Commons Sitting of 13 April 1869

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Samuel Wanley Sawbridge Erle Drax, esq., for Wareham.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 12] reported—ARMY ESTIMATES.
WATS AND MEANS—Resolutions [April 12] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland); Poor Law (Scotland) Act (1845) Amendment.
Ordered—First Reading—County Coroners [75]; Metropolitan Commons Act (1866) Amendment * [77]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental * [76]; Adulteration of Food or Drink Act (1860) Amendment * [78].
Second Reading—Libel [17].

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works, dated March 1868, was not presented to Parliament in July, or at latest in November, in accordance with the Act 18 and 19 Vic, s. 200 and 201; and, whether arrangements could not be made in future for such Report being presented within somewhat less than twelve months after the date thereof?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, in reply, that the Report contained a very large amount of matter, and the Board of Works found it impossible to complete it within the time enacted by

  675
  the Act of Parliament. The delay last year was due to the serious illness of the chief clerk, and the Report did not come to the Home Office until December. As to the future; he could assure the hon. Member that he had received from the Board of Works an assurance that every effort would be used to ensure that the Report should be presented earlier.

  CONVICTION OF THREE CHILDREN AT SALISBURY.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case in which three children—namely, two girls aged respectively 11 and 14, and a boy aged 8, were lately convicted, at the County Petty Sessions in Salisbury, of stealing rape-greens to the value of 1s. from a field, the two girls being sentenced to a month's imprisonment, in default of paying a fine of 20s. and costs, the boy escaping a like punishment against the expressed opinion of the chairman, Lord Folkestone; and, whether he has thought it right to make any representations on the case; and, if so, whether he will lay any Correspondence on the Table of the House?
  MR. BRUCEreplied that he had received no representations whatever with respect to this case. It was not the custom nor the duty of the Home Secretary to animadvert on the decisions either of Judges or magistrates, unless representations were made to him; and if representations were made, and they appeared to be worthy of attention, inquiries were instituted, and he endeavoured to form Ms judgment upon them. In this case no representations had been made, and consequently he had taken no steps in the matter.

  NEW ZEALAND—IMPERIAL TROOPS IN THE COLONY.—QUESTION.
  MR. SARTORISsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Have orders been sent to New Zealand recalling the 18th Regiment; and, if so, when is the Regiment to leave the Colony; and, can the Governor of New Zealand, notwithstanding the order of recall, if sent, retain the troops, should he consider their removal at the time ordered likely to
  676
  cause the extension of the present disturbances; and, if so, for what time and upon what conditions?
  MR. MONSELL, in reply, stated that orders had been sent for the recall of the 18th Regiment, which was to leave New Zealand in May next. When that regiment left there would be no Imperial troops in the colony. In reply to the second part of the Question, he had to state that the Governor of New Zealand could not retain the troops, as the instructions given to the Governor were definite and precise, and without limitations or conditions.

  PARLIAMENT—CRYPT UNDER ST. STEPHEN'S CHAPEL.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. EGERTONsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, When the Crypt under St. Stephen's Chapel will be opened for Divine Service?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the crypt under St. Stephen's Chapel had been completed some time. There was still something to be done with the baptistry, and he was going to ask for a small Vote this year to complete it. The crypt was now ready for Divine Service, but it was for the House to determine whether they wished Divine Service to be performed there, and if so, to provide the endowment for a clergyman.

  ESTATES OF THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF LICHFIELD.—QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE CAYENDISHsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for North Devonshire, Whether, on the death of the late Dean of Lichfield, the estates of the Dean and Chapter, derived from lands and tithes, were surrendered to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and, if so, whether in due time the Commissioners will take into consideration the case of certain parishes in Derbyshire, where the Dean and Chapter have property, and where the incomes of the parochial clergy seldom exceed £150 a year, and in some cases fall below £100 a year?
  MR. ACLANDsaid, in reply, that the estates had not become vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Under the Act of 1868 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were empowered to accept the transfer of capitular estates, and in this

  677
  instance they were ready to provide the commutation whenever the Dean and Chapter were ready to make the proposal; but without such a proposal the Commissioners had no right to intervene; and when it had been made, the Commissioners would be in a position to take into consideration the wish and claims of the locality. He might add that commutation arrangements were in progress in nearly all the other Chapters, that the augmentations of livings had been completed in some of them, and were in progress in others.

METROPOLIS—ST- LUKE'S HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps have been taken by the Lord Chancellor, in accordance with the request of the Governors of St. Luke's Hospital, as appeared in "The Times" of February 27th, with a view to inquire into its management; and, whether the Commissioners in Lunacy have made any inquiry; and, if not, whether the Government intend to order them to make such inquiry?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he had been informed by the Lord Chancellor that not being a Visitor of the hospital, and also on the ground that some complaints with respect to the arrangement of it might be brought before him in his judicial capacity, he had not thought it proper to institute an ex parte inquiry into the matter. The Lunacy Commissioners had repeatedly inquired into the management of the hospital, and had made certain recommendations, some of which had been acted upon and some not. They had reported that, in their opinion, the situation of the hospital was not very fit for its peculiar functions. He might add that the powers of the Commissioners and of the Home Office over this hospital was very different, and were very much less than that which they possessed over lunatic establishments generally.

  METROPOLIS—CONCENTRATION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICES.—QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of "Works, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session for the acquisition of the property re-
  678
  commended to be purchased by the Treasury Commission for the concentration of the Public Offices, and for which the proper notices were given last November?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that a Bill on the subject was in preparation, and when it was presented he should be able to make a statement to the House, which he hoped would be a complete answer to the Question of the noble Lord.

  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN AGRICULTURE.—QUESTION.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the final Report of the Commission on the Employment of Children, Young Persons, and Women in Agriculture will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that as far as England and Wales were concerned the Report of the Commission would be ready in the month of August; but as the inquiry had been since extended to Scotland, the whole inquiry would not be completed till next year.

  ARMY—CHAPLAINS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War. Whether a reduction is about to be made in the Chaplain's Department of the Army, and if the Reverend Charles Craven has been selected to be placed on half-pay, he not being the junior; and, if so, on what ground the usual custom of the Service has been departed from?
  MR. CARDWELL: It is true, Sir, that a reduction is about to be made in the chaplain's department of the Army, and that the Rev. Charles Craven has been selected to be placed on half-pay, he not being the junior; but it is not accurate to say that the usual custom of the service has been departed from. The usual custom of the service—and my duty—is, in consultation with the Chaplain General, to make such arrangements as I think most desirable for the public service.

ARMY—WEST KENT MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHATMANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War,

  679
  Whether the "West Kent Regiment of Militia, which met yesterday for the usual drill, has received final orders whether they are to proceed to Shorncliffe Camp or not; and, whether the additional expense caused by changing the first notice will be thrown on the officers or not? On Friday last Orders were sent to the head-quarters for the Regiment to march to Shorncliffe, and preparations were made for that purpose, when the order was suddenly changed. Regiments of Militia had not the advantage of a regular military organization, in respect to mess and various things, and, by the order being countermanded, much expense would be caused.
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, he had the pleasure of informing the hon. Gentleman that the original order for the regiment to march would be carried into effect, and that no additional expense would be thrown upon the Officers by the change that had, in the first instance, been made.

  INCLOSURE BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What course he intends to take, in reference to the Inclosure Bill now before Parliament; and, whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the general subject of Inclosures?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that he was extremely anxious to meet the wishes of hon. Members interested in the Bill; but it did not appear expedient to him that, after the third reading had been fixed, the Bill should be re-committed, and inquired into by a Committee of the Whole House. At the same time, after the statements that had been made, it did seem very important that the subject should be inquired into, and the conduct of the Inclosure Commissioners cleared up. He would consent to a Select Committee to inquire—not into the whole subject—but into the administration of those acts in reference to the allotments for the poor; and if the hon. Gentleman would move for such a Committee, he would suspend the further progress of the Bill, on the understanding that the Bill should be expeditiously proceeded with, so that the Report might be made before the end of the Session, and that,
  680
  if it should then be thought expedient, the third reading of the Bill should be carried.
  MR. FAWCETTgave notice that he would move for such a Committee, and would leave the House to decide what the terms of the reference should be.

  HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.—QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will state to the House the general terms on which the Hudson's Bay Company have consented to surrender their government and territory?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, in answer to his right hon. Friend, he had to inform him that the Hudson's Bay Company had consented to surrender all their rights of territory and jurisdiction on condition of receiving £300,000 in money, about 50,000 acres about their posts, and one-twentieth of all land that might be laid out for settlement within the next fifty years. The surrender was not to come into operation until the Government and Parliament of the Dominion of Canada had accepted these terms, nor unless that assent should be signified within six months from the 9th of this month.

  IRELAND—MAYNOOTH.—REPLY.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply, Sir, to a question put to me the other evening by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) relative to the visitation of Maynooth, and a portion of which I was not then able to answer, I have to state that the last visitation of the College, under the Act of 1845, occurred in 1864–5. It was held on the 23rd of November, 1864, and the Report of that visitation was truly presented to the House, and ordered to be printed on the 13th of February, 1865, and forms No. 25 of the Parliamentary Papers of that year. Therefore, Sir, there is no Report with respect to which there has been any failure to lay before this House.
IRELAND—THE IRISH SOCIETY.

  MOTION FOR A COMMISSION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to move | for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the manner in which the Irish Society administered their property in the North of Ireland. He ventured to say there were not 100 Mem-

  681
  bers of the present Parliament who had any accurate idea of what the Irish Society was, or who could understand the nature of its relations with a portion of the North of Ireland. He might go further and say that, except in London, not only in all the rest of England and Scotland, but even in many parts of Ireland, there was no knowledge whatever of this society, or any proper understanding of its connection with the North of Ireland. Under these circumstances, he respectfully asked the attention of the House while he made his statement, in order to enable them to judge whether the Motion with which he should conclude was a reasonable one or otherwise. But before addressing himself to the immediate subject of his Notice he might express the reason of the change which he had made in it. He had intended to bring the question of the London companies before the House, including the Irish Society, but by some inadvertence on his part, he did not specifically mention the Irish Society. It was quite impossible, however, to bring forward the London companies without reference to the measures adopted in the time of James for parcelling out a large portion of Londonderry among several of these companies. But the more he inquired, the more he looked at the magnitude and diversified character of some of these companies, he felt less disposed to bring forward the general subject; and he had also been influenced to a certain extent by a conversation he held with an hon. Member on the other side, for whom he always entertained the very highest respect. An hon. Member had stated to him that some of his constituents had become rather apprehensive of the terms of his first Motion—that many of the representatives of those who originally acquired their property by confiscation were naturally apprehensive, if his Resolution was carried, it would more or less shake the security of their property. He deprecated all reference to these companies on the present occasion; but had he the opportunity of dealing with them, he could give ample reasons for regarding their estates as essentially different from private property, which he held to be sacred and inviolable. If it had any original defect it had been purged by the long line of succession; indeed, many of the gentlemen in the North of Ireland who held property
  682
  originally derived from confiscation were among the very best patriots of that country, their ancestors being the most illustrious men Ireland ever produced. Therefore he now confined himself simply and entirely to the Irish Society, and he was glad the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. II. Gregory) had removed his Amendment from the Paper, so that, having to deal with a specific Resolution, he would endeavour so completely to establish its justice and sound policy that the House might adopt it unanimously. In order to understand what the Irish Society really was, he must take them back to the time of James I. He knew there was no more ticklish portion of Irish history than that which related to the confiscation of Ulster. He had his own feelings in regard to its policy and justice, but he left that controverted question to the consideration of the historical student. But, as a matter of fact, there were several counties in the North of Ireland confiscated by the Crown. James had shortly before come to the Throne, and he determined to signalize the event by planting these confiscated counties with settlers from England and Scotland. He looked about to see where he could get proper instruments for carrying out the scheme, which he regarded as at once patriotic and pious. Naturally, he looked to the Corporation of the City of London—which he styled the incomparable City—to assist him in planting a portion of Ulster. In order to arouse their attention and excite their cupidity, being an able penman and a sublime puffer, he sat down to write certain "motives and reasons for the plantation of Ulster." James, in fact, praised everything in the North of Ireland but the people. He and his predecessors had done their best to banish the original inhabitants to the mountains; but he praised everything else, animate and inanimate. He complimented the turf as good and wholesome; spoke of the abundance of the fish and their readiness to be caught. He told the Corporation of the incomparable City that the country was a terrestrial paradise; that it contained store of all things necessary for man's sustenance, so as not only to maintain its cultivators, but likewise to feed the incomparable City; that was an incitement to the aldermen. He told them that sheep would breed abundantly in Ire-

  683
  land, and that the nature of the soil was very wholesome. Hemp and flax, it was added, grew more naturally there than elsewhere; and it must be admitted that that natural production of the soil—hemp—was liberally employed for the pacification of Ireland by successive monarchs. Curiously enough, King James added that linen yarns and all stuffs made irom linen yarns, or flax, were finer there than could be obtained in any other part of the kingdom—which would show that manufacturing industry was not unknown in Ulster before the advent of the British Solomon. He described the country as very plentiful in wax and honey; and, no doubt, to attract the attention of the goldsmiths, he said—"There be also some good store of pearls upon the coast, especially in the river of Lough Foyle." Then the furrier was appealed to, for the King described the abundance of "fells "—red deer, foxes, sheep, lambs, rabbits, martens, squirrels, &c. As for the position of this part of the country for trade and commerce, the King wrote—
  "The coasts be ready for traffic with England and Scotland, and for supply of provisions from or to them; and do lie open and convenient for Spain and the Straits, and fittest and nearest to Newfoundland."
  And he added—"the harbour of the river of Derry is exceedingly good." Now, one of the chief charges which he (Mr. Maguire) made against the Irish Society was this—that they had not carried out the intentions of the plantation so far as its trade and manufactures were regarded, and had not taken fair advantage of the mutual advantages described in the "motives and reasons" of King James. As in this important State Paper James said nothing of the people who were to be replaced by new races, it might be well to describe them in the language of a historian who wrote a history of Ireland some forty years before that time. Campion described the Irish as "frank, amorous, ireful, sufferable of paines infiniter, very glorious, excellent horsemen, delighted with wars"—and very well for England that this is true—"great almgivers, passing in hospitality." Not a bad description of a people, and with some alteration it might tolerably well represent their descendants of the present day. The Corporation seriously listened to the Royal tempter, but being a prudent
  684
  race, they did not enter blindfold into the matter, but adopted the heroic expedient of appointing four of their number to go to Ireland and inquire into the real state of things. The four who went over were John Broad, goldsmith; Robert Tresswell, painter stainer; John Rowley, draper; and John Munns, mercer. I shall afterwards have to tell how the society treated a modern John Munns—probably, a descendant of the courageous mercer. They left London amid dismal forebodings, amidst the tears and lamentations of their wives and families; but it is pleasant to learn that these excellent citizens were well treated by the barbarous people who were to be civilized by the Corporation of London, and that they returned safe and sound to make their report—which corroborated generally the statements of King James. The Corporation then appointed a committee of their body to enter into negotiations with the Privy Council on the part of the Crown. From that committee sprang the Irish Society, which was then, as it is now, a committee or branch of the Corporation of the City of London. The Irish Society was to consist of twenty-six discreet citizens—namely, one Governor, one Deputy Governor, and twenty-four assistants. The original vice of the society was that, from the time of James I. to the present day, all members did not remain in office long enough to acquire a knowledge of the affairs of the society. Twelve of the body went out of office every year; hence, as might be expected, perpetual inexperience and ignorance, and consequent blundering. Their knowledge of Ireland was, and is, derived through an annual visit or trip in the summer; and he would describe its character farther on. The county of Coleraine, afterwards the county of Londonderry, was handed over to the Irish Society for the purpose of being planted; and, in order to raise funds for that purpose, a certain sum of money—some £20,000—was levied on the twelve great companies, with which smaller companies were associated; and these companies received large tracts of land, the extent of which bore some proportion to their respective contributions. The Irish Society paid nothing whatever; but they reserved for their share, as the undivided portion; the City of Derry, the town of Coleraine, the fisheries of the

  685
  Bann and the Foyle, and some thousands of acres of land, which constituted the property given to them in trust, and which they admit they hold only as trustees. James had praised the society for the "flagrant zeal" with which they had entered into his pious views; but scarcely had they taken possession of their lands than the opinion of the King changed towards them. He had handed the property over to trustees for the object of the plantation, but he told them they had sought to administer it for their private benefit, and not for the public good. There were complaints from the Scotch and English settlers, as well as from the representatives of the Crown; and James sent Commissioners to Ireland, who reported against the undertakers who had received this property for public purposes. In 1624, the property was taken away from them, and, in 1637, they lost their charter, which was not restored to them until the reign of Charles II., in 1670. It was originally intended by the charter that a large portion of the land should be laid on to the City of Deny, and another large portion to the town of Coleraine, and that bog and waste land should not be included in that allocation. The land the City—or Corporation, for them—never received; and of the bog or waste they were shamefully plundered by the society. A portion of this so-called waste was known as the Sheriff's Mountain—between 200 and 300 Irish plantation acres in extent, and had been held by the Corporation of Derry for 200 years without question. In the year 1820 certain lands called "commons," which the Corporation of Derry held from the society, and on which they had made several public improvements, fell in; but the society refused a renewal of the lease unless on the condition that the Corporation surrendered all claim to the Sheriff's Mountain, and, in fact, took it in lease from them. They likewise raised the rent from £45 to more than £500, and deprived them of their property at the same time—thus damaging the body they were bound to protect to the amount of £1,000 a year. The main charge which he brought against the society was that, owing to mismanagement and the application to Ireland of principles that might, perhaps, very well apply to England, they had retarded the progress of the City of
  686
  Derry. In 1733 they made this rule—that no determinable lease was to be renewed until within three years of its expiring. Those were no agricultural leases, but building leases in the City of Derry, and the consequence was that, when a deputation came over—there was always an annual deputation—in 1765, the City of Deny was crumbling into ruins. Alarmed at the sight, the deputation, at the head of which was Alderman Allsop, granted longer leases, and Derry dated its real prosperity from that time. Alderman Allsop's name was not honoured in the Corporation of London, but it was in Derry. The course then adopted saved Derry from extinction. A considerable portion of property thus passed out of the direct control of the society, but they retained another portion in their hands. Since then the people of Derry had made repeated demands for longer terms than the society were willing to give for houses, for villas, or for mills and factories; but though promises had been made that satisfaction would be given, these promises were constantly broken. He did not propose to go much into detail, or to enter into particular instances of wrong. But he might refer to the matter of the so-called 1,500 acres. These had been obtained by the Bishop of Deny, when the charter of the society was cancelled for their misconduct, and the Corporation of Derry, who could not resist a powerful prelate, were content to take this land on lease from the Bishop; but when the Bishop's successor refused to renew, the society, with the aid of the Corporation, went to law, the dispute ending in a compromise—the Bishop getting so much a year, and the society getting back their property, including their fisheries. But when the Corporation asked the society to restore the property which had been granted by charter to the city of Derry, the society defied them, and hold it to this hour. What could the Corporation do? They were powerless, and the society were powerful, with almost unlimited funds at their disposal. There was no use in resisting the society, for if they did not crush their opponent in Chancery, they did so in the House of Lords. The law costs of the society were enormous; they were as fond of law as aldermen were of turtle and champagne; but the taste was always indulged in at the expense of the

  687
  people of Derry. In 1832 there were Royal Commissioners to inquire into the Corporations of England and Wales and of Ireland, and by both of these bodies the Irish Society was condemned; the one declaring that there was no shadow of reason why this control should be exercised by a corporation in London over a corporation in Ireland, and that such a control was inexpedient; while the report of the other body cited the wrongs done to the people of Derry, and recorded the fact that the utmost dissatisfaction was felt by them with the management of the Irish Society. As to their love of law, it appeared that in twenty-three years up to 1843 only £38,000, or one-fifth of the expenditure, had been appropriated to the purposes of the trust, while three-fifths, or £100,000, was expended in management, £27,500 having been spent on law alone. In 1854, there was a Royal Commission to inquire into the Corporation of London, and Judge Patteson, Mr. Labouchere (now Lord Taunton), and Sir George Lewis were members. A deputation came over from Derry and Coleraine, and was examined on oath before this Commission, giving evidence of the mismanagement of the Irish Society, that the society did not carry out the object of the trust, and that there was no necessity for its continuance. Upon this evidence the Commission declared that the Irish Society were merely trustees, and recommended that the society be dissolved, that the charter be abolished by Act of Parliament, and that the trust be handed over to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who would have power to make rules suited to the necessities of the time. This affirmed more than one principle. Besides establishing the entire unfitness of the Irish Society to hold this property as trustees, the Commissioners clearly pronounced against the management of so important a trust by an absentee body, who could know nothing practically of the country or its inhabitants. The Commissioners said they felt bound to express their opinion that great abuses existed no long time since in the administration of this trust property; and they reported that from 1818 down to 1847 the expenses of management had amounted to 60 per cent, or £133,900 out of £219,000. In a dispute with the Skinners' Company the Irish Society de-
  688
  fended a suit in Chancery, on the ground that they were merely trustees of the property, and their contention was held to be good, both by the Court of Chancery and by the House of Lords. Under these circumstances, it must be assumed that they only held as trustees, and, therefore, no question as to the rights of property could arise. The Bill, which was passed by the House in 1849, for the conversion of leaseholds was strenuously opposed by the Irish Society, who refused ever since to act upon it; but, in 1854, the society received a fright, and they thereupon commenced to make promises of instant amendment.
  "When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be;
  When the devil got well, the devil a monk was he."
  The society went over to Ireland officially in order to hold a court in the City of Derry—an event that had not occurred since the time of King James. Alderman Humphrey, accompanied by the Deputy Governor, the secretary, and nineteen members of the society, opened the court in due form, in their official capacity, whereupon the Corporation of the City made a demand upon them, which was the main feature in the Motion he was about to make, to the effect that they should grant leases of such a term as would encourage persons to build factories, warehouses, and residences. The Irish Society took great credit for the flourishing condition of Ulster; but the only part of the country with which they had to do was that portion which was, unfortunately, under their control. The prime cause of the progress of Belfast was that building leases were granted upon fair terms, whereas the Irish Society had done all that in them lay to obstruct the progress of Derry by refusing to grant such leases. This fact was brought forcibly to their attention by the memorial presented to them by the corporation of the latter city. In Belfast no one would think of building factories except upon ground held in fee simple, or upon perpetual leases, whereas the Irish Society would never grant a lease longer than sixty-one years. It must not be forgotten that King James had held out a promise that Derry was to be the great seat of the linen manufacture, and that, therefore, the Irish Society were bound to do their best to encourage that manu-

  689
  facture. Well, in answer to the appeal of the Corporation, in 1856, the society gave a solemn assurance that the desire of the people of Derry should be satisfied, that leases for long terms of years should be granted, and that a system should be introduced under which renewals could be demanded as a right, in place of being prayed for as a favour. Upon this promise being made the gentlemen who composed the court in Derry were feted by the people, and great enthusiasm and excitement prevailed in the city; but having crossed the Channel—and, perhaps, having been sea-sick on the passage—these gentlemen refused to fulfil their promises, on the ground that they had no power to make them, as a court could not be legally held out of London. He called that transaction a scandalous one. The policy of the society seemed to be against the increase of manufactures, and he would state facts to show reasons for his belief. In 1836, Mr. John Munn stated to the deputation from the society that he was anxious to establish the linen manufacture in Derry, but had a short lease, on which he could not build a factory. The society told him to buy an intermediate lease then existing, and thus become the direct tenant of the society, and promised, on his doing so, to extend his lease to sixty-one years. In the year 1838, another deputation went over and reported that Mr. Munn had bought up the intermediate lease for £2,700, and laid out from £7,000 to £8,000 on plant and machinery, and had established the linen manufacture, which gave a large amount of employment, and that it was necessary for them to give him an extended lease to make other improvements; and Mr. Babington, the solicitor, in 1854, stated before the Royal Commission that up to that moment the lease had never been granted. The society got so much ashamed that eventually they gave a lease either to the son or grandson of Mr. Munn. At a late dinner, in Belfast, Lord Lurgan read a few lines from a speech of the Lord Lieutenant, in favour of establishing manufactures in Ireland, which concluded by saying he trusted to see in that country an increase of that manufacturing element. He (Mr. Maguire) submitted that the policy of the society was opposed to the increase of manufactures in Ireland. When one entered
  690
  Derry from the bridge he saw a pile of buildings which would do credit to any town in England; and when he found that in those buildings manufactures were carried on, he was inclined to conclude that the Irish Society could not be so bad, after all; but by letters from three different firms at Derry it was stated that the society did not act in a way calculated to promote the manufacturing interests of that town. The buildings to which he had referred were not erected under leave from the society. He did not mean to assert that there was any desire on the part of the society to retard the progress of manufactures on their property. He did not even suppose that they had any such wish, but he contended that the Corporation of London was not competent to conduct its municipal business and also to manage estates in Ireland. The ground on which the factory of M'Intyre & Co. was built in Derry was held under a fee-farm grant, and the society had nothing to do with it. It was stated that Sinclair & Co. held under a perpetuity lease, with which the society had nothing to do. What was said by Messrs. Tillie & Henderson established his case, that the society were the enemies of progress in Derry. In reply to a question respecting the owner of the land, it was said that it was at one time the land of the Irish Society, but had been let in perpetuity by the late Alderman Allsop, a Governor of the society, with a considerable portion of ground in the neighbourhood; and but for that fortunate circumstance they could not secure a site for works of such a permanent kind as would induce him to build there, and establish in Derry a branch of manufactures that is now paying £300,000 a year in wages. Messrs. Tillie & Henderson add these words—
  "It should be noticed that the worthy alderman above mentioned (Alderman Allsop) is now looked back to as the greatest benefactor Derry ever had, not excepting Governor Walker, although the members of the Irish Society do not care to have his name mentioned."
  The society—and, indeed, the Corporation of London—were under the delusion that they were the greatest benefactors of the people of the North of Ireland, and that the feelings of the inhabitants of Derry were those of enthusiastic admiration and gratitude. And they persevered in holding that opinion up to the present hour, though it had been

  691
  rudely dispelled on many occasions. In 1863, Mr. Cox, formerly Member for Finsbury, and who in that year was Deputy Governor of the society, visited Derry. No doubt he went there with the most beneficient intentions, and in the sincere belief that the society was a real benefactor to Ireland; but when he reached "Government House"—the building in which the local agent of the society resided—strong representations were made to him and his colleagues by the Corporation of Derry against the society's management. Mr. Cox heard what was said, and replied—"I have no idea of giving up the property of the Corporation to a parcel of fellows who come here snivelling." When Mr. Cox rose next morning he found himself famous. On every boarding and dead wall there were these words—"Cox is coming," and all the gamins of Derry repeated them. Some days afterwards Lord Carlisle, a nobleman who was very popular in Ireland, attended by invitation a dinner given by the Agricultural Society. Mr. Cox was there, and such was the disapprobation expressed on that occasion in reference to the Irish Society that Lord Clancarty had to interfere and ask the company to remember that the Lord Lieutenant was present. Mr. Cox had been evidently stung to the quick by the apparent ingratitude of those to whom, as he thought, the Corporation and people of Derry were under the deepest obligation. On a former occasion, in 1858, when Lord Eglinton was present, the boastfulness of Alderman Humphrey received a severe check. Not only did he assert, amidst hisses and other marks of disapprobation, that the Presbyterians owed everything to the society, but that the society were the best landlords of any country in the British Empire. In the Session of 1866, when Mr. Kennedy moved for Returns connected with the management of the Irish Society's estates, Lord Claud J. Hamilton, a son of the Marquess of Abercorn, said that the remedy for the evils complained of would be to abolish the charter and to sell the property, and appropriate the proceeds to pay the debts of Derry. On the same occasion an hon. Member, one of the Aldermen of the City of London, asked who complained of the society? Three weeks after a most influential meeting was held in Derry to answer that question. The principal
  692
  persons who took part in that meeting were the descendants of the English and Scotch settlers. The first resolution was one passed in answer to the boastful challenge of the worthy Alderman, declaring that it was inconsistent with the fact, and that it did not represent the feelings of the people of Derry, whose indignation at being patronized by those good tradesmen in London Mr. Hamilton humorously expressed when he said that he objected to be called a native of the new Plantation of Ulster. "I object," said that Conservative gentleman, "if I take a little run in the summer vacation to Paris or Brussels, to meet a greasy-looking gentleman from White-chapel or the Minories" [Laughter]—the words were Mr. Hamilton's, not his—"turned out black and shining from Moses', and to be told by him that he had a large property in the North of Hireland, in a place called Derry, and that his tenantry were an industrious, thriving set of fellows, quite remarkable for their intelligence; but that it was all owing to his own excellent management of his property and his liberality." The citizens of Derry were, he might add, about the most intelligent in Ireland, while the members of its Corporation were inferior neither intellectually nor morally to the members of the Corporation of London. What right, then, had the latter to exercise so great a control as they did over Derry and its inhabitants? One speaker, on the occasion to which he was referring, alluded to gentlemen coming over from London to give them lectures on self reliance, for which they objected to pay, especially as those gentlemen did not do much for them in the way of incentive to practise the virtue which they preached. Some time since, he might add, a member of a deputation published a record of the visit of the Irish Society to Ireland, only six pages of which were devoted to the proceedings of the society, the rest being all about himself. It cost a considerable sum of money, and was, no doubt, a very admirable performance; but then it was, unfortunately, likely to be more gratifying to his wife and children than beneficial to the country. Mr. Haslett described a conversation which a friend of his had with some gentleman in London who wished to take a trip to Ireland. He asked him if he had ever been in Ireland. "Oh, no," replied the other,

  693
  "but I intend to get on the Irish Society and make a journey over there. Do they speak Irish? I do not speak Irish, but my daughter speaks French." "And had they not a famous siege there?" asked the intelligent gentleman. "Oh, yes, and the people of Derry are very proud of it, too." "Oh, aye, I remember—in the time of John." The position of the citizens of Derry and their relation to the Irish Society was well put by one of the speakers at the public meeting of May, 1866, the meeting called into existence by the boastful query of the worthy Alderman; Mr. Isaac Colquhoun used these words—
  "I would illustrate our connection with the Irish Society as similar to the case of a minor and guardian or trustee. So long as a child is under age, and by the law incapable of managing his property, it is vested in trustees, but when he arrives at maturity his property is handed over for his own management. We have now been governed by the London Corporation and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Irish Society and their assistants for about 250 years; and surely, if ever our governors were to be saved the trouble and responsibility of the trusts, it should be now that we have arrived at full maturity."
  It appeared that the citizens of Derry were in the habit of being very civil to those gentlemen when they went over from London to visit them. They were invited to dinners and compliments were passed them; and when they returned to London they very naturally said they were delighted with their visit, and prided themselves as being benefactors of the country. The advice which was in consequence given to the people of Derry by Dr. Brown was to be cold and repellent in their reception of such visitors in future, so as to give them no cause for labouring under so great a delusion. This was the answer given, little more than two years since, of the leading inhabitants of Derry—representing, as one speaker said, the intelligence, the energy and the wealth of the town—to those who affect to think that the Irish Society is regarded with favour or affection by those whom they patronize and protect. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the testimony of a Mr. Wright Knox, and others, to show that, so far as the general feeling of the inhabitants of Coleraine were concerned, they were of opinion that the influence of the society, instead of being beneficial, was injurious to that town, Mr. Knox stating that he could not recall to his re-
  694
  collection a single instance in which they gave the slightest encouragement to any improvement. It might, perhaps, be urged that these gentlemen had turned over a new leaf, and were not so extravagant as formerly. The answer was that they had been shamed out of their old extravagance, although their present management cost about 40 per cent. It might be said, again, that these gentlemen gave a great deal of money for the maintenance of schools and charitable purposes. But where, he would ask, were the 700 acres that were intended for the foundation of a College? They could never he found. Then they were bound by their charter to build quays and make other improvements, which, however, they never did. All these gentlemen might have been as benevolent as Mr. Cox, and all of them might have gone over to Ireland with the best possible intention, but nevertheless they were quite out of date. Derry was a splendid flax-growing country, and was inhabited by a peaceable and orderly population. [Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE: Hear, hear.] The people were intelligent, and knew what was good for them; and, moreover, they were among the stuanchest supporters of the British connection. [Mr. Alderman W. LAWRENCE: Hear.] Well, as a Catholic Member of the House he was himself strongly in favour of the British connection. He believed, indeed, that Irishmen could govern Ireland better than Englishmen; and in believing and saying this he did not regard himself as a rebel or a traitor, but he had always been in favour of what O'Connell styled the golden link of the Crown connecting the two countries. If the people of Derry were so capable of managing their own affairs, was it not time they should be allowed to do so? They did not want their affairs to be managed by a body of gentlemen calling themselves the Honourable Irish Society, however respectable those gentlemen might be. He himself was acquainted with the late secretary of the society, a most benevolent individual, who had many virtues, and two marked characteristics—the most profound love of old crusty port, and an equally profound hatred of the Pope of Rome. All he wanted was that the City of Derry should be allowed to make its future for itself, and he trusted the House would ratify the decision of

  695
  the Royal Commission of 1854. By doing so he believed the House would earn the gratitude of an industrious and loyal people. In conclusion, he moved that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the manner in which the Irish Society administer the property which—according to their own admission in their law suit with the Skinner's company—they hold as trustees for the benefit of their trust; and to consider whether, under a totally different state of circumstances from those in which the Society had its origin, it would not be advisable to carry into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1854 on the Corporation of London, that the Irish Society should be abolished; and to advise such other arrangements as would be most in harmony with existing circumstances, and most conducive to the public advantage.
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the manner in which the Irish Society administer the property which, according to their own admission in their law suit with the Skinners' Company, they hold as trustees for the benefit of their trust; and to consider whether, under a totally different state of circumstances from those in which the Society had their origin, it would not be advisable to carry into effect the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1854 on the Corporation of London, that the Irish Society should be abolished; and to advise such other arrangements as would be most in harmony with existing circumstances, and most conducive to the public advantage."—(Mr. Maguire.)
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, it seemed necessary for a new Parliament to have a debate upon the Irish Society. Many hon. Members would remember last Session a debate very similar to the present, though it was raised on a very dissimilar Motion, made by Mr. Kennedy, then Member for Louth, and seconded by Lord Claud John Hamilton, then Member for Londonderry. Neither of those hon. Gentlemen, however, now had a seat in the House, and consequently they would have no opportunity of further elucidating the subject on the present occasion. In December last, the hon. Member for
  696
  Cork (Mr. Maguire) placed the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "London Companies' Estates in Ireland,—Select Committee to inquire into the management of the Irish Estates of certain London Companies, with a view to consider whether, in these times and under existing circumstances, it might not be advisable for the public interest to recommend the annulling of the charters of the said London Companies, and the sale of their estates, with the right of preemption to the occupying tenants."
  The second Notice of the hon. Gentleman, given on the 16th of February, was to the same effect, except that he proposed to substitute a Royal Commission for a Select Committee. The third Notice, now under consideration, was no doubt given in consequence of the advice of the learned Serjeant on his left (Mr. Serjeant Dowse) with respect to interfering with the estates of the London companies, and thereby unsettling all the rights of property in the North of Ireland. The Notice now under discussion was to have been brought forward on the 9th of March, but on the 6th the hon. Gentleman sent to The Times a letter, which appeared in that journal on the 8th of that month. It was in these terms—
  "To the Editor of The Times.
  "Sir,—Permit me the opportunity of stating through The Times that on yesterday (Friday) I postponed to an early day the Notice of Motion standing in my name for the 9th, and that I did so at the request of Mr. Serjeant Dowse, Member for Londonderry, who is professionally engaged on circuit, and is to be entertained by his constituents on Thursday, the 11th inst.
  "I would wish also to state, for the convenience of those interested in my Motion, that I have determined to confine myself exclusively to the 'Irish Society' and its trust, and that I do not intend, at present at least, to deal with the London companies, to and by which the 'Irish Society' parcelled out so large a portion of the county of Derry. I had always intended to include the 'Irish Society' in my Motion, but, through some inadvertence, of which I was not conscious at the time, I did not mention it specially in the Notice which I handed to the clerk.
  "Trusting you will excuse this trespass on your space, I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, "JOHN FRANCIS MAGUIRE.
  "21, Bessborough Gardens, S. W.,
  " Saturday, March 6."
  Hon. Members would thus perceive the gradual growth of the present Motion. It was very rarely indeed that the gentlemen of the South of Ireland ventured into the northern part of that country; but his hon. Friend had made an excursion to the North, when he had lost no opportunity of letting it be known that he was present there. In America such

  697
  a trip would be called a "stumping" one, but he would only say that his hon. Friend went grievance-gathering; and an advertisement was inserted, he presumed by his hon. Friend's direction, in the Derry Journal. [Mr. MAGURIE: No.] The advertisement had no signature; it appeared in the Derry Journal of January 6, 1869, and was as follows:—

  THE LONDON COMPANIES IN THE COUNTY OF LONDONDERRY, AND THE LAND QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIRE, M. P., has given notice that, on the meeting of Parliament in February next, he will move for a Select Committee of the House to inquire into the management of the Estates of certain London Companies.
  As the present Government are pledged to bring in a good Land Bill, the Tenants of the London Companies should get up all the information they can to enable Mr. Maguire to bring their case specially before the House. Much has already been done by the Memorials of the Magherafelt people to open the eyes of the English and Scotch Members, to the grievances of the Company's Tenants, in not getting what the Crown originally intended they should get—namely, Perpetuity Leases, at Moderate Rents.
  The Companies are now swallowing up the Tenant-right by increased Rents, and draining £100,000 a year out of the County to be spent in London—thus realizing the worst features of absenteeism.
  The Tenants on these Estates have a right to ask now for that which has been so long denied them, and, if they ask for it, Parliament will give them redress.
  The Government have the power, and, it is believed, the will, to buy up the interest of the Companies and give the Tenants Perpetuity Leases on paying a small sum for interest on the money advanced. It is well known that this is Mr. Bright's plan, who is now a leading Member of the Cabinet. Thirty-five years would thus make all the Company's Tenants Owners in Perpetuity, Free of Rent for Ever. This plan would be similar to the lending of money by the Board of Works, that is to say, thirty-five years to pay back both the principal and interest.
  For example, if the purchase money of a Tenant's farm would come to £300, and if the Treasury advanced that sum to pay the Company, the Tenant could repay the Treasury both principal and interest by paying an instalment of £15 each November for thirty-five years, and he would have his Rent to assist him in making up this sum. In nearly every case the present Rent would pay the yearly instalment.
  The matter is now taken up in Parliament by a Member from the South of Ireland, as the Members for Derry would not do it; but, on the contrary, they did all in their power in May, 1867, to oppose and defeat the Memorial of the Tenants of Magherafelt. The Estate of the Marquess of Waterford was originally the property of one of the London Companies, and is now about to be Sold in the Landed Estates Court. The Tenants on this Estate should Petition Parliament to advance the money to purchase up the Property,
  698
  and a Memorial addressed to Her Majesty's Lords of the Treasury on the subject, will receive great consideration.
  Mr. Maguire requires full information from all the districts of the County; and any information or correspondence addressed to Mr. Glover, Solicitor, Magherafelt, will be immediately attended to, and received with thanks. Every Tenant should now be at work, and give every information in his power.
  21st December, 1868.
  He (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) thought he had now shown how that Motion for a Royal Commission had assumed its present shape. His hon. Friend had described the first arrangement between the Crown and the Corporation with respect to the plantation of Ulster; but he had said nothing about the O'Neils, the Tyrones, and others, who, having been in rebellion, were driven into the woods and wilds; and the country being in a state of devastation and ruin, it became necessary that some parties should be found who would bring it into cultivation. It was true that the charter of the Corporation had been seized by the Star Chamber, and they were mulcted in £70,000; but they afterwards had the charter restored, and they paid £10,000 to free them from that charge of £70,000. He did not, wish, however, to go back so far into history, and he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman had done so; but it must be admitted that the Irish Society had succeeded, by means of the London companies advancing money, in bringing the northern part of Ireland into a state of cultivation and of prosperous industry. Great misapprehension prevailed in regard to the Irish Society. The Motion before the House was ambiguously drawn; it said the Irish Society were simply trustees, and had not fulfilled their trust; and throughout his speech his hon. Friend had carefully guarded himself from saying what the Irish Society's trust was, and for whom they acted as trustees. He entirely differed from his hon. Friend's opinion that the Irish Society had been of no benefit to the North of Ireland. With respect to the 1,500 acres of land called the Sheriff's Mountain, about 150 years ago the Bishop of Derry managed to get hold of those 1,500 acres, and he let them at a cheap rent to the Corporation of Derry. That land belonged to the Irish Society, who were kept in ignorance on the matter; but when the Corporation of Derry sought to obtain a renewal of their lease on the same terms the Bishop wanted

  699
  higher terms; whereupon the Corporation informed against the Bishop and laid the transaction before the Irish Society, who came again into possession of their lands and recompensed the Corporation of Derry. That was the history of the transaction. The Irish Society had at all times been placed in a most difficult position. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Hear, hear!] Its organization was exactly the same now as it was at first. The Governor must be an Alderman, and is elected annually by the Court of Common Council, in open court, while the Deputy Governor, who is not an Alderman, is elected for one year only by the Irish Society, and approved by the Common Council. So that the Governor can at any time be called to account if he have not acted impartially and in accordance with his duty. The original charter was granted by James I.; it was seized by the Star Chamber in the reign of Charles I., a fresh charter was granted by Charles II., and under the latter charter the society now acted. In 1613 the lands were divided into twelve portions, and the twelve London livery companies each drew by lot for a portion; but the Cities of Londonderry and Coleraine and the fisheries and the townlands were declared to be indivisible, and were not divided on that occasion. Several of the companies had sold their allotments—the Haberdashers' Company sold theirs to the Beresford family, the Goldsmiths' Company sold theirs to the Earl of Shelburne, and the Vintners' sold theirs to Mr. Conolly, but most of the City companies still retained the apportionments allotted them. The Irish Society devoted for some time nearly the whole of the proceeds of the rents of the towns and fisheries to improvements in Londonderry and Coleraine. At one time there was a division of what was called a surplus among the companies; but some thirty years back the Irish Society decided that they would carry out greater improvements at Londonderry and Coleraine and not divide for the present any further sum among the City companies. Then in the year 1838 a lawsuit occurred with the Skinners' Company; and by the judgment of the House of Lords on appeal it was distinctly stated that the Irish Society held a trust for public as well as for private purposes; that there was no power (except the Crown and the Corporation of the City of London) to call
  700
  them to account for carrying out their trust, and that they themselves were the judges of the mode in which they should carry it out; and that it rested upon their discretion how far they would expend the surplus rents on improvements in the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine. What had been the result? Why, that Londonderry from that time had increased enormously, and had been immensely improved. It was said it had not advanced at the same rate as Belfast. But the situation of the two cities was very different, the distance of Belfast from Liverpool being 158 miles, while that of Londonderry was 245 miles from that port. The Irish Society had greatly promoted the improvements which had been carried out in Londonderry. They had contributed £3,000 to the waterworks, so as to enable the Corporation of Derry to supply the inhabitants with water free from charge; they had granted a sum of £10,000 to the Bridge Commissioners, to be paid at the rate of £1,000 a year, for freeing the bridge from toll; and, when in 1864 the Corporation of Derry had obtained an Act of Parliament to make new streets and other improvements, the Irish Society not only gave the land required for the new street, but contributed £5,000 towards the improvements, and also £1,000 towards the new market. They had, in order to develop the trade of the port, aided the Port and Harbour Commissioners by grants amounting to £7,000 since 1857, towards the formation of the various quays, the graving dock, the tidal basin, the patent slip, and other improvements in the harbour. And they had subscribed £1,000 towards the Magee College, and endowed there a chair of Natural Philosophy, with £250 a year, besides giving £250 a year towards the general expenses. They had also recently founded a commercial school at Foyle College, with five exhibitions of £50 each to Trinity College, Dublin, and had contributed to a large number of schools and educational establishments. It was a principle of the Irish Society not to carry out any of the improvements themselves, but to advance money for the purpose, and to insist that the works should be constructed in the most thorough and effectual manner. It was true the Irish Society was a shifting body, as it always had been since its

  701
  creation; but after full consideration of the subject, having himself been a member more than once, he had come to the conclusion that it was for the interest of Ireland that the society should not be a permanent body. A small body constituted as the Irish Society was, if permanent, would be very open to jobbery. He had watched the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and he had never once hinted that during the long-continued control of the Irish Society its members had in any way jobbed either for their own benefit or for that of their families. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that the members of the society go over to Ireland, inspect the various improvements that are being carried on, receive deputations, and after the business had been completed, perhaps, make a short trip through the country. But he forgot to add that this was at their own expense. And it was for the interest of Ireland that a large number of persons connected with England should visit it, and anything that could induce a greater stream of English gentlemen, even if they were London tradesmen—though that was sometimes received with a sneer, but he would not further allude to the matter—could not but contribute to the advantage of both countries. It was true the trades had changed in Londonderry. There was once a very active trade there known as that of "sewed muslin," which had been superseded; but even his hon. Friend had alluded to the large factories occupying so prominent a position in Derry which employed several thousand hands in the manufacture of shirts. He had himself been delighted to visit one factory in which 400 sewing machines, all worked by steam power, were employed in a manner that reflected great credit on the enterprise and energy of those who conducted it. He felt confident that the Irish Society never wished to engross the credit of the great improvements that had been made in Londonderry, the population of which had increased from 14,000 in 1841 to 20,500 in 1861, and was now estimated at 24,000. Coleraine had been alluded to, and it had been asked why the improvement in its condition had not been as great as in Londonderry? But it should be borne in mind that the River Bann was very different from the Foyle, which was a magnificent river thirty-one feet deep at high water, and from twelve
  702
  to fourteen at low water, and that vessels of large size could come up to the quays. The Bann, on the other hand, had a bar at its mouth, which impeded the navigation, but great works were now being prosecuted for its removal, and the Irish Society had voted £10,000 for that purpose, to be given in sums of £'1,000 a year. The people, however, who were most interested in the works, and who had raised money by debentures for carrying them on, preferred that the society should pay down £3,000 at once, perhaps thinking that if the works were advancing successfully they could come to the society again. The Irish Society had expended£2,500 in erecting the town hall of Coleraine, and had recently built extensive schools and teachers' residences, at a cost of nearly £4,000, for the education of 400 children free of charge, and he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had had much pleasure in being present at the opening of these schools in the summer of 1868; the society had also contributed £1,000 and £200 a year to the Coleraine Academical Institution. There was one great advantage connected with those places, which his hon. Friend had thrown in parenthetically, but which he thought worthy of more prominent mention, and that was that peace and order were to be found there, security and quiet possession were enjoyed by the owners of property—advantages not to be found in every part of Ireland at the present moment. Well, that order and security had been in a great measure created by the connection between those two places and the City of London. It was often said that the Corporation of London reaped great advantages from these large estates and these towns. But the Corporation of the City of London proper had never advanced one shilling for the estates or for carrying the improvements into effect, nor had it ever received one shilling profit therefrom; it was the London companies who had been assessed by the City of London for these purposes; and the arrangement between the Crown and Corporation was to this effect, that while the companies should find the money the Corporation should regulate the government of the estates. It was in no niggardly spirit of making profit that the engagement was undertaken by the City of London. There was no question of gain with the Irish So-

  703
  ciety—they were merely trustees for carrying out a great trust not for their personal benefit, but to promote the prosperity of the North of Ireland. The Irish Society, therefore, could not be charged with interested motives—they worked in the most unselfish spirit. The hon. Gentleman had moved for a Royal Commission on the ground that there were complaints against the society; but he did not state that those complaints had come from any official body in Ireland. Complaints might be made against any body of men, no matter how faithful to their trust; and when it was said that if the management of the society was good they would have nothing to fear from a Royal Commission, that seemed to him verymuch like the consolation of a lawyer to a man put on his trial, that as he was innocent he need not be concerned about the result, for a trial would only clear up his innocence at once and for ever. But the Irish Society and those who made the complaints were not on a footing of equality, and he strongly objected to the granting of a Royal Commission of Inquiry in their case. His experience led him to believe that no specific charges could be brought, and that the whole of the opposition to the society consisted of indefinite grumbling. He should like, therefore, to hear from the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any complaints had reached him as to the mode and manner in which the Irish Society had exercised their trust. No such complaints he believed had ever been made, and if there had been any they had certainly not been transmitted by him to the Irish Society, who were the parties most directly interested in the matter. This being so, it was certainly placing the society in a false position for the hon. Member for Cork to come down to the House and make charges against it which had until that night not even been mentioned, and upon the faith of these charges to ask the House to grant a Royal Commission. The defenders of the society could not be expected adequately to reply to such accusations, made suddenly and without warning. Much had been said respecting the merits of perpetuity leases, and he was ready to meet the arguments based upon that system at once. He had no hesitation in declaring boldly that perpetuity leases, whether in Ireland or elsewhere,
  704
  were a curse, rather than a blessing. The only effect of such leases was to divorce the landlord from the land, to take away any interest he might have in the management and improvement of the estate, and to prevent him exercising that control over its cultivation which was most beneficial both for the landlord and tenant. In the town of Derry, for instance, the stranger would come upon dilapidated buildings, and if he asked for information upon the subject he would most likely be told that they were the result of the management of the Irish Society, whereas the real truth was that they were the result of perpetuity leases, over which the society had no control. In fact, the perpetuity leases might be picked out by the tumble-down houses and dilapidated homesteads which characterized that holding. There could be no greater mistake than to imagine that perpetuity leases contributed to the improvement of a holding. It was perfectly correct to say that the Irish Society would not grant perpetuity leases; but, at the same time, it was only right to mention that they had no stated rule for restricting the number of years of a lease. They had been in the habit of granting them for so long a period as eighty years, and were prepared still to grant them for long periods should a case be made out making it desirable to do so. It was the custom of those representing the society in Ireland to hear deputations courteously, but never to grant the requests made or carry out any resolution whatever before their recommendations had been reviewed by the chamber in England. This prevented their being overcome by the urbanity of their Irish suitors. He felt that this was no ordinary Motion. He felt that if the Government agreed to it at the present time its effect would be very much to prevent the progress of those improvements which were now being carried out so successfully under the auspices of the society. Confidence would be shaken in the society, and people would be apt to imagine that it would not long remain a permanent body. Moreover, the carrying of such a Motion just now would excite undue hopes, not only among the tenantry of the Irish Society but among the tenants of the livery companies and of the landed gentry having estates in the neighbourhood.

  705
  At present even the one idea of the tenants of the district was to become possessed of the land beyond the control of the landlord. He maintained that before the Irish Society was placed upon its trial, as was proposed by this Motion, it should be asked to give explanations respecting its management. The Irish Society was not afraid of inquiry; it was ready, as it always had been, to make a full disclosure of its affairs and defend its expenditure, which had occasionally been augmented by law charges incurred in defence of its rights. The explanation of those expenses was that for centuries the society had been obliged to defend its rights in courts of law—rights which had been assailed by persons who happened to have the money necessary for raising such actions. For instance, the income from the salmon fisheries of the Bann and the Foyle fell from £1,000 a year to about half that sum through the depredations of poachers, and the society had to prosecute. Now poachers in the case of Irish fisheries were not of the class of English poachers of game; they were men of wealth, and when prosecuted they contested the right of the society to the exclusive possession of the salmon. Sometimes the society hit a friend and sometimes a foe. Once they prosecuted an hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Hervey Bruce), who thought he had a right to plant a few stakes in the river. Expense, then, had been incurred in this way, but the revenue from the fisheries had risen to something like £4,000 a year. Another heavy expense arose in connection with the fort and lands of Culmore. It had been part of the original arrangement between the society and the Crown that the society should pay the Governor of Culmore £200 a year, besides allowing him to enjoy the lands in the vicinity of the fort, consisting of about 300 acres which were vested in the society, the Crown appointing the Governor. In 1690 the fort was in ruins, and when Colonel Michelmore asked the society to recommend him for the appointment, the society concluded that a ruined fort needed no governor, and petitioned the Crown accordingly. Still, down to very recent times, there had been a Governor of Culmore Fort appointed by the Crown who had received £200 a year from the society and enjoyed the 300 acres of land without even being required to know the
  706
  geographical position of Culmore. In 1856 the Earl of Strafford, the last holder of the sinecure, being old and infirm, he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) with other members of the society waited on Lord Palmerston then Prime Minister. Need he say the deputation was received most courteously. Lord Palmerston heard their case with great patience, and although he could not, of course, commit himself to the society's view of the matter, he promised to give special attention to the whole subject. His manner was so frank and courteous that the deputation feared the result; but in 1860, when the Earl of Strafford died, the Governorship of Culmore was put an end to, and the society was thus saved its £200 a year. But what of the lands? The Government drove a bargain with the Irish Society to pay £12,000 for them to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests and Land Revenues. In order to pay that sum the Irish Society had to borrow money, and now they were indebted to that amount. The inhabitants of Londonderry had an idea that those lands did not belong to the Crown; and his own view was they were really a portion of the tract of land originally allotted by the Crown to the Irish Society, and that these 300 acres which had never ceased to be vested in the Irish Society together with £200 a year of the society's money were apportioned to maintain the Governor of Culmore Fort for the security of the town the Crown having the power to appoint the Governor, but having no right to any part of the lands. The Irish Society were most glad to get rid of the Governor, not on account solely of the £200 a year paid to him, but because the whole place was going to wrack and ruin; and since then they had constructed new waterworks for the town of Culmore, had built large schools, had contributed to the building of a church, had embanked the river, and were building a pier for steamers. The whole place wore a different aspect since the Governor had been removed, and the Irish Society had been able to carry out their plans, which they had been waiting to do for 150 years, and never had the opportunity until Lord Palmerston refused to renew the appointment of Governor of Culmore Fort. The Irish Society had always used their utmost endeavours to promote the prosperity of

  707
  Londonderry and Coleraine. At the present time steamers leave the Foyle once a week for Canada and once a week for New York, and twice a week for Liverpool, for Glasgow, for Morecambe, and for Belfast, returning an equal number of times from these places, and the whole of Londonderry was bustling with trade. There was the greatest difference between the aspect of the place now and that which it presented thirty years ago. This, therefore, was not the time to issue a Commission of Inquiry upon the random Motion of a Member from the South of Ireland. As to the sneer that the society was composed of traders, and that the people of Derry and Coleraine could do much better without the society's control, let it be remembered that the society spent six-sevenths of its income in Ireland, and by so doing had aroused the jealousy of the neighbouring landowners, because the Irish Society had acted as a spur upon them, and caused them to make improvements, which they would not otherwise have done. These gentlemen very naturally said—"It is all very well for you (the Irish Society) to spend all your money upon improving your estates; but we, who are simply landed proprietors, have to support ourselves and our wives and families out of the produce of our lands, and we cannot therefore afford to lay out so much capital upon our estates as you can upon yours." The Irish Society hit hard in many ways, and did not expect to receive honour in all directions; but they were satisfied with the result of their labours. Any one who compared Londonderry and Coleraine with what they were twelve years ago would be surprised by their rapid progress; and that was to be attributed to the enterprize and activity of the merchants of Derry and Coleraine, aided, in every way, by the Irish Society. These men were the descendants of those who, at great cost, had preserved order and peace in the district; and if similar peace and order could be introduced into the South of Ireland that would be better than attempting to teach the people of the North of Ireland what they could obtain from the Corporation of the City of London. The hon. Gentleman who had brought the matter forward might have found a much better field for his exertions in the work of preventing scenes of riot, disorder, and rowdyism
  708
  which occasionally occurred in a district with which the hon. Member was well acquainted. He called upon the Government not to be led away into attempting to deal impartially between two parties, one complaining and the other refusing, as if there was any equality between the Irish Society and the gentlemen from the South of Ireland.
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSE, as Member for the City of Londonderry, was most intimately connected with this subject, and he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion so temperately brought forward by the hon. Member for Cork. He believed that the time for inaction had passed, and that the time for action or at least inquiry had come. It was necessary to notice one or two points connected with the history of the Irish Society. When King James made up his mind to ask the City of London to help him in colonizing a considerable portion of Ulster, the City wisely inquired what facilities there were for colonization, and whether it would be wise and prudent to accede to the request? The result was a meeting between the Lords of the Privy Council and a number of the Common Council, and an agreement was drawn up by which the City undertook to encourage the plantation of a considerable portion of Ulster. Ultimately a charter was granted by the King, which was subsequently recalled by another King, which charter was again re-granted by the Protector, and ultimately Charles II. granted the charter of the 11th of January, in the eighteenth year of his reign, which was the present title-deed of the Irish Society. According to that charter, the society was formed for furthering the plantation which King James projected in Ulster, and for the better ordering, directing, and governing all manner of things for and concerning the said City and citizens of Londonderry, and the county of Londonderry, and the plantation to be made within the same, and the other businesses belonging to the same. He would say that, as a matter of law, the charter in itself imposed a trust upon the Corporation of London. This view was fully borne out by the decision given by the late Lord Lynd-hurst, in a suit brought at the instance of the Skinners' Company against the Irish Society for an account, on the

  709
  ground that the Irish Society was a trustee for the Skinners' Company among other London companies. The defence then urged was that the Irish Society were trustees not for the London companies, but for public objects; and on that plea the London companies were defeated, the decision receiving additional weight from the concurrence of Lord Campbell, Lord Langdale, and Lord Cottenham. The ultimate result of the decision was that the Irish Society were declared to be trustees for public objects, and that, after having satisfied these public objects within their discretion, the surplus ought to go to the London companies. But the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the affairs of the society, two of whom were Mr. Justice Patteson and Sir George Lewis, in their report said that if the Irish Society discharged their duties to the people with whom they were brought into privity and contact, it was utterly impossible that there should be any surplus at all. The objects for which they were trustees were so vast and various that they could never be satisfied by the funds at their disposal. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that no complaints had been made from Derry. This, however, he denied, for he himself was an incarnate complaint against the conduct of the society. He had been sent to Parliament for two purposes—amongst others to assist, first, in disendowing and disestablishing the Irish Church, and, secondly, to assist in disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Society; and though, as far as he was personally concerned, he would have been satisfied to postpone the lesser subject for a Session, no feeling of jealousy should induce him to withhold his support from the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork. Now, the very constitution of the society was radically bad and defective. The society consisted of a Governor, a Deputy Governor, and twenty-four assistants. Of these the governorship only was a life office, as was also that of secretary. Of the twenty-four assistants twelve retired every year, so that, as had been truly said, a man no sooner began to understand the business which came under his management than it was withdrawn from his control. But this shortness of office did not, as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to imagine,
  710
  put jobbery out of the power of the assistants; it only gave them less time in which to perpetrate it. If they held their offices for life, they might job more leisurely, instead of hurrying over it as they were now compelled to do. Indeed, it appeared to be nothing short of a race for the Irish Society stakes, to be run within two years from the day of appointment to office. The result of this short tenure of office was, also, that the Governor and the secretary were absolute monarchs of the society. The Governor for the time being had the business almost entirely in his own hands; and, indeed, in former days, whenever a vacancy occurred in Derry or Coleraine, a resolution was almost invariably passed, advising the Governor to contest the seat, and to this resolution was invariably added a very agreeable rider—that the contest should be carried on at some one else's expense. But the society had so mismanaged their affairs that no one now-a-days could possibly stand a worse chance. Another reason, too, operated upon the people of Derry. They believed that a fluctuating body like the Irish Society was also open to the objection that the new members were enabled to disregard the pledges made by their predecessors. A citizen of Derry coming to London would see strangers, instead of the old familiar faces. When the members of the Irish Society were told of what the inhabitants of Derry had been promised, they said—"You are under a mistake. It was Jones, not Smith, who made that promise, and we cannot be bound by it." Now, if the society were a permanent body, possessing a knowledge of the locality, and of the wants, feelings, and interests of the people, such an excuse would not be possible. Another reason why the people of Derry regarded the Irish Society as totally unfit to discharge its duties was the absence of any proper guarantee for the selection of the best men to serve upon it. He did not wish to say a word against the City of London—for one reason, because all its Members sat on that side of the House, and also for the good service it had always done to the cause of civil and religious liberty; but its Common Council was not exactly an assembly of Solons, though probably the duty of consuming any surplus was one which they were eminently qualified to discharge. No doubt there were in

  711
  the society men fit to manage the affairs of any corporation, and among them his hon. Friend (Mr. Reed); but it by no means followed that the first twenty-four men taken from the Common Council would be the best men to discharge these duties. A deputation frequently visited Derry. That was right and proper enough—first, that the deputation might improve the people of Derry, and next that they might improve themselves—and they were more likely to get improvement than to bring it. The deputation met men of all classes and opinions, because on this question the citizens, whether Liberal or Conservative, were as one; they promised to do all that was good in the future, but when they returned to London they forgot all their promises. The Irish Society was an exception to the rule—
  "Cœlum, non animum, mutant qui trans mare currunt;"
  for when in Derry they were bursting with liberality, but in London they changed their minds, and the old Adam became too strong for them. In 1856 the Mayor, Aldermen, and burgesses of Derry presented a memorial to the society which stated the case in minimis. Notwithstanding, they said, the peculiar local advantages enjoyed by Derry, situated on the banks of a navigable river, and in the centre of rich and cultivated soil, inhabited by a peaceful and industrious peasantry, the City had not kept pace with others less favourably situated, and this was attributable not to the want of enterprize or the influence of race, but to the want of such a tenure of land as would encourage the investment of capital, particularly in manufacturing works. Through the liberality of Lord Donegal in granting perpetuity leases, Belfast had become very prosperous; Liverpool had grown rich under the same conditions, and the inhabitants of Derry asked for the same privileges. The result was that the Irish Society held a court in the Corporation Hall of Derry, at which nineteen members were present, Mr. Alderman Humphrey being Governor, and they undertook that renewable leases should be given upon payment of additional rent, according to the value of the land. The inhabitants were delighted, but the next they heard was that, on the return of the deputation to London, it had been found that the court was not properly constituted, and
  712
  thus the promise was not carried out. The people of Derry also complained that they had no control over the governing body, had no voice in their election, and also that the Corporation of Derry could not make the commonest by-law without the authority of the Irish Society. This was a real Irish grievance; and if the people of Derry were more clamorous than they were, instead of being peaceable and orderly, probably their complaints would have been listened to long ago. He admitted that the administration of the society had improved, and the length of the leases had been extended from sixty to eighty years; but while in London a man would be justified in building on land with a sixty or eighty years' lease, no man in Derry would do so if he could help it. The worthy Alderman who had spoken said that the Irish Society was a spur to other Irish landlords. The fact was that it was a beacon and warning to them; it was more niggardly than other landlords; and it was sufficient to tell a landlord—"The Irish Society won't do such and such a thing," for then he did it directly. The great ground of complaint was connected with the case of the leases. He did not refer to agricultural leases, but leases for the purpose of building mills, factories, mansions, and houses, and for making docks and those other improvements which a commercial town stood in need of. He did not attribute the prosperity of Belfast entirely to the perpetuity leases of Lord Donegal, because Belfast had great natural advantages, calculated to make it flourishing; but Derry might be made, as far as its geographical situation would allow, a rival for Belfast, if a system of proper leases were established. Another ground of complaint arose out of the mode in which the funds of the Irish Society were distributed. A friend of his had informed him that a great deal of dissatisfaction prevailed among the Roman Catholics of Derry in consequence of the society refusing to contribute any money for the new Catholic cathedral there. The society gave, it is true, £10 to the national school, but they alleged that by their charter they were debarred from giving money for religious purposes, unless they were Protestant purposes. Considering that the Catholics formed the great majority of the Irish people, he thought that the sooner a charter

  713
  which imposed such a restriction was abolished the better. The Presbyterians and Nonconformists equally complained that to them the Irish Society dealt out their funds with a niggard hand, though they were lavish in the extreme to their Episcopalian brethren. At the same time the religion and the education of the majority of the people were excluded from the purview of the society's charter. He had a right to ask the House to consider this question, and the Government—which had just introduced a great measure, calculated, he believed, to advance the happiness and prosperity of Ireland—ought to use the same unsparing hand in dealing with this matter, and should cut down that upas tree, under the shade of which the people of Derry had been languishing for so many years. He had no hesitation in supporting the Motion; and, believing that many abuses existed, and that the Irish Society had mismanaged the funds at their disposal, he hoped that the Government would give a distinct pledge that some redress would be afforded in a matter which, in the opinion of persons of all creeds and political opinions in Derry, required prompt investigation.
  MR. PEEL DAWSONsaid, that as he represented the district in which Londonderry and Coleraine are located, he could not refrain from giving expression to the views which actuated many of his constituents. In most of the arguments which had been used in support of this Motion he entirely concurred. He was quite ready to acknowledge the anomalous and unsatisfactory relations which for a considerable time had existed between the Irish Society and their tenantry in Londonderry county; and, in his opinion, something more stringent than a gentle remedy was required, for the local dissatisfaction was not only not on the wane but increasing. The general objects of the society's charter had long ago been carried out, and the question now was whether the funds should still be limited to the sustenance and extension of the same system. The property of the Irish Society had very considerably increased. The accounts, it was only fair to acknowledge, were yearly published and duly audited, and in February last they showed only a comparatively small sum remaining to the credit of the society, after all the charges and charities had been met. But there
  714
  was a very large expenditure in management, which either appeared unnecessary or required explanation. This had been inquired into by the Commission of 1854, and their explanations were explicit and peremptory. He could not conscientiously depart from the recommendations of the Commission for the following reasons:—There had not been sufficient encouragement under the head of building leases; there was great and confessedly just dissatisfaction with the constitution of the society itself; there was nothing about it of a permanent character except the Governor, who held office for life, and the clerk during pleasure. Even the Deputy Governor only held office for two years; and just as the knowledge he had acquired was becoming useful his connection with the society terminated, and the management of the trust was confided to other hands. The deliberate refusal of the Corporation of the City of London to re-construct the society some years ago on a more permanent basis had caused great dissatisfaction. The inattention paid in London to deputations from Ireland was also a source of local irritation. He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying that there was, on the part of his constituents, a strong desire that a great and stringent change should be made, by so constituting the trust under which this property was administered that at least the people of Londonderry and Coleraine should no longer have cause to complain. There was one recommendation of the Commission from which he must entirely dissent—the transfer of the management of these funds to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the time being. He was not now speaking of the eminent individual who fills the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. If he were he would speak very differently. But he was speaking of the office which must necessarily be held by a political partizan, and a member of whatever Government holds the reins of power. The very suspicion of abuse should be avoided; and as often the best intentions were open to misinterpretation, he could not willingly consent to the accumulation of so much patronage in the hands of a Government official whose duties were so liable to change as to render him in a certain degree irresponsible. He would rather see the Irish Society re-constructed on a more liberal basis. If that did not

  715
  meet the views of the majority, he would recommend that the funds should be placed under the care and surveillance of the local authorities, the Corporation of Londonderry, and the Town Commissioners of Coleraine, who were elected by the suffrages of the inhabitants. The hon. Member had not included in the terms of his Motion the condemnation originally threatened of those other guilds and companies of the City of London which possessed large property in the county of Londonderry. If these companies had been included in the indictment, he should have considered it his duty to take a larger and more active part in the debate; but as both the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine were ably represented in that House he should leave the debate in its further progress to them. Doubtless, it would be more to the advantage of the district if the estates were held by private individuals; but still he was bound to acknowledge that the administration of the property had almost uniformly been conducted in a spirit of liberality and of proper consideration for the welfare and interests of the tenants. He would only say, in conclusion, that if there was a fairer and juster dispensation of the funds of the Irish Society for local purposes, he felt confident, from the unexampled progress made by Londonderry within the last fifteen years, that that City would attain to a pre-eminence in commerce second only to that of Dublin and Belfast, and worthy its historical name. If the hon. Member should divide the House on his Motion, he (Mr. Peel Dawson) should have great pleasure in going into the Lobby with him.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the chief complaint of the Mover of the Motion was a want of consultation on the part of the Irish Society with the City of Derry, and those interested in its prosperity. This was an old universal complaint, which Ireland had a right to make in many respects, and particularly against the Treasury. In reference to lunatic asylums, valuation, river improvement, and other matters, the parties by whom the expense was to be borne were not consulted and knew nothing about the course to be pursued. The first intimation they generally received was an imperative order to raise a large sum of money for a particular purpose, advanced without their sanction
  716
  by the Treasury, and thus £3,000,000 have been imposed on Ireland for local taxation during the last thirty years. It was not necessary to go so far back as some of the speakers had done. The county of Londonderry, and the district adjoining it, had been left after the rebellion of the three Hughs—Hugh O'Neil, Hugh O'Donnell, and Hugh O'Doherty—a depopulated waste—not a house of any importance remained—there had been no cultivation of the soil for years, and had the City of London not come forward to colonize it, the country must have remained in this state of barbarism and desolation. The Irish Society found settlers and capital and converted the country into a state superior to any other part of Ireland. He had been an intimate friend of the late Alderman Humphrey, who had been Member for Southwark for many years, and was highly esteemed by all who knew him. The Alderman had given up a great deal of his time to carry out, in the most favourable manner to Ireland, the objects for which this society was originally established, and had prepared a plan for disposing of the estates in the North which had been so highly improved; and after the famine had proposed to expend the produce in purchasing property in the West and there to carry out similar improvements. The Alderman had always received with good humour the grasping complaints of the City of Londonderry, and was much too sensible a man to attend to their preposterous demands. It had been stated in the debate that the Alderman had promised certain things which he had not performed. That assertion was perfectly unfounded. Although the meeting at Londonderry might not have been legal, Alderman Humphrey carried out every promise made at it—the extension of building leases, and new grants for the improvement of the City. The question, however, was what was the state of things now, and whether the society was discharging the duty with which it was intrusted; and he contended that Ireland ought to be grateful to the society, and particularly the county of Londonderry, and that the county and the country would have reason to deplore any legislative act which should terminate the existence of the society. The aspect of Londonderry was being changed by the construction of docks and quays and other improvements, all owing to

  717
  the liberal assistance of the Irish Society, whose estates brought in probably £12,000 a year, of which only about £600 was absorbed by the expense of the office in London and the journeys that it was thought necessary to make to Ireland. Of course, no ordinary landlord could afford to spend the difference between £12,000 and £600 in the improvement of the estate; and, remembering that the society did so, it was necessary to consider what would be the effect of carrying this Motion and of any action that might ensue from it. The object of the society was to increase as much as possible the resources of Ireland, and to improve the town under their management; and there was no difficulty in getting leases of sufficient length to encourage the erection of buildings necessary to the development of trade. He had no reason to believe that the policy of the society had been in any way changed under the successor of Mr. Alderman Humphrey (Sir William Rose). Almost every charge on the estate was borne by the society; it contributed to the support of all churches and schools, without favour or partiality; at least, he was not aware there was any limit to the amount that could be given to the Catholic churches. Complaints ought to be made in other quarters rather than against the Irish Society. His attention had been directed to an estate in the North of Ireland, the proprietor of which had drawn from it £1,260,000, and had never expended a penny in the neighbourhood. That would be a fair object of attack for the hon. Member for Cork, instead of singling out, as he had done, a body which he was hourly serving the country of which he was one of the representatives. He could not gather from the speeches made what was the object of the Motion, or what it was intended to do with the trust fund; and he could not see why an hon. Member (Mr. Dowse) should have sneered at Mr. Cox, than whom there never was a more attentive and honest Member. Admitting his own perplexity as to what should be done, and his readiness to acquiesce in any inquiry which the Government might think it well to institute of their own accord, he thought it would not be fair to the society to press this Motion, and he therefore advised its withdrawal.
  MR. RUTSSELL GURNEY, as being, by virtue of his office, a member of the
  718
  Irish Society, was in a position to lay some information before the House with reference to the manner in which that body discharged its various duties. The hon. Member who brought forward this matter had described the Irish Society as being merely trustees for public objects; but, in addition to discharging the duties of trustees for public objects, they had to deal with the surplus funds which remained over when the public j trusts had been satisfied, as the trustees j of the twelve companies whom they re-j presented. Their position as the representatives of the twelve companies had J been fully recognized by the learned Judge in delivering judgment in the suit which had been already referred to. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Dowse) had endeavoured to meet that point by referring to a Report of a Commission which sat upwards of fifteen years ago, in which it was stated that, if the public duties of the society were properly discharged, it was impossible that any surplus could remain to be applied to the use of the companies. But since the period when that Report was drawn up the circumstances of the society had greatly altered. They had then an income of only £7,000 per annum, and no doubt that sum might well have been expended in properly discharging their duties as public trustees; but their income had of recent years largely increased, and in a few years hence a very considerable surplus might be expected to remain after all the public trusts had been amply provided for. That surplus would not belong to either the public or the Corporations of Londonderry or of Coleraine, but to the twelve companies for whom the Irish Society were trustees. Having explained this part of the subject to the House, he should wish to advert to one or two other points which had been touched upon by hon. Members in the course of the debate. The real question before them was—Had the society fairly and honestly discharged the trust reposed in them by the terms of the original charter? He had been surprised to find the chief ground upon which they had been attacked was that they had confined themselves strictly within the four corners of the trust originally imposed upon them; and it certainly did not appear to him that they had deserved blame for having faithfully and honestly

  719
  conformed to the terms of the charter under which their property was vested in them. Even according to the statements of hon. Members opposite, it was evident that it was more than a century since the society had started on a new course, and from that period the prosperity of Londonderry had dated. It was a comfort to hear that the state of Londonderry was not so miserable as had been alleged by the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, who affirmed that its deplorable condition was the result of the conduct of the Irish Society. In a recent speech the Mayor of Londonderry congratulated the Corporation upon the vast improvements that had been made in the condition of the City, and referred to the fact that large sums had been expended on building warehouses and manufactories, in building new streets, in making new quays—alarge proportion of the expenses of forming these latter having been contributed by the Irish Society—and in constructing new railways, which were brought into direct communication with the shipping. But while congratulating the City upon its commercial prosperity the Mayor did not forget to refer to the increased means which were afforded to its inhabitants for attaining literary and scientific information. It had been stated by some hon. Members that grants without measure had been made by the society to the Episcopalians, and. to the Episcopalians alone; but he would take the liberty of reminding them that no institution in Londonderry had received larger grants from the society than the Magee Presbyterian College. He had been looking over the accounts of the society for the last few years, and he found that during the past year the society had expended in Londonderry a sum of £2,369 upon schools; £1,300 upon charitable institutions and upon agricultural and farmers' societies; £9,657 for public improvements; and had contributed £1,200 towards the annual expenses of the Londonderry Corporation. While admitting that the time had arrived when it should no longer be permitted that the by-laws of the Londonderry Corporation could not take effect until they had been approved by the Irish Society, he thought that some slight control over the Corporation affairs should be permitted to the society in return for the sum they contributed to
  720
  the annual expenses of the Corporation. Such control could scarcely be objected to when it was recollected that, on one occasion, owing to the misconduct of the Corporation, their mace had been taken in execution, and had been redeemed at the expense of the society. Still, as a "sentimental grievance" was, by the custom of these days, regarded as more serious than any other, he should, as a member of the society, be perfectly willing to surrender the authority which it now exercised over the Corporation. He must say that he looked in vain for any fair grounds for removing the society from its office of trustee. Recollect that if it were so removed, other trustees would have to be appointed, for the ultimate owners of these funds were certain private guilds. If it could be shown that the Irish Society had not fulfilled its trusts it ought to be deprived of them; but he contended that a good case ought to be made out before that step was taken. Three years ago, when Mr. Kennedy moved for Returns in relation to the trust funds and the management of the society's estates, strong allegations were made against the society; but he had been rather amused to-night at finding that no quotation had been made from those Returns, and that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) and those who supported him had been obliged to go back to remote times. They could not rely on the present time to make out their case. The hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Serjeant Dowse) attributed certain changes in the length of leases to the debate on Mr. Kennedy's Motion. It would have been very strange if there was any connection between that Motion and the change, seeing that the latter had occurred four years before the Motion was made. He believed he was justified in saying that those who managed the Irish Society did not shrink from inquiry; they did not oppose it; but they did most strenuously oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork, and the terms in which it was made, because both contained a foregone conclusion which there were no grounds before the House to justify.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he had listened with much interest to this debate, and in the few remarks he had to make on the subject before the

  721
  House he would endeavour to be impartial, in spite of the warning of his hon. Friend, who represented the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence). In the first place, he thought all parties were agreed that the Government and the House had a perfect right to direct an inquiry in this case, if the circumstances were such as to require it. He would not enter into the legal questions adverted to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney), but would at once take it for granted that the Irish Society was a public company, fulfilling a public trust, which the Commission that sat fifteen years ago, described as a public charity; and therefore he held that Parliament was entitled to have a new inquiry into the constitution, management, and proceedings of the society. Consequently, the question reduced itself to this—whether there was a real and evident necessity for the institution of such an inquiry, which was for a renewed inquiry in addition to the one already made by the able Commissioners of 1854? After looking at the whole subject, and listening very carefully to the debate, it seemed to him to be quite clear that there were anomalies and defects, partly, perhaps, in the management, but certainly in the constitution of the Irish Society. As to the question of leases, which was one of management rather than of constitution, it was not for him to pronounce any opinion as to the view taken by the Irish Society; but there could be no doubt that the system pursued in the matter of leases was far from giving satisfaction to the citizens of Derry, many of the most enterprizing of whom were of opinion that it was detrimental to the progress of that City. With respect to the defects in the constitution of the society, there were clearly some points that both sides of the House considered to call for a remedy. Both sides condemned the two years' tenure of office. He had gone carefully through the evidence taken by the Commissioners, in 1854, and he found that Sir Robert Fergusson and other gentlemen spoke strongly as to the defects in the constitution of the society. So, again, in regard to the control exercised by the Corporation of London over that of Londonderry. The historical origin of that control was, indeed, sufficiently clear. But the learned Recorder had himself spoken of it as an antiquated provision which it
  722
  was impossible to justify, and it was a matter that evidently called for remedy. Again, that was an important point brought under the notice of the House by the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Serjeant Dowse)—namely, that the Irish Society was restricted from applying any part of its revenues to any object pertaining to the Roman Catholic population. That was a state of things which both sides admitted to be indefensible, though the historical origin of those restrictions was, as in the other case, well known; and he was far from censuring the Irish Society for acting, as they believed, within the four corners of their charter. He thought the House ought also to recognize the fact that the noble Lord who formerly represented Derry (Lord Claud John Hamilton), and his hon. and learned Friend by whom he was happy to say that City was now represented, took similar views in respect of certain of the anomalies and defects in the present system. His hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) in his able speech had pointed out that the Commission of 1854 found great faults with the past management of the society, and went so far as to recommend the winding-up of the society and the substitution for it of another body; but the Commissioners suggested a mode of constituting such body, which he believed had not been generally considered satisfactory. The House could not, therefore, conceal from themselves the difficulties that would be felt in substituting an entirely new constitution for that of the Irish Society. The very fact that an inquiry had fourteen years ago been instituted into the way in which the Irish Society discharged the duties of its position was in itself an argument rather against than in favour of further inquiry; and he would, without entering at greater length into the subject, state the views with respect to it which the Government entertained. They were of opinion that there were in connection with the society matters of serious importance which could not be allowed to continue much longer on their present footing, and that it would be their duty to look more closely than they had yet been able to do into the question. The Government, moreover, thought that it would be for them to consider before any legislation should arise on the subject of the Irish

  723
  Society, by way of improving its constitution or otherwise, whether any further formal investigation, in addition to the inquiry of 1854, was necessary for that purpose. There was no occasion for proceeding with undue haste in the matter, and it would be the duty of the Government to satisfy themselves, as to whether the various points in connection with the society to which attention would have to be particularly directed were already ripe for amendment, or whether an impartial inquiry by a Royal Commission would be, before proceeding to deal with them, desirable. The appointment of such a Commission, should it be deemed essential to issue it, the Government ought, he thought, to keep in their own hands, and he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork would be satisfied with the statement of their views on the question which he had made, and not press his Motion to a division.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that not being a member of the Corporation of the City of London, he had not that knowledge of the subject which was possessed by his hon. Colleague. He had, however, listened very attentively to the present discussion, and he concurred, he must confess, in the opinion of his right hon. Friend who had just spoken, that the affairs of the Irish Society were in a state which justified a demand for some inquiry. He at the same time strongly objected to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork, and especially to the foregone conclusion which it involved, and to many of the remarks that had been made in the course of the debate. He understood that if the Government ultimately deemed it necessary to institute an inquiry it would not be a hostile one, but a fair, disinterested, and judicial investigation. Many of the statements of the hon. Members for Cork and Londonderry (Mr. Maguire and Mr. Serjeant Dowse) were high-flown exaggerations that would not bear the test of examination—such, for instance, as that in which the hon. Member for Cork talked about the enormous expense of managing the estates in Ireland—a sum amounting to six figures; but that, in fact, was the accumulated sum of many years, and they all knew that quite small amounts thus accumulated swelled into a considerable total. Let the hon. Member for Cork add up the amount of his weekly washing bill for years together, and he would
  724
  be astonished at the result. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not go to a division, but would accept the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who promised, if necessary, to institute a fair discriminating judicial inquiry into the whole question.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE, in reply to the taunt of the worthy Alderman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) that he had endeavoured to take from the Irish Society a fishery which belonged to them, and had failed in the attempt, wished to say that he entirely denied the accuracy of the statement. He had never sought to take any fishery from the Irish Society and failed to do so. There was, indeed, a fishery which he said was his, and which the society contended belonged to them. His reply to them was that he was ready to contest the point in a court of law; and the result was that after the use of some such grand language as that in which the hon. Member had indulged that evening they retired from the controversy and left him in possession of the fishery. There were also other fisheries in question, with respect to which he was not quite sure that he would not go into a court of law with them, especially as they seemed, after the discussion of that evening, to be getting into a more shaky position. But the worthy Alderman went on to say that the landlords in the vicinity of the society's property looked upon them with jealousy because of the way in which they treated their tenants. If, however, the members of the society resided on their estates, instead of only visiting them for a day or two in the year and dispensing their hospitalities at Government House, they would see that the neighbouring landlords had no occasion to be jealous of them. He was aware that their charities were on a scale beyond that of which the resources of any private individual would admit; but the Irish tenants knew how to value their princely munificence for public ostentation as compared with the daily kindnesses received at the hands of the resident proprietors, and he for one should not be afraid of entering into competition with the society for a tenant. In former times the society had miserably failed in their duties as landlords in the towns. He was quite aware, however, that they had become more liberal as time went on, and he hoped if they re-

  725
  mained in possession of their property they would continue to improve. He had, he might add, listened with great attention to the able and temperate speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, and agreed with much that had fallen from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he trusted that after that expression of opinion on the part of the Government the hon. Member for Cork would not press his Motion. If he were to do so many hon. Gentlemen who on another occasion would vote for it might decline to do so, in the present instance, because of the attack which was now being made on property in another direction, and under entirely different circumstances.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he thought the question was one into which politics did not enter. All persons who knew Ireland and the Irish Society, however convinced they might be, as he was himself, of the purity and honour of the gentlemen who composed the society, must come to the conclusion that, as at present constituted, it could not have a practically useful existence. The hon. Member for Cork had moved for a Royal Commission; but it should be remembered that such a Commission was actually appointed in 1854 to inquire into the matter. That Commission recommended that the days of the society should be numbered; but it had further recommended that the trust should be referred to the Lord Chancellor, who was, in fact, about the worst possible person to whom such a matter could be left. He was glad that the Government intended to take the course which the Secretary for Ireland had indicated. The Irish Society seemed to be nobody's child. The estates were said to be of no pecuniary interest to the London Corporation; and certainly in the county of Londonderry the desire to get rid of the society altogether was unanimous. He deprecated the harsh language which, in the course of the debate, had been applied to the society, because he believed that, whatever might be said of the gentlemen who composed it, they were actuated by a desire to discharge their duties so as to benefit the property under their control. He trusted that the hon. Member would now withdraw his Motion. There was one point to which he would like to direct attention, and that was the use to be made hereafter of
  726
  the funds of the society. It should be remembered that the Irish Society was not constituted only for Derry and Coleraine, but for the whole of the county of Londonderry.
  MR. DEASEsaid, he had great difficulty in making up his mind on this subject, and he certainly had not heard in the course of the debate any arguments which appeared to him to be conclusive against the Irish Society, while it was conceded on both sides of the House that the society was an extremely good landlord, and expended large sums for the purpose of promoting the peace and prosperity of the territory under its dominion. Under those circumstances he could not vote for the Motion, if it were pressed to a division, more especially as they had held the scales impartially between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians. If that body was to be now superseded, he should want some guarantee that the same impartiality would be observed by the body that was to succeed them. He hoped the hon. Member for Cork would accept the advice of the Secretary for Ireland and withdraw it.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Cork had brought forward this Motion in the most straightforward way, and he entirely concurred in what his hon. Friend had stated. Indeed, he should wish to vote for the Motion, but for one difficulty. His hon. Friend had put three or four Motions in connection with the London companies on the Paper, which amounted to attacks upon the rights of landlords and proprietors in Ireland. If, however, the present Motion were not intended in that light, and if his hon. Friend could explain away his previous Motions, he should have great pleasure in voting with him.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would only occupy a very few moments, as he would only notice one or two points. He should reply to the learned Recorder by quoting against him another Recorder. Doctors differed, so did lawyers. Mr. Stuart Wortley, late Recorder, was asked whether his view of the double decision was that the companies had no beneficial interest whatever in the funds of the society, and he answered that undoubtedly that was his interpretation of its meaning. In reply to the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) who

  727
  accused him of adding many years together, he would only say that in ten years the society had spent over £20,000 in law, that they had received nearly £5,000 in fees to their own members; and that their excursions cost about £5,000 more. In reply to the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) he would say that he knew nothing of the letter or advertisement in the Derry papers, and only saw it like other persons. It was said that the society granted £2,000 to the waterworks of Derry; but what was the fact?—that for the water that passed through a portion of their ground, though it was taken from the Bishop's land, they demanded £5,000; which sum was cut down to £1,000 by arbitration. He might have mentioned this, and a number of facts, had he cared to enter into details; but he could not trespass too long on the indulgence which had been so kindly granted to him. He could, for instance, have shown how these model trustees dealt with the cemetery and other improvements originated by the Corporation. But he had stated quite enough to prove his case. Of one thing he was certain—namely, that the discussion had done good. The opinions urged by him and his hon. and learned Friend had been fully endorsed from the other side of the House. But the worthy Alderman had ventured to assert that he (Mr. Maguire) being a Member from the South, he had no right to deal with a Northern question, though it affected the interests of his own countrymen. That was a strange doctrine to lay down in that House. Surely he had a far greater right to deal with the interests of his countrymen—though he resided 300 miles from them—than a few Englishmen residing at a distance of some 600 miles from them had to control a fine City and dictate to a large and intelligent, and a highly spirited community. After the statement and promise of the Government, made by his right hon. Friend the Irish Secretary, it would be most unwise on his part if he pushed the matter further at present; and he therefore willingly left all further responsibility in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and would therefore withdraw his Resolution.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LIEUTENANT (CUMBERLAND AND WESTMORELAND).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. C. HOWARD, in rising to move the Resolution on this subject which stood on the Notice Paper in his name, said, he wished at the outset to disclaim any motives of a personal nature in introducing that question, and also to express to the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. H. Lowther), or any member of his family who might be present, his regret that there should be in the Petition which he had presented to the House any expression at all of a disparaging character toward him. For his own part, he felt bound in bringing forward a Motion offensive to the hon. Gentleman and his family to declare that he thought the hon. Gentleman was a man not only of great honour, but perfectly qualified, as far as he was personally concerned, to fill the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county. The hon. Gentleman filled the office of Lord Lieutenant and also of Custos Rotulorum. Now, those offices were instituted at much the same time; but he confessed it did not appear to him why they should necessarily be connected. As Custos Rotulorum he had the appointment of all the magistrates; as Lord Lieutenant he occupied a prominent place in the military management of local affairs. Now, he had no doubt that in former times, after the Civil Wars, it was a great object with the Sovereigns of this country, whether of the Stuart or of the Hanoverian dynasty, to secure for their interest men of large possessions, who might be useful to them in their maintaining their hold on the country; and he had no doubt that King William III. was very glad when he was able to retain in his service a statesman so eminent and a proprietor so large as the first Lord Lowther. But it appeared to him that the time had gone on by when those offices were of importance. They might have been important in former days in restraining the violence of the clergy and of the Jacobite gentry; but now it seemed it to him that any magistrate, duly qualified to act, would be able to act as Custos Rotulorum, and to recommend fit magistrates for the bench; and he thought it would be a great gain if the administration of military affairs were taken from the Lord Lieutenant

  729
  and given to some officer who would be able in a more efficient manner to administer the affairs of their local array. But whatever might be thought of that matter—and he threw it out as a suggestion to the Government—he thought there could be no doubt it was not desirable that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be hereditary. The Petition he had the honour to present on that subject complained that the office of Lord Lieutenant had been for 100 years vested in the Lowther family. The petitioners there very much under-stated the case. He believed that since the time of the Revolution the proprietors of Lowther had invariably succeeded to that high office, and for the last 130 years, since the year 1738, when Henry Lord Lowther was Lord Lieutenant, the Lords Lonsdale had succeeded to the office without intermission. That, he held, was a course which was not consistent with the due exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown, and with the giving of favours from that quarter. He thought it would be much better that the tenure of that office should not be regarded as a family succession. But not only had the Lords Lonsdale, one after the other, succeeded to the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Cumberland, but they had also succeeded to the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Westmoreland. Now, he believed that in no two other counties in England was that office held by the same person; and he found that in 1837, when the counties of Northampton and Rutland were held by Lord Exeter, on Lord Exeter's death Lord Derby thought proper to separate the Lord Lieutenancies of those two counties, and to give one to Lord Gainsborough and the other to Lord Southampton. Well, Rutland was a very small county, smaller than that of Westmoreland, and it might very naturally have been thought that the office of Lord Lieutenant might properly be held in connection with the county of Northampton. But it did not so appear to Lord Derby. As he had intimated, he thought there were objections to these offices being hereditary. He dared say he might be met by statements on the other side of the House that these appointments were not confined to the Lowther family. Well, that may be the case; and he believed that, although there might be exceptions, the rule was not to give the office
  730
  to the son after the death of his father. But if hon. Gentlemen opposite should show to him that there had been appointments of a similar nature made by a Liberal Government, he could only say that that would but confirm his case, and he should be very glad if those hon. Gentlemen would vote with him on that question, and thereby help to prevent the continuance of a practice which he regarded as very injurious to the public interest. He did not think, if it had happened that the Lord Lieutenant had died, or had been prevented by illness from attending to public affairs, that there would have existed the feeling now excited in the country by the appointment of his heir and nephew. If the Government, firm in Office, had, in either of those cases, appointed him to the Lord Lieutenancy, there might have been murmurs; but so strong was the feeling on both sides of that House that those offices had been so long—it might be improperly—regarded as a great reward of party efforts, that he doubted whether there would have been any strong opposition to the appointment. But let the House observe when that appointment was made. A Petition, presented by his hon. Friend and Colleague, stated that during the late election the present Lord Lieutenant had not been appointed to his office. But that election was not over until the end of November. On the 2nd of December the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) wrote a letter to his constituents to toll them that he had given up Office, and on the 10th of December he had ceased to hold Office. Well, the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Cumberland was gazetted, he thought, on the 2nd of December. Now he thought the House ought to examine very carefully the appointments of a retiring Government; and not only in the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland, but in many others, the late Government had been very lavish of their appointments. Lord Mayo had gone to India; and not only had he received that valuable heritage, but he had also received the favour of his Sovereign in the dignity conferred upon him of the Star of India. Ho would refer hon. Gentlemen for an illustration of the conduct of the Government to a very interesting Return which had been presented to the House on the Motion of an hon. Friend of his the Member for

  731
  Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). Hon. Gentlemen would see from that Return that there was a perfect shower of appointments about the 2nd of December. He hoped the House would carefully scrutinize these appointments. They would hardly approve a system of reaping the harvest before it was ripe, and. giving appointments before they were due. He regretted, as he had said in the beginning of his speech, that the Motion he should have to bring forward should be of an offensive character to a Gentleman whom he esteemed very much. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen might doubt the compatibility of those feelings; but he could assure them he was perfectly sincere. He regretted that in making the Motion he should have to propose a measure very offensive to the hon. Member for West Cumberland, but he saw no other way of preventing and remedying what he believed to be a great abuse.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly showing that the united Lord Lieutenancies of Cumberland and of Westmoreland have, for upwards of a century, been conferred upon some member of the family of Lowther; that in the year 1844 William Earl of Lonsdale was appointed Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the said two counties; that the said Earl of Lonsdale continued to fill these offices until the month of December 1868, when Tour Majesty was advised to revoke his appointment in favour of his nephew, Henry Lowther, esquire; that at the time when the said revocation took place Tour Majesty's Ministers had tendered their resignations, and only held their offices until the appointment of their successors; that this House observes with satisfaction that, as a general rule, Tour Most Gracious Majesty has refrained from appointing one and the same person to the Lord Lieutenancies of two separate counties, and humbly prays Tour Majesty to reconsider the exceptional course recommended by Tour Majesty's late advisers in the case of Cumberland and Westmoreland, and to revoke the appointment of Henry Lowther, esquire, in order that, should it seem good to Tour Majesty, Tour Majesty may appoint two fit and proper persons to be respectively Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of Cumberland and of Westmoreland."—(Mr. Charles Howard.)
  MR. DISRAELI: I regret very much that a Motion of this kind should have fallen to the lot of one who has sat among us so long, and for whom all of us—at least those who know him like myself—must entertain feelings of respect. I regret that he should have felt it his duty to make a Motion which I
  732
  think I may say—with his no inconsiderable experience of public life and of the details of public business—he should have well examined into before he committed himself to a proposition such as that now before the House. The hon. Gentleman commenced his observations by some general remarks which referred to the inconvenience—perhaps the incongruity—of mixing up together the duties of the Lord Lieutenant of a county with those of the Custos Rotulorum. I will not enter into the discussion of that question, because I apprehend that if there is anything in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman it is directed against the recommendation which I felt it my duty to make to Her Majesty with respect to the present Lord Lieutenant of the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland. It may be that the system of joining together the duties of Lords Lieutenant and of Custodes Rotulorum may be bad, and it may be necessary, like the affairs of the Irish Society, that Her Majesty's Government should institute a private inquiry on the subject; but I think the House will agree with me that it has nothing to do with the question before us. We have not now to inquire whether it is advisable or not that the same person should be a Lord Lieutenant and a Custos Rotulorum; but what we have to inquire into is, whether anything has occurred in public life which justifies the Address to the Crown which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman. Now, in the few remarks I shall make I will endeavour to treat the question fairly and candidly. I understand, taking together the Resolution and the Petition which has been presented to the House, either by the ton. Gentleman or one of his Colleagues, that, in the first place, a censure is passed upon the late Government for recommending, at the time when they tendered their resignation to Her Majesty the appointment of the present Lord Lieutenant of the two counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland to the post which he now holds. The House will see when I have placed before them the case which they have to consider that this point has really nothing to do with the merits of the individual instance before the House; but it has been put forward in so prominent a manner both in the Petition and in the Address which we have just heard, and it is one upon

  733
  which the hon. Gentleman has dwelt with so much emphasis that it would not be right for me to pass it over without remark. Now I entirely deny the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman that, because I had tendered my resignation to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty had provisionally accepted it, I had ceased to be the responsible Minister of the Crown. That, I believe, is a point upon which there is no controversy whatever. ["Oh!"] Surely no Gentleman acquainted with the principles of our Constitution will think of disputing that for a moment. It does not follow that, because a Minister tenders his resignation and the Sovereign accepts it, that the Minister will be changed. Under any circumstances a considerable time may elapse. There is an instance of a not very distant date when six weeks elapsed. During all that time the Minister whose resignation is contemplated is performing the highest duties of the State; he may be superintending negotiations upon which the peace of Europe may depend; may be providing for the successful conduct of public expeditions in which the honour of the country is involved; and when he is obliged to fulfil all these duties and discharge all these functions, could anything more absurd be maintained than that he should not feel himself authorized to recommend to Her Majesty those persons best qualified to represent the Sovereign? On this point there is no doubt whatever, and there has been no difficulty about it in practice. The hon. Gentleman has said that I might adduce instances of an accumulation of offices under Liberal Governments. It is unnecessary for me to touch upon that. Take the case—I do not quote it as a precedent—of the Government—I will not say of my predecessor—but the Government that preceded that Administration, the Government that ceased to exist in 1866, and of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was a Member. Why it so happened there was then an analogous case. I am touching upon this point because it is an important constitutional point, and on an occasion like the present the House should arrive at a clear conclusion about it. As I have said before, this has really nothing to do with the peculiar merits of the case before us to-night. But in 1866 there was an analogous case. Three days after Lord
  734
  Russell had informed Her Majesty of his wish to resign, and his resignation had been accepted—and be it rebered that was in consequence of a vote of the House of Commons—a Lord Lieutenancy became vacant. Three days after Lord Russell's provisional resignation had been accepted, he did not hesitate to recommend to fill that important post an individual perfectly qualified to fill it, and that appointment was never for a moment challenged or impugned by this House. Take the case of the immediate predecessor of Lord Russell—Lord Palmerston. When he resigned in 1858, in consequence of a vote of this House, and a vote which he himself described and considered as a Vote of Want of Confidence—direct want of confidence—I speak on authority which I believe cannot be mistaken—at that moment there were three of the highest honours of the Crown—three Garters—unappropriated; and yet, though Lord Palmerston had provisionally resigned the high post which he occupied, he allotted, and I believe, most constitutionally, those three great distinctions to three eminent Noblemen, his Friends and supporters. Therefore, Sir, in my opinion, as far as the constitutional principle is concerned there can be no doubt—and I never heard there was a doubt—that until your successor has kissed hands and accepted the responsibilities of Office, the retiring Minister must meet and incur the full responsibility of all public transactions. Well, I wish to treat the question candidly. If I were Minister of this country, and a vote of the House of Commons had, in my opinion, virtually terminated my administration, and if in the interval before my retirement, some eminent post, like that of Lord Lieutenant, were to become vacant, I confess, if I followed my own inclination, I should not advise her Majesty to fill it. But I do not suppose that my sense of honour is nicer than that of all other public men, and I can only say that I have had the opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of two most eminent statesmen of the present day, representing the two great parties in the State, and once occupying the highest Offices, and they told me not only that it was the right of the Minister to recommend to the Sovereign under such circumstances—of which there is, I believe, no doubt whatever—but that in their opinion it was his duty. I mention this

  735
  circumstance to enforce the principle, which I believe is a just one, but which really has nothing to do with the merits of the case before us; but which I think the House should well consider, especially as an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway seemed to regard with some degree of derision the principle that a Minister who had determined to retire from Office was still to be responsible for the conduct of public affairs. Unless a Minister who has provisionally resigned, and whose resignation has been provisionally accepted, continues to act until his successor has been appointed a period would occur at the change of every Ministry in which nobody would be responsible, no matter what catastrophe should happen.
  But the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion not only objects to the advice which was given to Her Majesty in this instance on the constitutional principle that a Minister who has tendered his resignation has no right to tender advice; but admitting, for argument sake, that the course we took was strictly constitutional, he says that the advice itself was erroneous and bad. In the first place, the hon. Member does not think the office of Lord Lieutenant should be hereditary. I never heard that it was hereditary. He also objects to the accumulation of honours, and duties of that character on any individual by two Lord Lieutenancies being combined in one person. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in both these principles. My opinion is, though I would not use the language of the proposed Address, and say that I do not approve of the office of Lord Lieutenant being hereditary, that the office ought to be as little as possible of an hereditary character; and I say it is desirable that the government of two counties should not be combined in one individual. But I also say—and in this I am sure both sides of the House will agree with me—that though it is desirable that the hereditary nature of the office of Lord Lieutenant should, if possible, not be encouraged, though it is desirable that the government of two counties should not be combined in one individual, yet there is another principle which ought to be present to the consideration of every Minister; and that is, that the persons to be appointed to office should be competent and capable persons,
  736
  and that the persons recommended to her Majesty should be deserving her Majesty's confidence. This, Sir, is a much superior question to any technical consideration, such as that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Now, what happened in this case? The hon. Gentleman appears, from the language of his Resolution and the Petition upon which it is based, to assume that Lord Lonsdale, having been suddenly and privately made acquainted with the intended resignation of the Ministers of the Crown, hurriedly resigned his office, in order that what followed his resignation might be accomplished. This happens to be a statement for which there is not the slightest foundation. The resignation of Lord Lonsdale might have happened six or nine months before it was actually accepted; but when I first acceded to the conduct of affairs I was unwilling to encourage the noble Lord in the determination of his mind upon that occasion; and not only was Lord Lonsdale totally unacquainted with the intended resignation of the Ministry, but from the peculiar circumstances of the case, which arose out of a nice and proper sense of honour, it was impossible that what the hon. Gentlemen believes to have occurred could actually have happened. I had ample time to consider what would be the effect of Lord Lonsdale's retirement, and I was not favourable to it, because I foresaw the great inconvenience and difficulties that might result from it. [Ironical Cheers.] I am sure the House will not place me in the invidious position of having to go through a catalogue raisonné of the gentlemen in the county of Cumberland who might possibly be fit for the office of Lord Lieutenant; but I may say that their claims were thoroughly examined into, not in the light of party interests only, but with a due regard to the public weal. I have always been anxious, when in Office, never to recommend any person to a high post under circumstances which would not command public confidence; and I should not have hesitated, in this instance, to have recommended a gentleman professing Whig politics if it had been in my power to place before Her Majesty a name which would have immediately been recognized as an unimpeachable appointment. It is not a very easy thing to find a Lord Lieutenant, especially when the number from whom to choose is limited. There are

  737
  gentlemen in the county who have estates, but who are not resident, and gentlemen who are resident, but have no estates. Then, again, there are men very capable, but who are not desirous of fulfilling the duties of the office, and there are gentlemen desirous of fulfilling the duties, who are unfortunately not competent. So far from not having given the matter full consideration, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think, I took pains to make myself acquainted with the general opinion of the county of Cumberland upon the subject, and I cannot see that I have been deceived in this respect—indeed, the Petitions presented on the subject confirm me in the view I took, and I can appeal to them with considerable confidence. I have in my hand an analysis of the Petitions approving and disapproving the appointment, made by well-known and perfectly competent men. The Petition to which the hon. Member for Cumberland referred is signed by nineteen magistrates, I have no doubt, highly respectable men; but the Petition which advocates the recommendation I made is signed by 111 magistrates. [Ironical cheers.] I was perfectly aware of the inference which would be drawn from that contrast; but I believe there are magistrates from the county of Cumberland sitting on the other side of the House at this moment, and they can bear witness to what I can state with confidence—that the late Lord Lieutenant, during the time he regulated affairs, many times preferred gentlemen professing Whig opinions to those of his own party. But I find from this analysis that the Petition referred to by the hon. Gentleman is signed by two clergymen and three Dissenting ministers; the Petition supporting the appointment is signed by 120 clergymen and eight Dissenting ministers; the hon. Gentleman's Petition is signed by sixty yeomen, a most important class in that part of England; the Petition on the other side is signed by 849 yeomen. Professional men, bankers, and merchants objecting to the appointment number seventy-six, those who approve 495; persons objecting who describe themselves as gentlemen number thirty, and 288 describing themselves in like manner approve the appointment. The total of those objecting to what has been done is 3,737, and of those who ap-
  738
  prove 5,092. I do not wish to lay too much stress upon signatures to Petitions; but, as in this case, it was well known the Petitions would be thoroughly well scrutinized, the result may be taken as indicative of the feeling of the county; and there is one marked difference between the two Petitions. The great bulk of the signatures to the Petition referred to by the hon. Gentleman 2,966, are accompanied by neither description nor address; we have, therefore, no means of testing the claims of those who signed to consideration. In no case has a petitioner approving the appointment omitted to furnish us with his address and description. I have, therefore, shown that, as far as the constitutional principle is concerned, until the successor of a Minister who has provisionally resigned has actually kissed hands and accepted Office the retiring Minister is still entirely responsible for the conduct of affairs, and, as I have already stated in the opinion of high authorities, is only performing the duties of his Office in recommending a gentleman to fill the post of Lord Lieutenant. I have also shown that the hon. Gentleman in charging me with having hurriedly, and without consideration, recommended Colonel Lowther to fill the Lord Lieutenancy of the two counties without attempting to disjoint the united authority, has entirely failed to make out his case. Every effort was made—the case was considered in every possible manner. I did not find it was in my power—certainly I was quite unable—to fix upon any individual, without reference to party politics, whom I could recommend under the circumstances for the post in question; and no one has brought forward any name in this debate which would impugn that conclusion. If names had been brought forward, painful and disagreeable as it might have made my duty, I was quite prepared to have fulfilled it.
  I now come to the third entire misapprehension which has influenced the hon. Member for Cumberland in bringing forward this Motion, and that is the idea that Lord Lonsdale, the late Lord Lieutenant, being suddenly acquainted with the secret of the intended resignation of the Ministers, hastily resolved to resign his post, with the understanding that the arrangements which are in question should be made. There never

  739
  was a misconception more complete and entire than this. I will tell the House what occurred. It is not agreeable to speak upon a subject on which one would naturally wish to maintain a reserve, and even an entire reserve; but it is much more important that there should be a clear understanding in the public mind upon these subjects than that the feelings of any individual should be considered. It so happened, when the borough elections were pretty well over, it occurred to me, and it occurred to those of my Colleagues whom I could consult at that time—many of them being scattered over the country—that there was only one course we ought to take. We felt that the result of the General Election being one which we had not counted upon, it was most painful, after the declarations we had made, to remain in the possession of power and patronage, and that, therefore, we ought to take the earliest opportunity of retiring. Of course, there were difficulties at that moment in arriving at a unanimous decision; but the moment that those difficulties were overcome, and all were assembled, a Cabinet was called, and the Cabinet arrived upon that subject at an unanimous decision—that the voice of the country had been sufficiently announced by what had occurred, to render it on our part a duty to ourselves to lose no time in retiring from the position which we then occupied. We felt that this course was due to our own honour; to the personal convenience of the Sovereign, and the progress of Public Business; and lastly due to the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself, so that he should not be thrust into Office without time to prepare his measures. The Cabinet were unanimous; but it was also unanimously felt that, as men of honour, we could not break up the Government in the midst of a General Election; that we had duties which we owed to our own party; that we owed it to friends who had entered into severe contests not to destroy their fair chances of success by suddenly, in the midst of a General Election, announcing our resignation; and therefore, although we had agreed that not a moment should be unnecessarily lost in announcing our wish to retire from Office, still it was necessary the General Election should be completed before that decision should
  740
  be carried out; and it was naturally left to me, under those circumstances, to take the proper steps at the right time to carry the resolution of the Cabinet into effect. I mention this, because stories in the newspapers about Cabinets having been called together, and my having gone to Windsor in consequence are inventions; nothing of the kind ever occurred, and nothing was more imaginative than these statements. It so happened it was impossible for me to communicate with Lord Lonsdale, or with any other individual with whom I had relations arising out of business which had been well matured and long considered, because entire secresy was absolutely necessary. I can say, upon my honour, that no gentlemen out of the Cabinet, even those most connected with the management of elections and the general conduct of the affairs of the party, ever received from me the slightest intimation of the course I intended to pursue. Well, Sir, I happened to be at Windsor, in attendance upon Her Majesty—not with reference to any particular business—but by Her Majesty's gracious pleasure, the county elections were going on, and, although they were, generally speaking, highly favourable to the Government, there was no reason to suppose the final result would alter the resolution which the Cabinet had arrived at. Still, feeling it was of the utmost importance that no time should be unnecessarily lost in our successors being installed in Office, I calculated, when I was at Windsor, that if a communication was made to our successors, a certain time must elapse before anything could transpire to affect public opinion, and that probably by that time the elections would be terminated; and, therefore, having the opportunity, I precipitated the decision at which the Cabinet had arrived. It was impossible for me to communicate even to the Ministry that I was about to carry out their resolution; and Lord Lonsdale had no more idea that the Government were about to retire than those who had no pretence to any knowledge on the subject. That is the exact state of affairs; that is the real cause of the resignation of Lord Lonsdale apparently occurring on the day the Government retired, because it was my duty then to conclude that and other matters of the kind when Her Majesty's pleasure was formally known. It was not neces-

  741
  sary for me to have resigned at that time; I might have gone on, perhaps, for aught I know, until the next year. If it had not been for the secresy which was necessary Lord Lonsdale's resignation would have occurred before, and would have been followed by a considerable interval, during which the late Government would have been in Office, and no person then could have questioned what was done. Therefore the inference which the hon. Gentleman has drawn, and, perhaps, not without some reason—though these are subjects on which we ought not to draw our inferences too rashly—is exactly the reverse of the truth. It was entirely from these circumstances, from the absolute necessity of keeping the resignation of the Government a secret in order that it might not affect public opinion and the elections, and in order, at the same time, to hasten the formation of the Government of our successors, that Lord Lonsdale's resignation appears to have occurred at the last stage. I have set before the House the real state of the case, and without any reference to my own personal feelings—though I am not insensible to the position in which I should be placed if such an Address as that proposed were carried—I do urge the House to pause before they consent to an Address of this kind. The Motion is formed upon a series of misconceptions, and, so far as I can form an opinion, upon very erroneous views of our constitutional doctrines and Parliamentary practice. As regards the individual case, it is entirely a misunderstanding. The appointment was made, the Prerogative of the Crown was exercised in this instance in a constitutional manner. I trust, therefore, the House will hesitate before it supports this Address. I advised Her Majesty to appoint Colonel Lowther to the Lieutenancies of these counties because it was not in my power to recommend anybody to Her Majesty whom I thought so completely eligible. I should have been happy if I could at that time, with satisfaction to Her Majesty and the country, have made a recommendation which would have prevented these Lieutenancies being united. The hon. Member refers to the language of the Petition, and says it alleges that these honours had been united in the Lowther family for more than 100 years. It is much worse; it is more than 130 years. But surely the
  742
  hon. Member ought to have deduced from that circumstance a more charitable conclusion. Considering the extraordinary vicisssitudes of the country, the changes of Government, and other alterations that must have occurred in 130 years, there must be some very strong reason indeed that Ministers of different opinions have all agreed, when they have had to incur the responsibility of putting the right man in the right place, as the Lord Lieutenant of the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, in finding him in the family of the Lowthers. I repeat, without hesitation, I do not at all accept these general reasons as conclusive in the case I had to decide. I did not originally contemplate that the honours should be united. The difficulty with regard to the Lieutenancy of Westmoreland was that peculiar circumstances rendered a change almost impossible, and with regard to the county of Cumberland I was anxious to postpone for a long time the advice I felt it to be my duty to give to Her Majesty, because I was desirous of effecting some arrangement, such as that which has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I could not do it; the advice I gave was not interested advice; I gave it, I believe, in the spirit of the Constitution; and I trust the House will not be induced by the statements of the hon. Gentleman to authorize an interference with the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown, which is not called for in this case.
  SIR WILFEID LAWSONsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion of the hon. Member for East Cumberland was most extraordinary and unusual; but, at the same time, it referred to a most extraordinary and unusual transaction. After what had taken place in the county of Cumberland, regarding this appointment, he thought his hon. Friend could have done nothing less than what he had done in bringing the matter before the House. The two Petitions which had been referred to, one on each side, showed the interest which was taken in the question in that part of the country. [Opposition cheers.] He was glad to find that the opinion was shared in by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He quite admitted that the number of signatures to the Petition, praying the House to take no steps with regard to the appointment was greater than the

  743
  number of signatures to the Petition on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be delighted with the number of magistrates who had signed the Petition praying that no further steps should be taken; but the right hon. Gentleman well knew who had made those magistrates, and probably he would have thought them a most ungrateful set of men if they had not signed that Petition. What he objected to in the appointment was the unusual step of uniting two counties under the Lord Lieutenancy of one and the same person. The right hon. Gentleman had laboured considerably to give reasons why he had taken such an unusual step. This was the only case in England and "Wales where two counties are united in a similar manner. ["No. no!"] He had taken pains to inquire into the matter, and believed he was quite correct in saying that there were not two counties united under one Lord Lieutenant. A strong case had been referred to with regard to Rutlandshire and Northamptonshire. When Lord Derby was in Office, and the right hon. Gentleman was in Office along with him, Lord Exeter died, and instead of appointing one Lord Lieutenant to the two counties, Lord Derby gave one to Lord Southampton, and one to Lord Gainsborough. In that case there was a death vacancy. But in the present case the right hon. Gentleman having secured a vacancy, appointed a representative for the retiring Peer. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman thought so badly of the Conservative party in the two counties that he could not find a suitable man in each to perform the duties of Lord Lieutenant. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not make any personal attack on the hon. Gentleman who had been appointed, for he had never heard anything against him; but he knew some of the gentlemen connected with the two counties, and knew that they contained men well fitted by intellect and character, to fill the office of Lord Lieutenant. He had no intention, nor, be believed, had other hon. Gentlemen who shared his views on this subject, of making a party attack on the hon. Gentleman who had been appointed to this office. That hon. Gentleman was, he believed, respected not only by his own party, but by those who had signed the Petition against the appointment, many of the latter, indeed, thinking that as far as this hon. Gentleman himself was concerned,
  744
  it was a change for the better; but what he objected to was, that the two counties should be represented by one powerful family. But what was still more objectionable was the mode in which the appointment had been made. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was responsible. Of course he was; and that was the reason why the present Motion had been brought forward. It was stated that the resignation had been retarded for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would not accept it until the moment he had made up his mind to go out of Office, and he then appointed Lord Lonsdale's nephew, the result of which would be to secure the retention of the Lord Lieutenancy in the hands of the Lonsdale family, which had supported his own party. It had been said that things of this kind had been done by a Liberal Government on a former occasion. That might be true; but the House had nothing to do with that. The occasions referred to were when death vacancies had occurred; but this was a case in which the holder of the Office had been induced to retire in order that his successor might be appointed. He considered this appointment was as unfair as it was extraordinary—as impolitic as it was unprecedented—and he trusted the House would give that redress which his hon. Friend asked for by his Motion.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL, as one who, for the last five years, had been closely connected with the two counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, wished to inform the House on one point on which they had been led to a wrong conclusion by the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). When speaking of the two offices of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum being united in the same person as being something abnormal, they ought to look to these two sister counties as being closely united and treated as one, in a different way from any other two counties in England. They had one police, one Assizes, and the same excellent magistrate sitting as Chairman of Quarter Sessions for both counties; so that it was not fair to talk of the two offices being, placed in the hands of one person for two distinct counties, when the two counties were joined together for all county purposes. If that were so, and if these appointments in the two counties could not con-

  745
  veniently be in separate hands, who was there so well qualified to hold them as the head of the Lowther family? Who and what was the Lord Lieutenant? He ought to be either a Peer, or a man of landed property, in a position to be responsible for the peace of the county, and no better man could have been selected than Colonel Lowther, who was heir presumptive to the title. If the two counties were polled from one end to the other he believed the appointment of Colonel Lowther would be endorsed by four-fifths of the inhabitants.
  MR. HODGSON, having the honour of representing one of the divisions of Cumberland, wished to make a few remarks. Ho was rather surprised that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Howard) should have altered his front in the face of the enemy. The Notice which he originally placed on the Paper only prayed for an inquiry into the circumstances under which the appointment took place, and if that Notice had been adhered to he might have seconded it, because he was satisfied that every part of the transaction would bear the strictest examination. But instead of that the hon. Gentleman now came forward with an Address to remove the Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland and Westmoreland without any trial, and without his being heard in his defence. The course taken by the hon. Gentleman reminded him of the story told of one of the hon. Gentleman's ancestors who had a border castle, and who was in the habit of hanging people first and trying them afterwards. He objected to such a mode of procedure. He was for letting the accused have a chance of defending himself. It had been said that the 111 magistrates who had signed the Petition owed their appointment on the Commission of the Peace to the late Lord Lieutenant, Lord Lonsdale. But he could state most confidently, as a resident in Cumberland, knowing what went on in the county, that the majority of the gentlemen recommended for the magistracy by Lord Lonsdale had been in opposition to the politics held by that noble Lord. In confirmation of that statement he appealed to the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Fletcher) opposite. He could assure the House that the Petition presented in opposition to the first Petition was most respectably signed. There were five resident Baronets in the two counties, and four of them signed
  746
  that Petition; the hon. Baronet opposite, like the last rose of summer, was left blooming alone, as he was the only one of the five who had not signed it. He appealed to the House whether it would be acting according to the Constitution of the country to interfere, in the manner proposed, with one of the Prerogatives of the Crown? They knew that during the reign of Charles I. there were great conflicts between this House and the Crown; but after the Restoration the Acts 13, 14, and 15 of Charles II. confirmed these appointments in the Crown, and since that time there had not, for 200 years, been a single instance of such an interference with the Royal Prerogative. Was the House called upon to interfere upon such trivial grounds now? The first Petition seemed to have been presented on the ground that Colonel Lowther had done him (Mr. Hodgson) the honour to canvass for him, and support him at the late election; but if all the friends who had so supported him were to be subjected to a similar treatment he was afraid he should stand a very poor chance at the next election. The hon. Gentleman opposite had asked that the House should do justice in this case; he echoed that request, and hoped that justice would be done on both sides. The Petition against Colonel Lowther was neither more nor less than a paltry effusion of political animosity, and he hoped the House would treat it as such. The counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland were sister counties, having the same police force, the same lunatic asylums, the same magistrates, and one regiment of Yeomanry for the two counties; many gentlemen were magistrates for both counties, and served upon the grand juries for both counties. It had even been proposed, he believed, by the present Government that they should have one regiment of Militia between them, while it had also been proposed that the Assizes of the two towns should be amalgamated. In two counties so affianced it would be a wonder if there were not one Lord Lieutenant for them both.
  MR. FLETCHERsaid, he should not have taken part in this debate had it not been that he was appealed to upon a matter of fact by his hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Hodgson; who had asked him whether it was not a fact that a large majority

  747
  of the recent nominations to Commissions of the Peace by the late Lord Lonsdale were those of gentlemen belonging to the Liberal party. He (Mr. Fletcher) had often stated in conversation to hon. Members on both sides of the House, that in whatever way the political influence of the Lord Lieutenant had been exercised in bygone days, recently, at any rate, no charge of an improper kind could lie at the door of the late Lord Lieutenant. Some time ago he had taken the pains to look into the list of magistrates of the county of Cumberland, in which he was a resident. At the present day it was difficult to determine what a man's politics were; but, to the best of his judgment, among the last two or three batches of magistrates nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, about two-thirds belonged to the Liberal party. He was opposed to Lord Lonsdale's politics, and he was sitting in that House in opposition to his political influence; but when appealed to by an hon. Gentleman opposite, he felt he was only discharging his duty, and showing a proper respect for that House in bearing his testimony to the facts of the case. He would only further say, with respect to the speech of his hon. Friend who had made this Motion (Mr. C. Howard), that he thought his hon. Friend had introduced the question to the House with a good deal of moderation and dignity, and said nothing whatever which could give the slightest offence to any member of the house of Lowther. He appealed to the hon. Member for East Cumberland whether his object had not been sufficiently answered by the discussion which had arisen, and by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) upon the constitutional bearings of the question. The Motion had also elicited from the late First Minister of the Crown an interesting history of the circumstances which led to his resignation, and as it had served this useful purpose he hoped that the hon. Member would not proceed to a division, because if the Resolution were carried it might possibly lead to inconvenience alike to the Government and the Crown.
  MR. E. POTTERsaid, he held in his hand a list of the magistrates of Cumberland, the honesty of which he could guarantee. He found that there were among the officers of the Cumberland
  748
  Militia 13 Conservatives, no Liberals, and 12 of doubtful politics, non-resident. In the Yeomanry Cavalry there were 18 Conservatives, 3 Liberals, and 1 doubtful. Among the acting magistrates were 112 Conservatives and 44 Liberals. The roll of the Commission of the Peace showed that there were 134 Conservatives and 20 Liberals. Among the Deputy Lieutenants there were 32 Conservatives and 6 Liberals, so that it was not surprising that the memorial in favour of the appointment was so numerously signed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Every one who knows my hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. C. Howard) will be aware, that in submitting the Motion which he has done to the House, he has been governed solely by a sense of public duty, and I must own that the combination of circumstances which presents itself to the general eye, and especially to us who have none other but a general knowledge of them, was such as might well attract attention, and even suspicion; but the discussion of this evening has enabled us to disentangle the case, and separate the circumstances one from the other. As the case first appeared the matter stood thus—that after the substantial resignation of the late Government, and before their successors took Office, an appointment was made peculiar in a double sense. It was peculiar, as it formed one of a long series of successions, hereditary in character, though the appointment was not hereditary; and this appointment conferring the first office in each of two counties on the same individual was made by the Administration at such a period as I have mentioned. It was also peculiar because the vacancy did not arise from death, or in consequence of any circumstance independent of choice, but by resignation, and was naturally supposed to have arisen by resignation procured for the purpose. Let us look, Sir, at these circumstances, because I think that various points of great public importance are involved in the discussion besides those connected with the resignation of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted. In the first place, we have to consider whether it is desirable that for so long a period of time, which, as my hon. Friend behind me stated, approached to two centuries, the Lord Lieutenancy of a county, which is known not to be an hereditary office,

  749
  should continue in one family. That is one question of considerable importance. We have only to look back to the history of earlier times in Europe to be aware that most of the hereditary offices have, come to be so, not in consequence of deliberate decision, but in consequence of successive appointments being made in the same families. The next point of importance is the union of two counties under one Lord Lieutenant; and the third point has reference to the time of the resignation, and to the suspicion which attended it as having been a matter of arrangement with the Government. With respect to the series of appointments in one family, I must own that I think it very desirable that the opinion of this House—though it need not be expressed in a formal shape—should be understood as being adverse to the creation of a series of appointments such as this in the same family. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had declared his opinion on the point in the strongest terms, and he does not hesitate to say that a series of them ought not to be prolonged in one family. It is hard to say, after the practice had obtained in this case for so long a period, that particular blame attaches to those who at a particular moment follow the example of those who preceded them, and the right hon. Gentleman has done no more than follow the example of a long series of successive Governments. He did not think that the recommendation in favour of the appointment urged by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) is justified by authority, because he founded himself on Hallam, who, in describing the qualifications for a Lord Lieutenant of a county, lays down the doctrine that the person to be appointed to that office must, in order to be a proper person for it, be a Peer. I assume, however, that the general sentiment of the House, without giving utterance to any opinions painful to the hon. Gentleman holding the office in question, is adverse to the idea that a series of successions of this kind should be indefinitely prolonged in one family. That there should be no such series of successions has been the regular recognized principle of public administration, and how this curious and remarkable exception has grown up I do not pretend to say. I am not aware of a single instance
  750
  of successive Lords Lieutenant in the same family except under unusual circumstances. I find seven such cases among fifty-five appointments in twenty years, from 1840 to 1859. I never heard of a case where twice over the appointment has been made in the same family after the office became vacant by decease. Any other case like that of Cumberland and Westmoreland we have not on the record of our proceedings, and it is not desirable that we should have. Then the Motion of my hon. Friend directs especial attention to the union of the two counties under one Lord Lieutenant; and one reason why I think it undesirable that he should press his Motion to a division is because it commits the House to the opinion that such a union is inexpedient. That is a point which it would be hazardous to decide without inquiry. The two counties in question are not only neighbouring counties, but there exist in them facilities for economy in the local administration arising from and flowing out of their union. I am not saying that the union is expedient and necessary as a standing institution; but it may be desirable that we should not too hastily condemn it. I must say that I could conceive it possible that in some portions of this country other unions of counties might be devised, but regard must be had to many circumstances—their proximity, for instance, their size, and their population. When we look to the small dimensions and population of some of the counties in this country and Wales, it is impossible not to see that the fractional organization of the police, Militia, and of the county institutions is disadvantageous to efficiency, and leads to expense. I do not say whether it it is possible to take a step forward in the direction of union; but I think it is a matter which we had better leave to be deliberately considered than commit ourselves on it by any expression of opinion. Then we come to the third question, which is connected with the conduct of the Government in this matter, and I am bound to say, without giving any strong opinion on the point, that the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the position of an outgoing Minister requires some qualification; because, if we accept it in the terms in which it was delivered, it amounts to

  751
  this—that during the period which elapses from the time when resignation is tendered to a time when a successor comes into power there is no change in the position of the outgoing Minister. That doctrine, in my opinion, is just as far from the truth as the unlimited proposition on the other side—that there was no capacity at all remaining in an outgoing Minister to transact Public Business. The truth, in fact, lies between he two statements. Much Public Business must be transacted by the outgoing Minister or the public interests would suffer; but we all know that it is a familiar practice of outgoing Ministers to leave behind them a memorandum on this subject or on that, and stating that, on account of the position of the Government, they think it expedient to take no step in the matter, but they leave it to be dealt with by their successors. There is an intermediate region of cases, with respect to which it is in the option of an outgoing Minister to act, and that is in regard to filling up vacancies in offices. This is a matter difficult for the House of Commons to deal with. It must be left to the convictions and feelings of the Gentleman in power, and if there had been in the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman any matter of a flagrant character, that circumstance would have justified Parliamentary interference. I am, however, bound to say that, whatever appearance of anything of that kind there may have been has been, removed by his explanation. No doubt, so far as I understand the matter, the compliment paid by Lord Lonsdale to the party on this side of the House is not a marked one. But as regards the right hon. Gentleman, if I understand him rightly, I think he goes far to show that there was no stretch of power in the step which he took on this occasion, because it appears that the resignation of Lord Lonsdale had been tendered to him at a very early period—I think I understood him to say immediately, or almost immediately, upon his assumption of Office—that substantially Lord Lonsdale was content to leave his resignation in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, to be acted upon when the right hon. Gentleman thought necessary or proper. If that be so, and if the right hon. Gentleman is the sole cause why the resignation was delayed until the moment when
  752
  it assumed an external character of suspicion, I think my hon. Friend will feel we ought not to visit upon the right hon. Gentleman, by dividing this House, the consequences of an act, the whole value of which he might have reaped at a former period if he had chosen. That, I think, is very nearly the whole case as respects the conduct of the late Government, and if that be so, then I think my hon. Friend will be of opinion—I confess it is the conclusion at which I have myself arrived—that there is no case which would warrant us in passing this Motion which would appear to imply a censure on the late Government. At the same time I am quite sure my hon. Friend and the House and the public will derive advantage from this discussion in respect of his having drawn attention to this important question with regard to a quasi hereditary succession to a Lord Lieutenancy, and the expression of opinion which has been generally given, and by no one more emphatically than by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that that quasi hereditary succession is a thing which is decidedly not desirable or expedient for the public interests. I hope, under the circumstances, my hon. Friend will be inclined to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. C. HOWARDfully admitted that the late Lord Lieutenant had made the Liberal appointments which had been referred to; but, with the known politics of the family, every inclination was shown on the part of those who wished to obtain seats on the bench to consult the family interests. He confessed he should like to take the sense of the House upon this Motion, but with the Leaders on both sides urging him to withdraw, it would be hopeless. He, therefore, withdrew his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY CORONERS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. GOLDNEY MR. GOLDNEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the office and appointment of County Coroners and for other purposes. The hon. Gentleman explained that he desired to have the appointment of these officials placed in the hands of either the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary, instead of continuing the present unsatisfactory state of things.
  MR. CUBITTsuggested that this might well form the subject of examination before a Select Committee.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had no objection to the introduction of the Bill, because he admitted the subject deserved consideration, and required legislation. It could not be denied that the present mode of election was cumbrous, expensive, and altogether unsuited to the character of the office. He would not say that it did not secure proper persons for the office, but it did so at a cost often most ruinous to themselves. With respect to the details of the Bill, he could not pledge himself, though he felt much inclined to concur with the hon. Member who had said that the appointment should be anywhere else than with the Crown.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the office and appointment of County Coroners; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, and Mr. PEASE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 75.]

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. PELLrose to call attention to the annual collection of Agricultural Returns and to move a Resolution on the subject.
  MR. BRIGHThoped the hon. Gentleman would not go on with his Motion, which could not be properly discussed after twelve o'clock. The question whether agricultural statistics should continue to be obtained and in what way might depend on the discussion, and he hoped another Notice would be given for it.
  MR. PELLdesired to know whether the Government would grant him a night on which to discuss this subject?
  MR. BRIGHTsaid he could not promise a night, but he thought there would be no difficulty in bringing the subject on at no very distant Friday night.
  MR. PELLsaid, he felt it his duty, under the prospect held out to him, to proceed at once. The agricultural statistics obtained annually were very imperfect, and one reason of this was that the returns were of a speculative character. It was stated by Mr. Caird that it would be of the greatest advantage to know what changes in the growth of corn were going on, so that our corn
  754
  merchants might enter the markets on equal terms with other purchasers. The House accordingly resolved that the collection and early publication of agricultural statistics would be advantageous to the public interest. These statistics had failed in their object because the area was but an imperfect measure of what the fields would yield to the granary. "Man proposes, but God disposes." These statistics had now been collected three years, and if they were of any value they would be used in the offices of the large dealers of corn. He had made inquiries on this subject of two of the largest dealers in home produce in and near Mark Lane. One had never heard of them, and the other had heard of them, but had never made any use of them as a guide to the purchase of grain. In the country he was told by a firm who attended seventeen markets that they never made use of them, and this was also the case at Birmingham. The House would, perhaps, like to know the cost of these statistics, which supplied no basis for guiding the trade. In 1866 the statistics for Great Britain cost £21,388, in addition to a few hundred pounds for circulars. The Government of the day divided them into two portions—one for live stock, and the other for acreage of crops. In 1867 the two Returns were taken together, and the cost was only £13,378. In 1868 it was £14,646. In this year's Estimates it was proposed to take £16,500 for Great Britain, which, added to £3,220 for Ireland, would make nearly £20,000. He would observe, by the way, that until this year an annual Vote for £10,000 only had been taken, and in the intricacies of national account keeping the extra cost was lost sight of by the public. If these statistics were of no speculative value, they might at all events be made of some value as a record of facts and a guage of the productive power of the kingdom. There was no disinclination on the part of the agricultural class to have accurate agricultural Returns; but the Returns for Great Britain were faulty, because they left out all wood, waste land, and garden ground, all which were included in the Irish Returns, and were necessary if the Returns were to be perfect. It would be sufficient, in his opinion, to have a Return every fifth year, because there was very little variation in the average of years in the quantity laid down in different crops, and it

  755
  would be easy to arrive by approximation at the acreage of a particular crop during the intervening four years. With 57,000,000 acres under tillage in Great Britain, we obtained a Return from only 30,000,000, leaving 27,000,000 unaccounted for; whereas, out of 20,000,000 acres cultivated in Ireland, 15,000,000 sent Returns, leaving only 5,000,000 unaccounted for. There had been a regular decline in the quantity of land sown with corn there; and yet a statistician might easily compute the acreage in any given year from the data supplied. So of green crops, land in fallow, and land sown with clover and seeds. The variation had been regular, and had not been subject to violent changes. It might fairly be expected, therefore, that if a quinquennial return of fact were made, the acreage during the four intervening years might be arrived at very correctly by estimate, and much more cheaply than at present. The hostility of the larger occupiers to agricultural statistics had been not so much to the returns of fact, but arose from the notion that the Returns were ordered by Parliament as some guide to the purchasers of corn during the autumn. They knew that this was fallacious, and there was consequently a disinclination to give information which they knew would be of no use. He moved that the Agricultural Returns now made annually should after this year be discontinued and collected every fifth year, in the place of annually.
  COLONEL BRISE, believing that the present Returns were worthless, because incorrect, had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Agricultural Returns, now made annually, should, after this year, be discontinued, and collected every fifth year in the place of annually."—(Mr. Pell.)
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, considering the late hour, and the number of Members who desired to speak on the subject, he felt that the best course he could take was to move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Friday.

  ENDOWED HOSPITALS, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.—LEAVE.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make bet-
  756
  ter provision for Endowed Hospitals and Endowed Educational Institutions in Scotland, said, the funds of these institutions were to a large extent applied in modes not adapted to the altered circumstances of the country; and he, therefore, proposed by this Bill that trustees and managers should be allowed to apply to the Home Secretary for provisional orders to revise their rules. The Home Secretary would refer to certain persons, and on their report might sanction the order.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEexpressed his approval of the object of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to make better provision for Endowed Hospitals and Endowed Educational Institutions in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. ADAM.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) ACT (1845) AMENDMENT BILL.—LEAVE.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the thirty-seventh section of the statute eight and nine Victoria, chapter eighty-three, and to make further provision for imposing Assessments under the said Act, said, its object was to place assessments to the poor rate on the same footing as that on which all other assessments stood—that was, upon the gross, and not upon the net rental.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to repeal the thirty-seventh section of the statute eight and nine Victoria, chapter eighty-three, and to make further provision for imposing Assessments under the said Act, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. ADAM.

PARK LANE AND PICCADILLY THOROUGHFARE.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Correspondence which has passed since the month of February 1865, inclusive, between the Lords of the Treasury, the First Commissioner of Works, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the Metropolitan Board of Works, on the subject of any proposed thoroughfare between Park Lane and Piccadilly (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 132, of Session 1865)."—(Mr. Loch.)
  MR. AYRTONobjected to the production of confidential communications between the Treasury and the subordinate departments, and therefore he could

  757
  not assent to the Motion in the terms in which it was proposed; but if it were withdrawn he would have the correspondence examined with a view to the production of all that could properly be laid on the table.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, it was unusual to refuse Returns which were merely "in continuation" of Returns already made.
  MR. GLADSTONEundertook that, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, all necessary Papers should be laid upon the table.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LIBEL BILL.— [BILL 17.]
(Mr. Baines, Mr. Candlish, Mr. Morley.)
LIBEL BILL.— [BILL 17.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [17th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BAINESsaid, the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had intimated to him their intention not to persevere with the Amendment. He therefore begged now simply to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to the second reading of the Bill which proposed to amend the Law of Libel. The first clause of the Bill proposed to exempt newspapers from penalties under the existing Law of Libel on proof that the alleged libel was a true and fair report of the proceedings at a meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose, open to reporters for the public newspapers, and at which a reporter was present for the purpose of reporting the proceedings of such meeting for a public newspaper, and that the report was published in such newspaper by the defendant bonâ fide without actual malice, and in the ordinary course of business. The third clause proposed that the speaker of defamatory matter should in certain cases be liable to be sued as if the same were
  758
  printed and published. The latter clause appeared to him calculated to limit the right of public speech and of freedom of discussion, and therefore he was glad to state that the hon. Member had acceded to his desire that it should be omitted. He had further to suggest the insertion of the following words in the first clause, after the words bonâ fide, "having reasonable respect to private character and to the preservation of decency."
  MR. CRAUFURDcould not approve the Bill, notwithstanding the alterations suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the matter should have been left in the hands of the Government to deal with.
  MR. BAINESassented to the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Bill to amend "The Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866," ordered to be brought in by Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS and Mr. LOCKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 77.]

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LEFEVRE, Bill to confirm certain Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Sea Fisheries Act, 1868," relating to Donibristle (Firth of Forth), and the Holy Loch (Firth of Clyde), ordered to be brought in by Mr. LEFEVRE and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 76.]

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DIXON, Bill to amend "The Adulteration of Food or Drink Act, 1860," and to extend its provisions to Drugs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DIXON, Mr. KINNAIRD, and Mr. GOLDNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 78.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.