Commons Sitting of 15 May 1868

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class I.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£17,000,000).
Resolutions [May 14] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation, &c.
Ordered—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation, &c *
Committee—Jurors' Affirmations (Scotland) * [110]; Stockbrokers (Ireland) * [104].
Report—Jurors' Affirmations (Scotland) * [110]; Stockbrokers (Ireland) * [104].
Considered as amended—Cotton Statistics * [96].

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND) BILL.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
COLONEL STUART KNOX: I wish, Sir, to take the earliest opportunity of making a personal explanation which is due to the House, due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), and, I think, even due to myself. I stated last night that, if I got time, I would attempt to prove that a quotation I gave, purporting to be from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman, was correct, I now honestly own that I have failed to do so; but still I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman, and many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, will believe that I had not the slightest intention of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. The fact is that a printed extract was put into my hand; and from the quarter it came from, I felt sure it was genuine. I unfortunately made use of it, not having had time to consult Hansard, or the right hon. Gentleman's book. I deeply regret having done so. I was misled, and I hasten to tender my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that at no period, either last evening or any other time, did it enter into my mind for a moment that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had the slightest idea of doing anything unfair, far less of palming off on the House a fictitious quotation.

METROPOLIS—THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have made any provision on the exterior of the wall of the Thames Embankment to enable persons who may have fallen into the river and have succeeded in reaching the embankment wall to sustain themselves and be saved from drowning?
  MR. TITE, in reply, said, the matter had been considered by the Metropolitan Board, but they had failed altogether in contriving any thing such as that suggested in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. In extreme cases the tide rose to twenty-four feet, and in ordinary cases to eighteen feet. It was, therefore, impossible to affix to the exterior of the embankment wall a chain or anything which would enable persons to save themselves in any state of
  342
  the tide. He believed, however, that there was very little danger of any person falling from the embankment into the river, inasmuch as there was a parapet along the embankment wall. There had for a very considerable length of time been an embankment 900 feet long in front of the Custom House, and there was one 1,500 feet long in front of the Houses of Parliament; but he had never heard of an accident on either. There were steamboat piers and mooring places for wherries at short intervals along the embankment, and life-preservers and other apparatus useful in rescuing drowning persons would be kept at the piers.

POST OFFICE—AMERICAN MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that while the sum provided in the Estimates for the three Mail Services from Southampton and Queenstown to New York is £30,000, the Inman Company alone has earned during the first three months of 1868 at the rate of £22,000 per annum; that the steamers of that Company have in that period carried a greater weight of letters to America than those of the Cunard Company, subsidized at the rate of £80,000 per annum; and, that a special messenger has been sent to Washington by the British Post Office Authorities at the public expense to endeavour to negotiate a treaty fur mails to be carried from Liverpool alone without waiting for the result of the present trial services?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that the sums paid to the Inman Company for the mail service conducted between this country and New York were somewhat in excess of the sum to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. It was not the case that the Inman Company had carried a greater weight of letters than the Cunard in the same period. The figures stood thus:—The Inman Company up to the end of March in the present year earned £6,160, and the Cunard Company, if the services performed by them were paid for at a similar rate, would have earned £7,423. The hon. Gentleman, in saying that the Cunard Company was subsidized at the rate of £80,000 a year should remember that was the sum paid for the service both ways. There should be a reduction of one-half from that

  343
  sum, and a further reduction from that one-half before a comparison could be made between the remuneration paid to the Cunard and Inman Companies respectively. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that £30,000 was the sum put down in the Estimate, and from the information he had received it will probably be sufficient for the purpose. A messenger had been sent to Washington in consequence of the approaching termination of the Postal Convention between this country and the United States. The Government regretted that it should have been necessary to send him so early in the year; but much inconvenience had resulted from contracts having been entered into so late last autumn.

JUDICIAL PATRONAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas has appointed his son, Mr. William Bovill, last year a Lieutenant in the 16th Lancers, to be Clerk of Assize on the Western Circuit, with a salary of £1,000 a year; and, if it be true, whether there is any precedent to justify his appointment to such office; and, whether any or what legal qualifications are regarded as necessary for holding such appointment? He found the office of Clerk of Assize thus described—
  "He is Clerk of the Crown for the respective comities included in his Circuit; is (with others) associated to the Judge in Commissions of Assize; and is, by Letters Patent, constituted a Justice of gaol delivery; he is also the Keeper of all the Records relating to the criminal proceedings of the Circuit. He cannot act as Counsel to any person on his Circuit."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, the Clerkship of Assize on the Western Circuit having fallen vacant in consequence of the sudden and unexpected death of Mr. Chitty, it devolved upon the Senior Judge of the Circuit, Sir William Bovill, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, to appoint a Clerk of Assize. The Clerkship of Assize is an ancient office, the constitution and the emoluments of which were altered by statute some time ago, and a fixed salary is now received by the Clerk in lieu of fees of considerable amount which were formerly paid to him. In performing his duties the Clerk of Assize is assisted by a Deputy Clerk of Assize, a Clerk of Arraigns, and a Clerk of In-
  344
  dictments, all of whom are officers perfectly well known, and whose salaries are paid by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund. The duties which devolve upon the Clerk of Assize are, in my judgment, rather of a ministerial character and offices of organization and routine than they are offices of a legal nature. And I may say that, according to my judgment, a person of the highest eminence at the Bar would not find much advantage from his legal knowledge and profound learning in the discharge of the duties which fall upon a Clerk of Assize. The duties are chiefly to correspond with sheriffs and gaolers for the purpose of having the calendars made out, in order that the periods may be fixed at which the Assizes shall be held; to attend the Judges during the Assizes, and to act as Associate in the Nisi Prius Court, and as either Clerk of Arraigns, or Clerk of Assize, or Taxing Master in the Crown Court, and to do other duties of that description which require no special legal knowledge. As to the question of precedent, if the hon. Member means to ask whether I know of any instance in which a gentleman has been appointed Clerk of Assize on the Western Circuit who was last year a lieutenant in the 16th Lancers, I really cannot mention such an instance. But if, as I assume, he intends to ask whether there are instances of Judges having appointed their sons or near relatives to those offices, I may state for his information, without specifying names, that I believe that, from the time of Lord Tenterden to the present day, there is not a single office of Clerk or Deputy Clerk of Assize that has not been filled by a Judge's son or by some near relative, and there is no instance in which any complaint has been made of the manner in which the duties of those offices have been performed. The duties of the Clerk of Assize involve; also the duties of Associate, and when I am asked if there is any precedent for the appointment of gentlemen who are not either barristers or solicitors, I believe I may state that the offices of Associate in the three Superior Courts of Common Law are held by three gentlemen, two of whom have been students for the Bar, but were never called, and the other was at the time he received his appointment either studying medicine or had actually been Admitted as a physician; and I would appeal to anybody who is in the habit of attending the Superior Courts whether their duties are not most efficiently performed by Mr. Campbell,

  345
  Mr. Erie, and Mr. Pollock, the three Associates. The appointment to the Clerkship of Assize on the Western Circuit has been made by Lord Chief Justice Bovill, and it is true that he has appointed his son. Mr. Bovill, after leaving Harrow, where he passed a most creditable examination, entered the Army, and was a Cornet in the 16th Lancers. He left that regiment either early last year or the year before for the express purpose of being called to the Bar. He has begun to study law, has already kept three terms, and has been reading in the chambers of one of the most eminent junior counsel at the Bar. I believe he intends to continue the study of the law after his appointment, which is by no means incompatible with the practice of the profession, although he cannot practise as a barrister upon the Circuit on which he is Clerk of Assize. I believe I have answered the Question which has been put by the hon. Member; and I may add that, there being, and having for a long time been, officers whose special duty it is to prepare the legal documents, the Clerk of Assize has to exercise a general superintendence over the officers of the Circuit, and to see to the appointment of days, the signing of calendars, the taxation of costs, and other duties of that description; and in my judgment great legal qualifications are not necessary for their discharge.
  MR. HAYTER: After the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, for which I thank him, I cannot help feeling that it will be my duty to move the omission from the Estimates of the salary of this officer.

IRELAND—THE REGIUM DONUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether (in reference to the Fourth Resolution of the 7th of May instant respecting Regium Donum) he will appoint a time for the consideration of the proposed Grant to Nonconformist Ministers in Ireland, amounting to £40,548 (Class VI., No. 7)?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied that he would be very happy to give notice of the day when the Vote for the Regium Donum would be taken; he was unable to do so now, but it certainly would not be taken until after Whitsuntide.

LECTURES ON RELIGION.—QUESTION.
MR. REARDENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, Whether it he his intention to introduce a Bill this Session for the purpose of preventing lectures upon the religious profession of faith of any of Her Majesty's subjects in any part of the United Kingdom, except in Churches and Chapels licensed for that purpose, and during Divine Service in such Churches and Chapels, without first submitting a copy of such lecture for the approval, revision, and consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I have no intention of introducing such a Bill; and I must protest against adding to the duties of Secretary of State for the Home Department the approval or revision of lectures upon religious subjects.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Scotch Reform Bill would be the first Order on Monday?
MR. DISRAELI: It would be desirable, Sir, to bring on the appointment of the Committee on the Boundary Bill first on Monday, and, if that seems likely to lead to any delay, we shall pospone the discussion, and so virtually the Scotch Reform Bill will be brought on first.

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

ROYAL RESIDENCE IN IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENrose to call attention to the absence of a permanent Royal residence in Ireland, and to move a Resolution on the subject. He said that in the Session of last November he gave notice that, when Parliament should re-assemble in February, he would move the Notice to which he now begged to call the attention of the House; but circumstances over which he had no control had prevented him from bringing it forward until that evening. He did not regret that, because in this, as in many other

  347
  cases, there was a compensation for delay. An opportunity had been thereby afforded of eliciting public opinion on the subject. The organs of public opinion both in Ireland and this country had almost unanimously pronounced in favour of his Motion. There was another respect, too, in which the delay had been advantageous. It enabled a contradiction to be given in the most marked manner to the statement that the Irish people were steeped to the core in disloyalty, and did not wish the Royal Family to visit them. Within the last few weeks the Prince and Princess of Wales had visited Ireland, and anyone who was present or took part in the proceedings there must admit that nothing could be more successful than that visit, or prove more strongly the feeling of loyalty that still existed in the minds of the Irish people. Some persons outside the House had objected to the Motion, as involving matters in which the House of Commons ought not to interfere, but he did not agree in that opinion. He thought that everything concerning the welfare of the Empire should be considered in that House; and, believing that it would be for the welfare of the Three Kingdoms to have a Royal residence in Ireland, he felt justified in bringing the question before the House. He trusted he should say nothing disrespectful to the Queen. He had a right to exercise the privilege of speech in that House, and he was sure Her Majesty would be the last person to take the slightest degree of offence at anything said in that House in a dutiful and respectful manner. The question was totally independent of party politics, and he would endeavour to avoid irritating topics. It was admitted on all hands that the present state of Ireland was not satisfactory. No one would venture to say that the relations between Ireland and England were as satisfactory as the relations between England and Scotland. It was the duty of the Estates of the Realm, as far as possible, to remedy that state of things, so as to endeavour to conciliate the Irish peole and make Ireland really an integral part of the United Kingdom. The realm consisted of three Estates, and he was anxious for the co-operation of the first; and he was sure that if Her Majesty would graciously establish a Royal residence in Ireland, that would tend greatly to produce good feeling, peace, and contentment among all classes. It was no novel complaint for Ireland that her Sovereigns had no residence there. The great evil of Ire-
  348
  land had been absenteeism, and the Sovereigns had been the greatest absentees: 250 years ago Sir John Davis, who was sent over to Ireland by James I., wrote a valuable State Paper upon its then condition, and inquired how it was that, though for 400 years English monarchs had borne the title of Sovereign Lords of Ireland, the country had not been thoroughly brought under subjection to the Crown; and he said that the main cause was, first, the absence of the King; and next, the absence of the great Lords. He pointed out that since the Norman conquest, only three Kings—Henry II., John, and Richard II.—had visited Ireland; that on the occasion of their visits the Irish chiefs and persons of authority hastened to take the Oath of allegiance; and he added that many causes of discontent would have been removed by the more frequent presence of the King or the King's son, because the natives of Ireland, both of English and Irish descent, liked to be governed by some great personage. The present complaint of the absence of Royalty was not, therefore, a novel complaint. Sir John Davis, by the way, declared of the Irish—
  "That there was no nation under the sun who loved equal justice better than the Irish, or would rest better satisfied with the execution thereof, even against themselves, so that they might feel assured of the protection of the law when upon just cause they did desire it."
  Was it "equal justice" that the Sovereign should be always an absentee from Ireland? In the last 250 years since Sir John Davis wrote had the relations of Royalty with Ireland become more intimate? How many times had Royalty visited Ireland since? He would not refer to the visit of Oliver Cromwell as that of an English monarch. Nor could James II., when he fled from England, or William III. when in pursuit of James II., be said to have "visited" Ireland. From 1690 till 1821 no English King ever visited Ireland; and after 1821 28 years elapsed before another Sovereign, Her present Majesty, landed on the Irish shores. In 1849 Her Majesty paid a visit to Ireland; but she remained only five days. In August 1853 the Queen renewed her visit, but only remained for the same period; and in August 1861 she again paid Ireland a five days' visit. Now, he did not wish to throw the slightest blame upon the illustrious Lady on the Throne; he only stated these facts to show how Ireland had been treated by English monarchs from

  349
  the earliest times. Was it surprising that the Irish should be irritated by such treatment? Could we expect them to be over-loyal when they were so neglected by Royalty. Should we expect England or Scotland to be contented if they were treated in the same manner? Suppose that the Kings of England when Electors of Hanover had resided in Hanover, and only paid flying visits to this country, would the English have borne it so patiently? The fact was that if rulers forgot their people the people would forget their rulers. Loyalty was a species of sentiment or religion which required to be vivified by the presence of Royalty, in the absence of which it withered away altogether. You could not expect a people to be enthusiastic about a Sovereign they never saw. The Irish people, however, had proved that, though they were neglected, they were still loyal; and whenever they had had an opportunity they had proved their loyalty. They had shown it towards the unfortunate house of Stuart; they showed it towards George IV., a monarch who certainly did not deserve much gratitude or respect; and Her Majesty, in her recent Book, had borne conclusive testimony to the loyal and enthusiastic reception she received, even in a district which, if disaffection existed in any part of Ireland, was certainly the most disaffected. "In Cork," she said, "our reception was most enthusiastic. Everything went off to perfection, and was well arranged." The scene in Dublin when Her Majesty arrived there was described by her as "Wonderful and striking; everyone so enthusiastic and yet perfect order maintained." There had been an attempt at outbreak in Dublin in 1848, yet in 1849 the loyalty of the people was manifested as Her Majesty described. He might also refer to the visit which the Prince of Wales had paid to that country within the last few weeks. It was well known that his Royal Highness had stated both in public and private, how much he was impressed with the loyalty displayed. A person who went over with the Prince and Princess, and who had always attended Her Majesty in her progresses through the kingdom, stated that he never saw such enthusiasm as that with which the Princess of Wales was received. He was aware that some cynical minds, ignorant of human feelings, were apt to sneer and talk of flunkeyism when any Irishman expressed a desire for a Royal residence in Ireland; but he denied the justice of the sneer in this
  350
  case, A Royal residence would not prevent the Irish from asserting their rights and seeking redress for their grievances. One great object of a Royal residence in Ireland was to aid in the work of pacification there. It would he of advantage, too, in making the national feeling of Ireland coincide with the Imperial policy. No laws, however good, would be accepted in a country unless they were in accordance with the feelings or even the prejudices of a people. It was of the utmost importance to enlist on the side of order the aspirations of the people, and it was for this purpose he wished to establish a Royal residence in Ireland. Some people sneered at nationality; but a country without national feelings was a country not worth living in, Scotland was intimately connected with England, and yet the national feelings of the Scottish people were cherished in the highest degree, and were found to be compatible with the strongest attachment to the Empire. But the national feeling of Ireland was utterly neglected, and, being neglected, it was made use of by the enemies of order for their own purposes. The way to bring the national feeling of Ireland into harmony with the institutions of the Empire was, in the first place, by legislating so as to remove any grievances of which the Irish people had to complain, and showing them that they might appeal for address with confidence to the Imperial Parliament, instead of rushing blindly and foolishly into wicked conspiracy; and in the next place, to gratify the national pride, and show that Ireland was to be treated like England and Scotland. The residence of the Royal Family in Ireland for a portion of the year would have the best possible effect. It would be regarded as a declaration that Her Majesty took an interest in the country and had confidence in the people, and would reconcile the dynasty to them, and make it, so to speak, racy of the soil. It was admitted that absenteeism was one of the greatest curses of Ireland. Legislation could not remove it; but if the Royal Family were to reside there from time to time some of the nobles and great landed proprietors, who now never showed their faces in the country, would be induced to visit it occasionally, and that, too, would be of the greatest possible benefit. And if the Queen were to visit the cottages of the poor as she did in Scotland, it would endear her to the hearts of the people, and have an immense effect in leading to obedience to the laws.

  351
  There were a few objections raised to the proposal he now made which he would like to notice. In the first place it was said that the Royal Family would not be safe in Ireland. Now, that was a libel which he indignantly denied. It was true that a fanatic at the other side of the globe bad attempted the life of the Duke of Edinburgh; but that atrocious crime had been regarded with abhorrence by every man in Ireland, and he had no hesitation in saying that the life of the Queen would be as safe, in Ireland as in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. Then there was another objection that there were a number of palaces already, and the cost of maintaining them was very great. But to that he would reply that it would be found much less costly to keep a Royal residence in Ireland than to employ the large number of troops that were now maintained there. Then it was said, if you have a Royal residence in Ireland, why not one in Yorkshire? But Ireland was a separate nation, and would remain so, and, therefore, the cases were entirely different. Even if Her Majesty could not at her time of life be expected so far to niter her habits as to spend a few months of the year in Ireland, there were other members of the Royal Family, the Prince of Wales, for example, might do so. The allowance to His Royal Highness at present might not enable him to undergo additional expense; but he had no doubt it might be left to the liberality of the House on a future occasion to make a Grant for this special purpose. No higher object could be achieved by His Royal Highness than that of rendering the Union not a mere parchment Union, but one of heart and soul; and to win the hearts and feelings of the Irish people would add more lustre to his name than were he to engage in wars of conquest and add new realms to the Empire.
  MR. PIM, in seconding the Motion, said, he advocated the establishment of a Royal residence in Ireland not merely as an act of grace and kindly feeling from which the best results might be hoped for, but also as an act of justice and fair dealing, and yet not in any degree as a substitute for the remedial measures which had at various times received the attention of the House. The people of Ireland had a just claim to their share in the smiles of Royalty, and might appeal with confidence to those motives of public policy which were founded on the duties that a Sovereign owed to his subjects. It would
  352
  be in effect a recognition of the nationality of Ireland as one of the three kingdoms which constituted the United Kingdom. It would be a recognition that the Sovereign of England and Scotland was also Sovereign of Ireland; and that as she had noble palaces in England, and a Highland home, as well as ancestral palaces in Scotland, so she ought also to have a fitting residence in Ireland, which might show to the people that she looked upon Ireland not as a mere dependency of England, as it had too often been regarded, but as a country of which she was Queen in the same sense as she was Queen of England and Scotland. There were noblemen who had large possessions in Ireland as well as in England, and who while they passed the Parliamentary Session in London, yet visited their estates in the autumn, and thus became acquainted with their tenantry and acquired and preserved that influence which a landed proprietor would always have who made himself known to and was respected by his tenants. Similar reasons might well be expected to induce Her Majesty to visit and make herself personally known to her subjects, and thus preserve those feelings of loyalty and affection which were often created and always strengthened by personal intercourse. The bereavement which Her Majesty had undergone, had induced her to live in retirement for some years, and if her absence from London was felt so much, what must be the feeling in Ireland where she had been so rarely seen. A Royal residence would be an inducement for frequent visits, and not merely for a flying visit of a few days as the guest of the Lord Lieutenant; but for such length of residence as might suit her pleasure and convenience, and afford her the opportunity of becoming better acquainted with the country and with her Irish subjects. There were few things, apart from the redress of admitted grievances and the removal of positive injustice, which, would tend so much to cement the union between Great Britain and Ireland, as would the frequent residence of their Sovereign in Ireland. Hon. Members might laugh at that as a mere sentimental grievance; but they knew but little of human nature, and certainly of Irish nature, if they supposed that sentimental grievances, as they were called, did not exercise a powerful influence on the feelings and conduct of a sensitive and warm-hearted people. Such a residence would be appreciated as a mark of confidence, and as a

  353
  proof that Ireland was really valued, as a proof, in short, that Her Majesty was not merely Queen of England, or even of the United Kingdom, but Queen of each of the three kingdoms of which the Union was composed. But whilst strongly advocating the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Clare, he must say that the establishment of a Royal residence in Ireland would not be in the least degree a substitute for the just settlement of those questions respecting Ireland, which have so often been pressed on the notice of the House. The hon. Baronet's proposal was, in fact, the Corinthian capital of the column, perfectly useless in itself, without the shaft and pedestal; but necessary to give grace and dignity to the pillar, and fit it worthily to support the building for which it was designed. The great value of a Royal residence was, in his opinion, that it recognized the distinct nationality of Ireland. It had long been the policy of England to: quench the spirit of nationality in Ireland—to try to convert the people into English. To that was sacrificed the only hope of inducing them to accept the doctrines of the Reformation, deliberately and knowingly sacrificed, as he believed. Instruction was refused, or at least neglected, in their native language, in the vain expectation of converting them into Englishmen by making them speak English. They spoke English now, were they more of. Englishmen than before? That policy of destroying their nationality had been persistingly pursued. How had it succeeded? Largely, he regretted to say, with the Protestants of Ireland. Fear and jealousy of their Roman Catholic countrymen had driven them to repudiate that national feeling which actuated their fathers during the short period of Irish independence. They felt and spoke as Englishmen. They tried to forget that they were Irish, and would have others to forget it also. Thus the feeling of nationality was left to the Roman Catholics alone. They refused to give it up. They held to it tenaciously, as founded on the traditions of the past. They spoke of themselves as the people of Ireland, and their assertion was accepted by others. It was of the Roman Catholics of Ireland that Englishmen, and that foreigners thought when they spoke of the Irish people. With them, and not with the Protestants, rested the traditions of the past, and, to a large extent, the expectations of the future. People talked of their turbulence, and of the insecurity
  354
  of life and property, as if there was a murderer with a rifle behind every hedge, so that men were absolutely afraid to come to Ireland. They were constantly told that agitation was the bane of the country, and they were taunted with the example of Scotland. He would not say a word in depreciation of the energy or industry of the Scotch; but, did they not owe something to political circumstances, and to those national institutions which had resulted from the recognition of their nationality? Lot them suppose for a moment that the circumstances had been different, and that William III. had determined to enforce prelacy on the Scottish people. No doubt there would have been a rebellion headed by the Marquess of Argyle and other nobility and gentry who favoured Presbyterianism, and the rebellion would probably have been successful; as long as none but Scotchmen interfered. But they might suppose William invading Scotland at the head of an army of Englishmen, and then a war in which the Presbyterians were at length obliged to surrender their last stronghold after a defence which commands the respect even of their conquerors. His Scotch friends could complete the picture. Let them think of the Presbyterian nobility and gentry in exile—their lands confiscated and sold or given away to prelatical adventurers from England—the proscribed Presbyterian ministers preaching to scattered congregations in the wild glen or on the bare mountain side, while Bishops were enthroned in the cathedrals and prelatical clergy possessed the benefices. Scotchmen referred with just pride to that system of common schools to which Scotland owed so much of her prosperity—perhaps more than to any other cause. Now let them think of it as a crime for a Presbyterian to presume to teach; and notwithstanding all that, let them recognize the fact that more than three-fourths of the people of Scotland still clung to their Presbyterian ministers with a tenacity inspired as much by their feelings of nationality and love of country as by their hatred of prelacy. It was needless to say that he had been speaking of Ireland under the name of Scotland, and perhaps some would say that it was wrong to open old sores. But without doing so it was difficult to realize the disadvantages under which Ireland had been placed, and how greatly those disadvantages had affected even her material prosperity. He therefore continued the com-

  355
  parison, and asked whether there would have been no turbulence and ill-blood in Scotland under circumstances such as those? Would there have been no mutual distrust and hatred? Would there have been no agitation? Might there not even have been riots and bloodshed? Would none of the energy which had produced the agriculture of the Lothians, the manufactures of Paisley find Dundee, and the commercial enterprise of Glasgow, have been devoted to party politics? Finally, would the Scotch be animated by any very fervent love of Englishmen, or any very devoted loyalty to British institutions? It might appear to some that this had little to do with the question now before the House, but, in truth, it had a great deal to do with it; for the bad name which had been given to them, the insecurity which was attributed to society among them, the slowness of their material progress when compared with England and Scotland, were so many discouragements in the way of the proposition now under consideration. Treat them as Scotland had been treated and similar results would follow. The Scotch were once disloyal. That had passed away and had been succeeded by a thorough union of two nations still possessing their distinct national individuality. Why should they fear their nationality? Could patriotism exist without it? There was certainly no necessary antagonism between a love for Ireland or Scotland as their native land, and a full appreciation of the benefits derived from the Constitution under which they lived, or the warmest interest in the fortunes of the Empire of which they formed a part. They could not make them into Englishmen. Nature was against it. The sea which divided them forbade it. It was only by recognizing and acknowledging, and even cultivating their nationality that they could make Ireland loyal. Above all, let their Sovereign appear among them as if she were really the Queen of Ireland—not the mere visitor from a foreign country. To the mass of the people of Ireland she was a foreigner—the Queen of a country for which they entertained no very warm affection. Yet they had always discriminated between the Sovereign and the Government, and on every occasion of their visits their Sovereigns had been warmly welcomed. They could not feel loyalty to an abstraction. Let the people see their Queen living among them—let them see and visit the abode of Royalty. Even the outward show and circumstance
  356
  of Royalty had its use, and especially with a sensitive and imaginative people. He knew there were many who thought that, in asking the Sovereign or the Royal Family to visit them they were requiring from her the performance of an irksome task. He did not believe it would prove to be such. But even if it were, the French aphorism was applicable—noblesse oblige. If the country be worth retaining, the Queen should see her subjects, and allow them to see her, Danger of insult or injury there was none, no more than in England or Scotland—notwithstanding the late insane and wicked attempt in Australia, In former times the Prince often risked his life when leading his subjects in war. The duties of a King now were more peaceful, but not less real; and it was not less incumbent on him to perform them properly. If the affections of the people of Ireland were worth having, some exertions and some sacrifices must be made to obtain them.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly representing to Her Majesty that it would conduce to the advantage of the Crown and the good Government of Ireland, and tend to allay jealousy and discontent in that country, if Her Majesty had a permanent residence in Ireland, and that this House, feeling deeply its importance, will cordially co-operate with Her Majesty in any steps She may be graciously pleased to take to carry out so desirable an object,"—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he was unwilling to trespass on the attention of the House, but he wished to express the great pleasure he derived from being able for once to agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). The proposition made by the hon. and learned Member was so evidently advantageous to Ireland that all must agree to it; and he for one was not disposed to allow hon. Members opposite to claim all the loyalty in the country. The present time was appropriate for bringing this subject forward, because it would be difficult for any private individual to follow the present Lord Lieutenant. Whenever the period should arrive, and he trusted it might be far distant, when the present Lord Lieutenant should resign a dignity

  357
  the duties of which he bad discharged in be magnificent a manner, with so much judgment, liberality, and consideration for the interests of all classes, it would be almost impossible to find a successor for him who would give such general satisfaction. With regard to the question of loyalty, he agreed that it was not a quality which was innate in the human mind. It must, to a great extent, rest upon the conviction on the part of a nation that the preservation of the Crown was linked with the interests and prosperity of the people. Loyalty was, moreover, very much a feeling of a personal nature; and the presence of the Sovereign, if it did not remove the misfortunes of that country, would soften the asperities that unfortunately prevailed. He could not, however, but express his surprise that the hon. and learned Member for Clare had introduced his Motion at a period when so serious a change was hovering over one of the greatest institutions of the country. It was an extraordinary proceeding to call upon the Queen to visit that country, the institutions of which the Sovereign had sworn to maintain, at a time when one of those institutions was most seriously attacked. With regard to the question of safety, he agreed that any Member of the Royal Family would be perfectly safe in Ireland; and he had that opinion of the wisdom and prudence of the Royal Family that he believed they would see that their best security was to trust themselves to the good feeling of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. He wondered that the hon. and learned Member had not dwelt upon the more important question where the funds for providing this Royal residence were to come from. He had sufficient confidence in the wisdom of that House, and still more of the country, to believe that the day was far distant when the total disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Ireland would take place. But he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), whether it was his intention to overcome the difficulty, which seemed so awkward to hon. Members opposite—namely, what to do with the revenues of the Irish Church, which they held could not be applied to either educational or religious purposes, by devoting a portion of it for the purpose of building a Royal residence in Ireland?
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that though English Members might sometimes be accused of not understanding the affairs
  358
  of Ireland they took a, very great interest in that country. He did not think that his hon. Friend the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had taken the right course in proposing this as a first measure. Preliminary to this there was, in his opinion, a much more urgent measure, which, in the interest of Ireland, ought to be taken, and that was the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant. The maintenance of that office was inconsistent with a Royal residence in Ireland. Attachment to the Lord Lieutenant meant attachment to the Ministry of the day, and not to the Crown. He agreed with Archbishop Whately that loyalty to a Government was a totally different thing from loyalty to a Sovereign. Nothing would conduce more to the welfare of Ireland than that Her Majesty should frequently visit that country. It was remarkable how very few and far between had been the visits of Royalty to the sister country. From the time of William III. down to George IV. Ireland had not been visited by any English Sovereign. He was indebted to Sir Bernard Burke for a memorandum from which it appeared that during 120 years Royalty had only spent a very few days in Ireland. [Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Fifteen!] The Irish people must feel this; and he believed that the rarity of the visits made by Royalty to Ireland during the last 150 years had tended to diminish personal loyalty to the Sovereign.
  MR. BOWENsaid, he claimed for Wales as pure a nationality as belonged to either Ireland or Scotland. Wales had no Royal palace within her border; but he could not claim for her a Royal residence on the ground of economy, seeing that the loyalty of the Welsh arose naturally, and did not require the presence of a body of troops.
  MR. BRADYsaid, the question before the House was a very important one with regard to that other question of the pacification of Ireland and the maintenance of a spirit of loyalty among its people, if the people of this country complained when Her Majesty retired to some extent from public life, surely the people of Ireland, who never saw her at all, were fully justified in their anxiety for the erection of some Royal residence in that country in which Her Majesty might reside during some portion of the year.
  SIR HENRY WINSTON-BARRONsaid, enormous sums of money had been spent in providing Royal palaces in Eng-

  359
  land, but no such provision had been made for Ireland, notwithstanding the fact that Ireland, in proportion to her means contributed more towards the National Exchequer than even England did. Even the Isle of Wight was honoured by a Royal residence, and England had eight or ten, but poor miserable Ireland had not one. Ireland was called the sister country, but she ought to be called a step-sister, for she was treated like one. If the people of Ireland were treated like those of Scotland and of this country, there would be little to complain of. Nothing would do more to cement the union between the two countries than the establishment of a Royal residence in Ireland. It would save thousands of pounds to the Imperial Exchequer by stimulating the loyalty of the Irish people. Of course the Queen could not reside there for any long period at a time, but at all events one of her numerous sons might remain in Ireland, if not permanently, at least for a season every year.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he cordially approved of the hon. and learned Baronet's (Sir Colman O'Loghen's) proposition, and should support it if it were pressed to a division, believing that the expense which might be entailed by the terms of the Motion would be as nothing compared with the gain of the hearts of a people. The Royal Family seldom visited the Black Country, and the great city of Manchester had been visited only once. The people there did not complain; but the enthusiasm with which Her Majesty's visits to those districts had been hailed showed what might be expected to follow in the case of Ireland.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I quite agree that there is no influence more beneficial than that which proceeds from personal relations between the people and their Sovereign. But in listening to the complaints which we have heard from various parts of the United Kingdom, arising from the absence of Her Majesty and of her predecessors, I would observe that this was largely to be attributed to the great difficulty of communication that for a long time existed between the various kingdoms over which Her Majesty rules. But the tendency of the age in which we live is very much to diminish those difficulties, if not to make them disappear altogether. And if we take a general view of the subject I think there is some evidence of a very much increased inclination on the part of the Royal Family, to visit those portions
  360
  of the country which for so considerable a period have not been blessed by the presence of our princes. Indeed, the hon. Baronet who brought forward this Motion, and complained that Ireland in the course of two centuries had only been visited for a certain number of days—which have been calculated by a herald—must admit that the greater number of those days have been contributed by Her Majesty herself. And we cannot for a moment suppose that there is any want of sympathy between the Queen and her Irish subjects; because the hon. Baronet has himself alluded to the written record of Her Majesty's feelings to which everybody who has read them must have fully responded. We must remember also that the position of Ireland is in this respect no worse than the position of Scotland was until very few years ago. Scotland, I think, was never visited for any time by one of our Sovereigns from the time of James II. to the reign of Her present Majesty. [Cries of "George IV."] I am speaking of Sovereigns who resided in the country. But during all those years the principle of Sovereignty at least was represented in Ireland, while it was not so represented in Scotland. And though it may be easy to talk in depreciating terms of the office of the Lord Lieutenant, I am myself persuaded—not merely from the experience which we all have at this moment, but from other instances which we may remember—that a man of ability and splendour filling that office may effect a great deal of good, and is something more than the nominee of any Minister. We must recollect, then, that during this period Scotland was as little visited by the Sovereign of this country as Ireland, and that Scotland has not had the advantage of an institution which, when well administered, is in my opinion extremely beneficial. It is impossible not to have been gratified—every Englishman must have shared the feeling—at the manner in which their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Princess of Wales were received during their recent visit to Ireland. And I may be permitted to say that their visit afforded Her Majesty the greatest gratification, and that she has been pleased to express her wish that the visits of the Royal Family to Ireland shall not be infrequent. With regard to the specific Motion before us, I trust the hon. Baronet will not ask the House in the present instance to decide upon it. There are many reasons upon which it is now unnecessary

  361
  to dwell which would make it inconvenient, and not at all advantageous for the end which the hon. Baronet himself has in view, to compel on immediate vote of this House, What has been said in the House on the subject to-day will, I am sure, not be forgotten. It is an expression of the feeling which animates very generally society and the whole country; and I trust the time may come when every portion of Her Majesty's dominions will have the advantage of the presence of Her Majesty or some member of the Royal Family. But, when alluding to the fact that the visits of the Sovereign to Ireland have not been of very long duration, we must remember that of necessity they could not be lengthened visits. There was no Royal residence, no palace in which Royalty could take up anything like a permanent abode. I know that this tells favourably for the view of the hon. Baronet; I am not using it as an argument against his views; but I think it right to refer to the point, inasmuch as the brevity of the Royal visits is sometimes mentioned as an indication of indifference and of want of sympathy with the country, whereas it has been a consequence of difficulties which could not be overcome. There are many circumstances to be considered in connection with this subject, but the wish expressed in the Motion of the hon. Baronet is founded on the best feelings of our nature. I am sure the desire it conveys is one in which the country sympathizes; and I hope the time will come when we shall see those views entirely fulfilled.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think it necessary to detain the House for more than a few minutes; but I cannot help rising to say that I do not think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) has anything to complain of in the manner in which he has been met in this case by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I do not think that more could have been expected from the right hon. Gentleman than the acknowledgments which he has made; and, therefore, I wish to express my concurrence in the tone of his observations. At the same time, I feel strongly with my hon. Friend; and, without indicating the precise manner in which it can be done—because this is not a fitting opportunity for anything of that kind—sympathizing as I do in the views of my hon. Friend, I may express the hope that some appropriate means way be found by which
  362
  the personal relations between the Grown and the people of Ireland may be strengthened. I regard this as an object of public policy of no mean importance; but I think, after what has been said this evening, my hon. Friend would do well to comply with the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Indeed, I am sure that, with that tact, good feeling, and intelligence which always characterize his proceedings in this House, he will see that the cause he has at heart will be best served by his not asking the Speaker to put the Motion from the Chair.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he rose to call attention to the delay in completing the arrangements for the erection of the New Courts and Offices of Justice; and to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What are the reasons of such delay, and what is the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the questions submitted to them relating to the legality of the choice of a design for such Courts and Offices? It became apparent ton years ago that the present dispersion of the Law Courts gave rise to enormous expense to suitors, and to great inconvenience to counsel and attorneys, and in 1861 Parliament took the matter in hand. A Bill passed through Parliament in 1865, and a site for the New Law Courts, in which the various Courts of Law should he centralized on one spot, having been adopted, and the necessary funds provided, nothing remained but to carry out the plan agreed upon. On the 29th June, 1865, a Royal Commission was appointed to advise and confer with the Commissioners of the Treasury upon the plans and arrangements for the Now Courts. In referring to the delay that had taken place, he did not mean to complain of the Commissioners, who set to work in a business-like way, and had actually paid the money duo to the persons whoso property had been taken in almost every instance. They appointed seven Judges of Designs to consider the plans prepared by the various architects for the building. Eleven architects competed, and in July, 1867, the Judge of the Designs reported that they were unable to select any one of the plans sent in as the best in all respects; but

  363
  they recommended the designs of one architect for the exterior, and of another architect for the interior of the building, advising that the work should be given jointly to the two so recommended. He believed that there was nothing in the Instructions to the Committee to compel them to select any plan; and the terms on which the architects competed, so far as he was aware, gave none of thorn the right to complain of being dismissed. The two architects so chosen consented to act togeher; but another difficulty arose as to whether the sum required for the building, according to their plans, would not exceed the original Estimates. The Report of Mr. Gardiner, the surveyor, upon that point, showed that none of the architects had come within the estimated figure. He should be glad to know what was the cause of the dead-lock which appeared to have raisen in the matter. When the House met in November, questions were asked on the subject, and it was stated that a hitch had arisen. The Judges had made their Report, and it was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. Questions were again asked in February as to what was the real difficulty; but it was only last night, as he understood, that the Opinions of the Law Officers had reached the Treasury. He hoped, therefore, that now some information would be given as to the cause of the delay. Private individuals occupying houses adjoining the site of the proposed building had been put to considerable risk and inconvenience by the uncertainty in which the subject was involved. As far back as the year 1866, the inhabitants of Bell Yard had received notice that their premises might be required for the purpose of that structure; but they had no means of knowing whether any U3e would be ultimately made of that notice; and they were in consequence carrying on business at a loss, which could not be made matter of compensation, except by special legislation. The Suitors' Fee Fund, out of which the money would ultimately come, also suffered, as the money was, in the first instance, advanced by the Treasury, and large amounts of interest were accruing, which would have to be repaid by the Suitors' Fee Fund. A notion was gaining ground that the Government had some intention of abandoning the proposed site, between Carey Street and the Strand, and of erecting the building at some other and less convenient spot. It was rumoured this was a hobby of the late Prime
  364
  Minister and the present Lord Chancellor, and that there was some desire to take advantage of the difficulty which had arisen to throw the whole matter over and get some new site. He should be glad to receive some distinct assurance that there existed no ground for such an impression. The vacant site would be a disgraceful spectacle if there were any undue delay in occupying it; for the purpose for which it had been turned into was for the present no better than a wilderness.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would take upon himself the duty of answering the Questions of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman), as the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works would have to answer another Question. The subject had been mooted in the House so often during the last few months, and he had answered so many Questions upon it, that he hoped to be excused from following the hon. and learned Member in all that he had said. In the explanation he was about to give he must speak from memory. The Judges of Designs were appointed jointly by the Treasury and by the Courts of Justice Commissioners. If he remembered rightly, the Treasury were to select the design, with the advice and concurrence of the Commissioners, and it was thought by the late Government that such a concurrence could be best obtained by the appointment of a Committee of Judges of Designs. After the Committee was appointed, and chiefly in consequence of representations made in this House, two professional gentlemen, Messrs. Pownall and Shaw, were added to the Judges. It was expected by the Treasury and the Commissioners that the Judges of Designs would have selected one architect, and the memorandum relating to the competition rested upon that supposition. The change of Government occurred after the Judges were appointed and the Instructions framed. When the Judges of Design sent in their Report to the Treasury, they stated that they had been unable to select any one architect, and they recommended that Messrs. Barry and Street should be employed to prepare a joint plan, considering that the design of one of them was best in point of arrangement, and the other in point of external architecture. It had been previously agreed upon between the Treasury and the Judges that a gentleman should be appointed to go through the estimates submitted by the architects, and give a professional opinion

  365
  whether they were correct. It appeared that when the Judges of Designs prepared the Report which they submitted to the Treasury, they had not before them the Report of this professional gentleman as to the estimates, and, accordingly, the Treasury thought it desirable that the Judges of Designs should re-consider their decision with reference to that point with the Report of the professional man to guide them, and that they should endeavour to see whether they could not select one architect. Owing to the time of the year, the gentlemen composing the Committee of Judges were scattered, and some time elapsed before they could be got together. When they had met, however, a letter was received from them, stating that they had re-considered the matter with the aid of the Report of the gentleman who had examined the estimates, and, notwithstanding the Report, they were unable to come to any other than their original conclusion. It was then represented to the Government by some of the competing architects that each had entered into the competition under the impression that he was competing with any other architect singly, and not with the combined abilities of two. The question, then arose whether, if the recommendation of the Judges were adopted, legal proceedings might not be taken by some competitors, who would endeavour to make out that they had been wronged by the selection of two instead of one; while it also became a question whether the two gentlemen named as joint architects might not have a legal claim against the Government, if they did not act upon the recommendation. The Government were thus placed in a position of considerable difficulty, because—and he said it with all respect—the arrangement had broken down through the Committee of Judges being unable to decide the question submitted to them. The House would be of opinion that, in a case of such difficulty, the Government were bound to exercise great caution. They were anxious to have the opinion of their Legal Advisers, and then arose another difficulty, which was quite peculiar to this case. It had been laid down in the Memorandum of Instructions for the guidance of the architects, that if there were any dispute as to their meaning the Attorney General must be the referee; and so it became a question whether he, was to be asked his opinion as a Legal Adviser of the Government, or as referee named in the Instructions. Under all
  366
  circumstances it was decided to take the opinion of the Attorney General as the Law Adviser of the Government, and not as referee, because that might have prejudiced the case of the competing architects; but a case prepared by the Solicitor to the Treasury was submitted to the Attorney General, and the competing architects were told that the case had been submitted to him and that they might also submit their views to him if they thought proper; and some of them did so. These proceedings of course led to a considerable loss of time; but the delay had been unintentional, and had arisen from a desire that the competing architects might have every opportunity, if they wished it, of presenting their case fully. He had not seen the opinion of the Attorney General, though he had just learnt that it had come officially before the Treasury. He was therefore unable at that moment to explain the views of the Government. But in one respect the delay had been fortunate, for since the Court of Law Commission had been appointed to consider what buildings should be erected, the Judicature Commission had been appointed to inquire what Courts should sit in these buildings. The latter Commission had not yet reported; but the House would, no doubt, be of opinion that, before they decided on the buildings, they should decide on the Courts which should sit there. In this way out of evil had come good; for if a successful competitor had been named, Law Court might now have been in process of erection which the recommendations of the Judicature Commission would show to be quite inapplicable. He hoped, therefore, that, even when the opinion of the Attorney General was before him, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Denman) would not press for an immediate decision in the matter, but would wait for the Report of the Judicature Commission. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the rumoured transfer of the site of the Law Courts from Carey Street to (he Thames Embankment. Till last night he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had heard nothing of these rumours; the matter had never come before the Government, nor had he heard any Member of the Government suggest such a change. He hoped he had said enough to satisfy his hon. and, learned Friend that the delay which had; taken place in the erection of the building had not been intentional on the part of the Government, and that they were not an-

  367
  awerable for the circumstances in which it had originated.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the delay had not been justified on the part of the Government. He admitted that the Government, as well as the Judges of Designs, had been placed in some difficulty by the course which the competition had taken. The designs showed great excellence, originality, and some sparks of genius. But the difficulty the Judges felt was in deciding which of these designs, under all the circumstances to be taken into account—internal arrangement, exterior design, and appropriateness—was absolutely the best. At last, finding themselves unable to agree upon the superiority of either of the designs which they specially favoured, the Judges thought it best to bracket the two architects and make a double award. He admitted that the Treasury were thereby placed in a difficulty; but he could not admit that this difficulty was one which it required four months and a half to solve. As to the expected Report of the Judicature Commission, he did not think that was a reason why an architect should not at once be appointed and a beginning made. Great efforts had been made to hasten the purchase of the ground, to clear the site, and to urge forward the competing architects, and he hoped that there would now be no further delay.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to say a few words on behalf of the architects who had entered into that competition. With some almost infinitesimal exceptions, the voice of the educated architects and amateurs of England united in praise of the remarkable architectural talent, the broad conception, and the admirable execution which characterized that noble series of drawings. There was no doubt it would be felt as a cruel wrong by the architects and the public if the difficulties and delays were to have the effect of throwing aside those designs. He appealed to that (the Ministerial) Bench, or to the Bench opposite, whichever of them ultimately should have the carrying out of the plan, that when the time came the architect should be chosen out of that noble eleven that had competed, and that he who had long been fielding, should hold the bat and have the innings which he deserved. Otherwise there would be a controversy to which the present Pugin controversy and other controversies would be but a trifle.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that a number of his constituents in Bell Yard
  368
  had got notice that their premises would be required, and they had to carry on their business without knowing when they should have to leave their houses. What he had to ask was, that the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works would say a word of comfort to those poor people, and let them know when their premises would be required, and compensation given them. They ought not, in order to do a public good, do a great private evil, and he hoped the case of the occupiers of shops would be considered at once, so that they might know what position they were really in.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he had only one remark to make in reference to an observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right hon. Friend had said that he was not aware until last night of the growing feeling that a mistake had been committed in the proposed site of the Law Courts. He could assure his right hon. Friend that that was a growing feeling, and that it was very generally felt that the proper site was the Thames Embankment. He would put it to his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works whether, as a good deal of money was to be spent, it ought not to be laid out in the most judicious manner? One thing was certain, that on the embankment the Courts would occupy a most beautiful site, quite near the Temple, and one which was far prefer-able to the site now selected. It was not yet too late to change the plan.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he did not think that the answer given with respect to the competition was a satisfactory one. None of the eleven competitors had been successful. He ventured to say that there had been too much inclination of late years to make captivating plans, and he thought that the origin of that error was to be found in the choice of a captivating plan for the Houses of Parliament, which had greatly deceived the profession. The honest competing architects who exhibited their plans in Westminster Hall had been unjustly treated. The sum originally proposed to be spent on the Houses of Parliament was £750,000, and architects who honestly confined themselves within the prescribed limits of expense, and prepared their designs according to that Estimate, were placed at a disadvantage. Every architect who saw the plans said at once that the captivating and admirable design of Mr. Barry could not be executed for the amount proposed. He could only suppose that that plan was put forward for

  369
  the purpose of creating a general desire to have it adopted, notwithstanding it must cost more than the specified sum. The result was that public competition was really a snare to architects, and when they heard of a limit being put on the cost, they at once said that it was all nonsense. The great object of these attractive plans was to secure the approbation of admiring ignorance; but the result was the corruption of architectural honesty. He did not set himself up as a critic upon architectural designs; but his opinion was that if they did not check the exhibition of designs, characterized by extreme ornamentation, they would vitiate the public taste. He thought a design ought to be in character with the use to which the building was to be devoted. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was a happy accident; the building had not been begun, since it was probable a smaller number of Courts would be required, and this would affect even the external elevation. He thought it was unjust to the other competitors, that none of them having been successful, two; architects should be selected to produce a joint design. Such a combination was an experiment unprecedented in the profession, and was by no means likely to lead to the erection of a suitable structure. If there was to be a difference in the character of the building, with reference to the; number of Courts, it by no means followed that the architects who had designed a very large building should be chosen to construct a smaller one. He denied that they could with propriety adapt the internal arrangements of one design to another building, merely because it possessed a handsome exterior. It would be well that there should be a pause, not only before erecting the New Courts, but before selecting an architect, until the Commission on the constitution of the Law Courts had reported. In explanation of his remarks last night, he wished to say he had heard no rumours that the Government intended to change the site, but he had heard it discussed in conversation that, as all the designs had failed, they bad a blank sheet of paper before them; and, finding that it was impossible that the buildings could be erected, unless they took down the whole of one side of Chancery Lane, he suggested whether, as it was said that they could dispose of the land at a profit, it would not be better to avail themselves of the land which had been reclaimed in
  370
  consequence of the construction of the Thames Embankment, as the most appropriate site for the New Law Courts. There they might have a magnificent building, with access by water as well as by and. He hoped also that some arrangement might be made which would put an end to the uncertainty and unpleasant state of feeling among those whoso business had been interfered with by what had already been done on the site originally proposed.
  SIR CHARLES LANYONsaid, he regretted that one of the largest competitions offered to the public had altogether failed, and he hoped that, in the interests of art, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government would come to a speedy determination on this important subject. It was due to the public as well as to the profession that the matter should be brought to a decision, otherwise it would be difficult to induce architects to compete on future occasions.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as he was one of those who were appointed to judge of the designs, he could not but feel that involuntarily and innocently he, with others, had been to some extent the cause of the delay which had arisen. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a frank, plain spoken, and, on the whole, a true description of the conditions under which they were appointed. Under the Instructions, they had broken down—not being able, taking into account all the points which had to be kept in view, to recommend anyone plan. In these circumstances they naturally asked themselves whether, having failed in their principal duty, they could not offer a suggestion which would be better than a result perfectly blank and null. It was with that feeling his colleagues and himself tendered a suggestion—which they had no power to clothe with authority—to combine the internal arrangements of one plan with the exterior design of another. The duty of the Judges of Designs was rather to select a plan than a man; and he thought it would only be an act of justice to the profession, and especially to the distinguished gentlemen who had entered into the competition, that the Government should, without acting hastily or precipitately, lose no time in discharging that important portion of their functions—the selection of an architect from among the competitors, and that afterwards the architect should take time to consider the various questions connected with the plans.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the opinion of the Attorney General on the matters referred to him had only just been received at the Treasury, and the Government had as yet had no opportunity of considering it. All he could say was, that the suggestions which had now been made should be carefully considered, and that no time should be lost.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS ACT—DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to call attention to the Registration of Voters Act, 6 Vict. c. 18, and the other legal provisions for the registering of Voters, and to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to shorten such proceedings so as to enable Parliament to be dissolved in the autumn? About a week ago they were told that Her Majesty's Ministers had been advised that the House of Commons should have its existence terminated at as early a period as the state of Public Business would admit, with a view to the opinion of the new constituencies being taken as to the conduct of public affairs. The First Minister of the Crown stated that he had been advised that certain steps might be taken with the co-operation of Parliament to enable the opinion of the constituencies to be taken in the course of November in the present year. Now, the House was probably generally aware that by a provision in the Act of last year no Election could be held previous to January 1, 1869, under the arrangements made by that Act. There was also a clause introduced into that Act having reference to the Reform Acts already in existence, providing that the registration of voters should come into operation a month later than usual—namely, that the registration of voters of the new constituencies should come into operation on the 1st of January, 1869, instead of as usual on the 1st December. Therefore, as the law existed, it was illegal to have a dissolution and an appeal to the new constituencies until the beginning of next year. It might be said that these were mere paper impediments, which were created by Act of Parliament, upon consideration more or less deliberate and wise with reference to the circumstance of the case, but which Parliament might in its wisdom think proper to remove. But the question behind that was one of considerable im-
  372
  portance—namely, whether these constituencies could be formed so as to take their opinion at a much earlier period than that so arranged. The existing Act of Parliament regulating the registration of voters had been framed after very considerable deliberation and experience, and after the matter had been considered both in the House and upstairs. The First Minister of the Crown conveyed to the House that it was necessary, in order to facilitate these arrangements, that the Government should abandon a great part of the Business now before them; and before he went to the Registration Acts he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, unless the existence of the House of Commons could be terminated at a very much earlier period than anyone supposed, the abandonment of the Business before the House would not, in the least, contribute to the object at which the right hon. Gentleman aimed. By no conceivable pressure that had been suggested in any quarter could a dissolution occur much earlier than the end of October or the beginning of November, and no one could contemplate that the Session of Parliament for the completion of the various matters submitted for the consideration of both Houses would be prolonged until the end of September or the beginning of October. It was therefore clear that the mere abandonment of the Business before the House had nothing to do with the appeal to the new constituencies, but that, as far as the continuance of the Session was concerned, the length or brevity of the proceedings alloted to the current Session had nothing to do with the facilitation of the dissolution or taking the opinion of the new constituencies. He must, therefore, express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to introduce so wholly irrelevant a topic. The main question was, whether it was practicable or not, by any arrangement, so to abbreviate the present process of registration and of getting a perfect list of voters as to enable Parliament to be dissolved before November, and arrive at a decision on the questions of policy to be submitted to it before Christmas? He did not wish to commit himself to a decided opinion on the subject, but he had acquired information, as he supposed, in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman—by conversation with gentlemen conversant with the subject—and he was told it was nearly impossible successfully to abbreviate the process of regis-

  373
  tration so as to get a dissolution early in the autumn, and to arrive at a decision on the course of public policy before Christmas. He would refer the House to the provisions of the Registration Acts, which were the 6 Vict. c. 18, amended by, the 28 & 29 Vict. c. 36. The House must bear in mind that the starting point of the registration proceeding was at the end of July, because the qualification of voters by occupation by residence depended upon a complete residence for a year terminating on the 31st of July. They could not get under way, therefore, before that period, and, practically, from that date the process of registration started. The formal; beginning was the letter addressed by the clerk of the peace, for counties, and the town clerk, for boroughs, to the overseers of parishes, which was to be sent to them on or before June 10, drawing their attention to what they had to do, and calling upon them to do it. Overseers, though very respectable people, were not always gifted with the highest intelligence, and required to be coached in the duties they had to perform. He proposed to deal with the proceedings of town clerks in boroughs, and would not complicate matters by referring to the counties; the proceedings there were practically the same, varying in form more than in actual substance. In accordance with this precept the overseer had to make out the list of voters on or before the 31st of July; and, apart from the question of twelve months, residence, the law gave the voter to the 20th of July to pay his rates and taxes, so that they could not possibly abbreviate the period up to the 31st of July for making out the primâ facie list of voters—those who had resided for twelve months and paid their rates. This was to be published on the 1st of August. That was the first public step. It was requisite that a certain period of notice should be given of this list—to those omitted who thought themselves entitled to be on it, and to objectors who thought others should be struck off. That notice was to be given within twenty-five days. By the 25th of August any fresh claims were to be made, and within that time objections were to be sent in. It was possible, he was informed, by great squeezing, to get perhaps a few days out of these twenty-five in this way—The notice was given by placing the list of voters on the church doors, and it was necessary that it, should be there for two Sundays, so as to afford time for inspection to those who had
  374
  to make claims and objections. Now it so happened that this year the 1st of August was Sunday, and the second Sunday in August being the 8th, five or six days more must be allowed for making the claims and objections. That brought them to the 14th or 15th of August to complete the time for claiming, objecting, and making up the list. In this way therefore they might possibly squeeze a week or ten days out of the present time for notice. The overseer, then, having received the list of claims and objections, must make up and complete the list, and so made up it must be published on the 1st of September. The Act provided a reasonable period not capable of reduction—fourteen days—during which the list was open to inspection. Nothing could be got out of that. The preliminary process of making up the lists being so far complete, now came the operation of the Revising Barrister's Court, of which ten days' notice must be given. His circuit commenced on September 15, and lasted to October 31, nearly six weeks. Here it I might be said was a large period of time which admitted of considerable reduction. The Revising Barrister was a being who did not take an enormous amount of work; he was capable of doing more; and the time in which he performed it might be reduced—here at least they might cut off a little from the time allowed by the existing Act. Now, he had consulted some gentlemen who had considerable experience in this matter, and he was assured that it was exceedingly doubtful whether the period allowed could be reduced. And this further circumstance must be taken into consideration, that on the present occasion the duty imposed on the Revising Barrister was not the ordinary one of revising the ordinary list—it was revising and completing the register of a totally new constituency, involving an addition of hundreds of thousands of claimants, the litigation of many; questions which had not been decided by the Revising Barristers themselves or the Court of Law to which appeals lay, and an amount of toil and patience far in excess of any yet imposed on them since the Reform Act. Yet it was contended that where Parliament had anxiously, and with reference to past experience, examined all these points and fixed them with great care, having reference to the ordinary course of business, when that business had enormously and abnormally increased, the time for accomplishing it should be reduced and a shorter period allowed than

  375
  was given to it in ordinary circumstances. He would not undertake to say that could not be; but he must say it appeared to him a paradox, which would require a considerable degree of authority and proof to satisfy him of its accuracy. Well, they thus got to the 3lst of October; and now came the question of the final completion of the register, which was no ordinary matter. It seemed to be supposed that when the Revising Barrister had completed his functions there was an end of the matter, and they could have a General Election the next day; but that was far from being the case. He would not go into the case of appeals to the Common Pleas, but he was told that under the existing Act the notices of appeal must be given within the first four days of Michaelmas Term—that was to say, between the 2nd of November and the 4th of November. That would make appeals an impossibility. But even at present the appeals in the Common Pleas had often to be deferred till the following Term, from want of time to deal with them. Appeals, therefore, must be left out of the question. The clerk of the peace now came in, and he had finally to make up the register. He was required to arrange all the names alphabetically in the different parishes, with their separate numbers, involving an enormous amount of mechanical labour—at all times very considerable, and on the present occasion immensely increased—which could not well be disposed of under three weeks or a month. Indeed, he was told that as things now stood the clerks of the peace had often the greatest difficulty in making up the register by the legal term; but the mechanical difficulty of making it up would now be greatly increased. Allowing only a fortnight, however, that brought them to the middle of November. The ten days he had previously named were the only period by which the work of registration could be condensed. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot the period which the law required to elapse between the proclamation of dissolution and the meeting of the new Parliament. The 15 & 16 Vict. c. 23, provided that thirty-five days should elapse between the proclamation of dissolution and the meeting of the new Parliament. Of course Parliament could undo what it had done; but if there was to be a General Election in the most inclement season of the year, that period could not practically be reduced, considering that it would be requisite to provide for polling
  376
  in the Hebrides and the Orkneys, and that they would afterwards have to get together the representatives of the people from all parts of the country. This period of thirty-five days, as far as he had been able to make out, making all the possible reductions in time, would carry one on to the 10th of December; and all that could be thus done was to reduce, perhaps by forty or fifty, the number of days within which under the existing laws the new Parliament might be summoned at the earliest possible period—that Parliament might meet in the middle of December instead of early in February, as it might according to the present Act. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after all the consultations on the subject, the whole difference was that, instead of Parliament under the Act of last year meeting early in February, it might meet on the 10th of December? Was that the result of all the deliberations in the Cabinet, and of the conference with the highest Personage in the realm? If so it was not worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to have taken the trouble, for the sake of those two miserable months, to have gone down to Osborne and tendered advice to the Sovereign. He had left out of his observations any consideration of the Scotch requirements with respect to registration. There were in Scotland analogous requirements as to proper notice of claims to vote and of objections; and there would be arguments before the Sheriffs in Scotland, who stood in the position of Revising Barristers. Time must be allowed for the completion of correct lists of voters. He wished, then, to know what steps the right hon. Gentleman intended to take to accelerate the dissolution of Parliament? Was it merely the case that he contemplated dissolving Parliament late in the autumn instead of in January? The right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that he had the authority of the Crown to dissolve, and the House was entitled to know what steps were to be taken to abbreviate those proceedings, rendered necessary under existing Acts, be that at the new Election the new constituency would be able to exercise their suffrage. Without wishing to pry into Cabinet secrets, he should also like to know who were the advisers, of legal knowledge and experience, to whom the right hon. Gentleman had recourse before he gave the advice which he tendered to the Sovereign. People were accustomed to believe that

  377
  there were certain legal advisers to whom the great authorities of the State had recourse on various occasions. There was the Lord Chancellor, the chief adviser of the Cabinet in all matters connected with the law, and, in the next place, there were the usual Law Officers of the Crown, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Now, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman took counsel with the Law Advisers of the Crown; and, if so, whether he was satisfied that the advice given by them was sound in law and fact?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that, while giving the right hon. Gentleman credit for extreme anxiety to hasten the dissolution of Parliament, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman conceived there were so many difficulties in the way of arriving at that result. Though it might not be easy to hasten the dissolution of Parliament, yet he was not prepared to flinch from the responsibility cast upon the Government; and he desired to state that he believed that, if a general effort were made, the result could be attained sooner than the right hon. Gentleman had supposed. It was quite true, that the first date, on which the whole matter really turned, was the 31st of July, by which day the overseers in boroughs were bound to make out and publish the lists of occupiers of £10 houses entitled to vote, and by which day all those persons who desired to claim as lodgers under the late Act must have sent in their claims to the town clerks. According to the Registration Acts nothing further was done until the 25th of August, but on or before that day all persons who thought that they ought to be on the overseers' lists might send in their claims, and objections might be taken to names allowed to be improperly inserted in the lists. The right hon. Gentleman stated that those twenty-five days could not be greatly diminished, and that he had been informed there must be publication on the church door for two Sundays. Having had some experience in registration matters, he must say that he could not tell the reason why it was necessary that the lists should he kept up for two Sundays. Considering the limited area involved, namely, the parish, a very short time would be sufficient for the people to make up their minds. An active politician in the district would soon find out whether there were on the lists persons who ought not to be there; and he would go round to those persons who were
  378
  entitled to claim a vote, and draw out a form of claim for them. He could not therefore see on what ground the right hon. Gentleman founded his assertion that; so much time would be indispensable. He believed that it was not required by law that two Sundays should elapse. From his own experience, and also from the consultation he had had with those who were more competent to judge of the matter, he thought they could insist that the now claims and objections should be sent in by the 10th of August instead of on the 25th, and that the earlier period would afford ample time for necessary inquiries. Between the 25th of August and the 1st of September, according to the present law, the town clerks in the boroughs were occupied in getting the notices of objection made into one list, and the notices of claim into another, and by the latter date they had to publish all those lists, and have them ready for the Revising Barristers. But, when the notices of claim and objection were sent in on the 25th of August, there was nothing to be done but the manual labour of making up those lists by the 1st of September. If the claims and objections were this year sent in by the 10th of August—although there were more of them this year, and the town clerk would therefore be entitled to some more time, still he thought the lists could easily be made up and published by the 20th of August, so that everything should be ready for the Revising Barrister by that day instead of on the 1st of September. From the 1st to the 15th of September nothing now seemed; to be done, the Revising Barrister, however, not being able to begin his work till the middle of September, and being allowed till the 31st of October to do his duty. [Mr. BOUVERIE said the lists had to be open for inspection fifteen days.] He I could see no real necessity for that. The persons who had claimed must go before the Revising Barrister to prove their claims, while those who were objected to would have had notice of the objection. When they recollected the small-ness of the area in which the operation was occurring, and the thorough local knowledge possessed by both sides, what use was there in the lists lying fifteen days for inspection? The persons who were objected to had notice, and the persons who had claimed knew they must appear to support their claim. [Mr. BOUVERIE] asked how the opponents of the new claims were to know that the

  379
  new claims on the list were unobjectionable unless time was given for inquiry?] They would know it really in the parish within the shortest time. The list would have been published, and he could not see how the fifteen days were practically required. Of course it was open to anybody to say it would take fifteen days for a solicitor to get ready his opposition to or support of a claim; but, as he had been assured by experienced authorities and as he himself believed, that time was, practically, not necessary. Consequently, instead of the Revising Barristers' Courts commencing on the 15th of September, they might practically begin on the 21st or 22nd of August. [Mr. BOUVERIE: How are you to get your Barristers then?] The time now allowed the Revising Barristers for their work was from the 15th of September to the 31st of October, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) said he had been informed by men of experience that it could not be done in less time. For himself, however, he must state that he had never known a Revising Barrister to take more than three weeks.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he had mentioned the time fixed for the revision under ordinary circumstances, and that there would be an extraordinary amount of business this year.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, if the House were really desirous that the revision should be advanced and hastened, it must be content that further assistance should be afforded and that the number of Revising Barristers should this year be increased. He ventured to say that no dearth of available Revising Barristers would be found; and that, by increasing the number, he had no doubt the revision could be completed in a month, or between the 22nd of August and the 22nd of September. Then as to the subsequent operations; by the existing Registration Acts the town clerk had, he knew not for what reason, to number the entire register from beginning to end in regular consecutive order. The Government thought that was an unnecessary proceeding, and that if the names in each parish were numbered, and the parishes stood in alphabetical order, it would at the polling have all the same result, because when the voter went to the poll he would say his name was on the list of such and such a parish, and that his number was one, two, or three in that parish. The effect of numbering the whole list consecutively from beginning to end was that they could
  380
  not commence to put the lists into print until they had the whole thing complete. But by the plan he had suggested of having the parishes separately numbered and put in alphabetical order, a great deal of time might be saved in the process of printing, and even the enlarged register might be got ready within the period which used to be allowed for the smaller one. Probably, the town clerk or the clerk of the peace would require to obtain additional assistance for that purpose, and, if so, he must be paid accordingly; but the result would be that if they got the revision completed by the 22nd of September, the register itself might be completed by the 20th of October. No doubt that would involve considerable difficulty and would require a considerable effort; but he believed it might be accomplished, and then they could have an election any day after the 20th of October—that was to say, the register would be ready. The right hon. Gentleman raised an objection in regard to the proclamation on a dissolution, and the period of thirty-five days between it and the meeting of Parliament; the point had taken him somewhat by surprise, but he apprehended there was nothing in the law to say there should be no proclamation issued before the registration was completed. [Mr. BOUVERIE: It could not be done; there would be no constituency.] If the law was as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, which he did not admit, then it was clear it could be altered and the period diminished. The right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to hasten the dissolution. Then, instead of trying to put in the way every suppositious difficulty, which, probably, after all, would be found none practically, let him assist the Government in accelerating it. According to the Registration Acts the register was to be ready by a given day, and it was enacted that whatever election occurred after that register was complete, must be based upon it. Therefore, he said, and said with confidence that there was nothing in the proclamation statute or the Registration or Reform Acts to make it necessary that the register should be complete before the issue of the proclamation of dissolution. At all events they might have an election at the end of October, and by shortening the thirty-five days a meeting of Parliament in November. Before that he could not see how it could practically be done. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) the other night referred

  381
  to a difficulty connected with appeals. If it was meant by that that there was any legal difficulty in having an election before the appeals were decided by the Court of Common Pleas, it was obvious that argument put the power of dissolution in the hands of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, There was, however, no foundation for that assertion. By the 69th section of the Registration Act that case was foreseen and specially provided for, because it declared that no right of voting at the election of a Member of Parliament should be affected by any registration appeal pending in the Court of Common Pleas at the time of the issuing of the writ for such election. And there was a clause in the Reform Act, with which hon. Members, he had no doubt, were acquainted, to the effect that when a person had claimed before the Revising Barrister, and the Revising Barrister had declined to put his name upon the list, the claimant might tender his vote with 'a view to a scrutiny. He must also say that there was little practical force in the objection that appeals from the decisions of the Revising Barristers could not be heard in time. The decisions of the Revising Barristers had, to a remarkable extent, been confirmed. And, moreover, the tendency of the Revising Barristers, who had always exercised their jurisdiction with extreme honesty and propriety, and likewise with considerable discretion, was, in cases where they felt any doubt, to place the name upon the register, reserving a case for the Court of Common Pleas, which might afterwards strike off the name if it thought proper, But meanwhile, as everybody knew, the name being upon the register, the man polled and no questions were asked. If, however, any difficulty was felt on this head, as there must be legislation within the present year, it would be easy to provide that in all cases where the Revising Barrister felt that there was ground sufficient for reserving a case for the Common Pleas, he should put the name upon the register; and if that were done, of course the person would have a right to vote. Having carefully considered the provisions of the Registration Act, and having consulted persons of great professional knowledge, he was deliberately of opinion that by altering the mode of numbering the register, and the period between the 31st of July and the 25th of August, and by getting rid of the period of fifteen days—which, notwithstanding all the right hon. Gentleman had said, he could not regard as really
  382
  material—and by increasing the number of Revising Barristers, it would be possible—with some inconvenience, no doubt, to all, and probably with great inconvenience to many persons—but still, if the House thought fit to make the effort, it would be possible to obtain a complete register by the 20th of October, to have a General Election at the end of the month, and a meeting of a new Parliament in November.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that he thought the Solicitor General had entirely misunderstood his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) in supposing it was his desire to raise objections, or to carp at any proposals made by the Government for the purpose of facilitating an early dissolution. On the contrary his right hon. Friend wished to be satisfied that the dissolution could betaken at an early period, and that desire was shared in by the majority of Members at his own side of the House. Their real object was to be satisfied that the prospect held out of a speedy dissolution was not an illusory one. The Solicitor General contended that under great pressure the register could be completed by the 20th of October, conceding that it could not be completed before. But if that were so, he (Sir Robert Collier) maintained that the new Parliament could not be called together sooner than thirty-five days from the date mentioned, which would bring them down to the end of November or beginning of December. Moreover, he ventured to think that the notion that a proclamation might be issued for the dissolution of Parliament some considerable time before the new constituencies were formed was a suggestion to which the learned Solicitor General would not adhere upon reflection. They knew perfectly well that the writs were issued almost immediately, some of them within three days of the dissolution, and it would be perfectly idle to dissolve Parliament unless they had existing constituencies. According to the Solicitor General, Parliament could not be dissolved till the 20th of October, which meant that the new Parliament could not meet, at the earliest moment, till the 25th of November. Then seven days must be allowed for the election of a Speaker and the transaction of other necessary preliminaries, which would take them into December before any real business could be transacted. But that certainly had not been the impression conveyed to his mind by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government when he spoke of their

  383
  extricating themselves from the present abnormal state of affairs by an autumn Session. But he could not help thinking that the Solicitor General had made a material omission in his calculations. He admitted that the publication of the registration lists could not take place before the 1st of August. He would reduce the time now allowed for giving notices of new claims and objections, which was twenty-five days, to ten days. He (Sir Robert Collier) thought fifteen days at least should be given. But supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman to be correct, what followed? The hon. and learned Gentleman would give from the 10th to the 20th of August for the parish officers to make out the lists of claims and objections. The 20th of August would therefore be the first day on which the notices of the new claims could be published, and it was absolutely essential, before the lists were revised, that persons should know what claims were brought forward and who the claimants were. The law at present gave fifteen days for that purpose, which was not too much. But the hon. and learned Gentleman allowed not a single day or hour for the purpose; he entirely omitted from consideration that which, if the revision was to be a reality, could not be lost sight of—the importance of giving time to inspect the lists, to examine the claims, and to decide whether objections should be taken or not. If, however, the list of claims was only to be published on the 20th, and the revision commenced on the 21st, there would be no time to discover whether the claims sent in were valid or invalid; and therefore his hon. and learned Friend, in losing sight of this point, was altogether wrong, as he ventured to think. They could not give less than fifteen days for the purpose of examining the claims and preparing cases. The Solicitor General had somewhat sneered at the preparation of cases for the Revising Barrister; but, if the revision was to be a reality it was absolutely essential that persons should have time allowed them to prepare for coming before the tribunal, and to consider in what shape the case should be framed. His hon. and learned Friend gave the 25th of November as the time for the assembling of the new Parliament. But to attain this result he first omitted five days, and afterwards another period of fifteen days. Adding them together it brought them to the 10th of December, the exact period named by his right hon. Friend the Member for
  384
  Kilmarnock as the earliest period for the meeting of the new Parliament. It was extremely undesirable that the House should deceive themselves in this matter, however anxious they might be for the assembling of a new Parliament; and it therefore deserved consideration whether it was worth while having an autumnal Session this year at all or not. Upon that point he offered no opinion. There could be no question that the coming registration would be infinitely more difficult and burdensome than any which had preceded it, not excepting the first under the old Reform Act. Therefore, he supposed it was that a clause had been introduced into the Reform Act extending the registration from the end of November to the end of December. Yet the time now proposed for carrying it out was less than on any previous occasion. It could not be satisfactory to the new constituencies to find that the process of registration must be squeezed to an extent altogether unprecedented. Although he did not deny that the registration appeals need not he decided previous to an election, it certainly would be convenient to have them disposed of. The appeals under this new system would be numerous, and must involve many difficult and important questions, upon which it was possible that several of the Revising Barristers might hold different views. Take one point—whether payment of rates by the landlord is to be considered payment by the tenant. In point of law, he believed that no doubt whatever existed on the point; but possibly some of the Revising Barristers might decide otherwise, and such a decision, if it were given, must affect the franchise possibly of hundreds of thousands of persons. He, therefore, thought it extremely desirable that the judgments of the Court of Common Pleas should be had on the disputed cases before the list was finally made out, though he did not insist on that as a sine quâ non. If this question were not decided by the Court of Common Pleas it might come before Election Committees, where they would get different decisions, and not arrive at the truth without the expenditure of a great deal of time and a good deal of money. But if any dissolution could be obtained at a sufficiently early period for a working autumnal Session, he, for one, should not insist on having the decision of the Court of Common Pleas taken before the General Election. He did not make these remarks for the sake of obstruction, but simply to

  385
  ascertain whether they would have an autumnal Session.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that in his early days he was nominated, without his own wish or knowledge, to the office of returning officer for a borough of 10,000 or 12,000 voters, and his experience on that occasion satisfied him that, in the larger boroughs, and with the new constituencies, the time allowed by the Solicitor General for the registration would not be be a day too long for a returning officer desirous of satisfying himself that the list was properly made out.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought he could relieve the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, by showing him that there was no difficulty whatever in the matter. He would do so by showing how the thing was managed in Scotland. It might be said that Scotland was a smaller country than England; but he submitted that to register a given number of thousands of electors in a borough or a county of Scotland was just the same thing as to register the same number of voters in a borough or county of England. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was a difficulty in regard to Scotland. But none whatever existed, and everything there was as the right hon. Gentlemen wished it to be. In 1856, the Act 19 &c 20 Vict. c. 58, was passed for Scotland. Its object was to squeeze together the different portions of time, and its effect was that the roll was completed by the 1st of November for Parliamentary and municipal purposes; and the municipal elections occurred on the first Tuesday in November. A General Election for the return of Members to Parliament might, in case of a dissolution, be as easily held on the same day. It was assumed that the English boroughs were larger than the Scotch. But the constituency of Edinburgh was at present 11,000, and there was as much difficulty in enrolling the voters there as in Bristol, with a similar number. That of Glasgow was 18,000. The former would be 27,000 and the latter 50,000 under the new Reform Act. The number of voters in Manchester or in Liverpool would not be larger than in Glasgow. If it could be shown that in Edinburgh and Glasgow they could be ready for operations in due time, they could be equally ready in Manchester, Liverpool, and other towns in England. By the provisions of the Scotch Act to which he had referred, the party who prepared the list was bound
  386
  to have it ready by the 15th of August in each year, on which day it was affixed to the door of the Town Hall in a borough, printed in proof, but not numbered. On the 15th of August, every man could go to the door of the Town Hall and turn over the leaves, and see whether his name was in it or not; or he could go to the office of the party who prepared the list and examine it without any fee. The list remained open from the 15th of August to the 25th of August for public inspection. Applications from persons who had been omitted from the list and objections to names included in it, must be lodged by the 1st of September. The Revising Barrister must complete his work by the 30th of September, that must be his last sitting day; and on the 1st of October he must deliver the corrected roll to the town clerk. If there were no appeal, the elections might be held in the first week of October; but the Act provided for an appeal. Between the 30th of September and the 8th of October the Court of Appeal must be held. By the 21st of October all appeals in respect of the borough franchise must be ended, and by the 30th all appeals respecting counties. The town clerk must have the revised list published by the 31st of October, so that by that date all was ready for an election. Much had been said of the fears entertained by gentlemen of experience—legal gentlemen being, of course those referred to. Well, he had had a good deal of practical experience in this matter—first, in helping to arrange the dates in the Scotch Act, and subsequently in seeing it carried out. He knew all about it, and he undertook to say that they would not find any person of experience in registration in Scotland under the Act of 1856 to assert that there was any difficulty in the matter. There would be no more difficulty in arranging for an Election of Members of Parliament on the first Tuesday in November than there was in arranging for an election of town councillors on that day. He presumed that the men employed in preparing the lists would be as competent in England as in Scotland, and that the printing would be as rapid and as accurate. The Solicitor General did not seem to know much about the machinery of a printing office, if one were to judge from what he had said as to the probability of delay arising from the necessity of putting the numbers to the lists. Why, this was done in Scotland after the lists were finally revised in

  387
  proof. The fears expressed in that House on the subject of registration were purely imaginary.

LOTTERY ACT.—QUESTION.
LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether he thinks it proper that the Penal Clauses of the Lottery Act should be enforced in respect to drawings of prizes for purely charitable objects? His reason for calling attention to this subject was his having received a letter from the Treasury warning him that he was liable to a penalty of £500 for being connected with a lottery. That was a thing which might abash most people. He was patron of a bazaar for charitable purposes, one of the attractions of which was a lottery or drawing for prizes, and that being so he considered it ought not to have been taken notice of in that strong official manner. The 12 Geo.II., c. 28—after referring to the Act of William III.—was passed, according to the Preamble, for the more effectually preventing excessive and deceitful gaming; but how a raffle for a charitable purpose could come under that denomination he was at a loss to conceive. The fine of £500 was imposed under the 42 Geo. III., c. 119, and besides that the Act characterized every person who took part in these raffles as "a rogue and vagabond." Another Act aimed at preventing the practice of setting up in places of public resort what were known as "little goes." It also provided for the extinction of "little goes." Now, when he was at Cambridge, he believed it was not considered dishonourable for those to take a "little go" who could not take a great go, and that it in no way interfered with taking high positions in after life. By the 6 & 7 Will. IV., which related chiefly to foreign and other lotteries, a penalty of £50 attached to the printer for printing and publishing the notices, and by the 8 & 9 Vict., which recites the 7 Will. IV., which was passed to put an end to actions brought by informers, the putting the terrors of the law into force was removed from them and placed at the discretion of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Law Officers of the Crown. He believed that that discretion had been, on the whole, wisely exercised, but he was unfortunately the victim in a case which he believed was an improper exception to the rule. Those Acts were, in his opinion, framed for the
388
purpose of stopping actual gambling—lotteries likely to ruin the people; but it was never intended that the law should apply to lotteries at bazaars for charitable purposes. It was well known that the movers in most commendable plans for encouraging art were amenable to the law as it originally stood, and a special Act had to be passed exempting Art Unions from the penalties of the Lottery Act. On the same grounds, or rather on much stronger grounds, he contended that those who took part in schemes for aiding philanthropic institutions should also be exempted. The case in which he had been summoned was no uncommon one. The managers of the Shiffnall Roman Catholic Reformatory School—a school recognized by the Government and approved of by the Government Inspector—had incurred a debt of £2,000 for the purpose of better carrying out the regulations of the establishment; and in order to raise that sum it was proposed to hold a bazaar, and one of the attractions was a lottery, and it was because he was connected with this scheme that he had been stigmatized as a rogue and a vagabond. The school had hitherto worked well, and been of great public advantage; and it was too bad that those who took an interest in reforming juvenile criminals and thereby conferred a benefit on the public, should have this slap in the face in the shape of a threat of £500 penalty in carrying out so desirable an object. It was very singular that the patrons of this bazaar should have been singled out for the wrath of the Treasury. Some said that only Roman Catholic institutions were proceeded against on this account, he disclaiming any such opinion; but he held in his hand a ticket for a "Grand Volunteer Prize-drawing," not 100 miles away, and he was not sure he had not incurred another penalty of £500 in having it in his possession. He found that the drawing was patronized by several mayors, three Members of Parliament, and one or two baronets; and he had been informed by one of the Members of Parliament that he had not received any warning from the Treasury. Lecturers had been going about the country propounding the most indecent doctrines to young men and women, under the auspices of a society which called itself an electoral union; and, although their path was bestrewed with indecency, although they produced bad feeling between different classes of people, and although their progress latterly had

389
not been untainted by bloodshed, they inarched on unrebuked and unmolested; but when it was a question of turning bad persons into good ones, then resort was had to legal powers which he contended were meant for other uses. He had brought the subject forward believing that the Government would never sanction the continuance of such proceedings against the patrons of bazaars for charitable purposes at which there happened to be a lottery or drawing of prizes.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he believed that the origin of the laws against lotteries was to be found in the fact that in the days of George III. there were Government lotteries, which were used as a means of revenue. They were, therefore, made a monopoly by the suppression of all others, and it was quite an afterthought to associate immorality with all lotteries. There; was an obvious distinction between public-house and fraudulent lotteries, and purely charitable lotteries that were conducted honestly and innocently. The latter were not confined to Roman Catholics, but were resorted to by Protestants of all denominations and for all kinds of purposes. Scarcely a bazaar was held without n raffle, the tickets for which were sold by young ladies to the visitors; and all these young ladies were liable to be declared rogues and vagabonds. The law ought to be either altered or repealed; but, if it were not, its enforcement was a matter in the discretion of the Attorney General. He had a clear rule to determine his course; If lotteries were held in public-houses, or for fraudulent purposes, or were frequented by disorderly persons then he might enforce the law; but when it was obvious that lotteries or raffles were for charitable purposes, and when there was not the slightest possibility of any fraud or disorder, then it was not the duty of the Attorney General to enforce the law. Only Roman Catholic lotteries had been prosecuted, and the reason was, not any partisanship on the part of the Government, but the activity of certain Protestant societies that persecuted the Roman Catholic Church. It was these put in motion the Attorney General, who sometimes felt it his duty to act at the instigation of these societies. He knew several cases in which, at the instance of these fanatical societies, notices had been sent issued by the Solicitor to the Treasury. The Attorney General ought to set his face against persons actuated by sectarian motives, and to exercise dis-
390
crimination in enforcing the penalties of the law.
MR. M'LAREN, who disapproved setting aside a moral law mid evading statutory penalties, by an understanding arrived at in a conversation in that House, was called to Order, having already spoken.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was unfortunate there should be any infringement of rules of law or Acts of Parliament for any object, however good and he should have thought it far better that laws should be repealed, than that they should be only partially enforced, it was undesirable that there should be laws which were not to be observed by charitable people—that societies should get up lotteries and say they ought not to be prosecuted, because, although they had infringed the law, they had done so with a charitable object. He would not now discuss the question, whether it was right or wrong that the laws against lotteries and little goes should be enforced; but it was not many years ago that Art Unions were prohibited by the laws against lotteries; and the legislation which took place showed clearly that while very laudable objects might be secured by drawing prizes, it was nevertheless necessary to legalize the Art Union lotteries, by special legislation, to the exclusion of all others, which were still held to be illegal. He had no knowledge of the proceedings against the lottery to which the noble Lord had referred, and probably there had been nothing more than a warning. There had, however, been brought under his notice several lotteries of a bad character; and in each case the professed object was to raise money for a charity. In one case, £30,000 worth of prizes was to be drawn for, the tickets were 5s. each, every subscriber was to receive more than his money's worth, and a profit of £10,000 was to be realized and distributed among the poor of six villages. If the drawing had taken place, in all probability the persons engaged in it would be prosecuted; for it was very likely that a number of poor people had lost money, and that the poor rates of the village had not been relieved by the prizes distributed. He did not quite concur with the remark that prosecution was a matter in the discretion of the Law Officers of the Crown. No doubt there were cases in which they would be extremely reluctant to prosecute, lotteries having been inadvertently started for good objects. But it must be remembered that if it was

391
worth while retaining the statutes against lotteries it was almost impossible to prosecute, in a case that was thought to be a bad one, when people could turn round and say that a number of so-called charitable lotteries were overlooked. He could not express any opinion as to whether it would or would not be expedient to alter the law so as to legalize lotteries for charitable objects; but he was quite sure there was no partisanship on the part of the Government against Roman Catholic lotteries. Notice was given on all occasions that it was found the laws against lotteries were going to be infringed, whether the lottery was for a good purpose, or whether, as was too often the case, it was established to carry out a considerable scheme of fraud.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £32,760, to complete the sum for Public Offices' Site.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he rose to call attention to the manner in which the sites of public buildings were purchased. The practical result of the system was that the surveyors were restricted in the amount they had to spend, and the purchase of the land they had to deal with. The property was dealt with in sections, and as soon as section A was purchased section B was quadrupled in value. He thought it would be much better to vote the requisite sum and take the land at once, and suggested the propriety of postponing the Vote and bringing in a supplementary estimate.
MR. COWPERsaid, he thought it would be unwise to purchase and clear land that might never be wanted; and that it would be unfair to the tenants of buildings to get rid of them before the property was actually required for public purposes. He wished to know what immediate use was to be made of the site to be acquired; and also whether the architect had completed the buildings he had commenced; and whether the new offices about to be erected formed part of the whole design?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the suggestions of his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) deserved consideration. He was not wedded theoretically to the present system of land purchases, but it was necessary under the existing mode of keeping
392
public accounts, which was approved of by men of great financial ability. So long as the custom prevailed at the Treasury of taking back those portions of the Votes not really expended up to the 31st March, he did not see how the system advocated by his hon. Friend could be carried into practical effect. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper's) Question, the Commission had been at work up to the other day, and the final Report would be in print in the course of a few days. It was proposed to devote the open space at the Foreign Office to the Colonial and Home Offices, and Mr. Scott had been appointed architect to them.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKrecommended the noble Lord to purchase whatever land would be required by the Government at once, and not in driblets.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £11,764, to complete the sum for Probate Court and Registries.
(3.) £23,000, to complete the sum for Public Record Repository.
(4.) £44,000, to complete the sum for National Gallery Enlargement.
MR. LAYARDsaid, of all the architectural blunders which had ever been committed in this country that connected with Burlington House was the most considerable. In order to preserve the house entire, a large space of ground had been sacrificed, and after all the building itself would be so altered as to retain few of its original features. The House of Commons having decided that the new National Gallery should be built on its present site, it had been determined that rooms for the Royal Academy, for the London University, and for the learned societies should be built at Burlington House, but instead of building them in one group under one architect, and having one design, three architects had been employed, and there were three designs. The London University was in a fair way of being finished. The Royal Academy was nearly completed, and he believed that the annual exhibition would be held there next year; but the building for the learned societies was not yet commenced. It was now found necessary, in order to reconcile Burlington House with the buildings around it, that it should be made into something else. It was to have another story, and at the bottom an arcade, a ridiculous and absurd thing, after so great a sacrifice had been made to keep the building

393
as an architectural monument. He wished to know whether there was any prospect of an arrangement being made, so that the library of the Royal Society which stopped the way might be removed, and proper access to the Academy building might be afforded; also whether in the event of the Royal Academy being ready at Burlington House next year, there was any prospect of the rooms at the National Gallery being-liberated for the national collection of pictures, which were now cramped from want of space in Trafalgar Square and at Kensington? He was quite sure the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would do his best to facilitate that result.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that Burlington House would be entirely spoilt by the addition of another story and an arcade. It had better be pulled down than thus disfigured. The proportions were now very beautiful, but the addition of another story would dwarf the basement. There were not so many correct structures in London that we could afford to spoil one of them. He regretted, too, that the other buildings which were to stand on the ground would not be in the same style.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the Committee that the Vote before them related to the enlargement of the National Gallery, and not to Burlington House.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask what the intentions of the Government were in regard to the enlargement of the National Gallery? He understood that a Commission was appointed last year to procure architects to compete for the new building or for altering the present one; and that the designs sent in had been disapproved of, and consequently nothing had been done. There had been no mention of the matter during the present Session, and the consequence was that the national pictures had no location. He would be glad if her Majesty's Government would afford some information upon the subject.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) evidently had in his mind the designs exhibited a year or two ago, which, owing to the strenuous exertions of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had been set aside at considerable expense to the country. In answer to the complaint of those two hon. Members, that an additional story was going to be put on Burlington House, he would only say that last year, before the Government proposed to take any Vote whatever for the building,
394
they were very careful that the whole of the plans should be placed in the Library for the inspection of every Member of Parliament who might choose to examine them. The House, after having had this ample opportunity of inspecting the plans, had sanctioned the scheme as a whole; and no part of it could now be altered without materially interfering with its completeness. In answer to the questions of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) he had to say that it had unfortunately happened that, owing to unforeseen legal technicalities, the building designed for the reception of the Royal Society and the other learned bodies had not been commenced. Those difficulties had now, however, been overcome, and the works would be proceeded with as fast as possible. In answer to the question whether access could not be given through Burlington House to the new rooms for the Royal Academy in the rear of that building, which were being proceeded with rapidly and with great success, he could assure the Committee that the Royal Society, the Royal Academy, and the Government, were anxious that a satisfactory arrangement should be come to; and he was sanguine in the hope that, as soon as the rooms were ready, some means of access would he provided. The hon. Member behind him (Mr. Bentinck) had asked him what prospect there was of the building for the new National Gallery being commenced, and what course the Government intended to take with reference to the competition held last year? The hon. Member would see from the terms of the Vote that the Government had not yet obtained possession of the ground upon which a part of the new building was to be erected; and, as they did not think it right to pull down the existing building until they had obtained possession of the whole of the site upon which the new building would stand, the works had not yet been commenced. In his opinion it would be better not to hurry on the selection of an architect, especially after what occurred last year. Two competitions took place at the same time last year, and both came to an untimely end; and in both cases the Government found themselves in a difficult position. He believed that he should be best discharging his duty by not giving any positive answer as to the intention of the Government upon this subject.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERremarked that the noble Lord had not informed the

395
Committee whether a new story was to be added to Burlington House.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid there had been no alteration in the plans exhibited last year, which included the erection of an additional story.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £22,000, to complete the sum for University of London, Buildings.
MR. LAYARDinquired whether there was any intention of opening Vigo Street for carriage traffic when the building was completed? The thoroughfare was very much blocked up at present.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that all street improvements had been handed over to the local authorities by Act of Parliament.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEobjected to public buildings being erected in situations which had no approaches to them. He disapproved altogether of leaving the question of approaches in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. M. CHAMBERSalso complained of the difficulty there would be of getting to the new buildings, and suggested that the different bodies interested should come to some arrangement for providing greater facilities of access.
MR. COWPERsaid, he could not allow the Committee to entertain the idea that the University of London would be placed in an inaccessible position. The fact was it was in one of the best positions to be found in Loudon. It was not in a thoroughfare where carriages were continually passing and making noise; but that was so much the better. The way to get to it from Regent Street would be through New Burlington Street. With respect to Vigo Street, it was so narrow that scarcely any advantage would be gained by opening it. If this was a matter which concerned the general traffic of the metropolis, the making of new approaches devolved upon the Metropolitan Board of Works and the parishes, and not upon the Government.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that all the carriages coming either to the Royal Academy or the learned societies would approach through Piccadilly. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the London University did not require the same kind of access as other public buildings. In all the communications which he had had with the authorities of the London
396
University since the site was selected they had never suggested that additional means of access were required.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENremarked, that the University of London had had a Member given to it, and there might be a contested election.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £8,000, to complete the sum for Chapter House, Westminster.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to know what use would be made of this Chapter House for which so much money was wanted?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the building when restored would be used as a Chapter House.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKinquired, whether any public benefit whatever would be derived from this outlay, or was the money to be expended solely for the advantage of the Dean and Chapter? He had been told that this restoration would be a very elaborate thing, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to explain what it was for. It was all very well to put their hands into their own pockets to gratify a peculiar taste; but it was a serious matter to put their hands deeply into the public purse for the purpose of decorating a fancy place like that at the cost of the nation.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that some years ago, before either the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Lusk) or himself had come into Parliament, there had been a good deal of discussion on this subject, and it had been determined to vote £25,000 for restoring the Chapter House as a work of art. The present Vote was the annual instalment of that sum. That being so, he did not think it competent for hon. Members to enter on the subject now.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENcorroborated this statement.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £25,400, to complete the sum for New Palace at Westminster, Acquisition of Land.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that this land was to be acquired for the purpose of making a decorative garden at the end of the Palace. He hoped that the freeholds would be purchased, as tenancy would be objectionable. But as this might be termed a fancy Vote, he hoped the Government would give directions that the rest of the land should be acquired as the interests fell in very gradually.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, the land was not to be acquired for ornamental purposes, but for the absolute protection of the Palace of Westminster, and he, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would lose no time in securing and clearing it. If the hon. Member only took the trouble to walk to the end of the Palace, he would see a large collection of straw and hay there, which would be a cause of the greatest danger if a fire was to break out. He wished to know from the noble Lord whether St. Margaret's Church, which he and the noble Lord himself looked upon as a great disfigurement to Westminster Abbey, could not be taken down and re-built on the land which it was proposed to acquire. If he was not mistaken, the noble Lord had stated last year that it was desirable that St. Margaret's Church should be removed.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite correct as to what he had stated about St. Margaret's Church. He thought, however, he should have been exceeding his duty if he had entered into any negotiations on the subject. But the hon. Baronet would see in the Report of the Commission on the concentration of Public Offices that there was a recommendation to the effect he had suggested.
Vote agreed to,
(8.) £51,000, to complete the sum for Burlington House.
MR. MONKasked, whether it was intended to take down the blank wall in front; of Burlington House and to erect some ornamental railings instead?
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would suggest that as nothing had yet been done to Burlington House, not a single stone having been removed, and as the design exhibited last year was generally disapproved, it would be better to remit the question to Messrs. Banks and Barry, that they might see whether they could not improve upon the plans already submitted to the House. Representations had been made to him in favour of preserving the fine gateway of Burlington House, and he therefore asked the noble Lord not to let it be destroyed, but, if it must be taken down, to place it in some other position in the metropolis where it would be seen to advantage.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that if hon. Members were not too fashionable to travel east of Temple Bar they would find that many of the buildings erected in the City during the
398
last five or six years showed that we had very good architects; and if Burlington House were pulled down a similar or a superior building could be erected anywhere else. He did not think that the gateway was one that should be allowed to stand in the way of a great improvement. There were two buildings of a Moorish construction, one on each side of Burlington House; and so long as they were there he thought that it was desirable to keep up the wall and to have the gate shut. He asked whether these two extraordinary structures were not to be excluded from the observation of persons who looked at Burlington House?
MR. COWPERhoped that the noble Lord would break through all this superstitious and conventional admiration for Burlington House, and would pull it down entirely. As an Italian villa residence for a private gentleman the house was all very well; but as a public building it would be an entire failure.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was inclined to agree with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper), more especially as another story or an attic was to be added to Burlington House as a place of exhibition for the Royal Academy, which would entirely change its architectural character. The interior of Burlington House was very inconvenient even for a private residence. Unless they completely altered both the interior and the exterior, it would be impossible to make anything of it. It would have to be treated like the Irishman's knife, which was fit for nothing till it got a new handle and new blade.
COLONEL FRENCHalso thought it would be better to get rid of the present structure as not suited to its position. When it was originally built its owner was asked why he had expended so much money on a house so far out of town. The noble Lord's reply was, "I have gone so far in order to make it certain that no person will build beyond me."
MR. FLOYERsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman must have forgotten that half a century at least before Burlington House was built Clarendon House and Dunkirk House had been erected far to the west of it. If it were a question between retaining Burlington House and pulling it down, there might be some reason for hesitation, for it was a building of considerable pretensions, of much interest, and of a character of which not another specimen could be found either in London or its vicinity,

399
But if it could not be preserved in its integrity it had better not be preserved at all.
MR. DENMANsaid, he had very often passed an evening listening to discussions of this kind, though he had not taken part in them. He hoped that the noble Lord would be guided in the matter by considerations of economy, which did not seem to be much regarded by persons of æsthetic tastes. This very night it had been recommended that St. Margaret's Church should be pulled down; but it seemed to him that it would be an act of reckless extravagance to incur the expense of destroying that building merely because its appearance offended a few extremely fastidious eyes. With regard to Burlington House it would be extravagant to preserve it on æthetic grounds alone and still more extravagant to tinker it. If, in either case, it was not fit for the purpose for which it was intended; if it should be found not worth retaining, he hoped that it would not be preserved merely from a regard for its reputation as a specimen of classical architecture; but, if well suited for the object desired, he did not see why it should be pulled down.
MR. BENTINCKsaid his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman) misrepresented him, because if there was one thing against which he continually protested, it was expenditure on æsthetic grounds.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the main suggestion which had been made in the discussion would be fatal to the whole scheme and absolutely impracticable. If he had the least idea that Burlington House would have been brought into the discussion he would have had all the plans and elevations brought down, in order that hon. Members might see what had been proposed and sanctioned last year. Before the Government took any Vote upon it they clearly explained what they proposed to do. As far as the Royal Academy was concerned, what was proposed was that they should at their own expense build rooms in the rear of Burlington House. The Academy had executed their part of the contract, and the buildings were nearly completed; and they would shortly enter into possession of Burlington House and the ground behind under a lease for a long term of years. The Royal Academy had undertaken to re-model Burlington House according to the plans exhibited in the Library last Session. As soon as the Royal Society could make way for the Academy,
400
the latter would take possession. No money was being spent on Burlington House itself by the Government. The Committee were not asked to vote a single sixpence for that purpose. All the Government had undertaken to do was to build on the sides of Burlington House accommodation for the learned societies. There would be a fine archway in front, through which Burlington House would be seen from Piccadilly.
MR. AYRTONasked whether the Moorish brick buildings would be covered by the buildings proposed to be erected?
LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied that when the new buildings were erected the brick buildings of which the hon. Member complained would be hidden.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £23,905, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
MR. DILLWYNcomplained that the sum asked was in excess of the Estimate. The original Estimate having been £103,000, £118,000 had been voted already, and £25,000 was wanted this year.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the Estimate had certainly been exceeded, but the Government had a strict eye on these works with a view to keeping down expenditure. The charge was undertaken because half the cost of County Courts in England is borne by the Consolidated Fund.
COLONEL FRENCHasked why Scotland should receive one-half the costs of these Courts, while Ireland pays the whole cost of analogous Courts?
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENhoped "the act of justice to Scotland "would be emulated in reference to Ireland.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdid not intend to represent the Vote as an "act of justice to Scotland."
Vote agreed to
(10.) £31,252, to complete the sum for Rates for Government Property,
(11.) £77,470, to complete the sum for Post Office and Inland Revenue Buildings.
(12.) £10,000, New Home and Colonial Offices.
(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, of a Grant in aid of the New Buildings for the University of Glasgow."
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENwished to know, if any part of the sum to be applied for this purpose would be expended in the building of houses for the theological Professors? If the hon. Gentleman could not answer that question he would move the postponements the Vote, especially as the Lord Advocate was not present.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Vole was taken for the purpose of proceeding with the buildings now in progress. He could not say what buildings would be constructed under the Vote. Negotiations had been going on for some time on the subject, and as the object was one of importance, and as the Vote was a reasonable one, he hoped the Committee would agree to it
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that as it was important that the question should be answered, whether any portion of the Vote was to be devoted to theological teaching and as the Lord Advocate was not present, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
MR. DALGLISHsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. The Vote was for the benefit of the whole of the West of Scotland, and a great many Irish students, especially those intending to enter the medical profession, were educated at Glasgow University. The citizens of Glasgow had already subscribed almost as much as the Parliamentary Grant, and he believed they would eventually subscribe considerably more. £72,000 had been granted to the University of London.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that it was not the Grant but the "theology" he objected to. He should withdraw the Motion, but he should take an opportunity of putting a question to the Lord Advocate on the subject.
MR. DILLWYNasked whether that was to be the beginning of a system of subsidizing the Universities in all parts of the country?
MR. AYRTONasked for an explanation from the Government of the policy on which these Votes were made. It seemed as if they were about to establish the novel principle that, wherever a body of persons subscribed a certain sum for the foundation of a College, the State was to be called
402
upon to contribute a similar amount to wards it.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the principle of supporting institutions for the promotion of learning was not a new one, but had always been recognized in this country. The application of that principle was a matter of discretion. Every second-rate town or obscure place, merely because it might subscribe a certain sum for a College, was not, as a matter of course, to receive a Vote of public money; but a degree of discrimination was to be observed in these eases. The policy of supporting institutions of learning in the kingdom of Scotland had certainly been followed in other instances. The University of Aberdeen was one example of that. A considerable sum had been appropriated to the re-construction of the buildings of Aberdeen University, and they were this year voting the final sum required to complete the amount originally proposed to be applied for its benefit. The case of Glasgow had been examined by the Government. It was the case of a poor University, with a very spirited community, who wished to place the institution on a basis suitable to the wants of the age, and who had subscribed in a very munificent manner. It was therefore thought that the State might be fairly asked to second the exertions made by the inhabitants of Glasgow for such an important public purpose.
MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he did not admit that, because Aberdeen had obtained a Vote of public money, Glasgow ought to receive one also. The University of Glasgow was not, in the proper sense of the word, a University, but merely a College.
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that no Vote could be more properly granted by the House than a Vote to sustain the foundation of a great University. He was glad to see that the Scotch Members were united in supporting the Vote for the University foundation in Glasgow; and he trusted that when the First Lord of the Treasury proposed a University foundation for Ireland, in accordance with the feelings of the Irish people, the proposal would receive the unanimous support of the Scotch Members.
MR. JACOB BRIGHTremarked that Owen's College in Manchester, was deserving of the consideration of the Committee, and when money was granted for this College in Glasgow, he must remind them that the College in Manchester had an equal claim upon them.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the proposal was in strict accordance with the principle upon which the Education Grant was distributed throughout the country—namely, in the encouragement of local subscriptions. In this case, munificent subscriptions had been raised in the city of Glasgow itself, and to reject the Vote would have very much the aspect of a breach of faith.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(14.) £3,200, to complete the sum for the Wellington Monument.
MR. LAYARDasked for explanations. He did not wish to say a word against Mr. Stephens, whom he believed to be a man of considerable talent; but it was plain, from the number of years that had passed, and from the amount voted in excess of the original Estimate, that there must have been considerable laxity when the contract was originally entered into. The original Estimate was £14,000; £22,800 had been voted, part of which, however, had not been spent.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was happy to be able to return a satisfactory answer to the question. Mr. Stephens was making very rapid progress with the completion of the work, and hoped in a short time to commence the necessary preparations in St. Paul's.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £1,000, to complete the sum for the Palmerston Monument.
MR. BENTINCKexpressed a desire for information. What was to be the nature of the monument, and who was to be the sculptor? When they saw the lamentable memorials erected to the memory of such men as Mr. Cobden, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Mr. Thackeray, and others, they could not help feeling un easy as to the character of any proposed additions. Westminster Abbey was chokefull already; and the question really was, whether it would not be better to remove to a different site the memorials of all who were not actually buried within the Abbey precincts?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the House, upon the occasion of the lamented death of Lord Palmerston, gave expression, in a practical manner, to its desire that some fitting memorial of that statesman should be erected. No portion of the
404
money then voted had been expended; and, accordingly, it became necessary to re-vote the amount this year. The artist selected was Mr. Jackson.
MR. LAYARDasked the noble Lord, having regard to the number of failures which had taken place in our public statues, to give an undertaking that a cast should be erected in Westminster Abbey before the statue itself was executed.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £133,259, to complete the sum for the Public Buildings, Ireland.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid he had last year called attention to an item of £500 for "catching rats, inspecting fire-engines, and sweeping chimneys." This year the rats had disappeared, and all these items were put down under the head of "Miscellaneous Expenditure." He objected to this method of keeping accounts, as deceptive, and unworthy of a great Government.
Mr. G. MORRIS, referring to the portion of the Vote applicable to Coastguard stations in Ireland, hoped that some improvement would be effected in these dwellings, the condition of which, in many instances upon the West coast of Ireland, was really disgraceful.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid that a larger portion of this Vote would be applied to the purpose referred to by the hon. Member.
MR. G. MORRISsaid, what he complained of was, that no portion of it seemed to be intended for the Coastguard stations in the West of Ireland.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) £6,000, to complete the sum for the Queen's University, Ireland.
(18.) £4,300, to complete the sum for the Ulster Canal.
In reply to Colonel FRENCH,
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Ulster Canal had come into the possession of the Government in consequence of those interested in the Canal having failed to pay interest on the sums advanced to them by the Government. He regretted to say that the attempt to induce the Canal Company to complete the canal works had been so far unsuccessful.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENobserved that the sum now asked for was only part of an amount which had been sanctioned by Act of Parliament.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) £7,500, to complete the sum for the Portland Harbour.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION, &C, BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Brightlingsea, Clevedon, Morecambe, Mousehole, Instow, Saltburn by the Sea, and Southport; and to amend "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861."
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
House adjourned at half after Twelve, o'clock, till Monday next.