Commons Sitting of 20 July 1869

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — New Law Courts, Mr. Gregory discharged, Mr. Watkin Williams added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Zanzibar (Jurisdiction of Consul)*.
Ordered—First Reading—Admiralty District Registries* [229]; Hackney and Stage Carriages Law Amendment* [227]; Militia (Ireland)* [228].
First Reading—New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment* [225].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) [181].
Committee—Metropolitan Poor Act(1867) Amendment * [53]—R.P.; Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) * [198]—R.P.; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister [23]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* [87]; Dublin Freemen Commission* [189].
Considered as amended—Dublin Freemen Commission* [189]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) (No. 2)* [212–226].
Third Reading—Dublin Freemen Commission *[189]; Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks * [199], and passed.
Withdrawn—Life Assurance Companies* [65]; Witnesses (House of Commons)* [129].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—COURTS MARTIAL.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will, during the Recess, consider the Report of the Royal Commission on Courts Martial and Military punishments, with a view to legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
MR. CARDWELL MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, that his right hon. Friend was aware that some of the recommendations of the Commission had already been carried into effect. One important recommendation, that of establishing a central prison,

325
was now under his consideration in conjunction with the Home Secretary, and should he find that an estimate was necessary he would propose to submit one before Supply was closed. The subject of courts martial and military punishments had already engaged his attention, and it was his intention to consider very carefully during the Recess the recommendations of the Commission with regard to alterations in the Mutiny Act and Articles of War.

IRELAND—MILITARY PRISON AT DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
MR. KIRKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why no allowance appears for the medical officer of the Military Prison at Dublin, the duties appearing to be performed by any officer of the medical staff; whether Surgeon Major Tuffnell, the medical officer performing those duties, has not completed nearly twenty-seven years' military medical service, nearly all in Dublin, on the full pay of his rank; is he not the only medical officer on full pay in charge of a military prison; does he not hold Civil appointments in Dublin; and is he not also extensively engaged in private practice in that city; is there any reason affecting the interests of the service rendering it desirable that he should continue to enjoy such exceptional privileges; and, does his retention on full pay in charge of a military prison stop promotion among other medical men, and the employment of a half-pay medical officer in the prison at Dublin?
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, in reply, that Mr. Tuffnell performed the duties of the medical officer of the military prison at Dublin, and that he had done so since 1846. He was paid as a surgeon major upon the medical staff. It was true that he had performed those duties for not twenty-seven, but twenty-eight years' completed service; but, until 1860, he was only an assistant surgeon, having foregone his promotion in order to retain his present appointment. In that year he was promoted to the rank of surgeon as a compensation for the loss of a Regius Professorship which he held in Dublin under a Royal Commission. It was also true that he was the only medical officer on full pay in charge of a military prison; but he held his appointment in virtue of his having been permanently appointed in 1846. Mr.
326
Tuffnell was likewise surgeon to the City of Dublin Hospital, was one of the Council of Examiners of the College of Surgeons of Ireland, and had a large private practice; but there was no reason for thinking that his other duties interfered with those connected with the military prison of which he had charge. He claimed the right to retain this appointment as compensation for the loss of the Regius Professorship. It was true that his retention of this appointment did stop the employment of a half-pay medical officer to perform the duties; but it could not be said to stop promotion, inasmuch as Surgeon Major Tuffnell was upon the supernumerary list. In 1874 Surgeon Major Tuffnell would have arrived at that period of service which would enable him, if necessary, to be compulsorily retired, but until then it was not likely that he would resign the appointment.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (LOANS) BILL— [BILL 181.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goschen.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was now about fourteen years since that House undertook to relieve the Government and the metropolis from the great difficulties and embarrassments into which both had fallen in consequence of the policy, for a long time pursued, of declining to establish in the metropolis such municipal institutions as it had been thought necessary to form in other parts of the country. That policy no doubt originated in the old idea that the increase of the metropolis would be dangerous to the State, and that the best course was to keep it in a state of subjection, if not confusion. The result was, that at last the Government found itself unable to cope with many great questions, such as the state of the drainage and the promotion of those improvements which the changing circumstances of the metropolis rendered necessary. In order to grapple with these matters the Metropolitan Board of Works was instituted, and that body applied themselves with great ability and industry to the solution of the difficulties which pressed on their attention. In the first place, they dealt with the great question

327
of drainage. Parliament declared that the sewage should no longer flow into the Thames. The Metropolitan Board of Works prepared a scheme in reference to that matter, and saved the metropolis from being plunged into an expenditure of £10,000,000, by reducing the plan of drainage within reasonable limits, so that the expenditure to be incurred was brought down to £3,000,000. The project, however, extended itself, and in course of time the expenditure was considerably increased. In the first place, the Metropolitan Board of Works had to grapple with the difficulty of providing funds to carry out the limited plan, estimated to cost £3,000,000, for the main drainage. The Government of the Earl of Derby took a liberal view of the matter, and came forward with a public guarantee to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to raise the necessary funds; but in carrying out that arrangement sufficient regard, perhaps, was not had to the enormous future before the Metropolitan Board of Works. The arrangement made was, consequently, of a very limited character, and the Board of Works, without attempting to found a system of finance commensurate with the future requirements of the metropolis, only thought of getting the money requisite at the moment on the best terms they could. The money was obtained on securities wholly unmarketable —namely, on bonds having such conditions attached to them that no private individuals would have thought of taking them. The Board of Works therefore had to submit to the terms which persons wishing to borrow money on unmarketable securities must be content to put up with. After the main drainage, other great works came to be considered, and the Board of Works were led by the Government to embark upon the undertaking of the Thames Embankment on the north side of the Thames. The Bill for that object was not promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and, consequently, had not the advantage, in the arrangement of its provisions, of that good sense which a body like the Metropolitan Board of Works were likely to bring to the consideration of the subject. The result was that the scheme was encumbered with a number of conditions, which impaired its efficiency, and added to the expense. The estimate, which induced the House to sanction the scheme, amounted to £1,000,000, but when the
328
duty of constructing the work devolved on the Metropolitan Board of Works, they found that it would cost, not £1,000,000, but nearly £2,000,000. They were also induced by the Government of the day to embark upon the construction of the embankment on the south side of the Thames, which they were led to believe would cost £480,000, but they found afterwards that the cost would be £900,000. The Metropolitan Board of Works undertook a number of minor improvements, such as the enlarging of streets, and inherited all the duties arising out of previous transactions. Parliament had likewise imposed upon the Board of Works the important duty of protecting the metropolis against the contingency of fire, and the Board had in consequence been obliged to incur a very considerable expense in the construction of fire-engine stations in all parts of the metropolis, and in the maintenance of an efficient fire brigade. All these operations continued to increase from year to year, and for these purposes the Board had gone on borrowing money "from hand to mouth," upon no settled system, and upon securities not generally negotiable or marketable. At length the Metropolitan Board of Works reached a stage of indebtedness of considerable amount. The funds which they had available to secure their loans had been, in the first place, a rate of 3d. in the pound, known as the main drainage rate. They also had at their disposal funds produced by the coal and wine duties. Besides this they had the power to levy a rate of ½d. in the pound for the purpose of fire engines. The amount produced by the rates had gone on increasing, in consequence of the improvement in the rateable value of the metropolis, which had reached £18,450,000; and the produce of the coal and wine duties had likewise augmented, in consequence of increased consumption. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Board of Works found themselves embarrassed to raise the necessary funds to carry on the works, the duty of completing which had been imposed on them by Parliament. This might be ascribed to the fact that the future of the Metropolitan Board was not foreseen; and, in fact, it appeared to be in much the same kind of financial condition as the Chancellors of the Exchequer at the beginning of the last century, before the present system of

329
finance was established, who had to go down into the City and make the best bargains they could for the money they wanted. He would state generally the position at which the metropolis had arrived by the operations he had described. After deducting what had been re-paid by the surplus of monies received out of particular funds appropriated to these debts, they had now a debt secured in various ways amounting to £7,996,256 or, in round numbers, £8,000,000 sterling. That was the debt already created, not what would enable the Board to complete the operations in which it was engaged. It had power to levy further loans to a very considerable extent; and the immediate difficulty was to obtain those loans at such a rate as the security they could give would justify them in expecting. The further loans sanctioned amounted to £760,000, For the great street between Blackfriars Bridge and the Mansion House there was the sum of £300,000; for Park Lane improvements, £135,000; for a small embankment at Chelsea, £285,000; and for the Stingo Lane improvement, £40,000, making the total he had stated. But there were also works which must be carried on, and the monies for them not sanctioned it was absolutely necessary should be raised, and Parliament must give the necessary sanction for obtaining them. The main drainage had been carried out to a very great extent, yet there was a portion necessary to connect the Embankment works with the pumping station at Abbey Mills, and there were tributary sewers it was necessary to complete to give the inhabitants generally the benefit of the enormous expense that had been incurred. The funds required to complete the system of drainage amounted to £907,000. There was also a sum requisite for permanent works, connected with the fire brigade, amounting to £50,000; and there were other minor improvements which the Metropolitan Board was engaged in, which would require £80,000; and other smaller sums, amounting to £70,000; making in all £1,107,000. Putting all these sums together they had a capital required for the purposes of the Metropolitan Board of £9,863,000. That was the sum with which they had to deal if they would place the finance of the Metropolitan Board on a solid foundation. They were now dealing with things immediately present, in fact sanc-
330
tioned; but they could not but suppose the Metropolitan Board had yet a great deal to do, and therefore it was most important they should not go on with the system they had hitherto pursued, but that they should, if possible, place the financial condition of the Board on a solid basis, so that it might obtain its funds on conditions commensurate with the security at their disposal. He could not conceive why a loan properly raised by the metropolis should not, for all purposes of investment, be almost as good as one raised by Her Majesty's Government. The metropolis must stand or fall with the nation, and the credit of the metropolis must necessarily be as good as the credit of the nation, provided the metropolitan loans are not greater relatively to property and rateable value chargeable than those of the nation to the national resources. The Metropolitan Board had power to charge property rated at £17,000,000, besides an indirect taxation of £195,000. Could it be doubted, if the finances of the metropolis were properly managed, that was a security so ample and available as to enable the Metropolitan Board to raise the requisite money in the open market? The Bill on the table would effect several very important objects. In order to bolster up the present unhealthy system the Government were called upon to give the security of the State to the metropolis, which was of evil example to other towns in the kingdom. It was therefore better for the House to review what had been already done, and, if it could, retrace its steps, and say it would neither guarantee loans for the metropolis nor for any other particular section of the community. The first result would therefore be to free the National Treasury from all immediate connection with the local treasury of the metropolis. It was proposed by the Bill that all the existing loans raised by the metropolis should, with the assent of those who had advanced the money, be converted into one consolidated debt, precisely of the same character as regarded its incidents to the public creditor as the National Debt—to be treated as terminable annuities, and negotiable in the same way, the only distinction being that the one would be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the nation, the other on the consolidated fund of the metropolis. They would thus sweep away all the complications which had occurred within

331
the last few years, and bring the existing liabilities of the metropolis to a comprehensive and solid basis. They had not only, however, to deal with the debt which already existed, but with the sum which it would be necessary for the Metropolitan Board to borrow in order to meet the immediate requirements of the metropolis. That new debt would be placed upon precisely the same footing as the other. The debt would, in fact, be extended to the amount necessary to cover the various sums he had stated, and the whole would be raised upon identically the same terms. The Bill further made provision for the raising of all future loans which might be required by the Board in the same way. The Bill would thus establish a complete system of finance which would meet the past, present, and prospective wants of the metropolis. While this was the aspect of the loan as regarded the public, it would be necessary to make provision, for the sake of the rate-payers, that the capital of the loan should be gradually reduced and ultimately extinguished. That would be done by directing that a certain sum should be paid out of the rates calculated to redeem the capital of the debt in the course of sixty years. The consolidated fund would be composed of the rates, the coal and wine duties, and all the monies which the Board would receive on capital account, from the sale of properties which might come into their hands in the course of public improvements. In case the estimate should prove insufficient, power would be given to the Treasury to direct that a further rate should be levied, so that there could be no question that the principle would be carried out. The consolidated fund would be applied first to pay the interest of the debt, and then to liquidate the capital, either by purchasing stock in the open market or by applying it in the way of a sinking fund, as might be desirable, and in that way the debt would be extinguished. The House would see that, as the conversion of the existing debt could only be effected with the consent of the creditors, no injustice would be done to them. A further provision of the Bill would be to give facilities to all persons to invest in this stock. The House had already on several occasions considered this question, and had thought it right when stocks were established of a character which might rank: in estimation with the national stock that facili-
332
ties should be given to trustees and others to invest in them. Parliament had, indeed, gone very much further, because it had extended the power of investing money to stocks which were not at all comparable to that which was now about to be created by this Bill, such as East India Stock and that of the Bank of England. This stock would have all the attributes of the public funds. It had been said that Parliament was now asked to give greater power to the Metropolitan Board. That was an entire misapprehension, for the Bill would diminish their powers and place a restraint upon them which was highly desirable at the present time, while it was justified by the past. When the question of the finance of the municipal bodies of the country came under consideration, it was enacted that all transactions affecting the capital funds of those bodies should be subject to the sanction of the Treasury. The present Bill would also compel the Metropolitan Board to submit an accurate statement of their obligations before contracting any further obligations. The Treasury had already given the guarantee of the public to certain loans which the Metropolitan Board had raised, and they would, therefore, take care that nothing should be done for the future to affect the security which they already possessed. This was, he hoped, a sufficient guarantee that no abuse was likely to occur under this Bill. Hon. Members might wish to know what, after all, would be the general result of the measure. It would be this—that, if they passed no Bill at all they would leave the Board to flounder on and to raise money at high rates of interest to pay for the works in which they were now engaged. There would, consequently, be a great increase of the metropolitan rates, and the amount of those rates would grow with the difficulties which the Board might have to encounter in borrowing money. Instead of that, if this Bill were carried out, not only would the present requirements of the Board be met, but the rates on the metropolis would be reduced. It was a matter of speculation at what rate of interest the metropolitan consolidated loan could be raised. He had taken it for the purpose of estimate at 3½ per cent, and if so, the result would be that to pay the interest and re-pay the capital in sixty years would require, in addition to all

333
the other resources of the consolidated fund, an annual contribution of 2 per cent on the capital sum. That contribution, taken on the capital of, in round numbers, £10,000,000, would be £200,000; more accurately, it would be £197,000 a year for sixty years. A rate of 1d. in the pound on the metropolitan area produced. £76,875, so that a rate of about 2½d. in the pound would be required to provide for these terminable annuities. The main drainage required a rate at present of 3d. in the pound, so that instead of increasing the rate, they would be paying off all the debt and the capital expenditure, and would at the same time diminish the rate to 2½d. on account of the capital account. It would then be necessary to provide for the current expenditure, which might be estimated at £120,000. That would require a rate of a little more than 1½d. in the pound, so that a rate of somewhat more than 4d. would be sufficient, if this Bill passed, to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Board; whereas, if nothing was done, there would be a prospect of their drifting into a rate of something like 8d. in the pound. That was not a pleasant prospect, and the Bill would avoid the necessity of imposing so heavy a burden upon the rate-payers of the metropolis. The improvements made by the Metropolitan Board of Works in the main drainage of the metropolis were of the most permanent character, and would endure as long as the houses now built. It was, therefore, desirable and reasonable that the charge for exigencies, which had been accumulating for several centuries, and now fell upon the present generation, should be spread over a considerable term of years. If the Bill were carried into effect in its entirety, it would relieve the inhabitants of the metropolis from a great and pressing burden, and provide for the revenues which its necessities from day to day required. He moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
MR. HUNTsaid, it was obvious that this was a most important Bill and one which this House ought not to pass without very careful examination. It was unfortunate, therefore, that it should not have been brought on for discussion
334
till the 20th of July, and without any financial statement, so far as he was aware, of the Metropolitan Board for this year having been laid upon the table. He was not prepared to say that the Government were in fault in not having introduced this Bill earlier; but this he would say, that before this Bill was pushed through all its stages there ought to be laid on the table a very full statement of the indebtedness of the Metropolitan Board and of the means it possessed to meet its liabilities. It was well known that for some time past the Metropolitan Board had exhausted its powers of raising money. The hon. Gentleman (the Secretary to the Treasury) said the Board had unlimited power of raising the rates, and that the property on which they could levy their impost was £17,000,000. There was no doubt that in law they had that power, but in fact they had gone to the end of their tether. If they attempted more the people would rise in arms against them; and the Board knew well that it was one thing to make a rate and another thing to collect a rate. Under these circumstances they came to the Secretary of the Treasury and asked power from Parliament to raise loans in a different manner. The hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that the securities which the Metropolitan Board had to offer were of a kind that few people would accept. Their last securities were unmarketable. A few of them had found their way into the hands of the Bank of England; some were held by the Commissioners of the National Debt on behalf of the Savings Banks; but there were few others disposed of. It was now proposed to grant them power to create stock, and he had no doubt that if that power were given them the result would be that their securities would be more marketable. Neither did he see how on principle the House could refuse that power. They were now told that the Board wanted to increase its capital by the amount of £2,000,000, having power at present to raise £760,000. But he did not find in the Bill any limit whatever to the creation of stock, except in so far as it might be necessary to obtain the assent of the Treasury. He also understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Treasury would have a voice with respect to the raising of fresh rates, but he did not find any such provision in the Bill. [Mr. AYRTON here pointed out a clause in the Bill.] Well, that clause

335
was not very intelligibly worded, and he was not sure that it would suit its purpose. There were certainly one or two provisions in this Bill that he would like to see removed. One of these was that trustees might invest their trust funds in this stock, and another was that the money of the Savings Banks might be invested in it. He hoped the time might come when, as the hon. Gentleman anticipated, this metropolitan stock might be equal to the national stock; but he certainly would not at present advise trustees to invest in it. He might further observe, that if the Savings Banks were allowed to invest their funds in this stock then, in spite of the professions of the Bill, the Government would be giving a guarantee equal to the amount of the Savings Bank money so invested; for if the money were not forthcoming when wanted the Government must make it good. It was somewhat strange, too, that if the security were to be so good as the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose, it was found necessary by the 36th clause to provide that, if the dividends were not paid by a certain time, a person entitled to them might go before two justices of the peace of the metropolis and have a receiver appointed. He was not, however, as he had. already intimated, disposed to offer any objection to the principle of the Bill; but, seeing that it contained so many provisions, couched for the most part in very technical language, it would be well, he thought, that it should, if possible, be sifted by a small Select Committee. The adoption of such a course would, he believed, tend rather to facilitate than delay its progress through the House. The Session was now late, and much time would be occupied by an examination of the Bill in a Committee of the Whole House. He would certainly offer his most strenuous opposition to the two clauses which allowed of the investment of trust funds and the money of Savings Banks in the stock. He presumed that the Bill would not empower the Metropolitan Board to raise money, even with the assent of the Treasury, for the purpose of carrying out any works the expediency of constructing which was not in the first instance submitted to Parliament. If there was not a provision of that kind already in the Bill, it was absolutely necessary that it should be introduced.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought the
336
suggestion of his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hunt) ought to be adopted. The metropolis generally knew nothing whatever of the Bill. It appeared to him that there was no limit to the power of rating in this Bill, and no limit to any course the Metropolitan Board might adopt, except that they must obtain the sanction of the Secretary of the Treasury. But, as the Government refused to be answerable in any way for the money that was to be raised, the Secretary of the Treasury would have no deep interest in keeping a watch over the proceedings of the Board. He had heard nothing of the rate of interest at which the Board proposed to borrow the money, or in what way they intended to borrow it. The City for many years past had raised their loans on bonds which were always transferable, and this plan had been found to work extremely well. If the fund now raised by the Board were to be the only sum applicable to paying the interest of the stock, he could not see how this Bill would place them in a better position than that in which they now stood. They had now come to a stand-still, and could levy no further rate, and the question was whether hereafter they could increase the amount of the rate. There were difficulties in almost every clause of the Bill, and he thought the rate-payers ought to have a full opportunity of expressing their opinion with respect to it. He trusted the suggestion which had been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be adopted.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he did not wish to offer any opposition to the second reading, though he thought the Bill would require amendment. The principal object of the Bill was said to te to enable the Metropolitan Board to obtain advances of money more readily and at a lower rate of interest without any guarantee from the Treasury, and to release the Government guarantee. To that there could be no objection, but there were many parts of the Bill which required serious consideration, and he therefore approved of the proposition for referring the measure to a Select Committee, by which improvements might be introduced more effectually than in the House. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) had spoken of the unfavourable terms on which money had been raised by the Metropolitan Board; but he did

337
not agree with his hon. Friend on this point. The greater portion had been raised under the sanction of the Treasury at 3¾ per cent, and the remainder, but not a large portion, at 4 per cent. He did not consider that a high rate of interest. The money which was not-covered by the guarantee had been raised at 4½ per cent, and this also was a fair market rate for the money. No doubt if the Secretary to the Treasury by consolidating the debt could make it more marketable, and could open the investment to the community at large, he would be doing a great public service. But the success of the scheme must depend on the present holders of bonds. Some wore payable in 1882, and others in 1888; the payment of the interest was secured by the Act of last year; £185,000 a year was set aside for the payment of interest to the bondholders and the redemption of the money until 1882. Whether the holders of these bonds would be content to exchange that security for a security not guaranteed by the Government he was unable to say; but so far as the success of the proposition depended upon their assent, it must not be assumed by anyone that the security offered under this Bill was a security which the present creditors would accept in exchange. He regretted that the House was not in possession of any detailed statement of the liabilities of the Metropolitan Board, or of its available resources. The whole of the debts of the Board, including £2,000,000 which they now required, would amount to £10,000,000. There was a sinking fund, to which £200,000 were appropriated. The interest, payable at 3½ per cent, amounted to £350,000, making together £550,000. There was a deduction of £195,000 on account of the coal and wine duties. With regard to the Bill itself there was no limitation as to the securities in which the money was to be invested. He thought that and some other points were fair matters of consideration by a Select Committee. He did not, however, regard with great jealousy the power proposed to be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works, for he did not conceive that that Board could enter on works with the consent of the Treasury alone, but they would also need the authority of Parliament for the purpose.
SIR WILLIAM TITEsaid, the Bill
338
was brought forward entirely in the interest of the rate-payers. Up to a certain point the loans had been guaranteed by the Government, but last year an intimation was given that the guarantees had gone far enough. The Metropolitan Board had endeavoured to borrow money for the purpose of continuing the Embankment up to Battersea Bridge. They advertised for a loan and received offers at 4¼ per cent, but the parties were unable to carry out their offers. They eventually succeeded in effecting a loan in small sums at 4½ per cent to the extent of £150,000. Considering the great improvements which the Metropolitan Board were called on to carry out, he thought that when the Board were placed in this difficulty Parliament ought to do something to assist them.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that many rate-payers regarded the provisions of the present Bill with jealousy. The reason why the Metropolitan Board were unable to raise money was that they did not command the confidence of the public, either with regard to their expenditure, or their mode of rating. Under all former Acts to enable that Board to raise money a limit had been fixed as to rating, but now it was proposed to consolidate the different Acts and omit the limitation. The power of unlimited rating ought not to be allowed. The check of the Treasury might be sufficient as regarded national expenditure, but he doubted if it would be sufficient in the case of a comparatively small community. The Bill had been framed regardless of that distinction, and also of a rule which ought not to have been overlooked. One of the recommendations of a Select Committee, over which the Secretary for the Treasury presided, was that in all future contracts for money the owners and occupiers should be rateably taxed. He wished to know why that principle had not been imported into the present Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he was glad to find that the general feeling of the House was in favour of the second reading of this Bill. He thought its general principle must be admitted to be beneficial. It would enable the Metropolitan Board to borrow with greater facility, by putting the loan in the most available form, and make the best terms with the lender. It also relieved the Government from guaran-

339
teeing the loans of the Metropolitan Board, and although he did not think there was any risk in that guarantee, it certainly formed a bad precedent which might be liable to inconvenience if it were not put an end to. So far as it had any effect it would enable the Metropolitan Board to borrow on easier terms than they now did, and so far it would relieve the rate-payers. As to limitations, the Bill was limited to such a sum as, together with the revenues derived from different resources, would enable the Metropolitan Board to pay interest on £10,000,000, and to provide a sinking fund to pay off the whole in sixty years. If they attempted to limit the rates, that would, of course, interfere with the security, and so far increase the charge to the rate-payer. All this seemed to him, and he hoped to the House, very reasonable; but the proposal made by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), and others was also reasonable—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill was technical in its language, the subject was intricate, and the state of Public Business had not enabled them to lay it before the House till the present advanced period of the Session. It might therefore be well to refer the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee. The security of the metropolis, limited as it was in amount by this Bill, was continually increasing by the mere increase of building. It was a very good security, and he saw no objection to allow trustees to invest their funds in it. But he thought it a perfectly reasonable request that the matter should be looked into. It should therefore be referred to a Select Committee of seven Members, and his hon. Friend (the Secretary of the Treasury) would give notice of their names, so as to lose as little time as possible in proceeding with it.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as many of its provisions required attentive consideration. It had been said that the Bill was limited to a sum of £10,000,000, but that did not appear on the face of the measure. The hon. Member for Bath (Sir William Tite) was in error
340
when he stated that up to a certain time Treasury guarantees had been the rule with the Metropolitan Board. The powers of the Board were contained in statutes, and it was only when the Thames Embankment came before Parliament that any question of a Treasury guarantee arose, and a guarantee was then given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was now the First Minister of the Crown. So far as he knew that was the only Treasury guarantee which had been given. The present Bill proposed to take that guarantee away, and in that case what would be the inducements which the public would have to subscribe to a new loan? There were two—one that the period of re-payment would be extended, and the other that the stocks would be consolidated. He should offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but he objected to the assumption contained in the clauses that the measure would be a great success. It was assumed that the stocks created would be admirable investments, and that they must command the confidence of the public, and therefore it was provided that trustees should invest trust money in them. It would be time enough for that, however, when the stock had been before the world some time, and when it had really earned the confidence of the public. The investment suggested under the 9th clause was open to great objection, as it seemed to him to be an indirect interference by the Treasury with the Metropolitan Board of Works, which would give a moral if not an actual guarantee to investors, and the same objection applied to the provision under which the Commissioners of the National Debt were authorized to lend their money. He thought if the actual guarantee of the Treasury were withdrawn it would be better to let the stock find its own way in the market, and commend itself on its merits to the confidence of the public.
MR. JESSELsaid, he entirely agreed with the general object of the Bill, but he must protest against the 8th clause, which proposed to authorize trustees to lend trust money to the Metropolitan Board of Works, upon the securities offered by the Bill. The effect of that would be to authorize trustees to lend trust money on a security on which they were not authorized to lend by their

341
trust, or, in other words, it would allow a man's contract to be altered without his consent. The trustees would thus be empowered to commit what would otherwise be a breach of trust, simply because the trainers of this Bill thought it might be beneficial. No doubt there were precedents for such a course, but they were very bad ones. He thought that the policy of the Act passed at the instance of Lord St. Leonards, which empowered trustees to invest funds in Bank of England and East India Stock was highly objectionable; but that Act, at all events, dealt with stocks which had been long created and with the market value of which Parliament was well acquainted. But the present Bill proposed to allow trustees to invest in stock of which nothing was at present known, and the very nature and conditions of which had yet to be settled between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Treasury. They were told that there would be ample security provided for the invester, but on examination that security turned out to be of a very illusory character. By the 36th clause provision was made for the appointment of a receiver, and he was to be appointed by two metropolitan justices, on the application of a creditor of £1,000, to look after £17,000,000. But that receiver was to have no salary, to give no security, and if there were any defalcations under his management, the loss was to fall on the person or persons who had applied to have the receiver appointed. Anything so absurd as these provisions he had never seen. It was an insult to a man's common sense to call that a security for anything. He hoped when the Bill went before a Select Committee reasonable provision would be made for the appointment of a receiver by the Court of Chancery under the usual regulations made in such cases. The 43rd clause provided that the Metropolitan Board might create terminable annuities. Looking at the 8th section, he did not find that it imposed on the investments which might be made by trustees under its operation any of those limitations as to the consents to be obtained which existed in the case of other investments of trust funds, and the result would be that trustees might invest their money in annuities which would give over to the tenant for life the whole of the property. He hoped
342
the House would pause before it proceeded any further in a career which, if persevered in, would, he believed, end in disaster to the owners of settled property.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, it seemed to him that the Bill endeavoured to accomplish, in a very roundabout way, what might be effected in a direct manner. In his opinion, if they wished to assist the metropolis to clear off its debt, the best and the easiest mode to attain that end would be to give a Parliamentary guarantee; and considering the magnitude of the metropolitan property, he did not think that any danger or inconvenience could arise from such an operation. Unless the stock which it was proposed by the Bill to create were made thoroughly marketable by means of a Parliamentary guarantee, it would utterly fail in securing the object which it was intended to promote. Instead of being a security scarcely less substantial than Consols, it would be brought into competition with the various secondary securities, such as the new East India Railway Stock, in whose case a comparatively high rate of interest had to be paid, and the metropolis would not be benefited by being enabled to raise loans at a low rate of interest, to the extent which the Government seemed to expect.
MR. ALDEBMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he was of opinion that the speech in. which the Bill had been introduced to the notice of the House by the Secretary to the Treasury was even more alarming than the Bill itself, involving as it did the question whether the principle of funding debt—that last resource of persons in difficulties—was to be brought to bear in every case of local expenditure throughout the country. It was incumbent on the House to see that by a Bill of this kind the rate-payers in the metropolis were not saddled with an expenditure towards which they could not fairly be called on to contribute. There was to be a transfer office and a sinking fund; the Board were to have power to create terminable annuities and buy stock. It would be a copy on a small scale of the Imperial Treasury, and a Chancellor of the Exchequer would be necessary in the Metropolitan Board to explain these complicated financial arrangements. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that he hoped, in the year after next, to in-

343
troduce a measure for the general government of the metropolis. That being so, was this a time for the creation of this amount of consolidated stock merely for the sake of raising the £750,000, which, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, was the immediate want? The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have been bribed into acquiescence by the prospect of getting rid of the Government guarantee; and that was the reason he had supported the Bill. In his (Mr. Alderman Lawrence's) opinion, however, the measure was, in every point of view, crude and unsatisfactory, and he was glad that it was to be referred to a Select Committee. He must express his surprise that such a measure should be brought in at so late a period of the Session.
COLONEL SYKESsaid the Bill would be at least productive of this advantage —that it would create, in the person of the Secretary to the Treasury, an officer who would answer in that House for the Metropolitan Board of Works; and as the right hon. Gentleman himself held a responsible position, some sort of connection would thus be established between Parliament and that Board. Hitherto he (Colonel Sykes) could never get any Government official to answer for the acts of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was of opinion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that it might be thoroughly examined before any legislation was based upon it. So far as he could see, its effect would be to lay an increased burden of 2 per cent upon the rate-payers, with the view of paying off the capital sum. Already, in order to insure the payment of the debts of the Metropolitan Board, the poor had to pay an enhanced price for their coals, and. therefore had a just right to complain. At any rate, this House should exercise a direct control over the works undertaken by the Board.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not object to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee; but he thought that the House was somewhat hasty in expressing agreement with its principle. He thought that a more inopportune moment could not have been selected for introducing so important a scheme than the present moment; and that not simply because the Session was wearing towards its close, but because Parliament was on the eve of entering upon
344
reformed legislation to meet the requirements of metropolitan government. He thought it would have been wiser to have delayed this Bill, for its only effect would be to fix more firmly than ever round the neck of the people of London the huge millstone of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He believed the ratepayers would rather see that Board entirely dissolved.
DR. BREWERsaid, the Metropolitan Board of Works had been originally called into existence by Parliament to supersede the Commissioners of Sewers. As time passed on, fresh works and responsibilities were thrust upon the Board without the necessary funds being given to it to carry out the schemes, and the consequence was that the Board now came before Parliament asking for facilities to relieve itself of a responsibility of £10,000,000. He maintained that Parliament having put the Board into this awkward position, was bound to do all in its power to extricate it from the dilemma.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he could not admit that Parliament should be held responsible for the position in which the Metropolitan Board was placed. The Bill was a remarkable comment on the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, for it appeared that while that Board had an unlimited power to tax occupiers, they could not, however, make any further addition to the taxation, on account of the inability of the rate-payers to bear the burden. He had little faith in the moderation of the Board; and it by no means followed that, because they were enabled to borrow money on easier terms, the ratepayers would derive any benefit from that fact. Of course, investments by trustees would only be made with the requisite consents under trust deeds and settlements, and to that he did not see any objection. He hoped the Bill would be sent to a Select Committee.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the Government would give time to enable the rate-payers of the metropolis to state their case fully. The rates were increasing year by year, and every consideration should be paid to the wants, grievances, and even feelings of the tax-payers.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he thought the purposes to which the money proposed to be raised was to be applied should be

345
clearly specified before the Bill was passed, and that if this were done the provisions of the measure would not be objected to. For instance, it might at some future time be found necessary to carry the main drainage works out to sea, and a very largely increased expenditure would be required for this purpose. It would be well, therefore, to fix beforehand the amount which the Bill was intended to cover, so that if any further sum should be required a fresh application to Parliament should be made for that purpose.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
And, on July 21, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. AYRTON, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Mr. SMITH, Mr. M'LAREN, Mr. CROSS, and Mr. CHAMBERS:—Three to be the quorum.

PRISONS (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  MR. MAGUIRErose to call attention to the inadequate provision made for the religious teaching of Catholic Prisoners in the Metropolitan Prisons. There was a large and poor Catholic population in London, who were very liable to the temptations which poverty brought with it. Under these circumstances, it was natural that a considerable number of them should be found in the London prisons. At present, in the four to which he should refer, there were between 600 and 700 daily, and the religious provision made for them was a cause of great scandal. The Government had appointed Catholic chaplains in the Government prisons, with the best results; and, five years since, an Act was passed, giving to the prison authorities the power of appointing a sufficient number of Catholic chaplains, and of paying them out of the rates. Unfortunately, the Act was permissive, and he was sorry to say that it had only been put into execution in rare instances. It was long before the Middlesex magistrates allowed a Catholic chaplain to enter the walls; but, at length, in this and in other metropolitan gaols there was some improvement, but the restrictions on the visits of the priest were still very great; and while the Protestant chaplains, according to the Returns, got £2,010 a year—if all the assistance given was included, £3,000
  346
  would be nearer the mark—not one farthing was given to the Catholic priests.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  MR. MAGUIREresumed. He did not object to the pay given to the Protestant ministers; but it was an intensely shabby thing on the part of the visiting justices to receive the services of the Catholic clergymen without giving them a single farthing. In some cases, it was known that Catholic prisoners registered themselves as Protestants, on entering these gaols, in the hope of getting better treatment. At Tothill-fields Prison, for instance, where there were 600 prisoners, only 200 professed to be Catholics, although the fact was that 300 prisoners wore of that faith. The remaining 100 denied their religion in the hope of getting various advantages. It was asserted that the Roman Catholics were excluded from those parts of the prison in which the work was supposed to be most agreeable—the laundry and the kitchen. But this hypocrisy made them worse than they were when they entered the gaol. In every prison in Ireland, there was both a Protestant and a Catholic chaplain, and he wanted to see the same system established in the English prisons; for if religion was not an utter sham, the influence of the clergyman must be a powerful deterrent of crime, and the present system tended to keep up the standard of crime. Only last Tuesday, the Middlesex magistrates decided on building a new prison at a cost of £100,000. That was owing to the increase of crime; and he held them responsible, to a large extent, for that increase, because they did not take the proper means of eradicating crime, by means of one of the most powerful agencies known to society. He would now mention some of the restrictions imposed by the justices on the ministrations of the Catholic priests. In Coldbath-fields, although there were 329 Catholic males in the prison, the priest was allowed to visit it only three times a week, from nine till half-past twelve, and was only allowed to give one service on Sundays. An afternoon service was permitted to Protestants, but not to Catholics. The Catholic priest applied for leave to give instruction in the elementary truths of Christianity every Sunday afternoon;

  347
  but the answer was, that the arrangements of the prison prevented the magistrates from acceding to the request; so that this clergyman, who did not receive a farthing for his ministrations, but in his zeal desired to teach these ignorant prisoners, was not allowed to prosecute a design so beneficial to them. At the House of Detention, Clerkenwell, where there were seventy-five Catholic prisoners, the priest was allowed to see the male prisoners once a week on the Friday, and the female prisoners once a week on the Wednesday, but no service was permitted on Sundays. At Tothill-fields Prison the Catholic clergyman asked to be allowed to appoint a Bible reader, but the request was refused. Then he asked for leave to appoint a religious teacher, but was refused. A third time he begged to be allowed to appoint a Bible reader: the answer was—"There is no such teacher for the Protestants;" but when they were pushed, the authorities admitted that there was a Protestant reader of Scripture. Could anything be so mean and shabby as that wretched evasion? The grievances common to all those prisons was that no pay was allowed to the visiting Catholic priest, and the Catholic prisoners had no teachers of their own creed, and no Scripture readers. No Catholic extern was allowed to pay a charitable visit to the Catholic prisoners, though many of the Middlesex magistrates allowed their own daughters to enter the prisons for the purpose of reforming the Protestant prisoners; and there were no means afforded to Catholic clergymen for seeing the most depraved Catholic prisoners. Another instance of intense shabbiness was that in one prison a Catholic clergyman attended 129 prisoners, and another Catholic clergyman in another prison attended 200 prisoners, and everything necessary for the celebration of Divine worship they had to pay for out of their own pockets. Early last year, when he brought this subject forward, the present Government were not in Office, but the late Home Secretary recommended another year's trial, should be allowed the magistrates. They had had that other year's trial, and their conduct continued as bigoted and as shabby as ever. He had great faith in the present Home Secretary's sense of justice, and he would ask him whether any evil had resulted
  348
  from the ministrations of Catholic clergy in the Government prisons? As it was too late for legislation on the subject in the present year, he was willing to give the Middlesex magistrates another year's trial; but he wished to know whether the Government, if those magistrates did not alter their conduct, would next year introduce a Bill to compel them to do so. He did not condemn all the visiting justices, for there was a noble minority who were endeavouring to bring about a reform in the present most unsatisfactory system. He concluded by moving an Address for Returns on the subject.
  MR. BLAKE MR. BLAKE, in seconding the Motion, said, that though in the South of Ireland the great majority of the population was Roman Catholic, yet it was a compulsory provision that there should be Protestant clergymen in the prisons. He was enabled to state that the amount of the salary paid to the Protestant chaplains, though they had little or nothing to do, was as much, or nearly as much, as the amount paid to the Roman Catholic chaplains. He had the curiosity to inquire into the salaries received by the Catholic and Protestant chaplains, and he found that there was very little difference between them. There were a great many Catholic prisoners in some of the metropolitan prisons, and the system pursued with reference to religious instruction was such as to make them much worse men when they came out than when they went into prison. He knew that some of his poor Roman Catholic countrymen, for the sake of getting more lenient treatment, and for the very sensation of attending Divine worship, had been induced to enter themselves as Protestants; no provision being made for their religious instruction, except on terms which were calculated to make them hypocrites. He heartily joined his hon. Friend (Mr. Maguire) in the hope that the Home Secretary would make some distinct statement on this most important subject, which might strongly influence the justices to pursue a more impartial course.
  Moved for—
  Address for "Returns of the County and Borough Prisons of England in which Religious Instruction is afforded to Prisoners of different Denominations, specifying which and at what cost to each:
  "And, of the number of Prisoners in each Prison, and to what Denomination they belong;

  349
  the Returns to be made up to the 20th day of July 1869, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 284, of Session 1867–8."— (Mr. Maguire.)
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he felt that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) had made out a case of injustice; but there was another mode of curing the wrong than that which had been indicated. So strong was his feeling and conviction in favour of voluntary action that he was persuaded the withdrawal of every paid chaplain in every prison would leave the inmates in a better condition spiritually than they were at this moment. Workhouses, where there was no paid chaplain, were amply provided for by the voluntary efforts of the various religious denominations. His belief in the vitality of Christian truth and principle was such that Christian men and women would be found exerting their agency in whatever direction humanity most called for it.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he was not at all surprised that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) had brought this subject under the consideration of the House. When his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), as Home Secretary, brought in the Prison Ministers Bill in 1853, which enabled every local authority to employ and pay the services of ministers of religion in the gaols, it was certainly his expectation that in all important populations of the country effect would have been given to the provisions of the Act; but he was bound to say that his expectations had been considerably disappointed. In Lancashire and some other parts of England the principles of justice had been acted upon. At Liverpool chaplains were employed with the greatest advantage in ministering to the large number of Catholic prisoners; and in most towns in the North and North-west of England, where there was a considerable Roman Catholic population, Roman Catholic chaplains had been appointed to the gaols. He had been asked if in the Government prisons any difficulty had arisen from the want of harmonious cooperation of chaplains of different religious opinions; no such difficulty, no inconvenience worthy of notice had been experienced. It was impossible to deny that his hon. Friend had serious cause of complaint. From the nature of the duties required from prison chaplains he
  350
  thought they could not be efficiently performed by voluntary agency. They demanded continuous labour, especially in the great gaols, where the prisoners were numbered by hundreds, almost by thousands, and it could hardly be expected that the poor Roman Catholics of the large towns, having difficulty enough to maintain their own clergymen, could also provide a Catholic chaplain for the gaol. He agreed that it was most important that the unfortunate prisoners should have the comforts and advantages of regular religious aid from chaplains belonging to their own communion. This was quite as important in the case of short as long sentences; for it was of the utmost moment that a prisoner in leaving the gaol should have some one interested in looking after his welfare, and seeing that he was put in the way of leading an honest life. And, in the case of Roman Catholic prisoners, who so likely to do this as the priest? This was the more necessary from the forlorn condition of many Irishmen in this country. As a matter of fact, Irishmen in Ireland were as free from crime as Englishmen in England—indeed more free, both as regarded the number and gravity of crimes. But the case was reversed with Irishmen in England, and this was attributable not to their race or condition, but simply to the force of circumstances. He had lately been looking into this subject for other objects, and he found that while the Welsh population, forming 6 per cent probably of that of England, under most favourable circumstances as to crime, committed only 3 per cent of the crime in England, the native born Irish, amounting to but 3 per cent of the population, committed 14 per cent of the crime of England. They were almost inevitably thrown into the worst localities, and had to associate with the worst characters. Who was there to take an interest in these men when convicted of crimes? Only one person, and that was the priest. He (Mr. Bruce) therefore listened, not only without sympathy but occasionally with indignation to the complaints sometimes made about the increase in the number of Roman Catholic priests and of Roman Catholic establishments in this country. Considering the vast numbers of the Irish population, they had not near priests enough. What was the remedy? The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had told them of

  351
  Protestant chaplains of gaols in Ireland who were paid at the same rate as the Roman Catholic chaplains, although there might be only one prisoner to attend to. That state of things would hardly be borne in this country, and it was to guard against such an occurrence that the Prison Ministers Act had been made permissive. The Legislature assumed that where there was a considerable number of Roman Catholic prisoners the authorities would appoint and pay a Roman Catholic chaplain. In seventeen prisons this want had been supplied, and he knew of no instance in which there had been so great a disregard of justice as in the metropolitan district. He was afraid some partiality had been shown in allowing lady visitors to enter the prisons, but he did not think there had been any attempt to conceal the religion of the prisoners, or to make converts. He believed that those magistrates who had refused to pay Roman Catholic chaplains had offered no objection to the visits of Roman Catholic priests. Justice, however, required that they should be employed and paid wherever there was a considerable number of prisoners. He could not say that he was prepared with a remedy. He admitted the evil and the injustice, but the difficulty, which had been equally felt by his predecessors, would remain, and, unless Parliament was prepared to lodge in the hands of a Minister of State, the power to over-ride the decision of the magistrate there were no means of remedying the grievance. Something must be left to the judgment and discretion of the local authorities; but the only way of dealing with some of the cases referred to was to invest the Secretary of State with a power which, he believed, might safely be lodged in his hands. The matter should have the serious consideration of the Government during the Recess.
  COLONEL AMCOTTSsaid, he believed the remedy was much more in public opinion than in the action of the Government, and he trusted that the public would insist on the appointment of paid Roman Catholic chaplains to minister to the wants of the Roman Catholic prisoners. It was difficult for the present or for any Government to act with a high hand in this matter, but the day would come when public opinion would insist upon religious equality herein.
  MR. MAGUIREbegged to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his willingness to leave the matter in his hands.
  Motion agreed to.

IRELAND—RECENT EVENTS IN ULSTER.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON MR. W. JOHNSTON, in rising, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to recent events in Ulster, bore testimony to the courtesy with which the various questions affecting that province had been dealt with by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. A large force of military and constabulary had no doubt been sent to that part of the country on the occasion of the great anniversaries which had been held there at the commencement of the present month; but then he had no complaint to make against the Government on that score, because he was bound in fairness to admit that, in taking those steps for the preservation of peace, they were simply following the precedents which had been set them by their predecessors in Office. He must at the same time complain of the action of the constabulary in several parts of the North of Ireland, while he had no desire to prejudge the investigations which were now being instituted into their conduct both at Derry and Portadown. The conduct of the Roman Catholic population of Ulster on the occasion of the recent anniversaries was such as to entitle them to the thanks of those from whom they differed in politics and religion; but he believed that the presence of the constabulary frequently did more harm than good. In one instance when he was asked what could be done to preserve the peace, his answer was—"Keep the police out of sight and there will be no disturbance." The advice was taken, and the result justified the opinion. He had been requested by Mr. Watson, the father of the young man who had been shot by the constabulary at Portadown, to urge upon the Government the necessity of an early, searching, and impartial inquiry into their conduct on that occasion. On one occasion, when a flag had been placed on a church in the county of Down, exciting no feeling of hostility in the Roman Catholics in the neigh-

  353
  bourhood, the stipendiary magistrate and the police had ordered the flag to be taken away to prevent disturbance. That order was not obeyed, as there was no law to prevent the flag being exhibited, and no danger was apprehended from the Roman Catholic population. When, however, the Orangemen heard that the flag was about to be pulled down, great difficulty was experienced in preventing a collision between them and the police, and he hoped therefore the Government would take steps which would prevent the constabulary in future from pursuing a course which might lead to a breach of the peace. There was another point to which he wished also to call attention. It was stated that, since the occurrences at Derry, a subscription list had been opened in connection with the pending inquiry at all the constabulary barracks throughout Ireland, under the sanction of the Inspector General, and that those members of the force who had not put down their names as subscribers were duly registered in its black books. The feeling of the Protestants of Ulster was, he need scarcely add, entirely opposed to the ecclesiastical policy of the Government; but it was opposed also to the one-sided Party Processions Act, and he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to announce that he would introduce a Bill on the subject next Session which would meet their reasonable views. At four meetings which had been held on the 12th inst., and which were attended by no less than 150,000 persons, the following resolution had been passed:—
  "That, disclaiming any intention of annoying or intimidating any class or creed of Her Majesty's subjects, and according to others the utmost freedom in the expression of their religious and political sympathies, we desire to assert for the Protestants and Orangemen of Ulster their constitutional right publicly to manifest their attachment to those principles which they hold dear; and therefore declare the 'Party Processions Act' to be impolitic, ungenerous, and unjust, and demand its immediate repeal, in the name of justice and liberty."
  The Ulster Examiner, which was reputed to be the representative of Bishop Dorrian, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor, of the 13th of July, had, he might add, made the following statement in a leading article:—
  "It cannot be denied that the lodges had a field-day yesterday; but we do not object to this.
  354
  Their right to assemble in their 'tens of thousands,' or in their hundreds of thousands, for any legitimate purpose is undisputed, and had they in years past avoided outrage and insult to their Catholic fellow-citizens, no Irish voice would have been raised in opposition to their displays."
  The reporter of the same journal, in de scribing the meeting at Killyman, said—
  "The Bangor procession for which Mr. Johnston was prosecuted and convicted sinks in the shade when compared to it, and certainly a more 'effective' demonstration I could not conceive or imagine. Words would fail to describe the appearance of the field. It is most variegated, and the beautiful dresses of the Orangewomen of Tyrone, and the colours worn by their partners, together with the crimson and purple that everywhere prevail, form a pleasing contrast on the green bill side."
  How was it possible, then, that the Government should legislate against such demonstrations as calculated to lead to a breach of the peace? It would be impossible to prosecute a whole province, or imprison 250,000 people. The Party Processions Act, it was quite clear, was ineffectual to prevent the meetings against which it was directed; and, seeing that its provisions could not be carried out, and that it was calculated to do more mischief than it was likely to prevent, it ought, he contended, to be repealed. But it was not only such Acts as the Party Processions Act which were violated. The right rev. Dr. Moriarty, Bishop of Kerry, had, on the 19th of July, 1867, when examined before the Select Committee on the Ecclesiastical Tithes Bill, stated that—
  "The enactment had been totally inoperative, and that he had held it to be unlawful and void," adding—"My practice ever since I became a Bishop has been to use my title, and I do so because I think it is a right and proper thing to resist authority, whether spiritual or temporal, when it goes boyond its just limits."
  The hon. Member concluded by moving—
  "That there be laid before this House, Copies of Reports of the Stipendiary Magistrates relating to the state of Ulster on the 12th day of July, 1869."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he was not very clear as to the object of the hon. Member in the statement just, made to the House; but he was glad to hear an admission that the Government had been actuated by no other feeling than one of duty in the measures they had taken for the preservation of the peace of Ulster. Language differing very greatly from this, however, had been held by Members of

  355
  the Orange party, who had charged the Government with invading Ulster with an army of horse and foot, and insulting the Protestants of the North—language of the wildest and most unfounded kind, which it was agreeable to hear the hon. Member repudiate. He was glad also that the hon. Gentleman had fairly admitted that the Roman Catholic population of Ulster had in general acted with great prudence and forbearance on a recent occasion. From his intimate knowledge of all that had passed in Ulster he could fully confirm that statement. It was most fortunate for the peace of the North of Ireland that the Roman Catholic population, under circumstances in some cases of no small provocation, had, at the suggestion of their clerical advisers and others, maintained a most prudent and for bearing attitude. It was true that in some districts of the North of Ireland there might be no danger of a breach of the peace, but in other districts, where parties were more equally balanced, there was serious risk of the most fatal consequences as the result of these demonstrations. He could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in several districts, if the public authority had not been well represented by a sufficient force, there would have been great danger of hostile collisions, and, perhaps, of a lamentable loss of life. The hon. Gentleman said that these demonstrations were for the maintenance of the political and religious principles of the Ulster, Protestants. Now, he was not going to discuss the general state of Ulster or the history and present position of Orangeism; but it seemed to him that Protestants might well maintain their political and religious principles without the demonstrations which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think essential. Was it necessary for the purpose of maintaining the principles of Protestantism and their equal rights as citizens—which were not in the smallest degree endangered—to make these displays in the face of a population which could not but regard them as irritating? Was it necessary to make night hideous with firing and with drums, which resounded all over Ulster, and which were more worthy of some African village than of a flourishing province in Ireland? For the moment these displays might be inevitable, but he trusted and believed
  356
  that they were not destined to be perpetual, and that the Protestants of Ulster would not think it necessary to support their political and religious principles, which he hoped they would always maintain, by keeping up these semi-barbarous and childish observances. In one important respect the hon. Member, whose general fairness he admitted, had exerted himself to avert the dangers which might arise—and did arise—from these great assemblages. The hon. Gentleman was strongly opposed to the dangerous and reprehensible practice of carrying arms on such occasions, but, as he knew, arms were in many instances carried. With regard to the particular occasions on which the police had come into collision with the people, the hon. Gentleman could scarcely expect the Government to express any opinion, because these cases were now the subject of inquiry. He did not believe that anything could be gained by going further into these matters in that House. There was great reason for congratulation that the 12th of July had passed off so well, and perhaps the least said the best. No doubt the law of the land, as embodied in the Party Processions Act, had been openly violated in a great number of cases; but, upon the whole, peace and order had been preserved, and the measures taken by the Government had proved effectual. As to the Reports asked for by the hon. Member, he could not consent to produce them, for it would be destructive of the relations between the Government and their officers if it were the practice to produce such Reports, except in cases of the most exceptional kind and supported by the strongest reasons. He congratulated the House and the country on the comparative success which had attended the efforts of the Government to preserve the peace in the North of Ireland.
  MR. VANCEsaid, one might imagine from the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there were no party processions in Ireland but those of Orangemen. He (Mr. Vance) recollected a procession of 80,000 persons, which was formed in Dublin to follow the remains of M'Manus, who had been convicted of treason; and also another procession in honour of those who were called the "Manchester martyrs," which was most alarming from its numbers,

  357
  and from the principles of those who took part in it. Neither of those processions were interfered with, and he therefore maintained that the Party Processions Act had been very partially administered. The processions which toot place in the North of Ireland were, for the most part, composed of loyal men, and were in support of the English connection, while those which took place in the South were composed of men who were not well affected to the Queen and Government of this country. The people of Ulster would never cease agitating until this penal enactment of the Party Processions Act was repealed.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That there be laid before this House, Copies of Reports of the Stipendiary Magistrates relating to the state of Ulster on the 12th day of July 1869,"— (Mr. William Johnston,)
  —put, and negatived.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER— [BILL 23.]
  (Mr. Thomas Chambers, Mr. Morley.)
  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th June],
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, that they have power to make provision therein for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother."—(Mr. Collins.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTappealed to the hon. and learned Member having charge of the Bill (Mr. T. Chambers) to withdraw it in consideration of the important measures now before Parliament, and the late period of the Session at which they had arrived. He moved that the Order be discharged.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That "to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Order for the Committee on the said Bill be read and discharged,"—(Mr. John Talbot,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he could not consent to the Motion; the appeal made to him had taken him by surprise. The measure had been passed by a majority of 99, and had before been sent to the Upper House on several occasions; it was a measure which touched the family honour and fears of many thou-
  358
  sands of families, and under these circumstances he could not but deem himself entirely unworthy of the position he held if he insulted the House by withdrawing a measure endorsed by a majority of 99 votes. Admitting that measures of overwhelming national importance were before Parliament, he denied that any measure touched more nearly the honour of the people. He therefore trusted the hon. Member who had given notice to move an Instruction to the Committee (Mr. Monk), which he disliked as much as he disliked the Bill, would either move it or withdraw it, that the Bill itself might be proceeded with.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to correct the hon. and learned Member's chronology. It was not true that this Bill had been often sent to the House of Lords; it had never been there but once, and that was ten or twelve years ago; it was only once introduced into this House in the Parliament of 1865, and only once in the Parliament of 1862, on both of which occasions it was rejected. Although the second reading had been carried, the Bill had struck no responsive chord in the hearts of the people. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the measure did touch the honour of many families in the country. It wounded the most tender and delicate feelings of countless thousands of wives, sisters, brothers, and families.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he had always supported this measure, the opposition to which was carried on in a manner which he thought contrary to Parliamentary usage, and unworthy of the House.
  VISCOUNT BUSYsaid, he could not be suspected of hostility to the Bill, but he would advise the withdrawal of it, considering the late period of the Session, and the treatment which the Bill encountered. He was ashamed to think, that a subject which ought, at any rate, to be discussed with a degree of decorum and respect should be made the vehicle for levity and attempts to discover words of double meaning and bad signification. Amendments were moved which were simply designed to cast ridicule on the Bill. As it would be almost impossible to force the Bill through the House against the determination of those who I appeared to be so little particular as to the means they used to obstruct it, he

  359
  would recommend his lion. Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) to withdraw the Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the advice just given came with considerable weight from the noble Viscount, because he had been for a long time desirous that a Bill of this kind should be passed, but the conclusion he arrived at could hardly be justified from his speech. With great frankness and plainness the noble Viscount had characterized the opposition to the Bill, which had been carried somewhat beyond the limits of Parliamentary usage; but he doubted whether it would be a salutary precedent to withdraw a Bill on account of such opposition. This was not a Cabinet question. Many highly respected Members of the Government were not favourable to the principle of the measure; but, personally, he felt bound to do what he could to assist the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. For many years he had felt the pressure of this subject to be extreme. Among certain classes the change proposed would not be without a disturbing effect on domestic relations; but these classes were limited and select, and it was the mass of the community we must look to in dealing with such a question. When he considered the weight of testimony given by ministers of religion, among the most respected in their several communions—men among the Roman Catholics, the Nonconformists, the Established Church—High Church and Low Church—including such a man as Dr. Hook, who might, perhaps, be described as the first parish minister of his day—when he considered the pressure of motives which had induced so many persons, who had practical experience of the consequences produced by the present state of the law, to support the proposed change he did not shrink from the responsibility it would entail. Some twelve or fourteen years ago he formed the opinion that the fairest course would be to legalize the marriage contracts in question, and legitimize their issue, leaving to each religious community the question of attaching to such marriages a religious character; and the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) had shown a wise judgment and a conciliatory temper in reducing his demand to a minimum, and introducing a Bill to do no more than obviate the ruinous consequences of the present state of the law.
  360
  The conduct of the hon. and learned Member gave him a strong claim to the support of all except those who conscientiously objected to the measure. The Bill was read a second time on the 21st April, by 243 against 144; the subject had been under discussion many years, so that the arguments for and against the proposed change of the law were well known, and it was not the fault of the author of the Bill that the Committee had not been taken long ago; and it was not equitable now to ask him to withdraw the Bill on the score of time. It had been remarked that there were other questions that were likely to occupy time during the remainder of the Session. He knew not the means of information possessed by hon. Members, or how it was they were able to form a judgment that those questions were likely to occupy so much the time of the House; whether that were so or not, he would express his opinion that they were bound to encourage the author of the Bill to set his face against obstructive opposition, and to aid him in securing a fair treatment of the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he did not share the opinions of the First Minister, but he denied that the Bill was being met in a factious spirit. He must complain that it had not been put down for Wednesday, when it would have had a chance of being discussed. He protested against the system of having piecemeal discussions of important questions — ten minutes one day, and five minutes three months afterwards. The real question was the abolition of affinity as distinct from consanguinity; and, as the time was coming when relationship by marriage would cease, he protested against the exceptional legislation proposed by the Bill. What could be more absurd than to say that a man should be allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister, but not his deceased wife's daughter? It was following an unintelligible line to say that a man might marry the blood relations of his wife, but that a woman should not marry the blood relations of her husband. He should offer every opposition to the Bill, because it did not proceed upon a principle which could be defended.
  MR. O'REILLY - DEASEsaid, he wished merely to state that it was a mistake to suppose that the Church to which he belonged — the Roman Catholic

  361
  Church — was opposed to these marriages. He had received a requisition from Roman Catholic theologians of the diocese of Dublin, urging him to support the Bill. It was true that the Roman Catholic Church required a dispensation in the case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but a Roman Catholic could have no dispensation for anything that was not in itself essentially lawful.
  MR. BALLsaid, he wished to remind the House that in discussing this question it was scarcely possible to avoid a review of the entire marriage law of England, Scotland, and Ireland. About four years ago, a Royal Commission, composed of the very ablest men of both Houses, of the Bench, and the Bar, was appointed to inquire into the whole question of the marriage law. The Report of that Commission had been made last November, and it would be sufficient to say that it was drawn up by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), to indicate that it was characterized by remarkable ability and research. He thought the present Bill ought to be postponed. What he objected to was partial legislation on the subject of the marriage laws.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) was exceedingly adverse to going on late at night with business to which he was opposed, but very anxious to go on with any matter he was anxious to forward.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins). He merely wished to call attention to the fact that the marriages proposed to be legalized by the Bill were detested in Scotland, though the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Carnegie) had risen to defend the speech of the Prime Minister, who had spoken as if he wished to propose that the word "not" should be struck out of the Seventh Commandment.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he must express his opinion that the Bill was a proper Bill, and if the hon. Member for Boston should propose to add his clause to the Bill and withdraw his opposition he would support the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that all the information which he had been able to gather from different parts of Scotland convinced him that the great majority of
  362
  the people of that country were hostile to the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that if the Bill were to be advocated on the ground that marriage with a deceased wife's sister ought to be permitted because it was not prohibited by Scripture, that principle should be carried to its full extent, and it should be contended that all marriages not prohibited by Scripture should be legalized. He would not vote for the Bill, which was opposed to the religious feelings of the people of Scotland.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 57: Majority 86.
  Main Question again proposed.
  SIR JOHN HAYmoved the adjournment of the Debate on the ground that some hon. Members had misunderstood the question as put from the Chair. In. particular he had noticed that the Lord Advocate had voted in contradiction to his speech.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could assure the hon. Baronet that his vote was entirely consistent with his sentiments on this subject.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir John Hay.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 145: Majority 102.
  MR. MONK MR. MONK, in moving that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for a man to marry his deceased wife's brother's or sister's daughter said, that he was glad of the opportunity of explaining his reasons for placing his Instruction on the Motion Paper, as he had been placed in rather a painful position in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade having found fault with him for not deferring his proposal until the Bill got into Committee. He had, however, consulted a higher authority on the rules of that House than the right hon. Gentleman, and he had been informed that the course he had taken was the preferable one. For his part he felt bound by the decision of the House, on the second reading, when the principle of the Bill

  363
  was affirmed by a majority of 99, that principle being that it was expedient to amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but he considered it to be not only within the province but the duty of those opposed to the Bill and to exceptional legislation on marriage to endeavour so to amend it in Committee, as to make it consonant with justice and common sense. Upon those grounds he appealed to his right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown whether he was prepared to give his sanction to an alteration of the law of marriage that rested on no fixed or definite principle, at the very same time that the Report of the Royal Commission recommending the establishment of uniformity in the laws relating to marriage had now lain upon the table for seven or eight months. He always understood that the law of marriage so far as it related to cases of affinity and consanguinity was based on a clear and intelligible principle. Marriage was prohibited between persons so related within the fourth degree, and permitted in the fourth or a more distant degree. His Motion had reference to the basis on which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone proposed to legislate. That basis he (Mr. Monk) maintained to be unsound. What did the Bill do? Of the thirty prohibited degrees the Bill proposed only to deal with one, which was in a nearer degree of affinity than many others, including those to which his Instruction referred. A more extraordinary proposal it would be difficult to imagine, though after thirty years' warfare Parliament was becoming accustomed to it. He ventured to say, if the present Bill were passed it would lead speedily to the abolition of half the existing prohibitions. Was it not monstrous to begin by removing the impediments to marriage with a deceased wife's sister, at the same time maintaining the obstacles to marriage with a deceased wife's niece?—to remove restrictions as regarded a near degree of affinity and allow them to remain as regarded a more distant one. That was a species of exceptional legislation, which he trusted Parliament would never sanction. Whatever was done in this matter ought to be done with sincerity and honesty; yet, if this Bill passed, it plainly could not be a final measure. His Instruction affected a deceased wife's niece,
  364
  and he would remind the House that that marriage was not expressly forbidden in the Scriptures, but by implication only. In Leviticus, a man is forbidden to marry his aunt; by parity of reason a woman may not marry her uncle: therefore a man may not marry his niece. His (Mr. Monk's) contention was that it was contrary to the true spirit of the Constitution and repugnant to reason and sound sense that marriage should be legalized between persons in a nearer degree of affinity, while the law prohibited them in a more distant degree, and declared the children of such a marriage to be illegitimate. Did not the touching appeals on behalf of the offspring of an union between a man and his deceased wife's sister apply equally to the children of a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's niece? He could have wished that the House would pause before proceeding with so exceptional a measure; but if it decided upon going into Committee, common sense as well as justice demanded that it should throw the aegis of its protection over the deceased wife's niece at least as much as over the deceased wife's sister. He begged to move the Instruction of which he had given notice; but if the sense of the House were opposed to it he should not put them to the trouble of dividing.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, that they have power to make provision for a man to marry his deceased wife's brother's or sister's daughter,"—(Mr. Monk,)
  —put, and negatived.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Marriages with deceased wife's sister before the passing of this Act not to be void or voidable, and such marriages to be legal in future).
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved that the Chairman report Progress. After many years' opposition, the Prime Minister, for the first time, had spoken in support of the Bill. That might be a valid reason on the other side of the House for passing this measure, but Members on the Opposition Benches retained their old objections to it. The right hon. Gentleman made one remarkable suggestion; that the marriages should be legalized where they were solemnized, but that their actual cele-

  365
  bration or non-celebration should be a matter left to the religious community in such case. A more direct casting down of the apple of religious discord among all bodies, whether of Churchmen or Dissenters, it was impossible to conceive. How was the necessary consent to be given in each case by the religious body, or by the ministers; in either case was it not plain how clergymen and individuals would all be at daggers drawn with each other, and what an amount of acrimony would be introduced into every locality? The suggestion having been thrown out by so high an authority as the Prime Minister as a sort of obiter dictum, they ought to pause and give the country time to examine the downward path down which it was invited to go. It was now one o'clock, and he begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 129: Majority 90.
  MR. COLLINSmoved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. The hour was very late, and as the House would resume business at noon it was but reasonable that Members should have a night's rest and a good breakfast before they met again.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. CHAMBERS moved, in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, to leave out "which has been celebrated since the passing of the fifth and sixth of William the Fourth, chapter fifty-four," and insert "heretofore celebrated or contracted."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was proposed to make these marriages valid when celebrated before the registrar, but not when celebrated in church. That was a most anomalous state of things, and they ought to have the opinion of the Government upon it.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, the object of his Amendment was to render the law in respect to these particular marriages uniform in Scotland and all the other parts of the Empire.
  DR. BALLsaid, the Bill proposed to make a total innovation in the principle
  366
  on which our marriage law was usually governed, because it would make the validity of the marriage depend on the place of contract and not on the place of domicile of the parties.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the measure was adverse to the feelings of the most religiously disposed people in Scotland, and he would use the forms of the House in every way to prevent its introduction into that country.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSmaintained that there was a growing feeling in Scotland in favour of these marriages.
  MR. ANDERSONdenied that there existed in Scotland the strong and general aversion from these marriages which was alleged to exist.
  MR. G. H. MOOREmaintained that the people of Ireland of every class and every rank regarded these marriages with utter abhorrence. Certain excellent but misguided Catholic divines certainly did support them, in order that the Catholic Church might be enabled to grant dispensations in certain cases; but not deeming this a sufficient reason for passing the measure, he should give it all the opposition in his power.
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he would support the Bill, as he hitherto had done, because it was not a Bill intended, as some appeared to think, to compel a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, or to provide a dead wife's sister for every man to marry.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that although willing to support the Bill as far as it related to England, he regretted that he could not assist his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) in extending its provisions to Scotland.
  MR. M'LARENread extracts to show that the first draft of the Bill only made such marriages legal for the future, whereas it was now proposed to legalize all these marriages where they had occurred.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobserved that it was impossible to discuss a subject of this importance at that late hour —a quarter to two.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he was willing to make the measure non-retrospective as far as Scotland was concerned, if the Scotch Members wished the children of the unhappy few to remain illegitimate.
  MR. G. H. MOOREmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. George Moore.)
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 48; Noes 94: Majority 46.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ADMIRALTY DISTRICT REGISTRIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GRAVES, Bill for establishing District Registries of the High Court of Admiralty in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GRAVES, Viscount SANDON, and Mr. RATHBONE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 229.]

  HACKNEY AND STAGE CARRIAGES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Bill for amending the Law relating to Hackney and Stage Carriages within the Metropolitan Police District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary BRUCE and Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 227.]

  ZANZIBAR (JURISDICTION OF CONSUL) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill to regulate and extend the Jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Consul at Zanzibar in regard to vessels captured on suspicion of being engaged in the Slave Trade; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD and Mr. AYRTON.

  MILITIA (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to amend "The Militia (Ireland) Act, 1854," as to providing houses or places for the keeping of the arms, accoutrements, clothing, or other stores of the Militia when not embodied, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 228.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.