  Two or three witnesses proved the connection of Stephens with these proceedings; and to show the character of his friends, who acted with him to the last moment of his arrest, and were so properly prosecuted lately by the Government (and I admit that from the time the Government acted we have reason to be thankful for the conduct of the officers, magistrates, juries, and Judges) I will read a short extract from a letter of one of the conspirators—
  "Dear Sir,—I am ever ready to do my utmost to promote the cause and achieve the reality of nationality; I am, therefore, your servant in any undertaking to obtain that result; but I differ with some sentiment expressed in the seventh paragraph of your prospectus, inasmuch as I do not believe that the Saxon will ever relax his grasp except by the persuasion of cold lead and steel. No, never! cold steel: to that it must come at last, nor quake to hear it spoken; by the blow alone which we strike can the chains of the despot be broken; and, if I take the liberty to offer another remark, I would say that too much is said

  743
  about the divinity of our own creed, and when a principal object is to promote union among Irishmen. Excuse the liberty I have taken, and wishing God speed to the cause."
  I should mention to the House that the following statement was made by myself as Attorney General in 1859 as to Mr. Stephens:—
  "It appears that a person, who I deeply lament to say has escaped the hands of justice, who was known by the name of 'Shuke,' but whose real name was Stephens, appeared about a year ago in this county, sometimes in Skibbereen, sometimes in Bantry, sometimes in Kenmare, sometimes at Killarney. He is described as one of the patriots of 1848, and therefore more qualified than another to guide the movement of 1858. I will prove that this man Stephens was the person through whom it was understood the Americans would come over to Ireland, aided by the French, to conquer the country; that the conspirators were to have money from America and soldiers from France. This man 'Shuke' you will find constantly referred to as the person through whom foreign aid was to be obtained, and that bears directly on the overt acts laid in the indictment."
  The result of the trials in 1859 was that the man who was tried at Killarney was convicted, and the judgment, which was not severe, considering his offence, was ten years' penal servitude. A motion was made for the discharge of certain persons who were not tried in Cork, which I thought it my duty to resist, believing them to be all guilty of high treason, and the Court of Queen's Bench refused to discharge them. Accordingly they were left in custody until the Government of Lord Derby was obliged to retire. The right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) then became Minister for Ireland, and I will ask him hereafter to explain his policy. The first thing that occurred was the discharge from custody of all those persons who, after pleading "not guilty," had withdrawn that plea and pleaded "guilty," and among them the writer of the letter I have read; and then Mr. Stephens, who had fled the country, returned to Ireland for the third time. I do not make any charge of motives against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. My belief is that he failed to comprehend the character of these men. The right hon. Gentleman is amiable and courteous, accustomed to live among plausible politicians, and could not comprehend the character of Mr. Stephens. In one sense I have a respect for Mr. Stephens. He is a daring revolutionist and enthusiastic Republican, and the right hon. Gentleman was no more
  744
  qualified to deal with such a man than a child. These men had a policy and a conviction, and I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could have dreamt that they had abandoned their opinions because they had been discharged from prison. We did not hear anything of Stephens for some little time afterwards; but after the right hon. Gentleman had been the Minister for Ireland, for about fifteen months, a grand demonstration was got up in honour of the memory of M'Manus, who had been convicted of high treason in 1848 with Smith O'Brien, and who was described as having risked his life for his country. That procession did take place—it was said that there was no human body in the coffin—but whether that were so or not, no prayers were said; but they did not want prayers; what they wanted was revolutionary speeches, and these were delivered at the place of interment without any interference on the part of the Government of the day. The next thing we hear of Mr. Stephens was the formation of the present conspiracy which dates from the Chicago Convention in 1863. Stephens was there. Ho must certainly be a man of considerable ability, because he influences the masses with more success and secresy than any man who has been in Ireland since Wolfe Tone. But it does also appear that by means of passes he got access to the troops in America; he addressed himself to the regiments of the American army, to a great extent composed of Irishmen, and he held out to them the prospect of paying us a visit and those compliments, the result of which would be so very agreeable to themselves and so very disagreeable to us. Then we have an account of what he did in Ireland. A remarkable paper was produced at one of the trials in Ireland, which gave a description of Stephens, from his own lips. It said, "I dined at the tables of the rich; I slept in the cabins of the poor; I traversed the country from end to end"—and I wish I could say I disbelieve him, when he adds, "I enlisted," that is, brought into the Fenian conspiracy, "about 60,000 men." He accomplished that in about two years, from 1863 to 1865. He paid several visits to America. He organized a conspiracy there, said to consist of 250,000 men; and then he founded in Dublin what the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) so well described as the revolutionary journal, The Irish People, every line that appeared in which during the two years of its existence was

  745
  treasonable; but the fact that Stephens was the real conductor of it was quite enough to explain this. For two or three years he was the ostensible manager of that journal. When I say "ostensible manager," I mean that he directed all those persons whose names have been heard by the House, The Government of the country most properly placed a detective to watch Stephens. He followed him in April, 1865, to Cork, where he stated that Stephens had no fewer than seventy visitors in one day, some from America, engaged in the concoction and development of one of the most detestable conspiracies that ever existed in our own or any other country. While the j conspiracy was thus developing itself everyday, it did occur to the Government, I believe, in September, 1865, to act. 1 quite agree with the statements made by the Judges and Law Officers, that there was I overwhelming proof of a general conspiracy among certain classes in Ireland—not, as in our time, confined to parts of Cork or Kerry, but a general conspiracy, composed of persons of a certain class—quite distinct from the middle class and the substantial farmers—but a very large and effective class, complaining of no particular grievance, but organized, controlled, and influenced by Stephens for one object—the overthrow of the British Government in Ireland. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite may talk as they please of the fiddle-faddle of Reform to those men—they may offer them any reduction of the franchise; but what they want is the country, the redistribution of the land, the abolition of landlordism, and the establishment of a system of Republicanism similar to what exists in the United States. Well, when Government began to act, they acted vigorously; and when the agitations connected with the election had subsided, on the 15th of September, they made a seizure of everything that could be found in the office, of The Irish People. That office is within two minutes' walk of the head police-office and within three minutes' walk of the Castle. It was a weekly journal, and had a circulation of 8,000. It occurs to me here simply to say that 1 think, as the seizure of Stephens would have been more advantageous to the country than that of 10,000 peasants, it does appear somewhat remarkable that when the Government had detectives on his motions it never occurred to them to arrest him first; because he was really the head-centre and leading man of the whole movement. Mr. Justice Keogh is
  746
  reported on the trial of Moore to have said of him—
  "They had heard a great deal about a person named James Stephens, and he thought there could remain little doubt in the mind of any one that lie was the heart and soul of this confederacy; that he was even the prime mover—that he was, in fact, its great executive officer; and as it struck him that those who were acting in America, even J. O'Muhoney himself, were acting under the suggestions and under the control of this very James Stephens."
  That is the description which was given of him by the learned Judge, and there can he no doubt of its accuracy. On the day on which The Irish People was seized Stephens was in a house in Denzille Street; and when told of the seizure he said he had always anticipated that would occur, but that it would not interfere with the movement. He then pocketed his six-barrelled revolver and walked quietly out of the house, and for six weeks or two months nothing was heard of him. Diligent search was made for him, but he was nowhere to be found. Three times had this man been engaged in insurrectionary movements against the Queen, and while they had seized I do not know how many of his confederates the great chief and head of this conspiracy was for a considerable time unheard of. He was arrested and lodged in Richmond Prison in November; and here I may be allowed to pay a passing compliment to the admirable officer who conducts the Dublin police, a force whose conduct has been most exemplary; and I take great pleasure in saying so, because eleven-twelfths of them are Roman Catholics, and their fidelity has never in any instance been shaken. One morning in November Colonel Lake surrounded a villa about a mile from town, and Stephens was seized. Three or four other persons were in the house with him. I do not believe there was any cowardice in the case. Everything was done so suddenly that the whole party was taken as by surprise. There was a knock at the door. Stephens, who had expected some one, came down in his night dress. He was told if he did not open the door it would be broken in, He knew his position, and accordingly he surrendered. I suppose the House never heard of such a scene as occurred when he was brought before Mr. Stronge, the magistrate Stephens denied his magisterial authority. He told the Justice with the utmost composure he could not recognize his jurisdiction, because the Queen had been deposed, Every word he used that day

  747
  would have convicted him on his trial. The magistrate warned him the officials would take down his revolutionary statements; but he met them with courteous defiance. He turned round to the detectives and told them what he thought of them and their schemes in arresting him, and under the circumstances with a defiant air he maintained his position. He was committed for trial. I think with such evidence as they had of his own language no jury would have hesitated one instant in convicting him—for the conduct of the juries in Ireland deserves more respect and praise than they have yet received. In every part of the country their verdicts have been discriminating and firm. Stephens is lodged in Her Majesty's prison, and he was as safe in Richmond Prison as Her Majesty in Windsor Castle. I have I think sufficiently described the character of Stephens. He had been three times engaged in insurrectionary movements, and having been brought before the magistrate, the responsibility of the executive Government now began. That responsibility is not to be fixed on any inferior or subordinate person. The executive Government cannot escape the responsibility of explaining to the House what was their conduct in the matter, and how it happened that Stephens escaped. He could only escape by a combination of three circumstances; first, that no military guard had been sent to the prison; second, if there was a sufficient guard of police, it must have been withdrawn; and third, the inmates of the prison—I mean the officials—must have been greater traitors than the rebels they were intended to guard. These three circumstances must have concurred. Did they concur? Some of his confederates had been imprisoned in September; he was arrested in November. The Richmond Prison is supported chiefly by the ratepayers of Dublin, and in a weak moment—I say it with great respect—Lord Clarendon, as if to do the popular thing, gave to the Board of Superintendence, which is elected by the Dublin corporation, the power of submitting to him the names of the officials who were to be appointed on the staff of Richmond Prison. In point of fact, the appointments rested with the Crown, and up that time the Crown only allowed the authorities to announce the fact that a vacancy had occurred, and then filled it up by appointing some fit and proper person—by which I mean a person of fidelity—one who would not take the
  748
  pay of the State in order to betray the State. We have all our failings, and a corporate body is not indisposed to possess a little patronage. The corporation of Dublin, therefore, on an address to Lord Clarendon in 1851, obtained this patronage. They continued to exercise it, and I freely admit that Lord Wodehouse had no more to do with the appointments than I had. That, however, is not the point. Two or three Reports have been laid before Parliament, in which it appeared that prisoners' escapes had been made from the Richmond Prison. Mr. Stephens is lodged there by the act of the executive Government. They might have lodged him in another prison, or they might have placed a guard of soldiers there, or have added to the number of the constabulary, or have taken any step they thought fit. If they had said to Colonel Lake, "We have succeeded in arresting this dangerous revolutionist, guard him until his trial," I do not believe he would have escaped. In 1848, when a number of conspirators were confined in the same prison, a military guard was sent down, and the prisoners were kept in safe custody until they were tried and convicted. But on this occasion no military guard was sent down, and, to the astonishment of every loyal man in Ireland, Mr. Stephens escaped. It was a very extraordinary occurrence, and as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) was then Secretary for Ireland, I suppose he will be able to explain the matter to the House. It is said that some of the officials were suspected of being Fenians. It is also said that there was a guard of twenty-five policemen, and that twenty-two of them were removed. I wish to ask if that is the fact; and, if so, whether they were removed after the great head of the conspiracy was lodged in the prison, or immediately before it? Secondly, I want to know whether the executive Government were aware of what passed between the Board of Superintendence and the Governor whom they had appointed. It seems that the Board got up a discussion as to who was to bear the expense—the expense of a few pounds—of maintaining the extra police sent to the prison; their argument being that the ratepayers ought not to keep State prisoners, and that persons about to be tried for high treason should be maintained by the State as was done in 1848. I think a more miserable dispute under the circumstances cannot be conceived. The Government,

  749
  however, must have had notice of the fact; they must have received an intimation that the Board declined to pay for the extra guard. But the result was that they were removed, only three extra policemen remaining; and I have been told by a military gentleman that it requires at least three soldiers to make one sentry; so that in this large prison there were only three additional policemen, of whom one would be the sentry, and he was carefully locked off at a spot where he could neither see nor hear Stephens should he attempt to escape. As to the military, it has been stated—and it is to the credit of Lord Wodehouse—that an order was written or sent for a military guard to be despatched to the prison. Now, we are fortunate in Ireland in having one of the best soldiers of the British army in command of the troops there—I mean Sir Hugh Rose, and I venture to say that if any such order had reached him it would have been promptly obeyed. It is asserted, however, that the number to be despatched was only six; so that if it had arrived it would have sufficed only for two sentries. But it did not arrive, and that, therefore, is the second event essential to secure Mr. Stephen's exit. There were plenty of soldiers and plenty of police to be had, but no precautions were taken for the safe custody of a man who had thrice already committed treason, and whose life was forfeited if the Crown choose to try him on that charge. The consequence was, that, to the unspeakable alarm and indignation of loyal people in Ireland, this extraordinary individual disappeared from the Richmond Prison. Now, the question arises, when did he quit it?—for I do not believe he was in any hurry, but that he left just when it suited his purpose. Some say that in the dusk of the evening of the 22nd or 23rd of November a cab drove up to the door, and that this gentleman who had committed high treason descended and drove away. It was sworn, however, when a particular warder was tried as an accessory, that he was in custody on the morning of the 24th. One feature in this extraordinary case was, that two tables—too heavy to be carried by one man—were carried and placed against the wall, one on the top of the other, evidently with the intention of leading to the conclusion that he had got over the wall. That, however, was found to be perfectly absurd, and was a mere sham, in which nobody believes. What is believed is that false keys were provided
  750
  by some of the officials, who, though paid by the State, shared the same opinions, and who assisted Stephens at the moment he thought fit in making his exit from that prison, into which he has never been recommitted. But who is responsible for his escape? It has been said that the Board of Superintendence are responsible, or that the Inspectors of Prisons are responsible; but, Sir, I maintain that nobody is responsible but the executive Government. The inspectors are not magistrates; they have not the care of prisoners; they simply make an annual Report on the state of the prisons which they visit. The Government of the country had to prosecute these conspirators; they had got possession of the leader of that conspiracy, and they had him in their prison; there was a guard of police, but it was removed; a guard of soldiers was intended to be sent down, but it never arrived; and then with the assistance of persons within the prison, and by means of false keys, artistically made, and which therefore could not have been procured in a moment, the chief of the revolutionary party walks abroad and is now, notwithstanding the very large reward, amounting to several thousand pounds, offered for his arrest, in perfect safety. I have only stated what has appeared in the public press, for of course I do not know the exact facts of the escape as they are known to the Government; but I say it is one of the most disgraceful transactions that have ever taken place in Ireland, and that it reflects discredit upon the department in which it occurred, and fills the mind of loyal people with suspicion as to the efficiency of other departments. For what are we to expect if in the capital of the country, with a large garrison, with an ample force of police, a revolutionary character of this kind, who has organized a great confederacy against the Crown, walks out of prison just when it suits his convenience? How can we expect the law of the land to be administered with integrity if such a transaction as that can occur, and can occur with impunity? For I deny that the inspectors of prisons were responsible: I deny that the corporation of Dublin were responsible: I deny that the magistrates were responsible:—I assert that the then Irish Secretary, who had authority in the name of the Lord Lieutenant to command the whole military power of the country, ought to explain to us under what circumstances it was that no guard of a military character was placed in the prison, that the

  751
  civil guard was removed, and that Mr. Stephens is now at large. I think the circumstances are deserving of an investigation on the part of this House, and I wish to know whether any inquiry has been ordered, or any Report made to the executive Government, and whether there will be any objection to lay such Report on the table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON): It would he idle for me, Sir, to attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the very long statement with which he has favoured the House upon a very small matter—["Oh, oh!"]—small. I mean, in point of relative importance. The event of which he calls for an explanation—namely, the escape of Stephens—occurred in November last; but the right hon. Gentleman has commenced with the year 1848, and has given the House a long narrative of events from that time down to the present. The right hon. Gentleman is always amusing, always entertaining, and never more so, I think, than when he gives range to his fertile imagination, as he has done to a great extent upon this occasion; because the transactions which he has been narrating are based upon hearsay, and not upon personal knowledge, and a great many of them, I am in a position to state, rest upon no solid foundation. The right hon. Gentleman began by commenting on the policy which led, he says, to these sad events. He brings forward no definite charge against the executive Government of having failed in their duty; but he takes the opportunity of moving for papers in relation to a particular transaction to bring charges and insinuations against the conduct of the executive Government, and announces his intention of calling attention on a future occasion to the policy of the Government as having led to those lamentable events. Now the Government, I beg to tell him, challenges inquiry into that policy. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had been waiting for the close of the prosecutions; but I must remind the House that the Special Commission at which those men were tried concluded early in the month of February, and Parliament has been sitting from that time to the present, yet the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward no Motion impeaching the conduct of the executive Government in relation to the proceedings:—if ever he does so, the Government will be prepared to meet him. Sir, the
  752
  late period at which the proceedings were instituted against The Irish People, which, he says, had been circulating treason for a considerable time, and he stated that these proceedings were not taken till the month of September, 1865, after the turmoil of the general election. What is the meaning of that? Is it worthy of the right hon. Gentleman? Does he mean to impute unworthy motives, and to say that any Gentleman intrusted by the Crown with the conduct of a prosecution in Ireland, having in his possession evidence sufficient to convict a prisoner for treason, would from political motives shrink from instituting those proceedings in order that he might not prejudice the Government of which he was a Member on the eve of a general election? I think the House must be surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has filled the office of Attorney General for Ireland, should venture to throw out insinuations against the Irish Law Officers of the Government which are without the slightest foundation. Sir, until the very eve of the period when these proceedings were instituted, and which proceedings even my right hon. Friend is obliged to confess were fairly and successfully conducted, Her Majesty's Government bad not in their possession the evidence necessary to enable them to take action; and without that evidence, failure, and not success, 'would have followed. The right hon. Gentleman gave the House a report from his own instructions of what took place in 1848, and then he brings forward a story of what took place in 1858, which was never proved in a court of justice. The only evidence he could give the House was reading from the brief given to him in 1859, when he was at Cork to conduct a prosecution. No fact was brought forward to prove the connection of Stephens with the conspiracy of 1858. That was a miserable affair, and was confined to a few corners of Cork and Kerry. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to magnify himself by casting a halo around Stephens. That proceeding, conducted by the right hon. Gentleman, had a very singular result, for he being Attorney General, and the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. George) being Solicitor General, they had fourteen or fifteen prisoners to try in the gaols of Cork and Kerry. In one case tried in Kerry the jury disagreed, and the right hon. Gentleman did not try any other prisoners there. He then went to Cork. There were a number of men in right hon. Gentleman complained of the Cork gaol, but the right hon. Gentleman,

  753
  without giving any reason whatever, flung up his case and retired, leaving all the prisoners untried. The Solicitor General was sent back to Kerry, and put on his trial again the same man he had tried before. He was the only prisoner found guilty, and the only result of the prosecution which the right hon. Gentleman has described with so much pomp was, that the jury disagreed in one trial and he convicted one prisoner. The right hon. Gentleman then went out of office, without having tried any one else. The right hon. Gentleman charged the present Secretary for the Colonies, who was at that time Chief Secretary for Ireland, with great impropriety in having allowed some of these persons to be set at liberty, But the Secretary for Ireland had nothing to do with that. The liberation of these persons was in the department, and was done under the advice of the Attorney General of the day; and having regard to the manner in which those prisoners were left in gaol untried, the only rational proceeding which the Attorney General could take was to advise the Crown to discharge them. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the funeral of M'Manus in 1861. He gave us a perfect romance about Stephens having gone to America and organized a convention at Chicago. Now, I am aware, from documents in the possession of the Crown, that Stephens was not there at that time, or until March, 1864. I should trespass too much on the patience of the House if travelled through all the statements which the right hon. Gentleman has made, most of them resting on no better foundation. He says that Stephens was the ostensible proprietor of The Irish People newspaper, [Mr. WHITESIDE: I said he was the director.] So far from that, he never appeared in any way as connected with that newspaper; and it was not until the fortunate action of the Irish Government in seizing the papers and documents in The Irish People office that it was shown he was secretly the organizer and promoter of that journal. To the eye of the world, and even to the police, he was utterly unknown as being connected with it. Then, the right hon. Gentleman complains that the Government did not arrest Stephens at that time. But on the night on which the seizure was made Stephens was in Dublin, and, a friendly person having probably brought him the news, he most judiciously retired, and was not found until two months afterwards. Then, the right hon. Gentle-
  754
  man comes to the most important matter—and I quite agree with him that it was a most unhappy and unfortunate event—the I escape of Stephens, The question is—are I the executive Government responsible for that escape? Did they neglect any fair precautions, or any care in the custody of the prisoner? It they did they deserve the censure of the House and the country. The government are perfectly willing to meet the charge whenever it is brought forward But what does the right hon. Gentleman do? Moving for papers and for the Report of the Inspector General of Prisons, which he knows perfectly well has been presented to the Irish Government, and which will be laid upon the table of this House, the right hon. Gentleman takes the opportunity of making charges against the Government without; taking the precaution of seeing how far those charges are sustained, as he might have done if he had only waited for the production of those papers. Is it worthy of the position of the right hon. Gentleman in this House to take this course, to go back for years, and throw out insinuations against the Government which no one would ever have the hardihood to put into form and shape? The right hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the earlier prosecutions of 1848 and 1858, but his services were not called into requisition on the occasion of the more recent trials.
  MR. WHITESIDE: Those persons to whom my right hon. Friend refers did ask me to defend them; but I declined to do so, because I had prosecuted them before.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON): I am quite aware of that. The right, hon. Gentleman; was not engaged in these proceedings. He had no personal knowledge of them, and all his information was derived from reading the newspapers. He told the House with great pomp that Stephens was committed to Her Majesty's prison—by which he conveyed to the House that the Richmond Prison at Dublin is under Her Majesty's control, and that Her Majesty could order anything she pleased to be done it that prison. My right hon. Friend ought to be aware that that prison, like others of its class, is governed by a Board of Superintendence, and that it was under their rules and by-laws. It is the legal prison for persons taken into custody for offences committed in Dublin, and Colonel Lake had no right to keep Stephens in his custody. He could not supersede the

  755
  Board of Superintendence, and the Governor of Richmond Bridewell was the person responsible for the safe custody of Stephens. The right hon. Gentleman goes back to 1851, and finds fault with Lord Clarendon because he assented to a proposal made to him by the corporation of Dublin, that, although he legally had the nomination of these officers, he should delegate to the corporation the appointment, upon the condition that the persons nominated should undergo a certain probation, and if found qualified that they should then have the appointment. Upon that statement the right hon. Gentleman founds a charge against Lord Clarendon, but he forgets that that arrangement was confirmed by several successive Lords Lieutenant, and that Lord Eglinton, who was twice Lord Lieutenant, and under whom the right hon. Gentleman was Attorney General, expressly confirmed that arrangement. That will give the House an idea of the sort of foundation upon which these charges rest. He then tells us that there was a dispute about the expenses of the additional police employed to guard these men. I have only to say that the Board of Superintendence met and said that if extra men were required, it was only reasonable that the Government should pay for them. That question, however, was never decided one way or the other. But the fact remains that the Governor, who had been in charge of this prison, since 1848, having represented to the Government that he required the services of additional police in order to secure the prisoners, his application was at once granted; and when he represented that he required a military guard Government sent directions to the military authorities to place an ample force at his disposal. The military authorities, having ascertained that there was accommodation for the troops at the prison, directed the town major to send a military guard there; but the Governor, without communicating with the Government on the subject, informed the town major that he did not want the guard at that particular time, and that when he required the services of the troops he would send for them. Now, I contend that the Government did all that in them lay. They placed the troops at the disposal of the Governor, and they remained under the belief that he had accepted, as he should have done, the services of a military guard, and they never knew that he had refused that assistance until after the escape of Stephens. They directed an extra police force to be sent to
  756
  the prison, and they were not aware that the Governor had, without communicating with them, reduced that force. Having done all in their power to render the custody of the prisoners secure, various charges were now brought against them because an officer who had long had the control of the prison had, unknown to them, acted improperly and negligently, and had intrusted the prisoners to persons who were treacherous, and who had been bribed. The Governor has paid the penalty—he has been punished for his misconduct by being removed from his office; and the power of appointing the officers of the prison, which since 1851 was intrusted to the corporation, has been resumed by the Executive since this unfortunate and calamitous event took place. The right hon. Gentleman asks if there has been any Report made to us upon the subject. Why, he is well aware that such a Report was made, and that it was circulated in every newspaper in Dublin. That Report we are perfectly ready to lay upon the table, together with all other papers relating to the subject; and when they are laid upon the table of the House I defy the right hon. Gentleman to found any charge upon them against the executive Government. What more could the Government have done? They have crushed this conspiracy and incipient rebellion without shedding one drop of blood, and they are in a position to point out that by the exertions they have used every one of the persons immediately engaged in the conspiracy has been brought to justice. But surely the right hon. Gentleman should have some sympathy with those placed in a position of such great and serious responsibility. He who has himself filled the office of Attorney General for Ireland should have had some sympathy, some generous feelings for us when we were discharging our difficult task, and even if his critical eye detected a few shortcomings on our part, surely his generosity should have induced him to overlook them. But I am happy to say that there is nothing in our conduct requiring forgiveness at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. We ask not for the indulgence, the sympathy, or the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman. We are here ready, willing, and able to defend ourselves from any charges he may think fit to bring against us. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what more he could have done to prevent the escape of Stephens than was done by us? Would he have authorized Colonel Lake to

  757
  enter the prison at the head of the troops and to turn all the officers out of it? Would he have kept guard at the door of Stephens' cell, occasionally relieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford? I believe the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown is to prosecute those prisoners who are proceeded against, and that duty we were willing, and I may perhaps say, able, to perform. I feel I have left a great deal unanswered, but I have said enough to show that the charges made against us by the right hon. Gentleman do not rest upon any sure or solid foundation. I repeat that we are quite ready to lay upon the table of the House any Paper that has come into our hands upon this subject, and to challenge the right hon. Gentleman to found upon them any charges against the Government in respect of the escape of Stephens and the conduct of the prosecutions of the prisoners. We court the fullest possible inquiry into the matter, and we are not afraid of the result.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, the right hon. and learned Member who had just sat down (Mr. Lawson) had attempted to show that the Conspiracy of 1859 and the present disturbances were utterly unconnected; but, as one who had been engaged in the trials which took place at the former dale, he (Mr. George) ventured to differ altogether from the right hon. and learned Member on this point. The conspiracy which existed at the present time under the name of Fenianism was identical with that which existed in 1859 under the name of the Phœnix Conspiracy. Many of the witnesses who were examined on the trials in 1859 referred expressly to Stephens, under the name of Shuke or Power. It was then stated that aid in men and money was expected from America—he was speaking in the presence of the Solicitor General for Ireland, to whose candour he appealed to corroborate his statement—the only difference between the Conspiracy of 1859 and that of the present time was a difference of degree. At that time a large number of Irish emigrants went to America, many of whom entertained bad feelings towards this country, and they openly expressed a desire to return and aid in getting up a treacherous conspiracy in Ireland. The Conspiracy of 1859, therefore, was identical with that now in existence, only the latter had attained a greater power and strength in consequence of the hundreds and thousands of men who had
  758
  been disbanded at the termination of the American Civil War. With reference to the Phoenix trials of 1859, it was true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that he (Mr. George) had himself conducted the trial of one of the prisoners; and he believed he was correct in stating that ten of the jurymen were in favour of a conviction, and only two could not be brought to agree to a verdict of guilty. On that occasion the remarkable expression was uttered in open court—
  "That the Crown might thank itself for the acquittal through having allowed those two men to go into the jury box who were no better than the prisoners themselves."
  Again, at the trials which took place at Cork, the counsel for the Crown, after consultation, came to the conclusion that the then constitution of the jury did not warrant them in proceeding with the prosecutions, and the trials were accordingly adjourned. In consequence of the unavoidable absence of his right hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Whiteside) in London, the whole conduct of the second trial at Tralee fell upon himself, and he might state that every effort was made to defeat the administration of justice. Demurrers were taken at I different stages of the proceedings, the juries were challenged, and then one of the counsel—one of the ablest men at the bar—refused to proceed with the defence of the prisoners, and the case was left in the hands of the junior counsel. Under these circumstances, after the evidence had been given, and after the most humane charge ever heard in a court of justice had been delivered by the most able, the most humane, the most acute, and the kindest hearted man that ever graced and adorned the bench—he alluded to Baron Greene—the jury, after due consideration, brought in a unanimous verdict of guilty. He referred to these facts in answer to the observation of the Attorney General for Ireland, that the Phœnix Conspiracy of 1859 was of a trifling nature. The learned Judge who presided over those trials, after going through all the facts and circumstances of the case, was clearly of opinion that the evidence given proved the existence of actual treason. He could not help saying that the conduct of the Government in discharging from custody one of the most dangerous members of that conspiracy was open to grave censure. That discharge was made, he believed, without the concurrence of Baron Greene, shortly after a change had taken place in

  759
  the Government, that learned and humane Judge being, as he understood, not even consulted in the matter. Had he been so consulted he was convinced that Baron Greene would never have approved that discharge. On both these trials allusion was made to this Stephens, who had so successfully evaded the grasp of justice. Thus, there could be no doubt that this Fenian Conspiracy was one and the same as that which was carried on in 1859; the sole difference was, that at present it had attained dimensions more gigantic and more dangerous than those which it had readied in 1859. The two movements were identical in all respects—identical in the transmission of men and money from America, and identical, above all, in the possession of that very leader whose many disguises and aliases had always rendered his detection a difficult matter. It should also be borne in mind that an application was made on that occasion to the Court of Queen's Bench to let the prisoners out on bail, but the request was refused by the Court, which decided that the Crown and the Crown Officers had acted justifiably in this matter, and that the facts then proved amounted to the actual crime of high treason. His right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland need scarcely have taken the trouble to defend himself from charges which had not been brought against him. It was admitted on all hands that the conduct of his right hon. Friend in relation to the present prosecutions had been extremely able and judicious. If he were asked, however, whether the conduct of the Government was entirely justifiable with respect to the choice of the time and manner of instituting these proceedings, he felt bound to reply that they were not. The Government had known for a long time of the nocturnal trainings which were being conducted in every part of Ireland, the attention of the Irish Government had been drawn to the matter from time to time; and though he was not prepared to say that there were no special or particular reasons why the trials should be delayed, the fact undoubtedly was that they were, as was stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), postponed until after the general election. He had already stated that, though no actual criminality or guilt attached to any particular party, there was much to lament and deplore in a great deal of the language which had fallen from high and influential quarters in Ireland at
  760
  a time when such a state of things existed in the country as had since transpired. If there ever was a time when the promotion of peace and tranquillity should above all things have been sought by the employment of language tending to that result, such a time existed two or three months prior to the general election; and yet on every hand speeches were made which, objectionable at any time, were doubly so at a period when Ireland was on the very brink of a volcano, from the danger of which she was even yet scarcely secure. He believed, then, that it was the deliberate conviction of every man of common sense in the three kingdoms that, with a conspiracy of such magnitude, it was the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government, having captured prisoners of such importance, to have carefully guarded their safety. They should have sent a military guard to the gaol, and not have permitted the Governor to presume on his own authority to send the guard back. If a precedent for such a course were necessary, it would be furnished by the proceedings of 1848, when, under somewhat similar circumstances, the Government placed a military guard over prisoners confined in this very gaol. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had said that it was not his duty to go and watch at the door of the prison one hour and that of the Solicitor General to watch another, but that was trifling with the subject. He could not help saying that the Government exhibited great laxity in allowing this man to escape, although he was bound to repeat that, in his opinion, with regard to the actual prosecution of the conspirators, everything that was necessary and advisable had been done. He trusted that, under these circumstances, the production of the papers asked for would not be refused.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) rose I was not aware that I should be called upon to address the House upon this Motion; but, as it will be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman alluded in pointed terms to the position which I lately occupied in Ireland, I may perhaps be permitted to say a few words. I am glad that my remarks follow those which foil from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. George), because I have, through the hon. and learned Gentleman, the assurance from the Law

  761
  Officers of the Crown in Ireland under Lord Derby that the course pursued by the present Law Officers of the Crown in that country during these grave and serious investigations is regarded as exceedingly creditable, and has been received with perfect confidence by the country at large. There can be little doubt that scarcely anything throughout these trials can be more harassing or more difficult to deal with than the subject which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin has treated with such levity—I may say unseemly discretion. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had postponed their action in a matter involving a conspiracy against the Government of Ireland and the Sovereign of that country until the conclusion of the general election. Now, Sir, I never heard a more mean and paltry assertion; one, indeed, which is utterly unworthy the character and credit of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WHITESIDE: I must call the right hon. Baronet to order, and request Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the words which have just been uttered may be taken down. I understood the right hon. Baronet to say that the statement which I made was a mean and paltry one, and I request that you, Sir, will state whether such language is Parliamentary or not.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, Before an answer is given to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that my statement was that the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government had postponed action in a matter involving matters of such magnitude until the general election should have been got over, is a mean and paltry way of dealing with a grave and serious question. I put it to the House whether I am not justified in using expressions of that kind. Now—
  MR. WHITESIDE: I again rise to order, Sir, and must still request, that the right hon. Baronet will conform to the usages of the House. I still require your decision upon the expression used by the right hon. Baronet—an expression employed not in the sense just stated, but conveying the opinion that what I said was mean and paltry. ["No, no!" I still wish to know, Sir, whether such language is Parliamentary.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet has already stated that the application of the words was not intended to convey the meaning to which the right hon. Gentleman objects.
  MR. DISRAELI: I rise, Sir, to order. I understood the right hon. Baronet to disclaim the use of the words of which my right hon. Friend complains in the sense which my right hon. Friend attributes to them. I distinctly understood the right lion. Baronet to state to the House that the words he used were of a general application, and in that case I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will see that no charge in reality is made againt him.
  MR. WHITESIDEagain appealed to the Chair, whether the right lion. Baronet's words were not un-Parliamentary.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, that as he understood the right hon. Baronet's expression he was not prepared to Bay that, although strong, it was un-Parliamentary; hut the right hon. Baronet's subsequent words remove any doubt on that point.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Having, Sir, before the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire rose, qualified the expression which I used, I do not think it necessary to enter further into that point. Still, I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman's charge that the prosecutions were postponed until after the general election was not worthy of him. But I wish to refer to a few points to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman alluded. He said he did not wish to anticipate a future debate that was likely to take place in this House on the Fenian conspiracy. Now, I am sure that the Government do not shrink from meeting the fullest investigation and discussion of their conduct in regard to this whole subject, and I should say that the sooner the subject is brought forward the hotter. Let the right hon. Gentleman therefore give notice of his intention to bring forward after Easter his accusations against the Government, I am convinced we shall be able to lay before the House a case that will not only exculpate the Government from the charges which the right hon. Gen-t Ionian and the hon. and learned Member for Wexford have made against them, but that will prove that the Government have acted with great judgment, discretion, and firmness in the manner in which they have performed their duty. The right hon. Gentleman said that this prison was Her Majesty's prison. My right hon. Friend (the Attorney General for Ireland) showed that these prisoners were confined in the city gaol, that that goal was under the superintendence of the City Board, that there were local Inspectors, and Inspector Generals to report to the Government any oc-

  763
  currences connected with these prisoners. But does the right hon. Gentleman opposite mean to say that the Government, with all the burden of current events on their shoulders, could go to these gaols and see that the officials properly discharged their duties? We must first know who was charged with that duty. I do not less regret the escape of Stephens than the right hon. Gentleman; but I say, throw all the blame you please on the Executive, but the Government, when there was treason within the walls of the gaol and treason without, could not by any possible foresight have prevented the escape of that prisoner. The right hon. Gentleman stated that Lord Clarendon, in a weak moment, gave over the management of that prison to the Board of Superintendence in 1851. It is perfectly true that the Government did then hand over to the Board of Superintendence the management of the prison, the interior regulation of which had previously devolved on the Irish Government. But Lord Eglinton twice, when Lord Lieutenant, and the Irish Government on every subsequent occasion, deputed those functions and powers to the Board of Superintendence; and I believe I am justified in asserting that the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has revoked that authority, and that for the future the Government, and the Government alone, will be directly responsible for the appointment of the officers who will have the management of this prison. The right hon. Gentleman contends that this Fenian Conspiracy dates as far back as the year 1858, and says it has a clear connection with a conspiracy which existed in Ireland at the time when Lord Eglinton was Viceroy. I do not think that the Law Officers of the Crown will bear out that statement. I believe, from the information in the hands of the Government, that it will be found—and if the right hon. Gentleman had only waited until the papers had been laid upon the table he would also have found—that the origin of this conspiracy is clearly to be traced to the year 1862—that is, to about the time of the establishment of The Irish People newspaper. No doubt, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Attorney General for Ireland, during Lord Eglinton's Viceroyalty, there were a series of disturbances going on in that country. In fact, there has been a chronic state of disturbance prevalent in Ireland for many years past; but each successive Government have done all they could to arrest and control that evil. But I will put the matter
  764
  on the right hon. Gentleman's own ground. He says that in Ireland we now have a conspiracy existing—he fears it is so, but hopes it is not the case—he says that there are in Ireland some 60,000 men enrolled under the banner of the fugitive Stephens, with 250,000 more in America. Well, with this serious state of things staring us in the face, I ask is it right to treat a case of such gravity in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has done? Without waiting for the Report, in the absence of all papers to correct him, he blames the Government upon ex parte statements, making serious accusations, which the Attorney General for Ireland has shown to be unfounded. If the right hon. Gentleman had urged the Government to produce all the papers bearing on these matters, I would have cordially supported him in that. Then he would have found that many of his assertions were not based upon fact. As to the escape of Stephens, as I have said, no man deplores it more than I do; but the right hon. Gentleman at a very critical conjuncture in the history of Ireland endeavours to draw an amusing and very fanciful sketch of that event, which was not consistent with the real facts of the case. The Government had a very anxious time, but no precaution of theirs could have prevented Stephens' escape. It is a fact that we believed at the time that there were a guard and extra police in the prison where he was confined; and if the Government were deceived who, I ask, were to give them that information but the local Inspectors or the Inspector General? Sir, I state—what is notorious—that the Irish Government were under the impression that the military guard which they ordered to go to the prison walls were there, and had not been sent back by Mr. Marquess, the Governor of the gaol. I myself individually regarded the conduct of the Governor of that gaol as so serious that I implored the Lord Lieutenant immediately to take from him the custody of the prisoners there. My advice was followed in that respect, as also in regard to the suspension and dismissal of one of the chief wardens of the prison. Immediately when information of the escape reached the Government, I went myself, with Colonel Lake, to the prison at the request of the Lord Lieutenant; and that very night the Government met at the Castle, and instantly decided on ordering the removal of every one of these prisoners, from the Richmond Bridewell to Kilmainham Gaol, lest anything more should occur

  765
  which might imperil the character of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman had only waited until the Report was laid on the table, he would have seen that the facts are as I am now stating them. He has praised the conduct of certain authorities in Ireland, and I wish to bear my testimony—for I was there at the time—my most willing testimony, to the energy and zeal of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. This conduct on their part is an answer to the imputations which have been very unjustly cast upon many of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen in that country—namely, that they are siding with this treasonable movement. That conspiracy—as was well stated the other day in another place—although it is, nevertheless, very formidable, is a quite contemptible movement as regards the character or the intelligence of those who are mixed up with it. That does not, however, make it the less serious. And I must say that, as far as we were concerned at the time when I left that country, we did conduct all the matters connected with this most unfortunate conspiracy in a manner which, when it comes to be fully discussed in Parliament, will, I believe, meet not only with the approbation of this House, but with the confidence of the public at large. Sir, I only rose because the right hon. Gentleman opposite so pointedly alluded to me. And when I refer, by the way, to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, I wish also to bear my testimony to the praiseworthy conduct of the constabulary of Ireland in this matter, for they have had a very arduous duty to fulfil. There have been Fenian emissaries in all parts of Ireland. The men of the Irish constabulary have been scattered in small detachments of four and five all over the country, at many hundreds of stations; and yet I am justified, I think, in saying that there has not been a single instance of a station being in any way tainted with the prevailing conspiracy in the whole country. That fact speaks highly for the constabulary; and I do hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—1 know the question is now before him—will accede to the very last appeal which I made to the Government while I was in Ireland, and re-consider the pay of that force. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It is done.] It is done; I am very glad to hear it. They were certainly underpaid. They discharged their duty efficiently, and were always ready to perform whatever was required of them. I rejoice, therefore, to
  766
  learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that their claim has been favourably considered. And I hope, too, we shall no longer hear of those very considerable reductions of the force far below the quota which the country is entitled to have under the existing regulations. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has likewise referred to another subject, with regard to which I also desire, as having been connected with the Government of Ireland at the time, to bear my willing testimony—I mean the impartial manner in which the juries have performed their duties. At the outset there might have been considerable difficulty in securing the conviction of Fenian prisoners; but it has been demonstrated most conclusively, when the guilt of the accused can be satisfactorily proved, that the juries of Ireland are as determined as the juries of England to deliver a verdict in accordance with the evidence before them. I am glad that an opportunity has been afforded me of making these few observations. I am also gratified that the Attorney General has promised the papers that have been referred to. Although the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were rather superfluous, in my opinion, yet I maintain that the Government can lose nothing by a full and fair, and even a premature discussion of this subject. It will ultimately be shown that the Irish Executive has acted in a manner which merits the approbation of all persons interested in the welfare and stability of that island.
  LORD NAASsaid, he wished before the discussion closed to offer a few remarks to the House in reply to some observations that had fallen from the Attorney General for Ireland with reference to some circumstances that occurred while he (Lord Naas) was Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had not understood from the notice given by his right hon. Friend that the question now under discussion would have been brought before the House. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland chose to make a contrast between the conduct of the Government of which he was a Member and the conduct of the Government in office in 1858, he (Lord Naas) felt bound to offer a few remarks upon what transpired during that year. He admitted that the policy of the Government in 1858 was entirely different from that pursued by the present Government during the last year or two. In the former period a formidable conspiracy was inaugurated in Ireland; but

  767
  it was dealt with at once. Within two months after communication was made to the Government that a conspiracy, originating in America, and supported by American money, by men interested in the events of 1848, was being formed, the leaders were in gaol and awaiting their trial. The result was that, through the resolute action of the Government, within three months the conspiracy was completely extinguished. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head as if incredulous on this point. He (Lord Naas) was perfectly aware that in 1858 many charges were brought against the Government—not in the House of Commons—but by the press and political opponents of the Government, stating that the Government were making too much of the Phœnix movement, and were endeavouring, to use the words employed at that time, to get up a "sham rebellion." He, however, took a totally different view of the conduct of the Government. In dealing with conspiracies Government had two duties to discharge, the first was their paramount duty to the Crown, and the second was their duty to the people. When it came to the knowledge of the Government of Lord Eglinton that emissaries were going throughout the length and breadth of the land sowing treason and spending large sums of money to further their designs, we considered that it was our duty at the earliest possible moment to employ every means in our power to arrest the movement. That policy in 1858 was completely successful. As Secretary for Ireland he (Lord Naas) took the responsibility upon himself of directing the arrests. He was told by many people that he had not sufficient evidence to warrant those arrests; but he did not care for that, his object was to stop the movement, and the movement was stopped. The policy pursued at that time merited and obtained the approval of every loyal man in the country. The present Government, however, had taken another course with regard to the Fenian conspiracy. For two years treason had been allowed to spread throughout the length and breadth of the land and with an audacity scarcely ever equalled; to establish its head-quarters within a stone's throw of Dublin Castle; the ringleaders were men who had participated in the conspiracies of 1848 and 1858, one of whom was actually liable to be called up for judgment for seditious conduct at a former period. The Government might have had
  768
  good reasons for the policy they had pursued, and their motives might have been good; but he believed they were mistaken motives. Whenever the policy of the Government in this matter should be discussed at length he was persuaded that it would be shown that the Government were mistaken in allowing the Fenian conspiracy to proceed to the extent it had gone, and that if they had followed the example of the Government of 1858 they would have crushed it at a much earlier period. It was not possible to overrate the value of early action in a matter of this kind; and he (Lord Naas) believed that the conspiracy ought to have been dealt with a great deal earlier than it was. So much for the events of 1858. With regard to the matter immediately before the House—the escape of Stephens—he (Lord Naas) was astonished to hear the Attorney General for Ireland state that Her Majesty's Government had no direct control over the prisons of that country. It was very well known that in 1848, and long before that time, when political prisoners were confined in the gaols of Ireland, the Executive took precautions for their security other than those which were thought necessary in reference to ordinary prisoners. If the right hon. Gentleman were to inquire he would find that on many occasions long previous to 1848 it was the common practice that whenever prisoners of political importance were committed to gaol, an extraordinary force of military and police was ordered to the gaol for the better security of the prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman would lead the House to believe that the Government had no control over the prison authorities; but the fact was that in addition to having a veto upon their appointment, they had also an absolute power of dismissal in reference to every one of thorn; and he thought that it was a matter of very great regret that this power had not been exercised long before with regard to some of these officers. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to convey that the Government could not have exercised that power; but he (Lord Naas) found that in a Report made by the Inspector General to the Government in 1862 it was stated that the very officer who had been taken up but not convicted for complicity in the escape of Stephens was entirely unfit for his place, and a serious complaint was made by the Inspector General to the Government on account of this man being kept in office after repeated reports as to his incompe-

  769
  tency and misconduct. He asked was it not wonderful that, with a full knowledge of his incompetency, this person should be one to whose care the prisoners should have been committed, and this without any special or extraordinary means being taken for their safety. It seemed to him that the Government never took the slightest trouble to find out whether any extra precaution was taken with regard to these men; and he thought there was an amount of neglect and carelessness on the part of the Government that was a very fit subject for comment in that House, and that was also very deeply to he regretted. Nothing showed the necessity for these precautions so much as the precautions which had been taken since; for he believed that in every gaol in which Fenians are now confined, not only the constabulary, but also military form part of the prison guard. So serious did the Government think the matter, and so defective were the arrangements suddenly discovered to be, that soon after the escape of Stephens, the whole of the prisoners were removed from Richmond to the county prison in the middle of the night, because it was thought that there was danger in keeping them in the former place. He asked the Government why such precautions were not taken earlier? The escape of Stephens was a great misfortune, And when the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Government were not directly responsible for the escape of that man because, in ordinary times, the Executive did not directly interfere with the management of the prisons, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was calculating upon a large amount of credulity and ignorance on the part of hon. Members as to the real state not only of the law, but the practice in such matters. He did not wish to throw any blame upon the Government for anything that had occurred since the arrest of the Fenians. The trials had been well managed, and the conduct of the Judges, the counsel, and the juries in the recent trials had been all that could have been desired. He adhered, however, to the opinion that the policy of the Government in delaying its action for so many months was most unfortunate, and that it was owing to a serious neglect of duty that Stephens effected his escape.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, he thought it somewhat curious that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), and the hon. and learn-
  770
  ed Member for Wexford (Mr. George), should feel it incumbent upon them to justify their conduct in dealing with the prosecutions in 1858, seeing that nobody had made any charge against them for the course which they on that occasion pursued. But it was not only curious, but unwarrantable, that they should now, after the lapse of four or five years, assail the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, and of the Attorney General of that day, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, whom they bad never ventured to attack for the course which he had pursued while he was present in his place in Parliament to defend himself, and had it in his power to give them the most decisive answer, As an analogy had been drawn between the conspiracy of 1858 and that of 1865, he could only say that no two things could be more entirely different in every point. Indeed, no two movements could in point of magnitude, as well as in other respects, be more distinct; and if the prosecutions in the case of the latter had broken down as completely as in that of the former—if seventeen or eighteen men had been able to walk out of court, the Attorney General standing by and refusing to try them, or to say why he did not, as happened at Cork in 1858—the result would have been disastrous in the highest degree. He now came to the question which had been raised as to the escape of Stephens, simply premising, in reply to the observations made by the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), that the prosecution of The Irish People newspaper merely as a newspaper would have done nothing in the way of crushing Fenianism; the Government had selected the best time to grapple with the conspiracy, and the best proof that this was so was furnished by the fact that it had been perfectly successful in its efforts, which would not have been the ease if it had taken action earlier in the matter without the aid of the mass of documents which ultimately fell into its hands. He was quite convinced that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas) when in office did what he considered best for the interests of the country, and be knew that the Government of 1865 had done the same. As to Stephens, he had been committed, pending his trial, to Richmond prison, the proper place of confinement for those who had been made, as he had been, amenable to the law within the city of Dublin. Over the officers of that prison the Government had no control. During the Lord Lieute-

  771
  nancy of Lord Clarendon, it was found that while in every other prison in Ireland the Board of Superintendence had the appointment of prison officers vested in it, the same rule did not prevail in Dublin; and that fact having been pointed out to Lord Clarendon, he seeing no objection to placing all the prisons of the country on a uniform basis, allowed the power of appointing the officers in Richmond Prison to the Board of Superintendence in Dublin. That, he thought, was a sensible and wise mode of dealing with the matter, and it had on two occasions been confirmed by Lord Eglinton. It was, therefore, no part of the duty of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as he contended, without any cause shown, to alter a system which had been in operation in the prisons in Dublin for a period of fifteen or sixteen years; nor was there, he might add, any reason whatsoever to suspect the fidelity of the officers who had the charge of the Richmond Prison, when Stephens was committed to it, an additional police force to be stationed inside and a military guard were applied for, and granted by the executive Government. Against internal treachery, however, no Government that ever existed could provide adequate security. If an officer inside the prison determined to assist Stephens to escape, he could do so with every probability of success, however guards might be multiplied. And that internal treachery did exist could no longer be a matter of doubt, for with the man who had been taken up and tried for complicity in the escape of Stephens the Fenian oath was found. By some extraordinary accident which had never been satisfactorily explained by the Governor of the prison, a constable on duty on the night of the escape had been shut out from the corridor in which Stephens was confined. Mr. Marques, the Governor, however, could not be fairly said to have acted treacherously in the matter. He had occupied the position of Governor for a considerable time with credit, but undoubtedly he acted most incautiously on the occasion in question; but be that as it might, the circumstance which he had just mentioned, together with the false keys which were found, went far to account for the mode in which Stephens was enabled to get away. As to the allegation made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) that he walked into a cab which was waiting for him at the door of the prison, he could only say that although he had heard every sort of rumour in
  772
  reference to the escape, no such statement as that had ever come to his knowledge, nor did he believe that it had the slightest foundation. The executive Government had no option but to leave Stephens in Richmond Gaol in the hands of the Governor, whose prisoner he was, and therefore it was, he maintained, not open to the censure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who, if he should at any future time bring forward the subject in a substantive shape, would find that it was quite prepared to meet any charges as to its conduct which he might think proper to make.
  MR. S. B. MILLERsaid, he was somewhat astonished to learn that the Government should have deemed it to he consistent with their duty to allow The Irish People, which was established in the autumn of 1863, to circulate its poisonous articles throughout Ireland from that time until the autumn of last year, when they might have prevented it from doing so by earlier and more vigorous action. From the end of 1863, during the whole of 1864, and for a great portion of 1865, the Irish Executive allowed matter of the most mischievous kind to be circulated in every direction throughout the country; thereby adding fuel to the flame which they found so difficult to quell, but which, had they taken active measures at first, they might have easily subdued. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had said there was no connection between the Phoenix conspiracy and this Fenian conspiracy; but they had the authority of Mr. Justice Keogh, who tried the prisoners, for saying they were one and the same; and the result of the proceedings in 1858, whether abortive or otherwise, was that the country was rid of the conspiracy for two or three years, and that was a state of things which might well bear to be contrasted with what took place between the end of 1863 and 1865. Then it was said that the Government were not in any degree to blame for the escape of Stephens. But he would take leave to say that it was the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to take care that a prisoner in custody for so serious an offence should be in proper keeping. That was his first duty; and his next was to see that, whether by means of soldiers or police, he was properly secured. It was not for the Executive to throw the responsibility of taking these precautions on the Governor of the prison. He came now to

  773
  a matter which had been tried very lately—namely, as to the custody in which Stephens was on the night of his escape. He brought it home to the Government that the man who was subsequently put upon his trial for connivance at the escape of Stephens was the same Daniel Byrne, whom Mr. Corry Connellan, Inspector General of Prisons, had reported to be unfit to fill the post whether of night watchman or warder in 1863; and that Report he now held in his hand. Every effort to evade the subject of Byrne's unfitness was made by the Board of Superintendence; but the Lord Lieutenant had the power to dismiss the man or to confirm him in his employment. With the Lord Lieutenant alone, therefore, or his advisers, rested the responsibility, Besides, the Lord Lieutenant had the power to remove Stephens to any other prison in Ireland he thought fit. It was idle to say, then, that no blame attached to the Irish Executive on the particular point which formed the subject-matter of this Motion. He denied, too, in the most emphatic terms, that the Government had performed their duty when they allowed The Irish People to take its rise, to be registered, licensed, and circulated through the post office from the month of November, 1863, to September, 1865, when the very articles which appeared in the beginning of 1864 formed some of the subject-matter of the indictments at the late trials, and without the articles of that paper he rather thought the prosecutions would not have been so successful. He utterly repudiated the notion that a seditious paper was to remain in existence two whole years when the articles of that paper were of such a nature as to be made the subject-matter of indictment.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: After the protracted discussion which has taken place, and after the complete answers which have been given by my learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland to the charges against the Government as to the escape of Stephens, there is only one part of the subject with respect to which I feel bound to say a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. S. B. Miller) has brought a direct charge against the Government for not having sooner interfered, and he expressed his opinion that the Government were to blame for not having instituted a prosecution against The Irish People at an earlier period, and thus effectually checked
  774
  this conspiracy. The noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), however, said that possibly there might have been good reasons for that inaction. I feel bound to say in justice to Lord Wodehouse, who was in constant communication with me, that he took a course in the full responsibility for which Her Majesty's Government share; and it is a course the reasons for which the Government entirely approve. And now, looking hack on the events which have occurred, I must say that if we had taken the line of action recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman we might have succeeded in the prosecutions against the newspaper, but we should have failed in laying bare before the country the overwhelming evidence of the nature of the conspiracy, its extent, and the number of persons implicated, and in carrying with us in our proceeding the universal approval of persons possessing property in Ireland. The Government fully approved of the conduct of Lord Wodehouse, and they conveyed to him their entire concurrence in the reasons which he gave for the course he adopted.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIEsaid, they had heard very eloquent speeches to-night from the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, hut the only thing they appear to have proved to the House was that things were done differently in Ireland from what they would be in any other country in the world. The House had been told that a seditious newspaper called The Irish People had been published weekly for two years in Ireland, that it had a circulation of no less than 8,000 copies, which were every week distributed over every part of the country, and that the Government thought it no part of their duty to put a stop to those proceedings. They knew that the editor of this newspaper was one of those men who ought to be proceeded against, and whom they might any day have called up for judgment and thereby put an end to his treason. But the Law Officers said that they knew better—that there were State reasons why these things should be allowed to go on for two years, and that then they made a grand coup and put it all down. But was it not true that at this very time the conspiracy was going on just as if they had never had recourse to these proceedings? That was generally admitted. All he could say was that if that was the mode in which the Government of Ireland was conducted it was a mode which was not adopted in any other country in the world.

THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BENTINCK, in rising to move that in the opinion of this House it is not expedient that the competition for the building of the New Courts of Justice should be limited to six architects only, said, that if he wanted an excuse for taking up this question it might he found in the fact that he was a Member of the Committee which sat upon the Law Courts in 1860. He might also allege in excuse the petition which had been presented by an hon. Friend of his (Mr. Beresford Hope) in the name of that illustrious body the Institution of British Architects against the Government proposal. Now, either from the want of commanding architectural talent or from some other cause which he could not pretend to state, competitions in matters of this kind had become a necessity. For the last few years at least, whenever great works were about to be executed either in England or on the Continent, the competitions invited for designs were generally of an unlimited character. The competition for the Houses of Parliament was unlimited; so were the competitions for the Cartoons, for the Foreign Office, and for the Wellington Monument. Nor had the result of these competitions been otherwise than successful. No man could say, however he might condemn the style of the Palace of Westminster, that Sir Charles Barry was not a man of great ability. The unlimited competition for the Cartoons had brought out the talents of Mr. Herbert, of Mr. Watts, and of many other artists; while in the case of the Foreign Office the result had been equally satisfactory. Unlimited competitions could not therefore, from any of these instances, be said to have operated prejudicially to art. He would not quarrel with limited competition if the three following conditions were attached to it:—First, that the number of architects competing should he sufficient to afford to the tribunal which was to decide on their merits a full latitude of choice; secondly, that that tribunal should he thoroughly protected from any charge of favouritism; and thirdly, that its members should have such a knowledge of the subject that their decision should command the respect, not of artists only, but of the artistic world in general. The arrangement with regard to the proposed competition for the New Courts of Justice failed in every one of those particulars. First of all, there were to be only six competing artists. In the days of Sir
  776
  Christopher Wren, or of the great architects of the 16th century, it would have been possible to make a choice out of four or five architects; but in the present time, he must say, without wishing to detract from the merits of existing architects, there was no such towering genius as existed in days past, and therefore it was necessary to invite a large number of architects to compete. In answer to a question he asked the other night, the names of six architects were mentioned as those who were to compete, but he had heard that four of them had vanished from the arena, [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Four more have been added.] Still there were only six, and it was for the Government to show what advantage there was in limiting the number to so few. Among the names of the six first appointed he failed to observe architects who obtained prizes in previous Government competitions. Again, if any hon. Gentleman went to the City and walked down Lombard Street, Cornhill, Broad Street, and other great thoroughfares, he would see buildings designed by architects worthy of following Sir Christopher Wren; indeed, in Carey Street, opposite the site on which the Courts were to be built, was a new bank of considerable artistic merit, and the public had a right to demand that the gentlemen who had produced these works should, if they thought fit, be included in the list of competitors. The condition that the tribunal deciding on the merits of the competing architects should be protected from the charge of favouritism was essential; and he might mention he had heard a report, which, however, he did not credit, that it was the pre-conceived intention of the Commission to select Mr. Waterhouse, the architect of the Assize Courts in Manchester. He did not believe that there was any idea of that kind in the minds of the Commissioners, hut the fact of the competition being so limited had given rise to that very unpleasant report. A properly defined statement of the conditions of the competition would, if the number of competitors was allowed to be sufficiently large, put an end to such scandal. As to the tribunal which was to judge of the merits of the competitors, it was important that it should be a competent one. The Commission was to consist of five persons only. The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper), the Attorney General, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling). He did not find fault

  777
  with the nomination of the hon. Member for Perthshire, whose taste in literature and art was so well known, and he had not the slightest objection to officials being on the tribunal, provided they had some knowledge of art. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper), he doubted whether he possessed that architectural knowledge which would enable him unassisted to decide upon the designs of the competing architects. The right hon. Gentleman had often addressed the House on subjects of art, and had some times made remarks showing that he had not paid much attention to that matter, and leading to the conclusion that in a competitive architectural examination he would probably be plucked. He (Mr. Bentinck) was inclined to think that the learned Attorney General, under a similar test, would share a like fate. What were the qualifications of the other Members of the Commission he would not say, but he trusted that the Government would think twice before submitting this important question to the decision of a body so constituted. It had been said that the money for the building was raised from a source connected with the law, and that the public had nothing to do with the matter; but he maintained that the money to be raised was quite as much public money as any other. It was calculated that £900,000 would be raised by the sale of Three per Cent Stock at 90; and, as the funds had fallen to 87, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain how the difference was to be met. What he wished to urge was that the competition ought to be unlimited, or limited to so many as would afford a fair chance of a satisfactory selection, and that there should be constituted a tribunal for selecting the design to be adopted in which the public could have confidence.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in I the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that the competition for the building of the New Courts of Justice should be limited to six architects only,"—(Mr. Bentinck,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in the name of the architects who did him the honour to appoint him the President of their Institute, thanked the hon. Member for bringing forward the Motion, which was one rightly made by a Member who was independent in the sense of having no connection with architecture, and which, therefore, neither he nor the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite)
  778
  could have made. When the competition for the Law Courts was first announced, it created an intense interest among the architectural profession. These Courts were to form a magnificent building, which would be a glory to the architect and to the metropolis if he succeeded, or a misfortune and disgrace if he failed. When the list of architects first appeared, it included six eminent names. A feeling prevailed that the list ought to have been larger; but still no question was raised, and it seemed as if the number was a foregone conclusion. But then name after name dropped off, and other names were added, until only two of the first six names remained on the list. It was clear that a screw was loose somewhere; and where that screw was it was the object of the present Motion to discover. Report said that certain unusual conditions were imposed after the architects had been invited to join in the competition. Now, whether these conditions were right or wrong, or whether it was wise or unwise to limit artistic freewill, at any rate it was not right to induce men to suppose that they were entering into competition on the usual terms, and when they had, as it were, committed themselves, to call upon them to sign unusual agreements, introduced for the first time into similar competitions, and of which they had received no previous intimation. It was no answer to say that an architect ought not to engage in more work than he could honestly exercise his intellect upon. That was very true in itself, but the Government ought to have let it be known early enough that it intended to alter the general terms of competition, so that architects might not have been placed in a false position by declining so honourable an engagement in reality on account of things which did not concern the artistic side of the matter. The imposition of such conditions would almost necessitate unlimited competition, which would allow of more stringency in the terms imposed than limited competition, A limited one assumed the honour, ability, and industry of those selected, on account of their being known to possess such qualities; while unlimited competition might admit impractical scene-painters and dreamers, and the first prize might fall to a clever scamp, or an artist totally innocent of finance. While in his opinion unlimited competition would be theoretically the best, he was bound to add that in the present condition of art-politics it was impossible, and it was not asked for. The petition of the Institute of Architects which he pre-

  779
  sented, though applying technically to the competition for the National Gallery, was in spirit meant to cover this case; and as rumour said it had been effectual in the manner of the National Gallery, he hoped it would be the same in this one. The Motion of his hon. Friend afforded an opportunity for saving repentance on the Treasury Bench, and he only hoped there would be no faltering between two opinions. He did not believe that those on the Treasury Bench were altogether guilty. There was a grander and more august commission behind them, a commission whose behests they were, perhaps, only serving. He had approached a very dignified and influential quarter in the name of the Institute of Architects, and the reply was that six architects were too many. He trusted that the First Commissioner of Works thought differently, and would extricate his friends from their dilemma. The reason why unlimited competitions were not asked for was that they had been made ridiculous, and almost dragged through the dirt by the absurd mismanagement of the Foreign Office competition nine years ago. The Story was an old one, but it was worth recalling. The Government wished to build two public departments, a Foreign Office and a War Office, which might and ought to have been two wings of the same structure, and ought to have been jointly competed for with designs including both. Instead of one there were three graduated schedules of prizes. One was for a block scheme for laying out the whole space at Westminster about the public offices, which, by the consent of every one, turned out a perfect failure. The first prize in that was won by a speculative Frenchman, who came full of a scheme for improving the smoky capital of perfidious Albion off the face of the earth. He need say no more of that branch of the matter. With respect to the other two schedules, it was forgotten to be settled whether competitors were to take prizes in one only or in both. Some went in for a War Office only, others for a Foreign Office, and some for a compound building, lodging both offices under the same roof, while others stuck two distinct houses side by side. But when the judges came to consider, they were in the same difficulty as the public to understand the meaning of the terms of competition, although men of avowed accomplishments. Amongst them was that accomplished Gentleman the hon. Member for Perthshire, who, he was happy to say, was also in the present list of judges. Lord Eversley and
  780
  the Duke of Buccleuch, though named, were prevented from taking part in the practical work; but the rest who acted were, Mr. Brunel, to represent the engineers; Mr. Roberts, the great pictorial dreamer of architecture; Mr. Burn, the able and common-sense architect; and Earl Stanhope, the representative of high literary refinement. Mr. Burn thought that the same man might get the prize for both designs, but the majority said otherwise, and the result was a compromise schedule of prizes, which meant nothing, and such confusion and complication that no one knew what was to be done. Mr. Coe got the first prize for a Foreign Office, which could not grow into a War Office; and Mr. Garling for a War Office, which could not grow into a Foreign Office. So the matter, as it were, lay on the floor of the House. Nobody would touch it there with a pair of tongs. Nobody knew what was to be done. At last, in 1858, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) took it up, and obtained a Select Committee. In looking into the matter, that Committee found it could make nothing of the formal award of the judges, and it fell back upon Mr. Burn's individual list, based as that was upon the non-exclusive principle. By that list it turned out that Mr. Scott, though first for neither office, was first in the general sum total of merit, being placed second for both buildings, and so he got the commission for a Gothic design. But how Mr. Scott, who thus got a prize for a Gothic building, was now engaged with Mr. Digby Wyatt in erecting an Italian design, it was not necessary to state. He had gone through this narrative to show why unlimited competition now stinks in the nostrils of the House. He was sorry it should be so. It was against the spirit of the age—it was against the idea of free trade in art; but so it was. It would simply be a waste of time to move that there should be unlimited competition. What they demanded was a larger limited competition, and a little more variety in the composition of the judges. He did not wish to strike out the name of one legal or financial member of that body. They were all very useful elements, but he did plead for a larger infusion of the artistic element in the shape of architects, as well as for the educated amateur element; because, after all, the painter and the engineer were amateurs, as much as the well-educated country gentleman might be, and ought to be represented on the list of judges. Above all, he asked that

  781
  the competition should really be competition—not to lead afterwards to a pretty show, or exhibition in Westminster Hall, but to have just so many designs and no more, and just so roughly done as would enable competent judges to decide who was the best man; for the competition was not meant to enable them to decide on the building in all its details, but to discover the man best competent to create the final structure. It was absurd to ask for finished drawings of every particular, such the head of Edward I. peeping round the corners, or cornucopias standing out, or hall-door chairs in the style of the 14th century or the Augustan era. What was wanted was the master-mind to design the general idea, and the details might be worked out year by year, in concert between employer and architect. The abominable thing was the grand exhibition up to which everybody worked, with the art critics of the press and of the House, and the fine ladies and the fine ladies' daughters, and the constituents from the country, who came up to town ravening, like monsters of the deep, for something to see, whom hon. Members took by the hand and led to Westminster Hall. He would let them into a secret of the trade. There was an exhibition of designs; at length one was pitched upon; it seemed uncommonly fine. It was a magnificent building. There was a beautiful sky-line, plenty of trees, and an officer of the Horse Guards was prancing by—everything, in short, that made it very effective to the innocent mind of an uneducated amateur judge. Who produced it? The talented architect to whom they meant to give the prize? No; but some member of a very respectable but hybrid profession—an architect's artist; in fact, a water-colour painter, who has acquired just such an amount of architectural proficiency as may enable him to take the drawing of the architect, and out of that to concoct the pretty seductive pictures they saw at exhibitions, and to which the prizes were awarded by judges who very likely had no idea whether it indicated an elevation of 200 feet or 500 feet in length. This is what made those competitions distasteful; it showed also the incompetency of the judges, and could only lead to work which was untrue and meretricious. To prove that this was not his opinion only, he would read extracts from two letters ho had received from eminent architects—
  "As regards the necessary drawings for a competition, it is certainly a great drawback to all
  782
  architects who compete that they should be compelled to send in so many drawings, which really are unnecessary for the purpose of selecting the architect. The great point, of course, is for him to give the general scheme and style of his design. This can be very effectually done by sending the principal plans and elevations, and one main section with perspective views. These would be quite sufficient to form a correct estimate of capability of the architect to carry out the design well without putting him to the trouble and expense of needless sections and constructional detail. We know, from architects' experience, that in nine cases out of ten the latter are never even glanced at. You would be doing architects great service it you could prevail upon those who have to draw up particulars to practically consider this important question."
  The second communication was from a gentleman whom he had asked whether he would compete—
  "I may say that I should certainly have accepted but for two reasons—first, the shortness of time. There will be, I understand, from sixty to seventy drawings required. These sixty or seventy drawings will have to be got up within some eight months from the present time—that is, an average of about four days to each drawing. In addition, the whole subject has to be got up, which always takes more time than the mere drawing. I therefore think that the time is far too short, and near a year, at least, should have been allowed to the other competitors. The second objection is the absence from among the judges of professional men."
  Rumour, with its many tongues, has given as a reason for the limited competition that the lawyers were afraid lest their courts should be beset with architects studying the judicial procedure. But surely architects had some idea of business, and had some à priori ideas to work upon, and knew what a bar meant—and that a room constructed to suit a Tower Hamlets' Vestry would not be unfitted for even the High Court of Chancery. He hoped that so groundless a panic would not palpitate under the horsehair of their wigs. Here, then, was their grievance. It was a grievance to the judges as well as to the architects. It was a grievance made up of the fewness of competitors, the shortness of time, and the unnecessary number of drawings asked for from each man. Even if the judges looked conscientiously at the sixty or seventy designs they would not derive much benefit from them, but rather confuse their own judgment. If the number of drawings asked for from each candidate were reduced, it would be as easy for the judges to look at those of twenty, as at the half-dozen more ponderous sets they now required. What they wanted was, not the tricked-out, burnished pictures of architects' artists, but clever pen-and-ink sketches, the virgin ideas of the architects

  783
  themselves, the work of their own hands. The honour and credit of the country demanded that the artistic, as well as every other element should be kept up at its due level in the body politic. There was a point of honour, a high and ennobling ambition, with architects as with all other professions, and this it was right and needful that those in authority should respect and encourage. No such means for encouraging it existed as liberal competitions. The architectural character of London should be a glory, and not a disgrace, to the age; and it was stingy and selfish to grudge a little trouble to help that by opening public competition somewhat more. All had an interest in this question, in order that our metropolis, with its wealth and pomp, bustle and business, should not fall behind the pretty capitals of foreign despots. Under all the circumstances, he hoped that success would follow the Motion of his hon. Friend, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) or the Attorney General would gracefully yield a bloodless victory, and assure the House that the matter would be considered, and justice done in this case, and that their moderate and respectful petition would meet with that favourable reception to which it was entitled.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was not surprised to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had made himself the champion in that House of architecture, and was particularly zealous for one particular style of architecture, should affect to despise those who appreciated any other than the Gothic style. [Mr. BENTINCK said he did not.] At all events, he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be anxious to express an opinion upon a matter so interesting to architects; but he certainly was surprised at the form of the present Motion, because it so happened that although it might be interesting to know the opinion of the House on the subject, yet that opinion was not called for on the question now under discussion. The House had agreed to the "Courts of Justice Building Act," by which the decision as to the plans and the modes of apportioning the building was left to the Treasury, with the advice and concurrence of such persons as Her Majesty might name for the purpose. Therefore, the House having by adopting that Act placed the responsibility on the Treasury and the Commissioners, it was hardly proper that it should now resume the power thus transferred. He
  784
  hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member would not think of pressing the Motion. [Mr. BENTINCK said, he certainly should.] The Courts of Justice Commission consisted of persons representing every branch of the law, as well as Members of Her Majesty's Government, and they had seriously to consider what advice they could give to the Treasury on the subject. It was very foreign to their instructions that they should endeavour to develop rising talent among architects, and to secure such an exhibition of architectural drawings as might be interesting to the public, and beneficial, possibly, to architecture, but which could have no perceptible results in regard to the building which it was the duty of the Commission to watch over. The object of the Commission was to secure the means of getting the best Palace of Justice they possibly could; and the House had authorized the expenditure of a million and a half of money for the concentration in close contiguity of all the Courts of Law and Equity, of the Probate and Divorce Courts, and of all the offices, because it believed that such an arrangement would be attended with most material and beneficial results on the administration of the law; and would prevent many of the delays which were the opprobrium of our legal procedure. Indeed, it was generally allowed that the dispersion and distribution of the Courts and offices were the means of impeding very many of those reforms which would tend to promote the fusion of law and equity, which some very learned gentlemen advocated and desired. But, whatever might be the benefits that would result, it was quite clear that the internal construction and apportionment of this building was a very important affair, and it was one to which the Courts of Justice Commission had specially directed their attention. They had to consider how they could find a man of the greatest eminence in his profession and of the greatest practical experience, and who had also minutely and carefully studied the whole subject, which was one that did not come under the ordinary cognizance of an architect. Now, if there were any architect of sufficient eminence to make it certain that he would adequately and satisfactorily discharge the task of erecting such a Palace of Justice as was required, it would have been better to select an architect than to invite competition. The most eminent architects, however, were not men who had paid special attention to this subject; there

  785
  were men who had built courts of justice, but these had not that wide reputation that would justify their appointment, and therefore it was not possible to make a satisfactory choice. Under the circumstances, it was considered the wisest course to select a small number of men who might safely be intrusted with the building, and invite them to compete with one another. But then it was necessary that these architects should study for at least seven months the minute details of the required building. Arrangements had accordingly been made that the selected architects should have access to the present courts and offices when they pleased in order that they might be enabled to see how the business was trans acted, and thus by their own eyes and their own judgment ascertain what kind of building would be best adapted for the business carried on. The Courts of Justice Commission had prepared a very elaborate schedule, showing in great detail all that the Committees appointed by the Commission thought necessary to be provided. The hon. Member who last spoke, and who so worthily represented the Institute of Architects (Mr. Beresford Hope), had given good reasons against unlimited competition. It might succeed in some ordinary cases, but it would have been the worst method that could have been adopted in this case, for such a careful study of the subject was required during the busiest time of the year that scarcely any of the most eminent men would have given their time to an unlimited com-petition. The Commission had, therefore, decided that not more than six architects should be invited to compete, and those architects were to be properly remunerated for all the labour and expense incurred by them in getting up the drawings and studying the question. Now it was quite true, as his hon. and learned Friend had said, that out of the six architects originally appointed four had retired. He thought, however, that the very fact of their retirement justified the view he had taken of the great difficulty of getting architects of the highest standing to give their attention to a question of this sort. One of those who had retired stated that he had enough business on hand, and that, consequently, he could not undertake so laborious a task. Another had stated that, if more time had been allowed, he might have been enabled to compete, but in this busy time of the year he was already fully occupied, and could not undertake to give the time and attention necessary for
  786
  the study of the subject. The other two objected to one of the clauses in the agreement proposed by the Treasury, to the effect that the architect finally selected should not be allowed to undertake any new work except with the consent of the Treasury. Of course, the Treasury would not have pressed that condition in any undue way; but the clause was intended to secure that an actual and personal superintendence should be given to the building by the architect employed. [Mr. Powell asked, whether any time were mentioned.] Three years was the time specified. The vacancies which had occurred had been filled up, the resolution of the Commission being that six architects should be asked to compete. He was not one of those who felt so strongly against unlimited competition as the hon. Member who had just sat down. It was true that in the present state of public opinion unlimited competition was not acceptable; but in cases it ought to be adopted. His opinion was, that if a building were required which the education and ordinary practice of an architect would enable him to design, it was advantageous to have the competition open to all the world. That was the plan adopted last year, when a new building was wanted at Kensington Gore. The result was, that an admirable design by Captain Fowke was selected—a design which probably would not have been attained if the competition had been limited. The present ease, however, differed entirely from that. The object was to get the very best Palace of Justice in the world. There must be arrangements under which witnesses might be separated from the public and the legal profession; while the public might have the opportunity of hearing, and yet not be able to attract the attention of the Judge, the jury, and the witnesses. They believed that a great number of improvements might be made in the outer halls and in the disposition of the courts. They would not be content with a design which would merely give a handsome façade: they wished that the entire building should be admirably adapted to the uses intended. Altogether, he believed that the method of competition which had been recommended was the one most calculated to attain the desired object. He could not admit that because a man gained a prize nine years ago in a particular competition he therefore had a right to have a share in the present competition. What was desirable in such a competition was not merely to get men who had succeeded in

  787
  making a pretty drawing or sketch and obtaining a prize from judges who might or might not have been competent to award it, but men who had achieved celebrity by actual work, and could show their talent in stone, brick, or mortar. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck)had spoken of a rumour that there was a desire to show special favour to Mr. Waterhouse; but this was a groundless and unjust rumour. The Commission had abandoned the idea of appointing him architectural clerk, lest any suspicion of advantage should arise, and the schedule of dimensions would be as open to the other competitors as to that gentleman. As to the selection of the judges, they represented the different classes interested in the building, two of them being eminent Members of the legal profession, two being Members of the Government, and the fifth being the hon. Member for Perthshire, who represented the general public. This was analogous to the ordinary practice, that those who were to be the occupiers should determine the kind of building they wanted; and it was quite open to the judges to call in professional assessors in examining the drawings, as was done in the case of the Foreign Office and the War Office.
  MR. POWELLquite agreed that the first object of the Commission should be to select the best man, and when this had been done they should insist on his devoting to the work his best faculties and energy, at the same time supporting him with their countenance and kindly courtesy. There was great difficulty attending a work of such magnitude, on account of the details. In the case of the Houses of Parliament, the designs were under consideration for a long time, and then four architects were appointed, from which a selection was to be made. But the work now contemplated was of a much more complex character. In the case of the Houses of Parliament no estimates were required, and no one could tell their ultimate cost; and, consequently, there arose a controversy between Sir Charles Barry and the Government on the subject of commission, which must have been very painful to both parties. He thought there could not be a doubt that 5 per cent was a high commission for such a sum as £750,000; but there was a good deal to be done by the architect during the progress of a building, and much must be left to the architect's honour. It had been suggested to him that the better plan was to pay the archi-
  788
  tect a salary while the work was going on. He hoped that, though the Government might not feel bound to obey a Vote of the House in this matter with the same strictness as they would obey a Vote in Committee of Supply, they would feel desirous of working with the House, and of keeping on the side of public opinion. He also trusted that before the close of the discussion the House would receive a distinct statement as to the names of the six architects admitted as competitors. Rumours were going about to the effect that a preference had been given to Mr. Waterhouse. These were to be regretted, inasmuch as he believed there was no ground for them. It would have been an injury to Mr. Waterhouse himself, as well as to the profession, if any preference had been shown him; and therefore it was desirable that there should be a distinct contradiction of the statement to that effect.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERapprehended, that although Parliament might delegate to certain parties to perform certain duties, it was always open to the House to interpose, and express its opinion if those duties were not performed in a manner consistent with the public interests, and that was especially the case with regard to the expenditure of public money. With respect to the question of competition, his own opinion was favourable to unlimited competition, for which so many precedents could be found in this country, for it gave an opportunity to unknown men of showing their capabilities, gave a general stimulus to talent, and was advantageous to the cultivation of taste in the nation. Considering the great number of able architects in the metropolis he thought the number of competitors ought not to be limited to six. He thought the practice of requiring or accepting very elaborate plans of buildings was a bad one. The production of such plans required a great deal of time, and the Government had to compensate unsuccessful candidates for their labour. A ground plan showing the distribution of the different parts of the building, and plans showing the distribution of the different chambers and stories, with sections and elevations, ought to be quite sufficient. If they asked more they did mischief. There were instances of architects who had withdrawn from competition because they had not time to finish drawings of an elaborate character. It was most desirable that some practical man should define the exact nature of the drawings to be sent in; and

  789
  they ought to be as simple as possible. From them a selection could be made just as well as from the most finished drawings. In one of the drawings for the Houses of Parliament the Queen's state coach with the eight cream-coloured horses were introduced. Such a thing would be scouted at the present time. Everything beyond a simple plan was productive of expense, and did more harm than good. It appeared to him that the public would not and ought not to be satisfied if the choice for the new buildings was to he among six architects, who were invited to compete at the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman the Firs Commissioner of Works. The Government, instead of adopting a plan that would bring upon them a great deal of odium and discredit, ought to open the doors as wide as possible. And first, it would be necessary to decide whether the building was to be of Gothic or Italian architecture. To do fair justice to what Lord Palmerston used to call the great Italian question it would be necessary to employ more than six architects, What magic was there in the number six? Twelve with Englishmen was supposed to be a much more sacred number. The right hon. Gentleman apparently thought that a man who had gained a prize nine years ago would no longer be the same man, and should not be allowed to compete. But it was much more natural to suppose that in the meantime he would have gone on improving. A distinction was sought to be established between a building intended for a court of justice and buildings not of a special character; but in reality there was no such distinction Whatever the building, either there must be open competition with regard to it, or else none at all. Had we a man like Inigo Jones, Sir Christopher Wren, or Palladio in this country, he should not desire competition. But we had not; and competition, being indispensable, ought not to be a mockery, but a fair stand-up fight, open to all the best men.
  MR. TITEsaid, he had been appealed to once or twice in the course of the debate, and more out of the House than in it, in consequence, he supposed, of having once occupied some position in the profession, and of having filled the office of President of the Institute of British Architects, in which his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) had followed him. He supposed he was the only man in that House who had gone through a public competition of a somewhat
  790
  similar character to that which they were now discussing, and he felt bound to say that much of his success in life was due to the fact of having been brought forward as a young man by public competition. In the very House in which they were assembled, though he did not agree with its style of architecture and much of its decoration, they had in its wonderful arrangement, and in the fact that so little alteration had since been necessary, another signal instance of the good results of public competition in the person of Sir Charles Barry. It was not through the desire of that eminent artist that the building was covered all over with sprawling dragoons and apocryphal lions; the style was dictated to him, and, ductus utriusque tinguœ, he had shown himself as great a master of one style of architecture as the other. The merits of any design consisted not in a mere decorative drawing, but in the arrangement of plans, rooms, and courts; and he could conceive nothing more difficult than the details which had to he carried out in the distribution of both Houses, the Committee-rooms, and all that belonged to them, preserving at the same time the central features of the great hall and approaches, all of which had been so happily managed. As regarded the present competition, he did not at all wonder that suspicion had been excited by the small number of competitors. Of course, with the six gentlemen who had been selected for the Committee of adjudication all idea of jobbery was out of the question; but the number of six architects was so extremely limited that it certainly created in the minds of the architectural profession an impression that, to a great extent, a foregone conclusion had been arrived at. There was obviously no difficulty in increasing the number, for four of those who were originally named having withdrawn, four others were nominated in their places. Had ten or twelve gentlemen of the highest eminence been nominated in the first instance, he ventured to think that the time of the House would never have been troubled with this discussion at all. The same observations might apply to another competition now under consideration—that relating to the National Gallery—and the observation of two or three practical rules would tend very much to set such questions I at rest. In competitions wisely conducted there should be no ornamental drawing, or, at most, but one, consisting of a single colour, Indian ink, or sepia, or something

  791
  of that kind, so as to prevent the ornamentation and frippery and misleading details so often brought forward to influence the decision of the judges. As to what had been said with regard to expense, he did not think it worth talking about. £800, he understood, was to be paid to each of these six gentlemen, and if that number were to be increased to ten, there would be a trifling increase of expenditure; but was that amount to be thought of when they were going to spend upon courts of law, a work of the greatest possible importance, a sum exceeding £800,000? It was a question for his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bentinck) whether he would divide or not, but he ventured to ask him to leave the matter in the hands of the Government; if, however, the matter were pressed to a division he must affirm the principle that the number of competitors ought to be greater than that which had been selected, and to vote with his hon. and learned Friend. He wished the Government had courage sufficient to choose one man, and place the matter in his hands. At St. Thomas' Hospital, across the water, they were perfectly satisfied with their architect, and everything connected with the building would be done without competition, and done, he believed, ably and well. One gentleman had written to him saying, "Ought not I to have a chance?" He would not mention the name of that gentleman, but the list of his attainments was very striking. He had obtained three silver medals of the Royal Academy in 1850, the gold medal and life studentship of the Royal Academy in 1851, he was elected an associate of the Institute in 1852, obtained the medal of merit and an humble prize that he himself (Mr. Tite) gave the same year, passed the first examination in the next year, and obtained the Travelling Fellowship of the Royal Academy, with the Soane medallion of the Royal Institute of British Architects the same year: had since travelled, and was one of the best draughtsmen of the day; and yet, owing to the youthful position of that gentleman, unless he distinguished himself through some such opening as the present competition, he was likely to end his days as a mere surveyor or builder of ordinary dwellings. He felt bound by a sense of duty to the profession to which he once belonged to offer these remarks, and he hoped the Government would not refuse to increase the number of architects who were to compete.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEremarked, that the whole discussion showed how necessary it was that some one authority should be left to decide these things. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen who took that view would support him in a Motion he proposed to bring before the House with reference to the subject.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) led only to the conclusion that the competition should be altogether open. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No, no!" That, however, was his opinion, and he was about giving his reasons for it. His hon. Friend had highly commended the Houses of Parliament; but would Sir Charles Barry have been one of the six or ten chosen out of the host of known and unknown architects if the course adopted then had been the same as the course it was proposed to adopt in the case under consideration? Most certainly not, because he was then unknown. It was reasonable to suppose that some unknown man might send in a design far superior to those of any of the six or ten it was proposed to nominate. The corporation of London had acted wisely in having open competition among would be designers for their dead-meat market. If an open competition were thought necessary in so unimportant a case as that, how much more necessary must it be in a case where Courts of Justice were to be designed; for no court ever yet built had pleased all who had business to transact within it. The competition for the Houses of Parliament was sufficiently open to please all. The whole British nation had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it, and the choice was unanimous. He recommended that it should be as open in the case under consideration it was reasonable to hope that the result would be equally satisfactory.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would be extremely gratifying if the Commission should be able to meet the wishes of everybody on such a subject as this, and more especially if they could meet the wishes of a profession in which they all took so much interest as the very honourable profession of architects. He could also say for his own part that it would be a matter of deep disappointment to him if the building which would result from the Act of last Session should not be an ornament and an honour to the metropolis. It must not, however, be forgotten that with respect to such a building as this especially,

  793
  use came before ornament, and that was so considered by this House in discussing the Act last year. They then bore particularly in mind the wants and requirements of the administration of justice, which were the whole cause of the Bill and the whole justification for it. In the matter of expense the Houses of Parliament ought to act as a warning. He felt bound to say that he had not always heard such general commendation bestowed upon them as had been the case that evening. He had often heard as much abuse as praise. Most of them thought the internal arrangements might have been better than they were; but even supposing that they had attained a high degree of perfection, it was only obtained by means of continual alteration, which involved a large expenditure. It was the duty of the Government to avoid repeating that process on the present occasion; and when the Bill was passed through the House last year a pledge was asked for and was given by the Government that it would insert a clause taking the matter in some degree out of the hands of the Government, by means of a Commission in conjunction with which it was to act, that Commission being composed of those persons who might be supposed to be best acquainted with the requirements necessary to be fulfilled in erecting courts of law and the necessary offices. The Commission met frequently, and occupied a considerable amount of time and labour in settling the arrangements, and they had, after much consideration, and with great care, drawn up voluminous instructions for the architects, describing in detail every accommodation which the Commissioners thought the building should contain. No building could be more special in its requirements, and he was glad to hear that all were agreed that design, showing completeness of internal arrangement were more to be desired than pretty drawings which would catch the eye. He did not think that there was any danger of their falling into the error of being taken with a few pretty trees in a drawing, and a carriage passing by, be it the Queen's or that of any one else, but he rather believed that they would look to the adaptation of the building to the purposes for which it was intended. Of course, it was desirable that the building should be characterized by as much beauty as possible; but in any ease the work would be one of difficulty, and those who were intended to compete would find it necessary to
  794
  visit the various offices where the business of the law was being conducted, in order that they might become practically acquainted with the wants for which they proposed to provide. But if the open competition desired by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) were adopted, what would be the result? At the lowest computation 200 or 300 architects, the number who competed for the building of the Foreign and War Offices, would desire to make themselves acquainted with the courts of law and the various offices connected with them. It would be impossible that so large a number could have access to the various offices without interrupting the business. Disappointment and delay would necessarily have followed; for it would have been impossible to give access to some, without giving it to all; and the only course open to the Commissioners was to restrict the competition within very narrow limits. Accordingly, a numerously attended meeting of the Commissioners resolved, on the 21st of December, that the competitors must be limited. Shortly afterwards the Treasury proposed that the question as to whether the competition should be unlimited or restricted should be left to the judges, The Commissioners, on hearing this, recorded their unanimous opinion that the competition should be limited, and that the maximum number of competitors should be six. Whatever, therefore, had been done in the way of restricting the competition had been done by the Commissioners appointed by Parliament, independently of the Government. The Commissioners were partly guided to this conclusion by the feeling that the building should be erected as quickly as possible; because the longer the delay the greater the expense and the more prolonged the inconvenience attending the present state of things. As at present arranged, the plans would be given in by the 15th of October; and, considering that fifty courts and offices in various parts of the metropolis had to be inspected by the designers, that time would have to be extended if the list of competitors were added to, Virtually, however, ten of the very best men in the profession had been selected, but four of them had from their other engagements declined to enter upon the contest; and as they declined the number was made up to six. He did not say anything to the £800 that was to be awarded to each of the competitors. Of course, if the competition were quite open this sum could not be

  795
  given; but the addition of one or two more competitors would not be a material consideration. [Mr. BENTINCK: What are their names?] Those who had consented to compete were Mr. Street, Mr. Waterhouse, Mr. Darling, Mr. Deane, and Mr. Raphael Brandon. Mr. Somers Clarke had not yet given a reply; and the names of the gentlemen who had declined were Messrs. Barry, Scott, Hardwick, and Wyatt. It had been said some gentlemen had declined on account of a condition imposed—namely, that the successful competitor should not, in the three years during which he was engaged on the building, accept any other work without the consent of the Treasury: but seeing he was to be paid 5 per cent on the cost, and that his percentage would amount at that rate to £37,000, he did not think this so unreasonable a stipulation. The only other point he had to refer to was the allusion to some proposed preference given to Mr. Waterhouse, and it was suggested that he had been regarded with undue favour. But that was without foundation. That gentleman having built in Manchester some excellent buildings of a similar kind, his name naturally suggested itself; but he ventured to say no preference had been, or would be given, to that gentleman, and he did not believe Mr. Waterhouse was known otherwise than professionally to any Member of the Commission; he was only known by his work. As to the judges of the designs, he was not prepared to defend his own appointment; but the Treasury having agreed that (he Commissioners should appoint two of the judges, that Commission had appointed the Lord Chief Justice of England and himself, assuming them to be able to form an opinion as to the requirements of a building intended for the law courts and offices. He could not but think that confidence might be placed in those who were associated with him—he said nothing of himself—in the performance of that duty. Of course, they would have due professional assistance whenever they required it; and they would earnestly endeavour to obtain the most beautiful building they could, while they would at the same time not be prepared to sacrifice utility to beauty.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that having been on the Committee for the erection of the Assize Court at Manchester, he wished to say a few words. The competition for the design of that Court was open to all the world, and the result was that they had
  796
  one of the best courts of justice that had ever been erected in this country. The Manchester Court was successful because those who were to use the court were consulted, and their views with regard to accommodation were carried out, and he thought that the same course should be adopted with regard to the new courts to be erected in London. He thought that with regard to the proposed court competitors should not be limited to six. For the Manchester Court 230 designs were sent in, but of these only about twenty were worth looking into, and of the twenty only twelve whose interior designs were worth looking into. He thought that if Government got ten or twelve of the best architects to compete, and told them what they wanted, they would get a building that would not only be beautiful, but would give all the accommodation that was required.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not help fearing that in spite of what had been said by the Attorney General, the Government had just taken the very worst possible course in this matter. There were two courses open to them. The first and possibly the best course was to have taken the whole responsibility upon their own shoulders, and to have appointed a fit and proper man to design the building according to their requirements; and the second was to have thrown the competition open to the whole profession. Neither of these courses had been adopted, and the result would be that the responsibility would rest nowhere. Of one thing they might be quite certain—namely, that do what they would, there was sure to be plenty of dissatisfaction with the courts when they were built. But what was wanted was, that in case there should be good ground for that dissatisfaction, Parliament should know who were responsible for the failure.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANremarked, that by the course the Government had taken they had excluded the architect who took a prize for the Foreign Office.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 101: Majority 31.
  Words added:—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that the competition for the building of the New Courts of Justice should be limited to six architects only.—(Mr. Bentinck.)
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £212,800, Administration of the Army.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) brought forward the Estimates last year he informed the Committee that a Committee had been appointed and had sat during the previous summer, and by repeated adjournments during the greater part of the winter, and that they had recommended several changes in the Department, and he said that these recommendations had relation both to its organization and to economy. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) in the remark he made last year that as a general rule this House ought not to interfere with the organization of a Department of which the head of that Department was responsible for its working: and he was more inclined to follow that principle on the present occasion, because the noble Marquess had not been sufficiently long at the head of the Department over which he now presides to make him responsible for its working; and because he entirely relied on the noble Lord for the removal of those causes of dissatisfaction which, as he must know, now reigned throughout the whole of this Department. He did not intend to offer any opinion whether that dissatisfaction was based on just and reasonable grounds or not—all he knew was that it existed, and that it was admitted last year by the noble Lord when he brought forward the Estimates; neither would be offer any opinion on the memorial which had been presented by the clerks to the late Secretary of War expressing their dissatisfaction at the changes proposed by the Committee to which he had referred: but this he would say, that when the whole of a Department was dissatisfied it was impossible that it could work well. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord would endeavour to introduce zeal into the Depart-
  798
  ment, and be able to substitute interest for the indifference which at present existed there. It was not, however, to that point that he rose to call the attention of the Committee, but to the result of the proposals which had been made for securing economy in the Department. The Committee had recommended certain changes with a view to economy, and the noble Lord told them on a former occasion that a great reduction would be made in consequence. So far, however, from this Vote having decreased, it had been gradually increasing, whilst the work of the Department had been decreasing. In 1859 the charge for the Department amounted to £185,000, and in 1864–5, when the Committee was appointed, it had reached the sum of £223,384. The Vote for the following year showed an apparent decrease of £10,584, and the noble Lord took credit for it; but he (General Peel) would show that, so far from its being a decrease, the expenses of the Department have, in reality, increased. The noble Lord said that there would be a decrease of £7,000 for this year, and within two years, with the existing establishment, it would be £15,000, and that if the number of clerks in the various branches were reduced as he anticipated, a considerable saving would be effected in a few years. But what was the fact? The Committee proposed to transfer the clerks for the Clothing Establishment, the Barrack Establishment, and the Engineer Branch, from this Vote to another. Now, these were very large blanches—that for Clothing being £454,400, that for Barracks, £603,300, and for the Engineer Department, £842,200; and it was on the transfer of these clerks that the noble Lord last year calculated on a saving of £3,500 on this Vote; although he (General Peel) made it a much larger sum, notwithstanding that it was very difficult indeed to ascertain what was the amount charged for clerks in these various branches. He found that the Clothing Branch was increased by £2,000, and the Barrack Branch at head-quarters, which he took to be at the War Department, £1,300; but what the Engineering Branch was it was impossible to make out from this Vote. Taking, however, the total amount on the three Votes, as calculated by the noble Lord, at £3,500, it must be added to the present Vote of £212,800. But that was not all. The noble Lord stated also that one of the chief means of reduction would be the employment of

  799
  clerks less highly paid than those at present employed; but how had that been effected? There had been, as they would find by reference to Vote 26, a sum of upwards of £10,000 transferred to another portion of the Estimates on account of the superannuation of War Office clerks. There were nine first-class clerks who received £4,692; eighteen second-class clerks who received £4,575; and six third-class clerks who received £1,400. In addition to this, there was an item for temporary clerks discharged. Many of these were very hard cases, for they had no retiring premiums, and they retired with gratuities. If, therefore, he took the £10,311 and the £3,500 and added it to the present Vote it would be seen that the charge was considerably higher than that of 1864–5, which amounted to £223,384. They had certainly got rid of many of the highly-paid clerks by putting them on superannuated allowances, but they had made no reduction in the cost of the Department. It was impossible to tell the number of clerks in the War Office. Last year the amount paid to the whole number of clerks was charged in a lump sum of £110,000, but neither the number of clerks was given nor was there any attempt at classification. It was then said in a note that a re-organization was going on in the Department; but this year we have the same thing. The amount of this year's Vote was, in fact, exactly the same as last year's, although superannuation allowances amounting to £10,000 were added to the Vote, and we had as yet no account of the number of clerks at the War Office. He did not complain of the amount given in individual cases, because the list included some of the best clerks in the Department; but how their places were to be supplied was more than he could find. He hoped, if it was the noble Marquess's fate to bring forward the Estimates next year, and he was sure the noble Marquess would do it better than anybody else on that side of the House, that he would be able to give a more satisfactory account than he (General Peel) had been able to gather from the Vote.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, that when two years since he brought under the attention of the House what he considered the extravagant charge of this Department, and he was told that economy should be introduced into the Vote, he felt a little exultation at the thought that he had done Borne slight good to the country by drawing attention to it; but he confessed that after
  800
  two years' experience he honestly believed that it would have been better and more economical if no one had called attention to it. The only practical result was an apparent reduction of £10,000, with an actual increase of at least £5,000. In 1864–5 the Vote was in round numbers £168,000, in 1865–6 there was a diminution of £10,500, but in 1866–7 the total for the War Office was about the same sum. Taking, therefore, the retiring allowances at £10,154, and the average ages of those who received them at forty-eight years, there was a prospective reduction of that amount at the end of ten or fifteen years. Such postponed economy he looked upon as very doubtful, for in all human probability the Vote would by that time have grown to its usual dimensions. In 1865–6 the amount of allowances to clerks amounted to £835; but this year, in consequence of the economy practised, it amounted to £2,240, and he confessed his utter ignorance to understand it, and asked for an explanation. The item of allowance to estimate clerks was set down at £300, and next to that £350 for compiling regulations; and on turning to the Superannuation Vote he found that Mr. W. O. Marshall, one of the first clerks, and who occupied the post nominally of précis writer and librarian, and who was returned as forty-eight years of age, and who was mentioned by the Committee referred to as a useful and distinguished clerk in the prime of life—that Mr. Marshall had retired on a superannuation allowance of £666 per annum. Compiling the regulations was part of Mr. Marshall's work; and he (Mr. O'Reilly) found that two clerks were now employed in performing part of his work, and who received altogether £730, and Mr. Marshall £666 retiring allowance. Under the head of accountant clerks and writers, a sum of £770, an entirely new item, appeared, and this was simply an allowance to new clerks for doing what ought to have been done by clerks who had been superannuated. The noble Marquess took credit for the War Office for economy in the Barrack Department, and that this would be carried out by diminishing the number of barrack clerks and supplying their places by barrack sergeants and a lower class of clerks. The whole of the item was an absolute increase as far as the items of "head-quarters" for the War Office were concerned. The economy in the administration of the army had also been supplemented in the Engineer's department. The head-quarters of the En-

  801
  gineers had been increased by several first and second-class clerks, the sum for whom was to be reckoned altogether at about £1,100. True, the total of that Vote did not show an increase; but the reason for that was that there were a number of temporary clerks employed at the out-stations in really doing the work of the administration of the army in London, which was formerly done by the superannuated first class clerks. The number of the temporary clerks was raised from 106 in 1865–6 to 138 for the years 1866–7. Again, if they turned to the Estimates for 1865–6, they would find that for the first time in that year a Vote was taken of £2,000 for the Barrack Establishment in the War Office to meet that new economy. It was difficult for a mere outsider to track through the Engineers' Vote and the Barrack Vote those items of increase which more than balanced the diminution in the War Office; and he only hoped that the noble Marquess would direct bin attention to them.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that his right hon. and gallant Friend General Peel, and the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. O'Reilly), had commented on the fallacies which they thought they had detected in connection with these apparent reductions; but still there remained one fallacy that had not been noticed. It was to be found in Vote 18 itself. The apparent foundation of the claim for reduction was to be found in the reduction of the salaries for clerks; but they were not informed as to the number and grade of the clerks who were employed. They were only told that the sum to he taken for clerks of various classes was £109,000; but it ought to be stated what was the number of first-class clerks, what was the number of second-class clerks, and so forth. Under the system of promotion followed in a public office, when a gentle man was promoted from one class to another he entered the higher class at the minimum salary of that class. One of these clerks of the higher class received from £670 to £800 a year; and if they pensioned off one who received £800, and engaged another at the £670 scale, they; thereby for the time saved £130. By pensioning off a large number of the higher paid—the first-class clerks—they might in that way effect a considerable temporary and apparent saving; but, of course, that reduction would disappear again by that process of gradual increase which they always found would go on. It would be more
  802
  satisfactory if they were enabled to get at the real economical value of these changes. They ought to be told what the permanent as well as what the temporary effect of their system of promotion was upon the salaries of the different classes of officers and upon the cost of their establishments. They always rejoiced at what looked like a saving, but some kinds of economy were penny wise and pound foolish, It was a very grave question whether it was desirable to reduce the staff of clerks at the head-quarters of that establishment for the purpose of employing in their place a body of lower paid men who were engaged in the Executive work of the barrack, store, and other departments. These men could not be expected to be as zealous for economy as officers at the bead-quarters would be.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he wanted to save the Secretary of State for War a very great amount of trouble. He wished the noble Marquess to confess what he himself, as well as many gentlemen both inside and outside of that House perfectly well knew—namely, that the whole of that great War Department was in a state of utter confusion If the noble Marquess would re-organize the whole of the administrative department of the army be would be relieved from these long discussions. Complaints were made sometimes that the clerks were too few, and sometimes that they were too numerous. He complained of the want of system in the War Department, and the extraordinary manner in which the work was performed. He held in his hands a sample of War Office correspondence, which supplied a very good illustration of the present state of the military administration, and led him to consider what would be the result in a great emergency—such, for instance, as the commencement of a war with any country. With the permission of the House he would read the minute he had made from the correspondence to which he referred. It was correspondence of a most important character, relative to the supply of a pair of bellows to the camp at the Curragh of Kildare. After a lengthy correspondence, the local Commissariat officer at the Curragh camp on the 12th February obtained authority from the War Department to indent on the Royal Engineer Department for a pair of bellows, urgently required in the camp, and applied for them to the district Engineer officer; on the 16th the district Engineer officer applied to the Military Store officer at Dublin; on the 19th the Military Store officer at Dublin

  803
  informed the Royal Engineer officer at Dublin that he could only supply the required bellows on requisition. On the 20th, the Royal Engineer officer at Dublin forwarded this information to the Royal Engineer officer at the Curragh; and on the 21st the local Engineer officer at the Curragh replied that he had no form of requisition. On the 22nd the local Engineer officer at the Curragh asked the local Commissariat officer if the proposed bellows would do. On the 23rd the local Commissariat officer replied; "Yes." On the 24th the local Engineer officer informed the local Commissariat officer that he must apply to the Royal Engineer officer, Dublin; and accordingly the local Commissariat officer applied to Dublin. The military stores officer at Dublin answered that he would supply the bellows on an order from the War Office. The local Commissariat officer then produced an authority from the War Office, and read it to the local Engineer officer. On the 1st of March the district Royal Engineer officer declined to have anything to do with a service which was not brought to his notice through the proper authorities, and local Commissariat officer referred the question to the Commissariat officer in Dublin. On March 2nd the Commissariat officer in Dublin referred the question to the Deputy Quartermaster General, Dublin; and the next day the Deputy Quartermaster General at Dublin referred the requisition to the Quartermaster General, Horse Guards. On the 5th, the Horse Guards referred to the War Office, and the War Office referred to the Commissary-General-in-Chief, London. On the 18th the Commissary-General-in-Chief asked the Director of Stores to give authority, which two days after was produced. The Director of Stores then stated that the Commissariat officer should include the bellows in the annual estimate; and on the 17th the Commissary - General - in - Chief wrote to the Horse Guards, and the Commissariat officer, Dublin. After all this correspondence, on the 20th of March the Commissariat officer at the Curragh was still bellowing for his bellows. If such a large amount of correspondence was necessary in procuring a pair of bellows, he asked again what would be the issues in a case of emergency? He hoped that his noble Friend would inaugurate his new position by saying frankly, "I have gone into a chaos of confusion—I am going to take these great administrative departments into consideration with a view of putting them into
  804
  something like a system." He was sure if the noble Marquess would do so he would meet with the greatest possible indulgence from that House.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEstated, that the item for travelling expenses was very large, and that he would like to know the cause of the increased expenditure under this head.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) has said that this Vote has not shown the whole of the expenditure of the administration of the army, and, with one or two exceptions, that statement is correct. The right hon. Gentlemen has also stated that the apparent saving in this Vote is more than counterbalanced by the extra sums in other Votes. I think, however, that I can show that an actual saving has been effected through the re-organization which we have commenced but not yet completed. Up to the last year the expenditure of the War Office has been an increasing expenditure. Now, the War Office is comparatively a new office; and the system adopted with reference to the remuneration of the clerks is, that they receive progressive salaries till they receive the maximum amount paid to them in their several classes. Consequently, the expenditure in respect of the clerks would go on increasing until a certain number of them obtained their maximum salaries. I find that if no changes whatever had been made in the War Office that the charge on account of the clerical establishments would have amounted to £129,500; but this year the charge for the clerical establishment, as given in Vote 18, amounts to only £112,140. It is true that we have to add to that sum, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, £2,240 on account of the barrack department, and £4,028 for the directors.
  COLONEL PERCY HERBERT: Can you state the number of clerks employed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I shall come to that point presently. The comparison I have just drawn shows that a saving has been made with regard to the effective establishment amounting to £10,583. The right hon. Gentleman says that an increase has been made in the Vote for the effective service of £10,000; and I am quite willing to admit it, but at the same time it is necessary to state that the whole of the increase is not owing to the re-organization. The sum of £3,600 would have been added to the Superan-

  805
  nuation Vote irrespective of the re-organization; and, therefore, the total increase of that Vote is only £6,400. On this calculation, therefore, there is a net saving on what the office would have cost under the former arrangement, of £4,100. I am not sure that when this statement was prepared that the increase in the item for allowance was taken into account or not. If it were not taken into account it would reduce the saving by £1,200. I now come to the number of clerks, and the statement in respect of them is more satisfactory than some other statements of a pecuniary character. The reason why we have not stated in the Estimates of this year, as was formerly done, the number of clerks in the establishment, is the same that I gave for its omission last year. The re-organization is not yet complete, and the clerks are distributed in different branches of the establishment. In the Estimates for 1864–5 the number of clerks was 479, but at this moment the number is 427; showing a reduction of fifty-two clerks. These numbers do not include temporary clerks. It is quite impossible that any reduction in the number of clerks can be made without entailing an increase of the Superannuation Vote; and were we to wait till we obtained vacancies without the assistance of the Superannuation Vote, we should have to wait a considerable time. It is, of course, quite obvious that the charge entailed on the Superannuation Vote will decrease year by year, while the decrease in the Effective Vote will, I hope, be permanent. The hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) referred to the number of clerks under Vote 14, but there is a statement connected with this Vote which, I think, requires correction. The number of 425 is not the actual number employed at present. That is the full establishment which some time ago was estimated for the Engineers' Department, but the third class of clerks of barracks was never filled up. I am far from saying that, although we have made some improvements in the arrangements of the War Office, those improvements are all that it would be desirable to introduce. As I before stated, there have been some delay and considerable difficulty in carrying out the system of re-organization so far as we have gone. Several of the alterations which have been made have, however, worked most satisfactorily—as, for instance, the division of the department of Accountant General into
  806
  the departments of the Accountant General and Chief Auditor. The Chief Auditor is of opinion that the work of his office may he performed to a very great extent by soldier clerks. He has employed a large number of men in that way, and he has found them to be of great service. He has some arrears to make up, and he hopes that when they are completed, and when he is able to employ a still larger number of soldier clerks, he will be in a position to make still further reductions. In reply to the speech of the hon. and gallant; Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), I may state that I do not expect any considerable I reduction can be effected by merely seeking to bring about changes in the War Office itself. I concur with him in the opinion that the most important reductions in connection with the administration of the army are the made by the adoption of some system which would diminish the mass of correspondence which now takes place. That is the only way, too, in which improvements can be introduced likely to establish efficiency in our military administration. Both my predecessors and myself have made many efforts in that direction; but, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon will bear me out when I say that it is a much easier matter to set about, than to accomplish these reforms. When it is suggested that upon a particular subject there has been a greater amount of correspondence than necessary, it was by no means difficult for the official concerned to point out that there would be great risk of loss to the public if any of the usual communications—generally termed cheeks—were omitted. I am, however, by no means prepared to deny that in some instances—as, for example, in the case of the bellows which had been brought under our notice to-night—the correspondence connected with army administration is carried to an absurd length. The present establishment at the War Office is, I feel, not much in excess of that which is necessary, and if we are to make a reduction in the future, it must, I think, he effected in the direction which my hon. and gallant Friend has indicated.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that if he had made any mistake in computing the number of clerks connected with the clothing department, he must ascribe it to the difficulty which, not only all outsiders, but insiders also, experienced in arriving at an accurate comprehension of the Estimates. He found the charges for those clerks had

  807
  risen from £1,900, which it was in the year 1864–5, to very nearly £3,900 in the present year, thus showing an increase of £2,000.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he thought the principle which should be adopted with the view to effecting a reduction in the expenses connected with army administration was to allow a certain freedom of action to men holding important situations as to the small details which came under their consideration, making them strictly responsible for the result of the exercise of their own discretion in those matters. Everybody was cognizant of the fact that although our soldiers were dying for want of beds in the Crimea they could not be obtained because a requisition for them had not been sent in in due form, until Miss Nightingale ordered a grenadier to knock in the door of the room in which they were. He also believed that it was on record that during the war in Africa, in the time of the Napiers, the General commanding the troops was obliged to pay for the great coats, which he took upon himself the responsibility of directing to be served out to them, because, the regulation being that great coats were to last for five years, he could not in the ordinary course procure them until that time had expired, although those which had previously been distributed were worn out owing to the extra services; and he recollected when he himself was in the army eleven signatures were required before the commuted allowance for coals and candles, which was 1s. 1d. or 1s. 11 d. per week, could be obtained. He hoped under those circumstances the Committee would strengthen the hands of the noble Marquess in introducing and carrying out the principle to which he had at the outset of his remarks referred.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the noble Marquess would he able to redeem the pledges to which he seemed committed. The correspondence with respect to the bellows to which the attention of the Committee had just been called was enough to make one imagine that he saw the late Mr. Hume coming among them from wherever he was, and reading the correspondence to which he used to treat the House about muskets. The noble Lord the Secretary for War had, he might add, made a statement that evening with respect to the efficiency of the administration of the army, which involved considerable responsibility, and on which he would find it necessary to act. But they must not forget that the
  808
  great question before them was not economy but the efficiency of the Army Departments. When the War Office was placed on its present footing the hope was held that all the circumbendibus correspondence which before used to take place would either be got rid of altogether or very much lessened, and that a great saving of expense would be effected.; but that expectation had not been realized. As the noble Marquess had admitted that excessive amount of correspondence rendered the public service inefficient there would rest upon him great responsibility if he did not take steps to remedy it, and the evils of the Crimean campaign were suffered again upon some future occasion.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £135,900, Superannuation Allowances, agreed to.
  GENERAL PEELinquired when the Vote for Fortifications would be taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he would state to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. CHILDERS MR. CHILDERS moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYcalled the attention of the noble Marquess to the hardship suffered by non-commissioned officers in India who did not receive the pay due to their rank until the discharge of their predecessors in England had been notified to their regiments.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONrose to order. This matter came under Vote 1, if it came under any Vote in the Estimates, and there was now no Question before the House.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question before the House was that he should report Progress.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONagreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) was out of order, for they were discussing whether they should proceed with the Civil Service Estimates or report Progress. However, the question raised by the hon. Baronet did not affect the War Department, it was a question entirely for the Secretary of State for India.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  LABOURING CLASSES DWELLINGS (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 67.]
  (Mr. Childers, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Bruce.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read
  Bill considered in Committee
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Authorities and whom Loans may be made)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, this appeared to him to involve a very important question of policy—namely, the expediency of Her Majesty's Government advancing money to private persons to enable them to carry on a private speculation. This was the first time a proposal of that kind had ever been submitted to Parliament. It would certainly act with great injustice. For example, if a builder undertook to build houses in the ordinary way he would have to pay 6 per cent interest for the money he borrowed; whereas, if another person in the same trade took a plot of ground, and if he speculated under favour of this Bill, he would be at liberty to obtain money from the Treasury at 4 per cent, It was to be regretted that the Government had begun a system of communism the end of which could not be foreseen. He there fore thought that these clauses relating to the loan of money to private persons should be struck out.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that upon the abstract principle of political economy the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right; but the Government had to deal with facts. From the rapid increase of the metropolis and large towns, and from the unwillingness of persons to enter into sufficiently large building operations for the working classes, there had arisen a state of things which to some extent might be remedied in the manner proposed by this Bill. The hon. and learned Member was mistaken in saying that this was the first occasion when the Government had advanced money for private purposes. The Government advanced money at the present moment in Ireland for the same purposes as those contemplated by the present Bill, and in England for drain-age for the benefit of landlords. Considering that the present proposal was for the benefit of the working classes, he hoped an abstract principle would not be allowed
  810
  to prevail against the necessity of dealing with the evil proposed to be remedied. There would be ample security for the money lent, as the parties borrowing must expend on the construction of the houses an amount equal to the sum borrowed.
  MR. AYRTONobserved, that there was no difficulty in carrying on building operations for the benefit of the working classes in the suburbs of the metropolis. The places where the houses were not fit dwellings for the working classes were situated iii the old part of the town, which was crowded with dwellings, to which the Bill did not apply. As far as money was concerned, the benefit building societies had plenty, and the real difficulty in applying it to the purpose of providing dwellings for the working classes arose from the jealousy exhibited by the House of Commons in Conner times of any society interfering with land. Consequently, in the Acts regulating those societies there were clauses preventing their dealing directly and honestly with land for the purpose of building houses. What was wanted was that the law should be amended, so that these societies of working people might have facilities for taking land for building purposes; but it was plainly objectionable to advance public money to a private speculator to enable him to enter into a building competition with others.
  LORD ELCHOasked, whether the Secretary to the Treasury had taken into consideration what class of buildings would be erected under the Bill, what would be their value, the probable number of £7 houses and £10 houses which would be erected, and in what boroughs and cities they were likely to be situated?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), might have been more properly raised on the second reading of the Bill, the principle of which it affected. It was a surprise to him to hear it stated that there were houses in abundance for everybody, because the general belief was that there was a scarcity of houses for the labouring classes. If that were so, it did not seem unreasonable that Government should advance money on easier terms than it could be had in the public market to supply the want. As to the Bill putting a stop to building, private builders did not usually build unless they had something like the fee simple of land or along lease of it. The Bill was not restricted to any class of persons, and any one who

  811
  complied with its provisions might obtain advances. If it stimulated the building of houses for the humbler classes it would do great good; and if its operation produced any evils, it would be easy for the Government to put a stop to them.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEwished to know, whether anything had been determined in respect to the plans on which the houses were to be built. The Public Works Commissioners of Ireland had prepared plans for such dwellings on a liberal scale. He trusted that the operation of the Bill would be superintended by competent persons, who would really understand what were the best plans on which to construct dwellings in any particular town; and he feared that the Bill would be nullified if these matters were left to the Public Works Commissioners, than Whom no one had offered more opposition to the rendering of assistance in the erection of this class of dwellings in Scotland.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, in reply to his noble Friend the Member for Haddington shire (Lord Elcho), he must confess that in preparing the Bill he had no eye to the Reform question, which did not agitate him in the least. He did not feel it necessary to consider the probable number of possible electors who would take advantage of the Bill. In regard to the machinery for carrying it out, the precedent of the Irish Act had been adopted. Under the general direction of the Treasury, rules, regulations, and plans would be prepared by] the Department of the First Commissioner of Works, and with these any building brought under provisions of the Bill must conform; and there was no intention of employing for any purpose, except inquiries as to security, the machinery of the Commissioners. An answer he had given had been misunderstood by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, for only one-half the value of a building could be obtained from Government. As they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), there was great demand for additional accommodation for the working classes. They must not be driven out of the towns to the outskirts, which were in many instances miles from their employment. To put them to inconvenience made labour more expensive, and diminished the labour power of the country.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, he dissented from the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. There was great need of dwellings for the
  812
  working classes, that the building societies did not supply the want, many parts of London were frightfully overcrowded, and the Bill would usefully stimulate the erection of dwellings which would not otherwise be built on speculation.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsupported the Bill, which was salutary in its object, and remarked that building societies had studiously avoided the substitution for old and dilapidated dwellings of new and improved ones. He desired to point out that the Bill was not confined to the metropolis, but that any bodies constituted under the Local Government Act might make use of it. He looked upon the measure as a wise and sanitary one which would benefit small towns, and he was therefore prepared to support it.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEobserved, that it would be necessary that those representing the First Commissioner of Works should be well acquainted with the building materials used in different parts of the country, so as not to insist upon the use in the north of materials which were obtainable only in the south, or vice versâ.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Department had an efficient officer in Scotland, fully competent to advise in these matters.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that in order to attain the object aimed at, advances should be restricted to those public bodies which would destroy houses unfit for habitation and build others; but the Bill should not tempt capitalists to speculate in cottage building. It would be a monstrous thing to lend money at 4 per cent to a manufacturer who came in competition with another unable to avail himself of the Bill. The latter part of the clause was altogether preposterous. It amounted to a species of communism which no feelings of philanthropy could justify. He hoped the House would have the moral courage to set its face against it. He moved that the latter portion of the clause from the word "same" be omitted, leaving the Government to make advances to benefit societies.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to lead to the assumption that money would be advanced to manufacturers, but he apprehended that if the Bill passed, rules would be made bringing building societies under its operation. The reason for bringing in the Bill was not because there was any call for it by the manufacturers in the north, but because of the great want of proper dwellings for the working classes in London. He thought that the Govern-

  813
  ment, instead of lending money at 4 per cent should lend it at 3½, in order to give an impulse to the movement now going on, and to provide better house accommodation for the poorer classes,
  SIR MICHAEL BEACHhoped the Government would exercise some super-vision over the plans of these buildings and some control over the rents which the working classes would have to pay—adopting, in fact, the principle which had been found so useful in administering the Pea-body donation,
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he was at a loss to understand the objection of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, But he did think that there was not a sufficient security that the dwellings to be erected would be fit dwellings for the working classes.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Bill contained the same words as the Irish Act, and they would be quite sufficient to insure that proper buildings were erected for the working classes. He would not go into the politico-economical question which had been raised, as the House had so clearly expressed its views on that subject. The Department which would have to be satisfied as to the security was not a Government Department. The Public Works Commission had not that intimate connection with the Government as had been supposed by some hon. Gentlemen.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Incorporation of Commissioners Clauses Consolidation Act).
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEobjected to loans being granted to companies such as harbour and railway companies. The want that was felt in the metropolis of dwellings for the working classes was caused in great measure by so many houses having been pulled down in order to make room for railway stations, and the Bill certainly ought not to he complicated by the introduction of a clause enabling railway and other companies to carry on speculations with regard to these loans.
  MR. CHILDERSthought the clause was a most valuable one. Its object was; to prevent any question which might otherwise be raised as to the legality of railway; and dock companies to raise funds under this measure for building houses, In other words, it authorized such companies to take
  814
  these loans in addition to their ordinary borrowing powers.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE moved the addition of a proviso that the houses to be occupied by the working classes built under the provision of this Act should always be occupied by them; and that if at any time they should cease to be so occupied the Board of Works should be empowered to call in any balance which might be due.
  MR. CHILDERSobjected to the proposed addition. There would be ample power to make proper conditions in each case as might be deemed feasible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEcalled attention to the complex character of the Bill.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the rules and regulations mentioned in the 4th section would be very carefully drawn up.
  MR. AYRTONasked the hon. Gentleman whether he would lay those rules and regulations upon the table of the House?
  MR. CHILDERSsignified his willingness to do so.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENinquired whether it was intended to extend the benefits of the measure to Ireland?
  MR. CHILDERSreplied in the affirmative, stating that this would be done in a Bill which the Government was about to introduce for amending the Public Works (Ireland) Act.
  MR. CHILDERSthen proposed an additional clause, providing that all rules and regulations made by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury under the provisions of the Act should he laid before Parliament,
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES HILL— [Bill 78.]
  (Lord Clarence Paget, Mr. Childers.)

  SECOND READING.
  Ordered for Second Reading read.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in moving the second reading of this measure, explained that it was intended to renew an Act passed in 1864 for the health of our soldiers and sailors in the various ports, with additional powers recommended by

  815
  a Committee of medical men. It was proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time.—(Lord Clarence Paget.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid the measure was a very queer Bill upon a very queer subject. Its object was to preserve the health of Her Majesty's troops, and its endeavour was to remove all the penalties which a higher Power bad imposed upon sin, and to give the opportunity of sin without the punishment. He must appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether they could expect any blessing upon their legislation if they took these unhappy women, freed them from disease, and then turned them loose to follow the same wretched courses, without any attempt to reclaim them. Inspectors were to be appointed for their bodies, but it was not proposed to take any advantage of the opportunity afforded by the curing of disease to induce them to lead a better life on their discharge. The principle of the measure had been in operation since the middle of 1864, but its effect did not appear to have been very satisfactory, for in the last Report on the navy the medical gentlemen made the following note:—"Little or no diminution of disease in the home ports on account of this legislation." He regarded this legislation as vicious if unaccompanied by any attempt at reclamation, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would introduce in Committee provisions with that object.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, his objections to the measure were still stronger than on the introduction of the original Act. Even in France a flimsy veil was thrown over these proceedings, by the suggestion of something being done to reclaim these unhappy creatures; but in this country the Government assumed no cloak of decency or morality by proposing anything for their benefit. It was simply a Bill for keeping public women at the public expense for the gratification of our soldiers and sailors. No useful or moral end was intended, the end in view being vice—unmitigated vice—the administration of the army and navy being so inefficient, that Government was obliged to propose this Bill for the sustentation of vice. Such a proposal was a disgrace to the country, and if the Bill passed he should regard it as his duty, when addressing a popular audience, to tell them that taxes were wrung from them for the
  816
  purpose of maintaining vice for the gratification of the army and navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would assume a heavy responsibility if he allowed the Bill to pass into law, and he (Mr. Ayrton) hoped that if it went to a Committee composed of civilians, they would take a proper view of it, and that the House would never hear of it again.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was hardly possible this subject could be discussed then with the fulness which would he desirable. His noble Friend, in proposing the second reading of the Bill, had merely proposed the continuation of a system which had received the sanction of Parliament. Neither his noble Friend nor Her Majesty's Government was desirous of flinching from a full consideration of the numerous difficulties by which this matter was surrounded; and the noble Lord had announced bis intention, at the proper time, to propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It would be desirable that those gentlemen who had charged themselves with the painful duty of looking into this question should serve on that Committee. The object of the Government was to have all the assistance on the subject which the intelligence and impartial judgment of Parliament could afford. They wished the matter to be examined free from prejudice of any kind. He therefore, hoped there would be no objection to having the Bill read a second time.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that in the last Parliament Mr. Cobbett moved for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Law of Master and Servant. As that Gentleman was not in the present Parliament, the Secretary of the Association of Working Men, a body formed for the purpose of bringing about an amendment in that law, had requested him to move for the appointment of the Committee this Session. He therefore begged to move for the appointment of a Select Committee on Law of Master and Servant.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the state of the Law as regards contracts of Service between Master and Servant, and as to the expediency of amending the same."—(Lord Elcho.)
  And, on May 8, Select Committee nominated as follows:—Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, Mr. M'LAGAN, LORD GROSVENOR, Mr. GEORGE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. DALGLISH, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, Mr. FAWCETT, Mr. EDMUND POTTER, and LORD ELCHO: Power to semi for persons, papers, and records. Five to be the quorum

  POOR PERSONS BURIAL (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Bill to enable Boards of Guardians in Ireland to bury poor persons who may not during life have been relieved out of the Poor Rates, ordered to be brought in by Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, and Mr. PEEL DAWSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 88.]

  GEAND JURIES PRESENTMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ESMONDE, Bill to amend "An Act to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Presentment of Public Money by Grand Juries in Ireland," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ESMONDE and Mr. Serjeant ARMSTRONG.
  Bill presented, and read the first time, [Bill 89.]

  CATTLE ASSURANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to give further facilities for the establishment of Societies for the Assurance of Cattle and other Animals, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 90.]
  The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.